Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

WW2: Road to Victory is the first grand strategy release from IQ Software/Wastelands Interactive, which covers World War II in Europe and the Mediterranean. Hex-based and Turn-based, it allows you to choose any combination of Axis, Allied, Neutral, Major or Minor countries to play and gives you full control over production, diplomacy, land, air and naval strategy. Start your campaign in 1939, 1940 or 1941 and see if you can better the results of your historical counterparts. A series of historical events and choices add flavor and strategic options for great replayability.
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: Chocolino

If you have air superiority and want to force your opponent to fight then you need to see a target and air attack it with every unit in range. The ground attacks will be intercepted by any air unit in range. Even better is if you land and can see enemy air units the air unit can be attacked directly with any of you air units.

James and Mike, no bad feelings but I disagree. There are three points I would like to make so that it maybe becomes a bit clearer:

1) The underlying problem in the game system is that even overwhelming air superiority alone is not enough to protect a Mulberry, you need absolute air superiority in RTV since a single successful air attack even of a potentially understrength air unit is enough to destroy it. As the attacker you have to ensure that there is not a single air unit left that can be used after the landing. That is what you cannot ensure in my opinion as explained in point 2).

2) Your suggested method of achieving absolute air superiority works only if you play the AI or the defender is a willing accomplice. He may not be. In RTV you can obviously avoid air combat as the defender, and you CANNOT force it as the attacker before a planned landing. That is the main point. As a defender you just have to keep either

-at least one single air unit in reserve and out of range (i.e. 20 hexes or more) from any active region or

- even better buy a new one when you need it for this purpose from your strategic PP reserve.

In the meanwhile let your opponent bomb or strat. bombing the heck out of any hexes for as many turns as he likes before the landing, it will be completely in vain for the purpose of achieving absolute air superiority.

3) I am only concerned with playability. RtV and history have only a remote resemblance at best as we all know. So I am not too concerned if RtV represents history correctly. But even when using historic arguments I believe that supply depots where not overstretched balloons popping after the first needle was injected.

In my eyes the fact remains that Mulberries can be taken out at will by the defender. They need better protection from instant aerial annihilation (not ground attack) to remain useful. There is probably a reason why we don't see them so often used in player to player games I assume.

The point of the Mulberry is not to be permanent port and supply source. It's to allow you to get ashore with enough force to take a port. It is definately possibe to get every air unit within range to intercept, you just need to choose the spot properly. You can't attack the turn you deploy or transfer so the ir units must be in range when you deploy the Mulberry. You should have two turns to capture a port. If you can't then the invasions fails.
Now perhaps you can say the defense strength should be raised but they shouldn't be indestructible.
User avatar
Chocolino
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:32 pm

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Chocolino »

Now perhaps you can say the defense strength should be raised but they shouldn't be indestructible.

James, that seems to be a very good solution and I fully agree.
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: Chocolino
Now perhaps you can say the defense strength should be raised but they shouldn't be indestructible.

James, that seems to be a very good solution and I fully agree.

I agree, also.
I also like Gary's original soloution of treating mulberries
as cities are, which are strat-bombed. Otherwise they should be invulnerable to air attack.

My recollection of the construction of mulberries is that they would be difficult to damage (a force 10 gale managed to do it, temporarily), but the activity of a mulberry would probably be easy enough to distrupt (large numbers of thin skinned trucks sitting around.) Perhaps the most accurate soloution is to allow the supply points available from a mulberry to be susceptable to reduction from a successfull air attack.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Perhaps the most accurate soloution is to allow the supply points available from a mulberry to be susceptable to reduction from a successfull air attack.

That is a very good idea.
BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by BlueMak »

Please don't make it so they are basicaly indestructible to air assaults. Just because you can't protect your assets, don't harm the game for the rest of us.
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

My recollection of the construction of mulberries is that they would be difficult to damage (a force 10 gale managed to do it, temporarily), but the activity of a mulberry would probably be easy enough to distrupt (large numbers of thin skinned trucks sitting around.)

My recolection is that the American one was destroyed by a storm and the British one survived.
Flipper
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

Please don't make it so they are basicaly indestructible to air assaults. Just because you can't protect your assets, don't harm the game for the rest of us.

You know, Max, I really think that with your attitude, you might be happier playing Stratego.

The mulberries were esentially floating concrete boxes supporting roadways and piers, that were then anchored to the sea bottom and filled with water. Parts of them are visible off Gold beach to this day, only 65 years later. It is well recognised that the American mulberry failed because it wasn't anchored properly to the bottom. I suspect that you could throw 250 kg bombs at them all day long and only scratch the paint.

Image
Attachments
mulberry.jpg
mulberry.jpg (55.71 KiB) Viewed 499 times
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
User avatar
cpdeyoung
Posts: 5378
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by cpdeyoung »

Interesting that no one has commented that never in their wildest dreams did the allies ever think of towing these monsters anywhere but across the narrow seas, or other reasonably short distances. The idea of there being three of them landed in Denmark, as in Chocolino's game would be an awesome feat in peacetime. Gary has also pointed out that they can be placed inside a Med controlled by the other side. They were added when players complained about not being able to capture a port in an invasion.

In defense of BlueMak's point of view I too enjoy trying something outside the path of the real war. One could always make a house rule forbidding deviation from the actual path of the war. This game is not science fiction, and when I play it I feel I suffer the constraints of the actual parties.

I think bringing Spain in and taking Gibraltar is a good move. There are times I think taking Turkey works. However, these are current patterns of play, and I remember when nobody was doing these things. The pendulum may swing back again. I think the balance between simulation and game is about right in this "gem" we enjoy.

Chuck
BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by BlueMak »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

Please don't make it so they are basicaly indestructible to air assaults. Just because you can't protect your assets, don't harm the game for the rest of us.

You know, Max, I really think that with your attitude, you might be happier playing Stratego.

The mulberries were esentially floating concrete boxes supporting roadways and piers, that were then anchored to the sea bottom and filled with water. Parts of them are visible off Gold beach to this day, only 65 years later. It is well recognised that the American mulberry failed because it wasn't anchored properly to the bottom. I suspect that you could throw 250 kg bombs at them all day long and only scratch the paint.

Image


Interesting point you make there Annabel. So please tell me, were these mulberries built on site? Did they suddently appear out of nowhere? If they were actualy sent there with tug boats or whatever, was it done while the Germans had air superiority? Was it done while it would not be that difficult for the germans to attack them on route? If they were indeed attacked if the germans had enough air assets, do you think they would just stand there and take the punishment till the second coming of Jesus? Or would they be damaged but never ever destroyed because, come on, they are made of concrete and as we all know you can't possibly destroy concrete, ever.
So, as you can see Jack, the realism you are asking for can be seen in both ways.
But perhaps with your attitude you should go and play risk, just right up your alley I suspect.
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Michael the Pole »


ORIGINAL: BlueMak

Please don't make it so they are basicaly indestructible to air assaults. Just because you can't protect your assets, don't harm the game for the rest of us.
You know, Max, I really think that with your attitude, you might be happier playing Stratego.


Interesting point you make there Annabel. So please tell me, were these mulberries built on site? Did they suddently appear out of nowhere? If they were actualy sent there with tug boats or whatever, was it done while the Germans had air superiority? Was it done while it would not be that difficult for the germans to attack them on route? If they were indeed attacked if the germans had enough air assets, do you think they would just stand there and take the punishment till the second coming of Jesus? Or would they be damaged but never ever destroyed because, come on, they are made of concrete and as we all know you can't possibly destroy concrete, ever.
So, as you can see Jack, the realism you are asking for can be seen in both ways.
But perhaps with your attitude you should go and play risk, just right up your alley I suspect.

As far as attitudes go, I'd like to point out that you are the one who started throwing personalities around in your reply to James. And at the risk of suffering your unbelievably well informed, terribly crushing repartee, perhaps I could suggest that you do a little bit of research to support your remarkably well informed opinions, beyond what you've learned from watching World at War during the commercial breaks on Sponge Bob. If nothing else, you could perhaps read Cyrano deBergerac, where you might perhaps learn something of the art of the insult beyond "You have a big nose." This forum has always been a model of courteous, literate and well thought out exchanges between gentlemen (and regretably few ladies), all qualities that you seem rather short of.

As Chuck points out, the mulberry rule was created in response to requests from members of this forum who were having trouble making the Normandy Invasion work. As has always been true of gamers since the begining of the hobby, they will take a loophole in the rules and run a convoy of super tankers through it. The idea of giving us the mulberries was to see what could be done with them instead of placing major restrictions on what we couldn't do with them.

Since the thread was opened a number of excellent ideas have been presented (all I might add, without personal attacks) as to ways we can deal with problems that were created when the developers tried to deal with the initial problem of capturing a supply source. I have no particular interest in any of the proposed solutions, but it would be nice to reach a consensus that the designers can adopt for the next version of the game, as we have done on this board, many times before.

I for one, intend to take a deep breath, get some sleep, and return when next I can in hopes of a glorious, and hopefully, more courteous, resurrection.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
User avatar
doomtrader
Posts: 5319
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by doomtrader »

Personally I think that the most important thing in mulberry harbor is not this pile of concrete, but the rest of the infra and supplies.
I think this image better shows what we are talking about:

Image

This was caused by the storm. But I think few bombing squadrons are able to do the same.
BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by BlueMak »

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Personally I think that the most important thing in mulberry harbor is not this pile of concrete, but the rest of the infra and supplies.
I think this image better shows what we are talking about:

Image

This was caused by the storm. But I think few bombing squadrons are able to do the same.

Exactly. Thanks,
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Personally I think that the most important thing in mulberry harbor is not this pile of concrete, but the rest of the infra and supplies.
I think this image better shows what we are talking about:

Image

This was caused by the storm. But I think few bombing squadrons are able to do the same.

Exactly. Thanks,

Agreed. Thanks, also![8D]
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
gwgardner
Posts: 6926
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by gwgardner »

Given:

1) the vulnerability of mulberries in this game to air attacks;
2) the historical INvulnerability of mulberries to LONG-TERM damage from combat;

I would propose a 'house rule' that mulberries cannot be attacked from the air in this game, and that they can only be destroyed by the enemy capturing their hex.

In a game like this, the players have to use some common sense in not exploiting every feature's ahistorical foibles. I can only imagine the consternation of Chocolino's opponent at losing 3 or 4 mulberries to air attack - a house rule would make for a better game. (I am not faulting Chocolino! Just pointing out the value of house rules.)

If the house rule can't be agreed upon by all players, so be it - go exploit. Like Chuck and I have gone around and around (quite amicably) about dissolving units in pockets. No agreement, so no rule.

James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by James Ward »

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

Please don't make it so they are basicaly indestructible to air assaults. Just because you can't protect your assets, don't harm the game for the rest of us.

They could be indestructible by air attacks IF you could temporilarily destroy their purpose. Perhaps supply level and landing capacity could be effected by air attack.
User avatar
Chocolino
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:32 pm

RE: Mulberries vulnerable to air attack

Post by Chocolino »

In a game like this, the players have to use some common sense in not exploiting every feature's ahistorical foibles. I can only imagine the consternation of Chocolino's opponent at losing 3 or 4 mulberries to air attack - a house rule would make for a better game. (I am not faulting Chocolino! Just pointing out the value of house rules.)

Gary,

As a side note: I actually only killed Mulberry number one by air and number 2 and 3 by land (just to exonerate myself here a bit - and I understand you didn't want to criticize me). The first kill came as a consternation even to me. Since the AI does not build them, I never played against them before and was really surprised.

I agree with you. My request for more robust Mulberries to air attack started this whole discussion after all. I would actually be very happy with Mulberries that can take a bit more air damage before being destroyed - invulnerable by air is not necessary. And I am fully ok if they loose supply capability by lesser air damage before being destroyed. But that requires development and for the time being the house rule may be better than the current solution. Another advantage is that other players don't have to adopt it since it seems to be very controversial.
Post Reply

Return to “WW2: Road to Victory”