Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Invasion Fixes

 
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] >> WarPlan >> Invasion Fixes Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Invasion Fixes - 10/18/2020 12:38:49 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I think everyone agrees that Alvaro has done a tremendous job with this game. It is hands down the best WWII strategic game I have ever played. But I think most experienced player also agree that the game's biggest flaw is that invasions are both too easy and too hard. Too easy in that you have to garrison every single port with at least a division to prevent suicide invasions. This is true even if you have naval superiority. And too hard in that a well defended coastline is almost impossible to successfully invade even if you have overwhelming air and naval superiority.

This means that the game proliferates with many small invasions (one division or corps) that could never happen historically. For example, in my current game as the Allies, in June 1940 a German large corps embarked in Calais, sailed down the Channel and around Brittany and disembarked in an empty Saint Nazaire. I can't complain because on a previous turn a French corps embarked in Calais and disembarked in Bremerhaven.

At the same time it is very difficult for a an invading army to capture a port that is defended by a small corps and virtually impossible to capture one defended by a large corps. This is true even if the defending corps are bombed several times in advance.

So I am interested in knowing if anyone has any solutions for this.

For myself I would like to see the cost of landing craft increased significantly. Why does it cost 60 production to build 10 transport ships that can carry a division, but only 15 production to build 10 landing craft that can carry the same number? If anything landing craft were more specialized, armed and armoured than a transport ship. Plus I assume that the cost of building landing craft is not just for the landing craft itself, but also the cost of the time and resources to plan and execute an amphibious invasion. If the cost of landing craft were increased to 60 for 10 landing craft then I think we would see far fewer of these suicide invasions. If this were done then it would not be necessary to decrease Western Allied production as it will be primarily the Allies who will have to build landing craft. As someone else has suggested, I also think it would be a good idea if you could see how many landing craft your opponent has. After all if you can tell how many merchant ships your opponent has, why not landing craft?

I also like the idea (again as someone else suggested) to have a separate tech for invasions. Nations with low invasion tech would suffer greater effectiveness loss upon landing, while those with higher tech would perhaps even gain an effectiveness bonus. Finally I would like it if naval units in a beach or half sea hex (but not ports) not only added to the defence of friendly units, but also to their offence.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.



< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 10/18/2020 5:45:21 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/18/2020 8:00:24 AM   
Jeff_Ahl

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/10/2018
Status: online
+1

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 2
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/18/2020 12:07:39 PM   
malkarma

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 7/5/2020
Status: offline
Landing crafts are spent after the invasions. Transport remains. Also landing crafts like the ones used in Normandy are fragile structures with wood bottoms. Their only purpose were do a short travel from the transports to the beach.
A different thing would be the specialiced vessels that were used by the USA in the Pacific...that never saw the European coast.
It's like the amphibious armored vehicles that they started to use in the invasions after Guadalcanal (I think that they started to use them in tarawa, but I can be wrong). They were used only in the Pacific. That the reason for the disaster of the tanks sent to Omaha (from 30 launched, only 5 survided, the rest sunk during the travel).
My bigger concern is that operations like Overlord are difficult due the lack of supply sources. The port capacity basically left half of your invasion army in Basic supply, so no replacements and efectiveness recovery. That left those unis really prone to be destroyed in a counterattack. If you add the factor that you don't have control about what units will receive the supply from the ports (sometimes the front line ones, sometimes the rearguard ones) landing in Europe in force can be a leap of faith sometimes.
This said, I also agree that the ninja disembark tactic is a bit "creative".

< Message edited by malkarma -- 10/18/2020 12:08:35 PM >

(in reply to Jeff_Ahl)
Post #: 3
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/18/2020 2:28:56 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 6788
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
The next patch has increased cost to transports and landing ships.
It also has increased shipyard costs to transports and MMs.

In Pacific I changed some tech.
Electronics and Detection have merged with Convoy Escort just to be Anti-submarine Warfare.

I have added Special Operation - What this does is reduce the attack effectiveness of any unit attacking from a beach. As you level up the reduction gets lowered.

If you look at historical numbers for garrisons in certain spot the game is fairly in line with history.
Norway has 5 ports to garrison = 5 divisions = 100k men. Norway has 200k men transitioning it.

France has 12 ports to garrison + 2 units in the backfield for partisans. ~240k men. In 1941 you might be able to get away with 8 divisions = ~160k men which falls in line with the time.

You can also always set garrison mode on a unit to save production.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to malkarma)
Post #: 4
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 2:56:06 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malkarma

Landing crafts are spent after the invasions. Transport remains. Also landing crafts like the ones used in Normandy are fragile structures with wood bottoms. Their only purpose were do a short travel from the transports to the beach.
A different thing would be the specialiced vessels that were used by the USA in the Pacific...that never saw the European coast.
It's like the amphibious armored vehicles that they started to use in the invasions after Guadalcanal (I think that they started to use them in tarawa, but I can be wrong). They were used only in the Pacific. That the reason for the disaster of the tanks sent to Omaha (from 30 launched, only 5 survided, the rest sunk during the travel).
My bigger concern is that operations like Overlord are difficult due the lack of supply sources. The port capacity basically left half of your invasion army in Basic supply, so no replacements and efectiveness recovery. That left those unis really prone to be destroyed in a counterattack. If you add the factor that you don't have control about what units will receive the supply from the ports (sometimes the front line ones, sometimes the rearguard ones) landing in Europe in force can be a leap of faith sometimes.
This said, I also agree that the ninja disembark tactic is a bit "creative".


Most landing craft used by the Allies in Europe could be broken down into two types. The assault landing craft are the ones most people are familiar with; the smaller craft with the ramp in front that lowered down. Most (but not all) of these were wrecked in the invasion. But the follow up troops and all the men that landed in the weeks after the invasion were primarily carried in LCILs (Landing Craft Infantry Large). My father-in-law served on one of these at D-Day. These ships were much larger, were not fragile and did not have wooden bottoms. They were also reused during Anvil. I have to think that landing craft in the game represent both types. So I would be quite happy if only half of landing craft are destroyed upon use, so long as the cost is increased to at least that of transports.

I agree with you that a player should be allowed to build mulberries at tremendous cost if/when he achieves a certain invasion tech level. This is not my idea either (I think it was Sillyflowers).

(in reply to malkarma)
Post #: 5
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 3:27:43 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The next patch has increased cost to transports and landing ships.
It also has increased shipyard costs to transports and MMs.


I personally don't think the cost of transports needs to be increased; but thank you for increasing the cost of landing ships. Are you able to say what they will cost after the patch?


quote:

If you look at historical numbers for garrisons in certain spot the game is fairly in line with history.
Norway has 5 ports to garrison = 5 divisions = 100k men. Norway has 200k men transitioning it.

France has 12 ports to garrison + 2 units in the backfield for partisans. ~240k men. In 1941 you might be able to get away with 8 divisions = ~160k men which falls in line with the time.

You can also always set garrison mode on a unit to save production.


Yes, but the problem remains that invasions against division held ports are often too easy. In my recent game I conquered French Syria the turn after Vichy France was created. I moved divisions into each port and set them to defend. The Italians invaded Syria the next turn with a Mountain Corps and an armor. That is 6 divisions. The Allies didn't have the capability to invade with 6 divisions until 1942. Of course first he soaked off my defending fleets. This is in August 1940. He destroyed one of my divisions. The next turn he invaded the Middle East again with a German Corps and and Italian Corps. Although I made the Italian fleet pay a heavy price the damage has been done. He will now be able to reinforce his units through the one port he controls in Syria and there is nothing I can do about it. Even if I set my fleet outside the port they will almost always miss the interception attempt on his units transporting in (you can test this if you like).

I agree that ports need to be defend against possible invasions and that is not my complaint. But a player shouldn't be able to launch invasions as frequently as is happening. August 1940 and already the Axis have launched 4 invasions. And I guarantee you they are not done. The main problems are that fleets are largely impotent against invasions and that landing ships are way to cheap.



< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 10/19/2020 3:40:00 AM >

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 6
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 12:22:04 PM   
malkarma

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 7/5/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: malkarma

Landing crafts are spent after the invasions. Transport remains. Also landing crafts like the ones used in Normandy are fragile structures with wood bottoms. Their only purpose were do a short travel from the transports to the beach.
A different thing would be the specialiced vessels that were used by the USA in the Pacific...that never saw the European coast.
It's like the amphibious armored vehicles that they started to use in the invasions after Guadalcanal (I think that they started to use them in tarawa, but I can be wrong). They were used only in the Pacific. That the reason for the disaster of the tanks sent to Omaha (from 30 launched, only 5 survided, the rest sunk during the travel).
My bigger concern is that operations like Overlord are difficult due the lack of supply sources. The port capacity basically left half of your invasion army in Basic supply, so no replacements and efectiveness recovery. That left those unis really prone to be destroyed in a counterattack. If you add the factor that you don't have control about what units will receive the supply from the ports (sometimes the front line ones, sometimes the rearguard ones) landing in Europe in force can be a leap of faith sometimes.
This said, I also agree that the ninja disembark tactic is a bit "creative".


Most landing craft used by the Allies in Europe could be broken down into two types. The assault landing craft are the ones most people are familiar with; the smaller craft with the ramp in front that lowered down. Most (but not all) of these were wrecked in the invasion. But the follow up troops and all the men that landed in the weeks after the invasion were primarily carried in LCILs (Landing Craft Infantry Large). My father-in-law served on one of these at D-Day. These ships were much larger, were not fragile and did not have wooden bottoms. They were also reused during Anvil. I have to think that landing craft in the game represent both types. So I would be quite happy if only half of landing craft are destroyed upon use, so long as the cost is increased to at least that of transports.

I agree with you that a player should be allowed to build mulberries at tremendous cost if/when he achieves a certain invasion tech level. This is not my idea either (I think it was Sillyflowers).


I think that the LCIL are covered by the transport capacity, in the end they are actual ships. The assault landing craft are the ones that are spent in-game.

Anyways, If I'm not wrong (and I can be) the bulk of the infantry that landed on the beaches moved directly from standard transports to the assault landing crafts. Also I remember that readed in some book the the USN had only 3 LCIL operative in Europe, and one got out of combat due repairs during overlord time.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 7
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 1:52:04 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 6788
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
transports 60 -> 100
Landing craft 15 -> 25

It's a matter of the Allies choosing what they want to do and where to place the resources into do it vs the risk of doing it.

Currently it seems in 1942 the Allies can do more than they should. in 1942 the Allies shouldn't have enough and have to make specific decisions weighing in risk and cost.

We start with small increments and see how it works.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to malkarma)
Post #: 8
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 3:43:09 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

transports 60 -> 100
Landing craft 15 -> 25

It's a matter of the Allies choosing what they want to do and where to place the resources into do it vs the risk of doing it.

Currently it seems in 1942 the Allies can do more than they should. in 1942 the Allies shouldn't have enough and have to make specific decisions weighing in risk and cost.

We start with small increments and see how it works.


I agree Alvaro that the Allies in 1942 can do more than they should be able to. But, IMHO, as big (or even bigger) problem is that the Axis in 1940 and 1941 can do more than they should be able to. At least in terms of amphibious invasions. For example, in my ongoing game my opponent just made his 5th Axis invasion (the 3rd turn in a row that he has invaded). It is September 1940. I just don't think increasing the cost of landing craft to 25 will put an end to this invasion spamming.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 9
RE: Invasion Fixes - 10/19/2020 3:53:53 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malkarma


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: malkarma

Landing crafts are spent after the invasions. Transport remains. Also landing crafts like the ones used in Normandy are fragile structures with wood bottoms. Their only purpose were do a short travel from the transports to the beach.
A different thing would be the specialiced vessels that were used by the USA in the Pacific...that never saw the European coast.
It's like the amphibious armored vehicles that they started to use in the invasions after Guadalcanal (I think that they started to use them in tarawa, but I can be wrong). They were used only in the Pacific. That the reason for the disaster of the tanks sent to Omaha (from 30 launched, only 5 survided, the rest sunk during the travel).
My bigger concern is that operations like Overlord are difficult due the lack of supply sources. The port capacity basically left half of your invasion army in Basic supply, so no replacements and efectiveness recovery. That left those unis really prone to be destroyed in a counterattack. If you add the factor that you don't have control about what units will receive the supply from the ports (sometimes the front line ones, sometimes the rearguard ones) landing in Europe in force can be a leap of faith sometimes.
This said, I also agree that the ninja disembark tactic is a bit "creative".


Most landing craft used by the Allies in Europe could be broken down into two types. The assault landing craft are the ones most people are familiar with; the smaller craft with the ramp in front that lowered down. Most (but not all) of these were wrecked in the invasion. But the follow up troops and all the men that landed in the weeks after the invasion were primarily carried in LCILs (Landing Craft Infantry Large). My father-in-law served on one of these at D-Day. These ships were much larger, were not fragile and did not have wooden bottoms. They were also reused during Anvil. I have to think that landing craft in the game represent both types. So I would be quite happy if only half of landing craft are destroyed upon use, so long as the cost is increased to at least that of transports.

I agree with you that a player should be allowed to build mulberries at tremendous cost if/when he achieves a certain invasion tech level. This is not my idea either (I think it was Sillyflowers).


I think that the LCIL are covered by the transport capacity, in the end they are actual ships. The assault landing craft are the ones that are spent in-game.

Anyways, If I'm not wrong (and I can be) the bulk of the infantry that landed on the beaches moved directly from standard transports to the assault landing crafts. Also I remember that readed in some book the the USN had only 3 LCIL operative in Europe, and one got out of combat due repairs during overlord time.



I agree that LCILs are ships, but I don't believe they were generally used for transporting troops long distances. For example I don't believe they were used to transport US or Canadian troops from North America to Europe. They were specifically constructed for the purpose of landing troops onto beaches. I am more familiar with the DDay landings on the Canadian and UK beaches, so I can't say how many LCILs the US used. But I do know that far more than 3 were used by the Canadians and British. I have a photo of my father-in-laws LCIL at Juno beach and there are 3 or 4 LCILs lined up. His LCIL made several trips in the weeks after DDay, including ferrying US troops to Omaha and Utah beaches.

(in reply to malkarma)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Invasion Fixes 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

0.170