Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: LRT Invasions

 
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: World at War >> RE: LRT Invasions Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 12:34:20 PM   
smckechnie

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 3/12/2018
Status: offline
I think that you keep the LRT’s as is. Against veteran or elite opponents the axis already have the advantage so this would be tilting something else in there direction.

A few other comments:

1. Tunis should be able to be taken and the port not damaged hardly at all from either side taking it from a neutral status. Come on it is the Tunisians, not the Wehrmacht.
2. As it is, if the allies land in previously neutral Algiers or Tunis the ports are damaged way more than what historically happened. Every port in North Africa in reality is back in action within a week of capture this is historical.
3. The French and even England really did not have the ability to do what LRT’s can do until later in the war. I would agree that France LRT should be nerfed.
4. Despite being basically destroyed, the port of Naples was being used by the allies within a week of capture. Look it up. In general, every Italian port that was captured in WW 2 by the allies was up and operating within a week or so.
5. What is not realistic is LRT’s going all the way into the Adriatic or Baltic without the allies controlling a significant part of the air or land areas around the movement. It would have been suicidal for the allies to have tried to landing without control of the air or some parts of the land masses surrounding those areas. The game does not accurately take into account shore defenses. Maybe there should be more shore fortifications to stop gamey LRT movements. Or there should be more blockage of movement of LRTs based on surrounding control of land masses. This is already in place at lots of places on the map.

Here are a few suggestions.

1. Fortifications for the axis at area north of Kiel.
2. Allies cannot enter the Baltic without control of Copenhagen. Destroying just the port is not enough to gain entrance.
3. Takeaway the French LRT at the beginning of the war.
4. Block allied ship movement, except subs, until Sicily, Albania, or Toronto are captured.
5. Both sides should be alllowed to be build fortifications at port locations.
6. Antwerp after being captured by the Germans, should never be able to be recaptured by the allies with more than 0 as the port. Read about what the Germans did at this port to see what I mean.
7. There should be an allied Mulberry unit that could be used in France to aid the allies in landing in Fortress Europe.


All for now.

Scott

(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 31
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 12:50:44 PM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 492
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: smckechnie

I think that you keep the LRT’s as is. Against veteran or elite opponents the axis already have the advantage so this would be tilting something else in there direction.

...

5. What is not realistic is LRT’s going all the way into the Adriatic or Baltic without the allies controlling a significant part of the air or land areas around the movement. It would have been suicidal for the allies to have tried to landing without control of the air or some parts of the land masses surrounding those areas. The game does not accurately take into account shore defenses. Maybe there should be more shore fortifications to stop gamey LRT movements. Or there should be more blockage of movement of LRTs based on surrounding control of land masses. This is already in place at lots of places on the map.


Scott


I am in agreement and like the idea of ZOC from units preventing disembarkation if under naval crusie
This would have the effect of doing the last stage not under cruise for fear of being a stranded duck when try to land


_____________________________

14-16 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to smckechnie)
Post #: 32
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 1:24:43 PM   
smckechnie

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 3/12/2018
Status: offline
For my bullet point 4. I meant that as a ZOC for the Adriatic.


(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 33
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 2:30:10 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1288
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: online
Need some action the Pacific.

How about allowing Naval to intercept Landing craft in they are in the area? Range of 2 or 3?

(in reply to smckechnie)
Post #: 34
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 2:35:07 PM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 492
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: smckechnie

For my bullet point 4. I meant that as a ZOC for the Adriatic.




Ok, i quite like the idea of Full ZoC from land units preventing naval cruise from disembarking

That way if you defend the coasts, enemy can't cruise and disembark

_____________________________

14-16 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to smckechnie)
Post #: 35
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 3:21:50 PM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Thank you for listening to our feedback Bill. I'm okay with whatever you decide because I know you value gamers' opinions and want to provide the best game experience you can.

You are right. Game balance is key. Limiting LRT invasions would hurt the Allies more than the Axis. Long-range invasions would be curtailed and not allowing transports to unload when cruising would delay USA reinforcement of a European invasion. Between good players the Allies are already at a slight disadvantage and building another roadblock could reduce the fun of a fairly even game.


(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 36
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/20/2021 4:42:04 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1288
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: online
There's the short term duct tape fix.
There's the way I want it fix.
There's the Allies need help fix against Cookie Cutter pound Russia play.

Best fix, maybe allow a Ship unit to intercept, start with range of 2? There already is if you adjacent, would need some computer code.

(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 37
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/21/2021 5:36:47 AM   
Unfortunate Son


Posts: 34
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
This is a game based on World War II. That being said some players feel the game should be more historical in game play. For the most part yes. Players should be able to think of others strategies otherwise they will just go through the same old tactics / game flow. Although I the think the naval cruise for LRTs is a bit gamey/unrealistic when they strike form long range. Because there is almost a zero chance of defending ones self other than the LRT runs into an enemy ship/sub.

If they have to sit a turn waiting to land then they have chance of being detected and attacked. That would be more realistic. Maybe increase fog of war a bit so it would be a bit harder to spot. More cat and mouse game play IMO would be better. If a player is concerned about an attack then they should provide an escort(s) for protection. Also think more about where is the best spot to station the LRT to avoid detection.

(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 38
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/21/2021 3:26:27 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1288
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: online
Ideas:

1) How about "Beach hexes"? Not all landing areas can be the same. What does that mean? Transports can immediately land on beach hexes. It doesn't take dudes 2-weeks (turn) to get off a boat just because they sailed faster.
2) Reduce "how far" the LRT can travel. Meaning, still allow them to unload/attack same way, just not as far distance :)
3) Ship/Air intercepts. Allow defender another "mode" of defense on intercept. "Ship Intercept". I've been saying this for a Year, about Kamikazes. The entire Yankee fleet is pounding Japan, the pilots just sit their. Get them Japs (Japanese) into the action. Why nobody buys them. The most vulnerable area is Italian Adriatic sea. Allied LRT sailing to snag ports should be intercepted when there's half dozen ships/planes in clear view.

Another idea, guard what you don't want stolen.

(in reply to Unfortunate Son)
Post #: 39
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/22/2021 8:51:14 PM   
Unfortunate Son


Posts: 34
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
Some more thoughts:

Do not allow landings in northern climate hexes between November and April. Or October thru May. Due to rough seas in winter. Maybe scale the window back further south you go, until you are in warmer climates where you can allow landing all year.

Only SF unit on a LRT can cruise and perform a landing.

Allow to build more TP boats at a reduced coast to be used as a coast guard defense. Maybe limit their range slightly more than it is currently. (Japan, Italy, US, Australia, India)

UK gets the home guard. Maybe Japan, Italy, Australia and US spawn 2-3 Garrisons once they enter the war. Japan, would get theirs once the US enters the war. Possible India would get them at some point once Japan controls DEI Sumatra and Java. Players can decide if they want to keep them home or transport to another location.

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)
Post #: 40
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/22/2021 9:50:28 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4083
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Wait why does everyone think this will hurt the allies only? As Japan LR Transport is my greatest weapon! Allies need more sweeteners? What?? This hurts Axis just as much...We are talking about the entire Pacific War!

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/22/2021 9:55:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 41
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/22/2021 10:27:10 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 876
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Unfortunate Son

Some more thoughts:

Do not allow landings in northern climate hexes between November and April. Or October thru May. Due to rough seas in winter. Maybe scale the window back further south you go, until you are in warmer climates where you can allow landing all year.

Only SF unit on a LRT can cruise and perform a landing.

Allow to build more TP boats at a reduced coast to be used as a coast guard defense. Maybe limit their range slightly more than it is currently. (Japan, Italy, US, Australia, India)

UK gets the home guard. Maybe Japan, Italy, Australia and US spawn 2-3 Garrisons once they enter the war. Japan, would get theirs once the US enters the war. Possible India would get them at some point once Japan controls DEI Sumatra and Java. Players can decide if they want to keep them home or transport to another location.

All these suggestions sound great.

_____________________________


(in reply to Unfortunate Son)
Post #: 42
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/22/2021 10:33:15 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 876
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Wait why does everyone think this will hurt the allies only? As Japan LR Transport is my greatest weapon! Allies need more sweeteners? What?? This hurts Axis just as much...We are talking about the entire Pacific War!

Yeah it hurts equally. The sweetener is beefing up the Soviets a bit, some how. (scorched earch a little more brutal comes the mind).

Unfortunate Son has just made some good points...particularly garrisons. These were placed in a variety of patches for SC-WW1 to help with the micro-landing problems on the Ottomans and deep 1st turn cavalry penetrations in Russian Poland in SC-WW1.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 43
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/22/2021 11:58:02 PM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1288
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: online
I vote 'No', this is the wrong fix to the game.

My desire, is the best simulation, BUT allows a 50/50 chance of winning the game. Game needs to have many "what IFs" and options for the player.

Trying to emulate reality, with a 2-week turns is not easy at this strategic level. Being turn based (My Turn / Your Turn) it's not exactly easy to keep the game fun. I would try Naval & Air Intercepts, maybe. Maybe, not sure. Whoever wants to change this behavior, I guarantee they "got stung" in a few games, no garrison or not guarding their keys cities. How about you defend your property? I've played this game alot, because of the world situation, else I wouldn't have returned to gaming. Believe me, I got "mad" alot playing. Dudes pull all kinds of stunts, it happens, I lose. I also return the favor.

Why?

1) You're gonna get some nasty slaughters of Allied Troops, by Air Power. Especially in Italy. Also, in the Pacific. Long Range invasions aren't as long as you think. This will force the Allies to only do "short" missions, cold & calculated. Yes, more realistic.
2) Realism, every aspect of the game can be argued. Sitting 2-weeks in boat, hanging out in the wind to get Air slaughter, is ugly.
3) The game will slow down, will just be one big "blob of crap" heading for Normandy & Sicily. Yeah, that's realistic. Dudes, won't be invading Northern Italy, cutting off supplies, and all the tricky stuff, but that's what makes the game.
4) Will completely ruin the Pacific Ocean, which already struggles for battles. Top talent just abandons the Pacific currently. Until that's fixed, I wouldn't change anything. Wanna talk about reality? Reality, the USA joined the war over Pearly Harbor, whether it was a set-up or not, that's what the ppl believed. 80% of the top players, do nothing as USA in the Pacific. The Russians are getting pounded. No choice.

I would be willing to considering changes, but need to know what everyone is looking for. Nobody talks about the Pacific.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 44
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/23/2021 2:10:32 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4083
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Wait why does everyone think this will hurt the allies only? As Japan LR Transport is my greatest weapon! Allies need more sweeteners? What?? This hurts Axis just as much...We are talking about the entire Pacific War!

Yeah it hurts equally. The sweetener is beefing up the Soviets a bit, some how. (scorched earch a little more brutal comes the mind).

Unfortunate Son has just made some good points...particularly garrisons. These were placed in a variety of patches for SC-WW1 to help with the micro-landing problems on the Ottomans and deep 1st turn cavalry penetrations in Russian Poland in SC-WW1.


Yeah I'm fine with these points. Cheers

_____________________________


(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 45
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/23/2021 9:15:52 PM   
havoc1371


Posts: 169
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline
Taifun:

I don't believe you can build an AVL unless you're level 1 amphib anyway...

(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 46
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/23/2021 10:58:16 PM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 509
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Wait why does everyone think this will hurt the allies only? As Japan LR Transport is my greatest weapon! Allies need more sweeteners? What?? This hurts Axis just as much...We are talking about the entire Pacific War!


I hardly use cruise mode as Japan when invading - initial attacks are all set-piece so no need.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

I vote 'No', this is the wrong fix to the game.

My desire, is the best simulation, BUT allows a 50/50 chance of winning the game. Game needs to have many "what IFs" and options for the player.

Trying to emulate reality, with a 2-week turns is not easy at this strategic level. Being turn based (My Turn / Your Turn) it's not exactly easy to keep the game fun. I would try Naval & Air Intercepts, maybe. Maybe, not sure. Whoever wants to change this behavior, I guarantee they "got stung" in a few games, no garrison or not guarding their keys cities. How about you defend your property? I've played this game alot, because of the world situation, else I wouldn't have returned to gaming. Believe me, I got "mad" alot playing. Dudes pull all kinds of stunts, it happens, I lose. I also return the favor.

Why?

1) You're gonna get some nasty slaughters of Allied Troops, by Air Power. Especially in Italy. Also, in the Pacific. Long Range invasions aren't as long as you think. This will force the Allies to only do "short" missions, cold & calculated. Yes, more realistic.
2) Realism, every aspect of the game can be argued. Sitting 2-weeks in boat, hanging out in the wind to get Air slaughter, is ugly.
3) The game will slow down, will just be one big "blob of crap" heading for Normandy & Sicily. Yeah, that's realistic. Dudes, won't be invading Northern Italy, cutting off supplies, and all the tricky stuff, but that's what makes the game.
4) Will completely ruin the Pacific Ocean, which already struggles for battles. Top talent just abandons the Pacific currently. Until that's fixed, I wouldn't change anything. Wanna talk about reality? Reality, the USA joined the war over Pearly Harbor, whether it was a set-up or not, that's what the ppl believed. 80% of the top players, do nothing as USA in the Pacific. The Russians are getting pounded. No choice.

I would be willing to considering changes, but need to know what everyone is looking for. Nobody talks about the Pacific.


Agree that any nerf to Allies should be offset with a nerf against Axis. A couple of changes:
* Make it harder to take Italy out
* Move Barbarossa spawns back

Right now PBEM is close to 50-50 which is amazing so changes need to be balanced and well planned.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 47
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/24/2021 1:58:05 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4083
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thanks for all the comments everyone, it's great to see the discussion that has followed my original post.

The most significant argument against changing it seems to be that the Allies will need some sweeteners to help make up for this in terms of game balance, which is fair enough.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this, one way or the other, please do let us know.


Wait why does everyone think this will hurt the allies only? As Japan LR Transport is my greatest weapon! Allies need more sweeteners? What?? This hurts Axis just as much...We are talking about the entire Pacific War!


I hardly use cruise mode as Japan when invading - initial attacks are all set-piece so no need.






If you are not using LRange Cruise as Japan you are not using them to their full potential sorry...

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/24/2021 1:59:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ThunderLizard2)
Post #: 48
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/24/2021 10:17:53 AM   
firsteds

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/24/2021
Status: offline
quote:

A number of players have expressed concern that the ability of Long Range Amphibious Transports to both Cruise and disembark in the same turn is a bit much.

I'd like to gauge opinion on this before we commit to making a change here, as we need to be certain that it is the right move to make, i.e. would removing the ability to do both in one turn upset any valid strategies?


Just going back to Bill's original question I vote a strong NO to the proposed change.

You can trial this in SP or Hotseat - just launch your LRAT in cruise but park it near the target instead of disembarking. Inevitably part of the invasion fleet will be spotted and damaged, even destroyed. Also, the opponent will reinforce the coast. I can't see any invasions succeeding if this change is made. LRATs are also incredibly vulnerable to maritime bombers and even fighters!

Players can/should defend key coasts and ports against LRATs with garrisons and subs. Defenders can 'operate in' reinforcements immediately after the landings.

Anyone who is supporting this change should try it in SP or Hotseat first. Italy, for example, becomes a fortress. The Pacific is a bloodbath. Imagine trying it in MP - it would be carnage.

I know there is some support here for making the change and offsetting it somewhere else, but I can't see that working because it impacts both sides (because Japan often needs LRATs to cruise and land in the same turn).

Maybe reducing LRAT APs a little would help, without upsetting everything.

Sorry for the long rant - I love the game and don't want to see it thrown off course.




(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 49
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/24/2021 6:06:50 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4083
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firsteds

quote:

A number of players have expressed concern that the ability of Long Range Amphibious Transports to both Cruise and disembark in the same turn is a bit much.

I'd like to gauge opinion on this before we commit to making a change here, as we need to be certain that it is the right move to make, i.e. would removing the ability to do both in one turn upset any valid strategies?


Just going back to Bill's original question I vote a strong NO to the proposed change.

You can trial this in SP or Hotseat - just launch your LRAT in cruise but park it near the target instead of disembarking. Inevitably part of the invasion fleet will be spotted and damaged, even destroyed. Also, the opponent will reinforce the coast. I can't see any invasions succeeding if this change is made. LRATs are also incredibly vulnerable to maritime bombers and even fighters!

Players can/should defend key coasts and ports against LRATs with garrisons and subs. Defenders can 'operate in' reinforcements immediately after the landings.

Anyone who is supporting this change should try it in SP or Hotseat first. Italy, for example, becomes a fortress. The Pacific is a bloodbath. Imagine trying it in MP - it would be carnage.

I know there is some support here for making the change and offsetting it somewhere else, but I can't see that working because it impacts both sides (because Japan often needs LRATs to cruise and land in the same turn).

Maybe reducing LRAT APs a little would help, without upsetting everything.

Sorry for the long rant - I love the game and don't want to see it thrown off course.






You make fair points. This is why I also suggested lowering movement points as an alternative as well...

_____________________________


(in reply to firsteds)
Post #: 50
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/24/2021 11:00:10 PM   
Elessar2


Posts: 749
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: online
Huh, I thought Hubert was asking about Long-Range Cruise [2x movement] in his OP. You can still move at normal cruise speed on their final turn then attack/disembark all you want. Am I missing something?

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 51
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/25/2021 8:29:05 AM   
Marcinos1985

 

Posts: 407
Joined: 1/22/2020
Status: online
quote:

You can still move at normal cruise speed on their final turn then attack/disembark all you want.


You can and you often should. Amphib with level 3-4 hit really hard, and there is no retaliation. Invasion therefore needs an additional turn (comparing to naval cruise - unload), but hits much harder. LRAT's have 16 AP, you can park them outside of bombers range and still successfully invade after.

Personally I'd be in favour of not changing anything. Take away LRAT from France for starters to eliminate some early game cheese.

_____________________________


(in reply to Elessar2)
Post #: 52
RE: Long Range Amphibious Transports - 8/25/2021 8:39:29 AM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 492
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: online
Just for clarity with LRAT you can naval cruise and disembark but not attack

_____________________________

14-16 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to Marcinos1985)
Post #: 53
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/25/2021 2:17:34 PM   
Taifun


Posts: 914
Joined: 12/28/2006
From: Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

Taifun:

I don't believe you can build an AVL unless you're level 1 amphib anyway...



The French and British can use LRT with level 0 amphibian, but the Germans and Italians can't. I suggested the French to be level 1 in order to use LRT.

< Message edited by Taifun -- 8/25/2021 2:19:37 PM >


_____________________________

La clé est l'état d'esprit

(in reply to havoc1371)
Post #: 54
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/25/2021 5:42:52 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4083
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taifun

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

Taifun:

I don't believe you can build an AVL unless you're level 1 amphib anyway...



The French and British can use LRT with level 0 amphibian, but the Germans and Italians can't. I suggested the French to be level 1 in order to use LRT.


I'm confused? I use LRT as the Italians to get to Africa on turn one?

_____________________________


(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 55
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/26/2021 12:35:43 AM   
Michael Buck


Posts: 1
Joined: 8/25/2021
From: Buck65Ohio
Status: offline
Enjoyed reading everyone's posts with tons interesting ideas and opinions. Awesome how the developers are constantly improving gameplay by listening to feedback from the players, then making incremental changes. With that in mind, I thought I'd share a few thoughts:

I'm in agreement that the Pacific theatre needs to be spiced-up a bit. The Naval Cruise function for LRT's makes it way too easy to bypass enemy strongpoints, making an island-hopping campaign not as crucial to victory as it was in WWII. Any solution needs to strike a balance with the historic aspect of the war but also allows the players to be creative and develop those "what if" strategies that could have altered history. Thinking out loud, here are a few ideas:

- Adjust the LRT's Naval Cruise range along with the time period (number of days duration) that a player's turn covers. Right now, I believe 1 turn covers approx. 2 weeks. Suppose we increase the number of turns per year while decreasing the distance LRT's can Naval Cruise per turn? This would increase the probability that an invasion force may be spotted, thereby allowing defenders the ability to react, especially early in the war. It would also increase the importance of establishing forward operating bases and airfields to protect the invasion fleet. Obviously MPP’s earned each turn would also need to be adjusted to compensate for the increased number of turns per year.

- To facilitate construction of forward operating bases, add the ability for engineers (or create a new "Seabees" unit) to improve harbor facilities (at a cost of MPP’s) to increase the supply capabilities of existing or recently-captured harbors by X-amount of points. Fleet units would no longer need to return to the mainland to replenish damage back up to level 10. Similar to constructing fortifications, improving port facilities would take X-turns to complete. Would add a sense of urgency for opponents to take these bases out (think US discovery of airfield on Guadalcanal) and add relevance to historical Japanese strongholds like Truk and Rabaul or US bases in New Caledonia and Ulithi.

- Add the ability of engineers/Seabees to construct PT boat bases (for an MPP cost) on island/coastal hexes that do not contain a port. Only PT boats can upgrade and replenish damage up to their maximum allowed points at these installations. In addition, newly constructed PT boats can be deployed directly to these bases instead of trekking across the pacific at a snail’s pace from mainland US or Japan to a distant Atoll or island group (Tulagi in the Solomons). Strategic deployment might offer a cheap reconnaissance option for navies. Could also spice-up the Mediterranean theatre (German E-Boat bases).

- Increase the LRT Naval Cruise range by X-spaces with each new level of amphibious warfare research attained.

- Allow players to purchase and deploy static coastal artillery defenses (similar to DE 624 - Germany: Deploy Coastal Guns on the Atlantic Wall) at an MPP cost but without the decision event. Maybe require that an Engineer/Seabee unit must remain on the deployment hex until construction is completed?

- Create a new unit: Minelayer/Minesweeper (strength between a PT boat and Destroyer) to deploy/sweep mines from sea hexes. Spying & Intelligence could reveal locations of new mine fields. Maybe start the war with minefields in certain strategic hexes to discourage some amphibious landings early in the game.

Lastly, I’m all in for an eventual expansion of the map size. Would be amazing to deploy multiple units (HQ’s, air power & ground units) on islands currently supporting only 1 unit.


_____________________________


(in reply to smckechnie)
Post #: 56
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/26/2021 2:55:16 AM   
Helsingor

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/26/2019
Status: offline
My two cents:

Historically it was possible, as Taifun notes, for an amphib unit to make moves equivalent to naval cruise mode and land and fight on a beach. So the question really is about game balance and feel.

My proposal would be to eliminate the ability to produce LR Amphibs for ANY Major until Level 1 Amphib is reached.

That way, some of the early kamikaze attacks, which seem the most "gamey," would be ruled out or at least would be a much riskier proposition.


(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 57
RE: LRT Invasions - 8/26/2021 3:51:33 AM   
ElvisJJonesRambo


Posts: 1288
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: online
Speaking of Kamikazes, they need fixed.
The entire Pacific War needs fixed. Everyone abandons it, and runs to India.

(in reply to Helsingor)
Post #: 58
RE: LRT Invasions - 9/13/2021 6:03:20 PM   
georgiabulldog1

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/28/2020
Status: offline
I would be against changing the rule, but I agree with Taifun that it might be limited to at or above a certain level of amphibious warfare research.

(in reply to Taifun)
Post #: 59
RE: LRT Invasions - 9/16/2021 12:43:11 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
I still don't like the "free" amphibious attack from sea. You can wipe out entrenched coastal defenders while risking nothing and it's leading to bizarre counterintuitive gameplay. The allies didn't dare land directly at Cherbourg or Brest, and instead chose relatively undefended beaches. But in this game it's impossible to hold Brest or Cherbourg or ANY coastal city with multiple adjacent sea hexes, given that your opponent decides to take it. All they need is enough amphibious troops to bombard the place with their free special attack from sea.

At the very least, you should not be able to use this amphibious attack and then run away. You should be forced to either move ashore or stay put. AT LEAST for one turn if not indefinitely. Amphibious troops (especially on the army or corps scale of this game) committed to invasions, they didn't hit and run.

Also I feel the defending troops should be able to hit back. I don't know why it's essential to give the amphibious ships a powerful strike that is guaranteed to take no damage.

Finally assaulting a city or mountain or fort should be more difficult from the sea. As of now the defending unit typically takes a powerful hit (3-4 damage) even if you're in the strongest possible terrain. Entrenchment and terrain should have a stronger effect lowering the damage taken.


< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 9/16/2021 1:19:11 AM >

(in reply to georgiabulldog1)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: LRT Invasions Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.586