Should Naval Landings/Transporting Be More Expensive/Limited in WW1?

[Tanaka]

My crafty opponent Old Crow always knows how to push the engine so my posts are always kudos to him. And now my question is:

Should Naval landings be so easy to do in a WW1 game? Should not naval landings and naval transports be more expensive and limited?

I think I have had to fight off around 10 different naval invasions/transports all over the Ottoman Coast and Adriatic. Especially with Detachments it is so cheap and easy to do. Seems too easy to take advantage of the AI doing this as well. Should the human or AI have to man every single city along the coast?

Other than Gallipoli what other naval landing type events happened in WW1?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

It has been very expensive and I used mostly Marines of The UK, France Russia and Italy.

I did use 2 detachments on the southern Anatolian coast to temporarily cut the rail lines and as a diversion while I attempted to capture ports like Smyrna and Zongolak with marines of these various nations.

Microlandings with detachments maybe a bit much...so I don't do it on a regular basis.

There was discussion early on in this forum of taking this ability away...as was the case with WiE and the exploit of microlandings with garrison units. I think there maybe some merit to that case.

Bill and/or Hubert had given their rational why they decided to allow this mechanism in game somewhere at the beginning in the SC-WW1 forum.

As for historical examples other than Galipolli?

Yes, the Russians landed at or near Trabazon..but it wasn't a huge operation like Galipolli. After the Russian Revolution, the Germans landed on the 2 large Estonian islands. The British and French landed at Yanbu in the Hejaz to support the Arab Revolt..that would be considered a micro landing. There was also a serious plan to land at Alexandretta where the 2 Ottoman detachments in game are located..and promised help via the sea to the Armenians close to this area also.

There probably other smallish operations either planned or done, but I am not aware of them.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Other than Gallipoli what other naval landing type events happened in WW1?

I don't think there were very many at all, not in Europe anyway. Trabzon is one, conducted by the Russians in 1917. The Germans attacked Estonia in 1917 in a combined land/sea operation. Tsingtao in 1914 by the Japanese, which is mentioned in the game, is another large scale one. But that's about it in the main theatres of WW1.

I never bother with the Amphibious Warfare Tech and yet I was still able to invade southern Italy with my Austro-Hungarians after I had cleared the Adriatic of Italian shipping. My A-H units in Italy were sitting ducks and could not reinforce, but they did draw off Italian units from the north which enabled me to break out at both Trentino and across the Isonzo. The game ended with Italy in a hopeless position and they would have surrendered early in 1919 if I had continued the game beyond the standard end date.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

It has been very expensive and I used mostly Marines of The UK, France Russia and Italy.

I did use 2 detachments on the southern Anatolian coast to temporarily cut the rail lines and as a diversion while I attempted to capture ports like Smyrna and Zongolak with marines of these various nations.

Microlandings with detachments maybe a bit much...so I don't do it on a regular basis.

There was discussion early on in this forum of taking this ability away...as was the case with WiE and the exploit of microlandings with garrison units. I think there maybe some merit to that case.

Bill and/or Hubert had given their rational why they decided to allow this mechanism in game somewhere at the beginning in the SC-WW1 forum.

As for historical examples other than Galipolli?

Yes, the Russians landed at or near Trabazon..but it wasn't a huge operation like Galipolli. After the Russian Revolution, the Germans landed on the 2 large Estonian islands. The British and French landed at Yanbu in the Hejaz to support the Arab Revolt..that would be considered a micro landing. There was also a serious plan to land at Alexandretta where the 2 Ottoman detachments in game are located..and promised help via the sea to the Armenians close to this area also.

There probably other smallish operations either planned or done, but I am not aware of them.

But in game you said you double agreed that naval landings should be more expensive in WW1? Do you not?

Agree that micro detachment/garrison landings should be removed. Do you remember what their reasoning was for leaving it?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But in game you said you double agreed that naval landings should be more expensive in WW1? Do you not?

Agree that micro detachment/garrison landings should be removed. Do you remember what their reasoning was for leaving it?

I was referring to making detachments more expensive. As for Bill or Hubert's reasoning..its some where in this forum way back right after it was released. In WiE, 3 years ago, garrisons could be put on AVs, but thankfully they did away with that. It was a big issue as I remember.

I possibly could be swayed to apply that mechanism change for detachments here in SC-WW1 to not be able to be amphibiously deployed, But, I would like to hear both sides of that argument. For one,though, it would make Marine units more valuable than they already are (which is a good thing since they are commonly used as gap fillers...

I would like to see regular Corps allowed to AV still, as its real expensive to amphib with them, and risky also if a port couldn't be taken quickly. Also, corps don't get supply off a beach head like Marines do, so anyone planning to AV a corp really has to think hard whether its worth the attempt.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But in game you said you double agreed that naval landings should be more expensive in WW1? Do you not?

Agree that micro detachment/garrison landings should be removed. Do you remember what their reasoning was for leaving it?

I was referring to making detachments more expensive. As for Bill or Hubert's reasoning..its some where in this forum way back right after right after it was released. In WiE, 3 years ago, garrisons could be put on AVs, but thankfully they did away with that. It was a big issue as I remember.

This seems to be the earlier discussion. It is called "Micro Landings". Very interesting read . . .

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4726947

[Jazumir]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

[...] After the Russian Revolution, the Germans landed on the 2 large Estonian islands. [...]

One of which is called "mun" if i am not mistaken. So the germans did the first mun-landing.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Jazumir

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

[...] After the Russian Revolution, the Germans landed on the 2 large Estonian islands. [...]

One of which is called "mun" if i am not mistaken. So the germans did the first mun-landing.

[:D]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But in game you said you double agreed that naval landings should be more expensive in WW1? Do you not?

Agree that micro detachment/garrison landings should be removed. Do you remember what their reasoning was for leaving it?

I was referring to making detachments more expensive. As for Bill or Hubert's reasoning..its some where in this forum way back right after it was released. In WiE, 3 years ago, garrisons could be put on AVs, but thankfully they did away with that. It was a big issue as I remember.

I possibly could be swayed to apply that mechanism change for detachments here in SC-WW1 to not be able to be amphibiously deployed, But, I would like to hear both sides of that argument. For one,though, it would make Marine units more valuable than they already are (which is a good thing since they are commonly used as gap fillers...

I would like to see regular Corps allowed to AV still, as its real expensive to amphib with them, and risky also if a port couldn't be taken quickly. Also, corps don't get supply off a beach head like Marines do, so anyone planning to AV a corp really has to think hard whether its worth the attempt.

Ah I see and concur. Yeah I think one of the things they did with the AI was have surprise detachment landing in Syria from Crete. That may be the reasoning. After reading the other thread on this I think preventing garrison landings like in WIE and WAW is the best option.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


But in game you said you double agreed that naval landings should be more expensive in WW1? Do you not?

Agree that micro detachment/garrison landings should be removed. Do you remember what their reasoning was for leaving it?

I was referring to making detachments more expensive. As for Bill or Hubert's reasoning..its some where in this forum way back right after right after it was released. In WiE, 3 years ago, garrisons could be put on AVs, but thankfully they did away with that. It was a big issue as I remember.

This seems to be the earlier discussion. It is called "Micro Landings". Very interesting read . . .

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4726947

Thanks reading it now!

[Dazo]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Other than Gallipoli what other naval landing type events happened in WW1?

I can think about the siege of Tsing Tao which was quite a big operation but that's on the other side of the map [:D].
There were probably some others in Africa to capture german colonies like the battle of Tanga or lake Tanganyika campaign.