Matrix Games Forums

I was reading another thread and several people commented that landings at non-base hexes arent allowed in their games. I am wondering why not?

I am looking at "The Times Atlas of the Second World War" and this is what I see:

on page 70: there is a rail line that runs from Songkhia to Khota Bharu that isnt on the stock map. The Japs landed at 2 places in what would be hex 25,44 on the stock map about half way between the 2.

on page 72: the Japs landed at Lamon Bay. Problem is Lamon Bay is hex 43,53 on the stock map, not 44,52 as labeled. Hex 44,52 would actually be Dingalan Bay. The Japs landed here specifically to cut off forces in Naga.

on page 73: a Bn of the Kawaguchi regt landed at 40,59 (half way between Zamboanga and Cotabato).

on page 74: landings 1 hex east of Batavia (stock map hex 20,60) .

also on page 74: landings halfway between Balikapapan and Banjarmasin (stock map hex 28,65).

on page 200: projected landings east of Kagoshima (stock map hex 59,43) by I and II corps.

also on page 200: projected landings at 61,42 by IX corps (you cant even land at this hex in game except from the inland sea).

on page 201: projected landings at 67,43 (between Tokyo and Sendai) by the First Army.

I remember reading a book on the exploits of the SS Barb, and how they used to land troops in northern Japan to blow up rail lines.

The point is, they landed in undefended areas specifially to block retreats all the time in real war, why not in the game? I cant imagine landing in India, Australia, the west coast of the US without it.

Many consider it gamey because the game already heavily abstracts amphibious operations making them far easier and more frequently able to be done. Throughout the war, Allied operations were continually hamstrung by lack of landing craft and troops and logistical frameworks optimized to support such a complicated operation. In WitP, as with PacWar, its much easier to preform....tie together a few AK's and go invade. Preperation points have greatly improved this and Atoll rules make haphazzard invasions risky but overall it's still reletively easy.

Landing at non-base hexes exaserbates the above issue (in many people's opinions) but that said, its up to the player to decide. This feature was put into the game from UV days through player input. Not everyone think's its gamey. Personally, i dont do it either and PBEM's i play house rule it. Then again i also dont evac LCU fragments for the express purpose of preserving the unit. Some dont think thats gamey either.

Non base hex landings will not disrupt the landing LCU's. Landing at a base will subject you to CD guns and your LCU's will get disabled (depending on how well preped you are). Your defending surface groups will not intercept task forces landing LCU's at non-base hexes.

I'm sure there are more differences

I don't play PBEM, but if I did, I'd play with the house rule in effect.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Non base hex landings will not disrupt the landing LCU's. Landing at a base will subject you to CD guns and your LCU's will get disabled (depending on how well preped you are). Your defending surface groups will not intercept task forces landing LCU's at non-base hexes.

I'm sure there are more differences

I don't play PBEM, but if I did, I'd play with the house rule in effect.

Well I hate to point out the obvious, but the reason they landed at these sites historically was to avoid the shore guns [:'(]

As for disruption, your landing forces do indeed get disrupted, if the hex is defended. In a game a few turns ago (one of the few games where I am allies) the Jap player landed at 43,53 (NW of Naga) and I had moved the 2 Phil divisions from Naga there before he landed and I chewed him up pretty good.

The reason is the ground movement isn't perfect. There is this problem where you can't move to a non-base hex while under attack. If movement worked smoothly, it might not be so gamey.

It not even physcially possible to land in most places. Everyone things Florida is a long lovely beach. Truth is, only about 20% of it is beach. Besides the "urbanization", a lot of it is wilderness. Cypress and Mangrove swamps and 5' of slop would prohibit a landing. Or the Carolinas? Yes, they have beautiful beaches. But where you don't see as a tourist eslwhere, is the (litterally) miles of mudflats that simply lead to a swamp. No point landing there either, vehicles and supplies can't get off the beach (oh wait, there isn't a beach).

Just ask how useful it was to the Union Army land in Beaufort, SC. It looked like a GREAT landing spot. They landed virtually unopposed, and captured the town in a day.

"We'll land there, and move north to Charleston and south to Savannah!"

"Oops. This town is in the middle of a G_d-damned swamp. The roads suck, and we're stuck. I guess we'll have to actually land closer to Charleston. Everybody back on the boats!"

-F-

There arent too many places in the world that you couldnt find someplace to land in a 60 mile hex. A few spots on Borneo (that dont have roads in them making them worthless as a landing spot anyway). Middle of Sumatra is another spot. There is a place in northern Oz litterally called "the 80 mile beach". Name any spot on the US west coast that a landing force couldnt land within 60 miles of it. You cant.

Are there shortcommings in the game? Sure. No question. Wonder if MacArthur thought it was "gamey" of the Japs to land between his forces in Naga and Manila cutting them off and trapping them? And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs? Germans probably thought that was gamey as well.

You CHS guys can draw a little red line on the map to stop landings in places you dont think landings should be allowed in. That part isnt hard. To arbitrailly abolish all non-base landings because of a few isolated instances is insane. And not historically accurate.

There arent too many places in the world that you couldnt find someplace to land in a 60 mile hex.

Its not just finding a place to land a couple of boats. Landing sites were often a mile of more in length. Plus factor in tidal effects, reefs, shoals, terrain just beyond the landing site, beach width, heighth of dunes, forests, swamps, rivers, and the number of suitable locations drops tremendously. Consider France. The allies determined that less than 10% of the French coastline was suitable for amphibious operations.

And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs?

The Raiders only assaulted the cliffs so as to take out the heavy artillery covering the actual landing sites. There is no way they would have been the actual site to land forces.

In general, though I do think we should be able to land at some non-base hexes and those hexes should be shown on the map so that everyone knows which are suitable landing sites.

Chez

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The allies determined that less than 10% of the French coastline was suitable for amphibious operations.

Which means that in any given 60 mile hex, there is 6 miles of usable beach to put a landing force ashore. Not to say that every 60 mile strech has 6 miles, but on the average.

Right?

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

And what of the Ranger units in Normandy that had to assult the cliffs?

The Raiders only assaulted the cliffs so as to take out the heavy artillery covering the actual landing sites. There is no way they would have been the actual site to land forces.

In general, though I do think we should be able to land at some non-base hexes and those hexes should be shown on the map so that everyone knows which are suitable landing sites.

Chez

Ahh, but while I didnt say it outright, I am not refering to landing a corps sized unit at the base of a cliff, and most likely the reason people "outlaw it" is because of a bn sized force landing to block a retreat. Which as I pointed out happened historically. And not just an isolated case. Happened all the time. Was part of the planning process.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Which means that in any given 60 mile hex, there is 6 miles of usable beach to put a landing force ashore. Not to say that every 60 mile strech has 6 miles, but on the average.

Right?

[;)]

Clever twist.

But no that's not the way it works.

It's like saying that dry land covers 25% of the earths surface; but you certainly won't find a mile of dry land in every four as you cross the ocean.

It's not just getting onto the beach (assuming you found one), it's also being able to make headway after the first 20 yards (most natural beaches are quite narrow, certainly NOT the 200 yd wide tourist beaches).

Regarding beaches on the west coast... Not much in the way of suitable landing sites in Washington or Oregon. My (admittedly limited) observations of those coast lines is that it's VERY rocky, and you'd certainly look farther south to California. Certainly lots of natural beaches there, but just be aware that many of the beaches there (as in Florida) are "created" or "enhanced".

Not to spoil the secret of the Tooth Fairy, but if you go out to Clearwater Beach (Florida) at about 4am on a certain mornings, you'll see huge trucks filled with sand rejuvenating the beach.

-F-

Well, there are at least two reasons it's gamey.

1: you can't defend with your surface ships. There are rules in effect that allow task forces to react to landings at bases. They won't react to non base landings. By doing so, you are gaming the system so that you don't have to fight your way in to the beach head.

2: the land combat movement rules are not good enough. By landing a bn unit behind the lines, and then the opponent can not move one unit to react to that is reason enough to not allow the "land 2 guys (or a bn) behind your lines and force your 100,000 army to surrender."

However, it doesn't really matter what you decide. If Japan games the non-base landings in 42, they're just shooting their own foot. The allied player will then use the same tactic in 44 and 45.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
You CHS guys can draw a little red line on the map to stop landings in places you dont think landings should be allowed in. That part isnt hard. To arbitrailly abolish all non-base landings because of a few isolated instances is insane. And not historically accurate.

I agree that restricting landings to base hexes only is far too restrictive. I can see the arguments for having such a house rule, but in my opinion, in the balance it is far less "historical" to use such a house rule. I would not play with such a rule. it becomes particularly absurd in Australia, for example, where there are vast stretches of coastline that could have been landed on, but do not have bases in the game.

In the latest version of my map, I have made all coastal swamp hexes impossible to land on. I considered adding some other locations like this as well, such as along parts of the coast of the Great Australian Bight, and I may still do that where appropriate, but as mentioned there would be few places in the world where there is NO place to land in a 60 mile stretch of coast (outside of swamps and artcic zones). One house rule that also helps greatly, and which I DO like to play with, is no invasions from submarines allowed.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Well, there are at least two reasons it's gamey.

1: you can't defend with your surface ships. There are rules in effect that allow task forces to react to landings at bases. They won't react to non base landings. By doing so, you are gaming the system so that you don't have to fight your way in to the beach head.

Certainly you can. But, in order to do it, you have to send them there. True, they dont react from a base hex, but they will react if the hex they are assigned to is the target of an invasion.

2: the land combat movement rules are not good enough. By landing a bn unit behind the lines, and then the opponent can not move one unit to react to that is reason enough to not allow the "land 2 guys (or a bn) behind your lines and force your 100,000 army to surrender."

If you put an army of 100,000 in such a position their loss wouldnt be to "gameyness", it would be they would no longer want to fight for the person that put them in such a position [;)]

This forces one to account for this. If you only put 90,000 of them troops up front and left 10,000 back to defend against this, then you wouldnt have to worry about it, no?

However, it doesn't really matter what you decide. If Japan games the non-base landings in 42, they're just shooting their own foot. The allied player will then use the same tactic in 44 and 45.

This too is true. Good for the goose and all. No dispute here.

Here's another reason not to do non dot invasions.

The AI doesn't do them.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

This forces one to account for this. If you only put 90,000 of them troops up front and left 10,000 back to defend against this, then you wouldnt have to worry about it, no?

Both the 10,000 and 90,000 are now stuck if the enemy bothers to bombard them. It would be nice if you could shift units between non-base hex with confidence but it doesn't work that way at this point.

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's another reason not to do non dot invasions.

The AI doesn't do them.[;)]

I dont play the AI [;)]

No problem.[;)]
Sending ampibs to land in jungle/swamp and mountain hexes works fine with WITP's mechanics.

Wouldn't want to have you as one of my field commanders in real life.[:D]
You'd probably be the first casualty during the landing.[;)]

The point to landing on a non-base hex isnt to land in a swamp, jungle, or mountain. Its to land on a rail line and move.

The point to landing on a non-base hex isnt to land in a swamp, jungle, or mountain. Its to land on a rail line and move

Last time I checked, no amphibous landing in all of recorded history included locomotives...

[;)]

It's a matter of a house rule. I you want to land anywhere on the map, you obviously want to play a differnt kind of game, than I want to participate in. Neither do I don't mass Allied heavies and bomb AFs at night, just because I can.

That's why it's important to ask these sorts of questions before you get 2 weeks into the game.

-F-