Matrix Games Forums

Ratbags wish-list #1

I would like to see an improvement to TOAW’s amphibious- and sea-transport system if possible.

I think it is a general problem that TOAW does not distinguish between ports and beaches. To make a hex available for amphibious landing I have to place a port in it. This undervalues the importance of amphibious units as an envelopment force since I end up placing to few ports on the map. If I would place ports on every stretch of coastline available for amphibious landing there would be an unjust number of ports for shipping troops and tracing supply.

I propose that a function to distinguish between ports and beaches be implemented for TOAWIII:

A1) A new object is added called “beach”. This object can either be available from the terrain-panel in the editor or be placed on the map by right-clicking the hex (like “Draw place name” for example). It would be best if the beach could be depicted graphically on the hex’ terrain [see picture 1 below]. The hex 2 hexes east of Bodö has a lighter shading at the shore-line, so does the two hexes northwest of Rognan. These hexes are “beach”-hexes. The hexes marked Bodö, Fauske and Rognan are “port”-hexes.

A2) If this sort of graphical representation is impossible for technical reasons, an object can be added to the hex depicting it as a “beach”-hex [see picture 2 below].

B) An enemy-controlled “beach”-hex should only be possible to enter by means of sea-transport by the following unit-types:
- Special Forces
- Marine Infantry
- Amphibious
- Amphibious Armor
- Amphib Transport

C) A friendly-controlled “beach”-hex should only be possible to enter by means of sea-transport by the following unit-types:
- Special Forces
- Marine Infantry
- Amphibious
- Amphibious Armor
- Amphib Transport

D) An enemy-controlled “port”-hex should only be possible to enter by means of sea-transport by the following unit-types:
- Special Forces
- Marine Infantry
- Amphibious
- Amphibious Armor
- Amphib Transport
- Parachute
- Parachute Infantry
- Parachute Hvy Wpns
- Airborne Recon
- Airmobile
- Airmobile Infantry
- Airmobile Hvy Wpns
- Airmobile Cavalry

E) A friendly-controlled “port”-hex should only be possible to enter by means of sea-transport by the following unit-types:
- Any unit available for sea-transport

F) Thus a player will need to utilize special units to assume control of an enemy port before “regular” units can be entered into that port by means of sea-transport.

G) A hex can only be either a “port”-hex or a “beach”-hex. It can not be both.

H) A “beach”-hex can not trace supply in the way that a “port”-hex can.


Cheers / Ratbag

picture 1

picture 2

Hope this helps some.

c.f. http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page ... 2003.shtml

Specifically see:

7. How do you land troops amphibiously on a non-anchored hex? Is it ethical to do so?

Answer: Turn 1. Disembark from a port and sail adjacent to the hex you want to land on
(e.g. a non-port hex). End turn.

Turn 2. Without moving your unit at all...click on it and select "disembark." It will
then go into normal mode and you can move it on to land. Make sure your unit can enter the terrain type.

While there are some who consider this tactic suspect, most consider it perfectly
legal and realistic.

Ratbag55,

That is a very well-conceived and thought out suggestion. I don't know if and when we might be able to incorporate something similar in TOAW III, but thanks for taking the time and effort to define and illustrate your suggestion so clearly.

Beach landings are a very interesting topic to an old Marine logistician like me![:D]
 
While I agree that beaches shouldn't be supply sources like ports are, there are a lot of historical examples of the projection of logistics over beachheads that were not proper ports, like at Normandy.
 
A lot of this would have to do with scale, and the scenario designer's read on the logistical capabilities of the forces involved.  This is were you have to make some choices with what the game simulates in detail and what is abstracted, I think. 
 
Is it better to have a game where over the beach logistics are dealt with by counting the number of shallow draft lighterage available, the number of and effectiveness of the amphib trained logistical support troops on hand, the competence of the G-4 staff, the weather and tides, and all that other supply detail that makes amphibian logisticians giddy but leaves most normal people in a glazed eyed coma, or do you adjust the global supply level for one side and be done with it?
 
A compromise might involve giving certain HQ or engineer units the ability to convert a beach hex to a port with limited supply capabilities.
 
 

influenced by WitP mayhaps lol

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

D) An enemy-controlled “port”-hex should only be possible to enter by means of sea-transport by the following unit-types:

Why would an enemy-controlled anchorage be more accessible than an enemy-controlled beach? Presumably you can't just ask nicely if you can use the wharfs and cranes.

H) A “beach”-hex can not trace supply in the way that a “port”-hex can.

Anchorage hexes have no affect on supply.

Anyway, this is an area of TOAW which could do with review- but I'm not sure if your approach is exactly how I'd go. There's also the matter of distinguishing between amphibious transport and ordinary shipping.

To me it's unrealistic that I would be able to embark any type of unit (say for ex a russian tank regiment) using sea-transport and then disembarking it in a hex that lacks a port.

Of course this can be solved with a house-rule in PBEM, but my "wish" was for a more systemic solution to the issue.

Thanks for the link, I actually did'nt have that one!

Cheers / Ratbag

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

To me it's unrealistic that I would be able to embark any type of unit (say for ex a russian tank regiment) using sea-transport and then disembarking it in a hex that lacks a port.

Erm, that's what LST's are for.

Ah! Enter the new "Mulberry-port"-unit...

[:)]

Actually it might not be a bad idea to have units that fill the function of a port.

Cheers / Ratbag

I agree. In my perfect world there would be sea-transport units and amphibious-landing units instead of arbitrary sea-transport points. (And air-transport units as well...)

My thinking, to answer your question, is that special purpose forces like airborne troops for ex might be used in capturing a port facility. In my mind it would be somewhat easier than a beach-assault. But I'm not really sure.

Cheers /Ratbag

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

To me it's unrealistic that I would be able to embark any type of unit (say for ex a russian tank regiment) using sea-transport and then disembarking it in a hex that lacks a port.

Erm, that's what LST's are for.

Yes, but they are in extremely limited supply. And can only land on a proper beach. Not on any other kind of shore if I'm not misinformed.

We will obviously need "Amphibious LST"-units as well! [:D]

/Ratbag

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

...And air-transport units as well....
Cheers /Ratbag

Yeah, exactly. We need some equipment that transports other equipment, like troops and guns and mortars and etc. They had them in WW2 ( C-47's ) why can't we put some kinda unit together and call it an air transport unit and have it as it's sole purpose to fly from one friendly controlled airport to another carrying equipment, be subject to interdiction, etc. instead of having it abstracted into the game mechanics? Good idea Ratbag55.

I think you can put supply points (also by events) on sea hexes.
These give a reduced supply distribution as far as I know,
and provide a good way to represent restricted supply.
You can also use Theatre Options with perhaps a victory point penalty to place supply points during place.
This could simulate Mulberry harbors or supply ships.

In my Russo-Japanese 1905 scenario I've used specific seatransport units that is required to move units from Japan to Korea. This restricts the number of units being transported and the number of locations they can be debarked on.
Also naval battles may sink said transports.

Erik