Matrix Games Forums

Keen to get others views on this and see if they jive with my own..

Personally I feel this event presents rather poor value for money for the Axis, to the extent that it's almost never worth it.
The coastal guns just aren't useful enough to justify the cost, and if anything they just give the allied bombers easy targets/XP pre-invasion. The event kicks in right around the time of the Soviet winter event too, when you really need that money for more pressing things.

I suggest that the event should either be made quite a bit cheaper - 100/150MPPs - or it should be augmented such as:
a) Deploys entrenchments along the coast (making a coastline defensive strategy more feasible)
b) Deploys a half-strength engineer

Alternatively, the coastal guns themselves could be made better, which could take the form of:
a) Longer range (2 hexes rather than 1)
b) Letting them fire inland, or at least on the adjacent coastal land hexes (reflecting the historic batteries that fired at troops on the beaches)

The ironic thing is that their cost if you could buy them manually and move them is 200 each 600 total, before tech.

I thought they could shoot at land targets...

A range of 2 is a good start, and have already implemented it in my scenarios. I tried a ZoC penalty of 7 in one test, but it turned out that it also prevented movement of land units. The main issue is that there is no opportunity fire on your opponent's turn, other than the Surprise mechanic of course.

I typically spring for them because they are cheaper than 3 corps and have 10 hit point vs. 5 for a garrison. I also added one for Normandy (Pointe du Hoc).

I actually think they are fine the way they are.
To finish them off in one turn if at AA lvl2 you need quite a bomber commitment

They are a nuisance when landing because they automatically shoot at landing craft next to them therefore denying the Allies some initial spots or forcing them to commit forces on them.

One way or the other they slow the Allied landing down for a bit and I don't think that more than that would be historically accurate.