Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Amphibious landing restrictions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Amphibious landing restrictions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Amphibious landing restrictions - 1/20/2018 8:54:16 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
I was wondering why Amphibious landing are allowed in any Weather condition. Perhaps a Weather condition loss, significant one based on the particular weather, when attempting a landing. IMHO

I also wonder why all Amphibious assets or transports are available at any Port you control.
Post #: 1
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 1/21/2018 3:13:34 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi

There is a higher chance of the unit receiving landing casualties in bad weather, so landings aren't impossible in bad weather, just higher risk.

In answer to the second question, it's always been that way and it has crossed my mind at times that it might be more realistic to opt for a different system, but at the same time it would give players one more thing to think about in planning their invasions or evacuations.

This could be fine, but not being 100% sure myself that I would like it changed I've not taken it any further (i.e. suggested it to Hubert), as I see it as being one of those things where there is a tug of war between realism and ease of play, and it can be nice to keep some things simple so that the game doesn't call for too much heavy duty brain work.

Bill

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 2
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 1/26/2018 3:40:39 AM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
Hi Guderian,

According to the manual Amphibious embarcations can't take place out of snowed ports, nor can amphib landings be made onto snowed coastal hexes, so there are some weather restrictions. Also, as a practical matter, amphib invasions are extremely unlikely to succeed against opposition of more than Garrison strength without some air support, so in many cases Rain in the target hex will preclude an amphib attack in that turn as well.
So, at least in the main area of interest, the English Channel, amphib attacks are generally unwise/impossible in Fall or Winter.

Just like the actual war.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 3
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 1/28/2018 10:06:12 AM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
I believe you can amphib in Snow coastal hexes.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 4
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/1/2018 9:03:28 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
I wonder what people think of the ability of AVL using cruise mode and unload?

< Message edited by Guderian1940 -- 2/4/2018 7:45:02 AM >

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 5
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/3/2018 12:23:06 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 7762
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
I like the short range amphib's as they seem to demonstrate the need for nearby bases to support such operations. However, Norway 1940 and Torch 1942 contradict this need for local support. For Norway, the Germans shipped troops all the way to Narvik in two days, which the SC3 long range amphib's can't replicate. For Torch the USA shipped troops from the US to NW Africa in under two weeks. I tried a Torch with short range amphib's from the US and they withered and died in the sea from lack of supplies. AV's use supplies each turn, AVL's do not.

So it seems that while we may have issues with both types of amphib's, they are necessary for SC3.

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 6
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/3/2018 10:52:48 PM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
sPzAbt653,
I think you're right that LR Amphibs are a necessity of the game. Speaking as someone who has won several games in part through my use of them, nevertheless, I think they might need to be curbed a bit. Maybe no Cruise mode for them? And maybe they should not be allowed to use the Loops to the Red Sea or Persian Gulf? Or there should be some additional MPP cost for an LR Amphib to use a Loop or it should take more turns than it does for a regular warship.

I know that Amphib units, when they are moving across the ocean, don't literally represent units in landing craft, but rather units in transport vessels that also are carrying landing craft. Still, it seems weird that you can ship an armada of transports, LCIs, and LSTs around the Cape of Good Hope for arrival in the Red Sea. Such a move was beyond even the Allied logistical capacity, I think

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 7
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 8:01:23 AM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
My inquiry was more for the long range and usage ability in any of the 'seas'.

You should be able to cruise but not able to land amphibiously. It would be the next turn and or after regular movement. From Italy you can virtually land anywhere in one hop.

This ability is not expected with most players and I think can be used a a gimmick until some unhappy customer is at the wrong end and then decides to use it against another unwary opponent etc..

I understand that to cover a period from 39 to 45 with all the technological advances that it is hard to find a good compromise. However I find that for the sake of allowing some exceptions, they become the rule and affect the overall playability of the game. This is one of them in my opinion. Just trying to make the game better.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 8
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 2:18:21 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
SC does a spectacular job re creating the war in Continental Europe. Unfortunately the Axis amphib component (Sealion etc) isnt realistic, particularly prior to 1942. Sealion is much more a gamer myth than a historical possibility. Most historians believe Sealion was a bluff and if implemented would have been a complete disaster. Even the most optimistic acknowledge that the RN & RAF would have had to have been neutralized for any type of success. I'm sure if you were in England in 1940 it scared the hell out of you tho. Amphib assaults and Sealion in SC in no way reflects the historic possibilities of 1940/41.

First, the invasion of Norway cost the Axis Navy dearly, they had to do major rebuilding. Second, the Axis "LCI's/LST's" in 1940 were barges (many river barges) that moved at 2-3 knots. With tides it would have taken 24-30 hours to cross the English Channel.

I guess the Germans could have improved these capabilities by 1942. I think after the invasion of Norway the Germans should get a DE to invest in amphib of 200 per turn for 3 turns (No amphib for 6 -12 months if accepting). Amphib losses should be much more significant and distance more limited, each improving with amphib research. LR amphib shouldn't be allowed prior to amphib research of 3 and should be more limited in capacity.

If one wants to argue that the amphib component of SC adds to the game thats fine but it wasnt plausible at the time.




(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 9
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 3:06:11 PM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
Pvt. Benjamin,

Interesting analysis, with which I largely agree. Perhaps a neater solution would be to not allow the construction of LR Amphibs until you acheive Amphib warfare Level 2. That might sufficiently limit the Axis capacity in the early war, while still leaving open the possibility of major Allied invasions later. With this change, the Axis could still pursue a strategy dependent on Amphib invasions, but it would be significantly riskier or would be slower to implement and require more commitment of resources.

I think what drives many players nuts is when a German unit seems to "teleport" to a remote location early in the war, when we know how risky even a cross-Channel invasion would have been. Like I say, I have made use of this capacity to win several games as the Axis, but as Amphib works now, it really feels a bit too far from historical possibilities.

LW

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 10
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 3:16:01 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Thanks

It might also make sense that Brits have to maintain a certain troops strength (2 army/2 corp ??) in GB. If player doesn't have to protect GB against Sealion as much they will send troops to Egypt.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 11
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 8:39:02 PM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
I'm not sure I'd want any SCRIPTED requirement that the British player keep a minimum garrison in Britain, if that is what you're suggesting. I don't think it would be necessary.

It's true that there needs to be at least the possibility for the Axis to mount a credible threat of Sealion, or the British will have too easy a time after the Fall of France. The rules change I suggested (no LR Amphibs until Level 2) would not, I think, PRECLUDE the Germans from mounting such a threat. If the Germans choose to invest 2 Research chits in Amphib warfare in Fall 1939, chances are good they will have Amphib Warfare 1 by Summer 1940. That combined with paras and air superiority would make the one-turn move across the Straits of Dover doable against a weak or unwary Allied opponent, especially if the BEF has suffered losses in the Battle of France.

Stronger, warier Allied opponents will know to keep significant forces guarding the southern coast of England, especially the London/Dover area. Since the Allied player can't know whether or not the German player is pursuing the Sealion option, it could form the basis of an effective bluff and prevent the British from leaving a skeleton force in England and sending everything to Egypt.

But what you won't have is the Wehrmacht racing across the high seas in 1940, which I think is what many players object to.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 12
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/4/2018 9:50:01 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
I think what people object to is the ease of Sealion attack for the Axis in SC when it was in fact not possible. Even Hitlers Generals thought it was absurd.

1) The British WON the Battle of Britain. This wasn't a fluke. The Brits had a very advanced air defense system with radar. They had an equal amount of fighters at the beginning and were producing fighters at a much faster rate than the Germans. Maybe most importantly Dowding was a genius. The Germans air had very limited range and the Brits had the huge advantage of being close to their bases. SC gives the Axis complete air superiority in the Battle of Britain which is very unrealistic. A 10 Strength Dowding airforce HQ with an 11 str fighter should appear once Germans start attacking GB.

2) In SC Sealion the Axis fills the channel with subs and controls the seas because of its large air/sub advantage. In reality Axis subs avoided the channel because the channel was shallow and was heavily mined. The RN was significantly superior to the Axis Navy in 1940, especially after Norway. There should be a penalty of 1 pt per turn for subs in the channel, like high seas

3) As I previously mentioned the Axis would have used barges to transport troops. The barges moved at 2/3 knots which would have taken 24-20 hrs to get the troops cross the channel. Even if the Axis wiped out the RAF & RN (which would have never happed) the attack would have been problematic.

Many players want some type of historical connection to the game play not gamers folly.





(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 13
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/5/2018 5:43:01 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 7762
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
No Cruise Mode for AVL's might be a reasonable idea. However, if you choose to manually attack Norway, it would then take three turns to get from Germany to Narvik by sea, which isn't so good.
If the AVL's can't use the Loops, then if the Axis take the Middle East the Allies would not be able to threaten that area, and that would mean that the Axis would not have to have garrisons there. Also, it would make reinforcing the Mid-East by the Allies very slow.
I don't think it would have been beyond Allied logistical capacity to ship large amounts of equipment and troops to the Mid-East, but Eisenhower saw no reason to do so when there were closer targets. If the Allied player wants to go thru Egypt instead of taking on an Operation Torch, there shouldn't be a game reason for preventing it, should there ?
Why do AV's use supply but AVL's do not ? This seems kind of backwards.
Changes to production numbers occur at each level, so restricting AVL's to a research level 2 is not possible [as such an increase would occur at level 1].
Sealion may have been impossible, but are there enough options in the game to provide for a German capture of the French Fleet, which would have made a difference ?
Even without the French Fleet, German preparations for Sealion began developing when Britain refused to surrender after the fall of France. However, Hitler switched quickly to Russia. In SC3 this is represented by the imminent entry of the USSR in summer 1941.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 14
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/5/2018 11:58:35 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
I have to agree that AV's are about right, short range. AVL's though work at warp speed with no restrictions. I think should be tempered a little. Loss of supply, when cruising and no ability to land. There is just too much difference in the two. I know it costs more but the advantages are overwhelming. I don't think the Germans should be able to AVL into Syria in one hop for example. Just too easy. If you consider this ability is from any port it is beyond realistic.

If you consider the technology in amphibious warfare from 1940 to 1944, you would not be able to do the same thing in 40 and 44.

For Norway German used freighters and boats to land troops from with little opposition.

For Sealion, the gathered every available barge, boat along the Coast of Europe. Hardly an ability to land Tank Divisionsn and Infantry divisions complete with all their Kit. Like Dunkirk, lots of men but little equipment.

It should still be possible with a concentrated German effort requiring a strong garrison. WHat is the balance?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 15
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/6/2018 12:18:55 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1096
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I've come to the determination that this (and other a historical determanations) are for game play (and replay) and balance.

It is pretty clear the designers want a game where the axis have about a 50% chance to win the war. If game determinations were more historic based, then the victory goals of the axis would be based on when/how long until the axis got conquered and not on the axis winning the war outright.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 16
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/6/2018 1:24:27 AM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
That is very True Taxman66. You want both sides to have a chance. My concern is that the designers only have so much time to playtest, and with playtesters. Everyone has a mindset of what they will do in a game. With so many different people now actually playing all kinds of (gimmicks) (gamy) loopholes are exposed. My goal is to make a game playable and have the balance needed. This example of amphibious capability gives the Germans great advantages and abuse in 39, 40 and less so in the later part. It then goes to the Allies to expose all kinds of really unexpected abuse.

I personally feel that the "GOTCHA" in a game, because someone is totally unaware of a game capability, should be discussed. I think this is one of them. And some have commented on their exploitation. I have experienced the brunt of these game abilities as I have gained experience. I don't begrudge anyone using them. I understand there will always be a difference between experience and less experienced. Let's make not so totally unbelievable;e.

The game has come a long way to fix these kind of issues. The time and revisions by the developers is excellent. There still remains some that need revision. Hopefully the ones we expose can help this game and future designs.

For example, the ability to move all Axis Air units to Africa to beat up the Brits. Just not logistically possible unless massive German resources are applied. Deciding to send 2 or 3 HQ units as support is vastly different then just sending all the air units to do the job. Decisions must have a cost factor. Affecting other decisions and time frames. I am looking at this when commenting on things I see are not working well.

In my opinion, play-ability, balance and historical accuracy are important and in that order in games. All IMHO.



< Message edited by Guderian1940 -- 2/6/2018 1:30:08 AM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 17
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/6/2018 11:45:30 AM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Spot on Guderian.

I believe the "Gimmicks" take away from the game and many stop playing PBEM because of them. People are looking for a game that represent historical possibilities. The Early Amphibious Assault & Mass air deployment components aren't close to realistic.

I have been a huge fan of SC since its origin but when I first started playing SC PBEM I almost stopped because of the absurd "gimmicks". I experienced Amphibious assaults of Iceland in '40 (seriously? 1500 mile amphib after Norway??), Syria, Algiers & Sealion.

Sealion 1940 isn't necessary for the Axis to win SC. My argument is that if one wants to employ Sealion there is more planning, cost and obstacles to make it possible. Maybe a DE after Norway that says "Would you like to Spend 200 per turn for 3 turns to prepare for Sealion in 9 months?" Penalties for Subs in the Channel and a more effective representation of the British air defense system in 1940.

Amphibious Transports in general should be much more limited in scope. Amphibious assaults should only have one turn to land and have more detrimental effects upon landing. Long Range Garrison amhib only after level 2 or 3 research. These results obviously improve with research.

These are some recommended improvements to a game that does a phenomenal job representing the historical possibilities of the war in Continental Europe/USSR.






(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 18
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/6/2018 1:24:14 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 2077
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback everyone and at this point of the game and development cycle we would be wary of significant/major changes for fear of the unintended consequences, which then lead to fixes of fixes situations.

However, what we have done with the latest v1.12 release is more of an incremental change that we are hoping will have some impact as it strengthens the UK a little bit both in Egypt and at home, with some extra MPPs, an extra Fighter, beefed up original Fighter that now arrives with maximum research and so on and we'd be curious to see what this effect will have on a potential Sealion as well as the Axis strategy in Egypt before possibly implementing any further changes.

Essentially let's see how the latest version plays out and go from there,
Hubert



< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 2/6/2018 2:11:23 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 19
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/6/2018 1:24:23 PM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
sPzAbt653, You make a good point that not allowing Amphibs in Loops could really limit the Allies' ability to bounce back from early mistakes--an undesirable feature in a game. Still it feels pretty gimmicky for an Allied amphibious armada to appear out of nowhere and launch a successful invasion in the Red Sea after traveling thousands of miles around the Cape, possibly from the East Coast of the US. No less gimmicky, IMO, than a German Amphib unit going from Norway to Iceland.

Pvt. Benjamin,
I agree that Sealion is not necessary to win. I've won as the Axis without it, and been beaten as the Allies without it. In fact, it can be counterproductive for the Axis, even if successful, thanks to the clever game-balancing that the designers have worked in
In an earlier post, you made a good point that in hindsight it's obvious that Sealion in 1940 was horribly risky, but that the British couldn't be sure of that at the time. How to simulate that in historical game? I think it has to remain possible. Without at least the possibility of Sealion at some point before Russia enters the war, the game swings sharply in favor of the Allies, barring exceptionally good Axis play or exceptionally poor Allied play. It might be closer to historical possibilities (opinions vary on that point), but it will definitely be a much less interesting game from the Axis POV.

Perhaps another, simpler solution to the frustrations some have felt when faced with early Axis amphibious capabilities would be to limit the number of research chits that can be invested in Amphip warfare to 1. That way, the Germans could still try for Sealion, but it would be significantly harder for them to be sure of doing it successfully before late 1940.
I also agree that the Channel can be too easy for the Germans to dominate, though I have found MTBs to be a very valuable asset in making it more costly for the Germans to park subs in the Channel. Some kind of minefield rule would be good (there was one in SC2 Assault on Communism, as I recall).
But if you are advocating for structural changes that make Sealion virtually impossible, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

LW

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 20
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/7/2018 10:51:52 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 7762
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

Still it feels pretty gimmicky for an Allied amphibious armada to appear out of nowhere and launch a successful invasion in the Red Sea after traveling thousands of miles around the Cape, possibly from the East Coast of the US. No less gimmicky, IMO, than a German Amphib unit going from Norway to Iceland.

But Torch and Weserubung weren't gimmicky, were they ? Not to mention short range Overlord. Each of these went undetected by the enemy, which is shamefully embarrassing I think !
The Axis player should have to operate under the assumption that if he chooses to invade the Middle East that he will have to defend that area from Allied incursions from East Africa and India [neither of which are included on the map]. With the Loops and AVL's, both players will operate under the same historically accurate conditions in the area, otherwise the Axis gets a free pass.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 21
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/7/2018 12:02:50 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Thank You Hubert, that makes sense. I appreciate the delicate balance of power and the impact the changes make.

Some thoughts going forward.

1) My issue is that currently the invasion of Britain in 1940 isn't winnable in the air or ground by the Brits, when in fact it was won. I believe if you take two skilled players of equal ability and the Axis player decides to commit all resources to the attack, the Axis will win every time. Sugar for example is a great player (he says he's 51-0 and has never lost) if he plays the Axis and attacks his alter ego "Spice" as Allies "Sugar" wins Sealion every time. I understand the limitations of the attack and how to defend so other players don't need to explain that to me after this post.

2) I do completely agree with Guderian on early ('39-'41) amphibious abilities not being realistic and should significantly be reduced. I can't envision how that would significantly alter the balance of power but you know better than me.

Leadwieght: I did't suggest Sealion being impossible, just changes that make it more realistic. I do appreciate the delicate balance of power. One can argue that why is a plan that was marginal at best (most likely impossible) so easy to employ here.

sPzAbt: Torch was in Nov '42, the US had a lot of amphibious expertise from the Pacific and the Combined Allied Navies were overwhelming. In Norway the German amphibious component was limited over a short distance in "friendly waters". It was much more an airborne exercise. The German Navy also took a beating. There are no comparisons of Overlord to early Axis amphibious abilities.

Good Discussion Everyone, makes for a better game.








< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 2/7/2018 4:44:38 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 22
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/10/2018 10:19:41 PM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I think what people object to is the ease of Sealion attack for the Axis in SC when it was in fact not possible. Even Hitlers Generals thought it was absurd.

1) The British WON the Battle of Britain. This wasn't a fluke. The Brits had a very advanced air defense system with radar. They had an equal amount of fighters at the beginning and were producing fighters at a much faster rate than the Germans. Maybe most importantly Dowding was a genius. The Germans air had very limited range and the Brits had the huge advantage of being close to their bases. SC gives the Axis complete air superiority in the Battle of Britain which is very unrealistic. A 10 Strength Dowding airforce HQ with an 11 str fighter should appear once Germans start attacking GB.

2) In SC Sealion the Axis fills the channel with subs and controls the seas because of its large air/sub advantage. In reality Axis subs avoided the channel because the channel was shallow and was heavily mined. The RN was significantly superior to the Axis Navy in 1940, especially after Norway. There should be a penalty of 1 pt per turn for subs in the channel, like high seas

3) As I previously mentioned the Axis would have used barges to transport troops. The barges moved at 2/3 knots which would have taken 24-20 hrs to get the troops cross the channel. Even if the Axis wiped out the RAF & RN (which would have never happed) the attack would have been problematic.

Many players want some type of historical connection to the game play not gamers folly.



Easy Sealion is why I haven't bought the game. When SC came out, I watched a few youtubes, and the ease with which the German player was able to take the UK against the AI put me off. For gameplay's sake, I can see making Sealion barely possible, if the stars align, but it sure seems too easy, unless things have changed since release. Is the Royal Navy still tiny compared to reality?

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 23
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/11/2018 3:33:09 AM   
Christolos


Posts: 546
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
It seems to me that Sea lion is easily brought off against the AI, and the lack of the AI's ability to escort transports, AVs and AVLs, to counter it, makes it easy to repel the AI's ability to take back the UK if it falls. The real issue here is what happens in a PBEM++ game. It seems to me that it is pure folly to try and invade England against a competent human Allied player.

But it could still be fun to try...

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 24
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/11/2018 3:46:50 AM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
Sealion is not easy against an Allied opponent that makes preparations to avoid it.

Sealion needs to be a viable Axis strategy just as it was thought to be by the UK in the historical setting. Sure, we know with hindsight that the invasion of the UK was largely a pipe dream, but the UK didn't know it during the real time of 1940. Germany was capable of trying it.

To present the atmosphere of reality for SC players, the prospect of a Sealion must be kept alive. It simulates the mindset of the period, irregardless of our historical knowledge.

No matter what anyone thinks, with Murphy's Laws always a possibility in the executable, the basis of thought that Sealion was impossible is pure speculation, it was never tried.

The true outcome remains unknown and will always be disputable one way or the other.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 25
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/11/2018 2:12:47 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Yes it should be possible but maybe at a higher costs. Such as Russian mobilizing early, increasing its MPP are some suggestions. Sealion is too easy and the Axis still has time to be prepared for Barbarossa. I just think it should have stronger consequences as a strategic decision to Sealion. The amphib capability is still an issue even with consequences for the decision to invade.

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 26
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/11/2018 3:18:14 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Mr. Nimitz,

If you enjoy large scale WW2 Strategic games I would't let Sealion prevent you from playing the game. Once you get up to speed (I got destroyed in a multiple of my first PBEM games) and find an opponent of equal ability and interest its a blast. Although I believe Sealion to be unrealistic the game is an excellent and sophisticated portrayal of the war in Continental Europe. Sealion is unrealistic but there are ways to defend GB, the Axis will ultimately take GB but it will be very costly. The authors are also very diligent about listening to players suggestions and making changes to improve game play/realism.

The RN has multiple carriers so away from the Channel in '40 they will control the seas by '42-'43.

hope that helps







< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 2/11/2018 4:46:35 PM >

(in reply to Guderian1940)
Post #: 27
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/11/2018 5:29:34 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
My long term position, stated many times, is that the size of the unit, connected with the tech level, will dictate whether they have amphib capability.

For instance, level 0 = only divisional sized(weak ZoC) units, level 1 an additional unit, corps size allowed. Level 3 = additional unit, army size, level 4 = add unit, armored/mechanized and finally level 5 anything goes.

Of course "special forces" are the exception to this rule.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 28
RE: Amphibious landing restrictions - 2/17/2018 1:34:13 PM   
Guderian1940

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Just a thought but perhaps there should be a separate tech for AV and AVL. AVL would cost a lot more, perhaps 200 or more, to reduce their creation.

This would require an investment that would reduce the early war years but allow the increased capability for 43-44. Italy, USSR, Germany, UK would be reduced in the early years but still allow an investment if so desired.

Not sure how easy that could be implemented. Perhaps just an increase overall.

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Amphibious landing restrictions Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.151