Rule suggestion: Amphibious assault retreat ratio

[toddtreadway]

Proposal:

In an attack made solely by amphibious assault and/or air/shore bombardment, a retreat would be caused only if the attacker to had a ratio one level higher than would normally be needed. E.g., amphibious attack against London would require a 3:1 ratio to force a retreat; amphibious attack against Gibraltar would require a 5:1; use of Airborne or a land attack from another region would negate this, so if Germany attacked London not only amphibiously, but also with either an airborne assault and/or from Scotland the ratio would remain 2:1.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: toddtreadway

Proposal:

In an attack made solely by amphibious assault and/or air/shore bombardment, a retreat would be caused only if the attacker to had a ratio one level higher than would normally be needed. E.g., amphibious attack against London would require a 3:1 ratio to force a retreat; amphibious attack against Gibraltar would require a 5:1; use of Airborne or a land attack from another region would negate this, so if Germany attacked London not only amphibiously, but also with either an airborne assault and/or from Scotland the ratio would remain 2:1.

I think it is OK as is. Paratroopers do help with artillery op-fire against amphib.

[WanderingHead]

Actually, the one thing I would change is that any amphib invading units that fire or are fired upon can't strat move away afterwards.

I can understand the rules allowing unopposed hit-and-run landings, but I think it is unreasonable to assume that forces can land at the beaches and _fight_ their way to Paris, then disappear before a counter attack.

[toddtreadway]

I think that a unit which has fired should not be able to stategically move again.

But back to my original question. Why should a fortification or rough terrain increase the ratio needed for retreat, but not an amphibious assault? I think that it would have a very similar effect, IRL.