How amphibious assaults will be handled?

[vveedd]

Great problem in Strategic Command 1 and 2 games. Do you will have beach hexes? Does a loaded unit on transports will be enable to attack occupied shore/beach hexes? Here you must watch out for very annoying blocking tactic - to prevent enemy sea invasions player place every units on shore/beach hexes.

[IainMcNeil]

We've not put too much thought in to this yet. Currently you need an empty tile to offload on to, though the increased hex size of the map makes it difficult to block off areas. France's Atlantic coast alone has 30 hexes, Benelux anther 10, Germany & Denmark North sea coast add another 13. Assuming Russia is in the war I think it will be impossible to block landings.

[uxbridge]

The SC2 system of not being able to amphibiously attack a hex that is occupid, and not being able to defend a hex that is not, obviously leaves much to be desired.

The fact that there??™s one unit max per hex makes the first point almost impossible to avoid. An invading force will need naval support and there just isn??™t room for transports stopping in the same hex before attacking an occupid enemy hex. Fine! Maybe we can live with that, annoying thought it may be.

Remembering how much pains the Allies took before going to Normandy, it would be sad if there??™s no resistance ???at the beaches??? however; not only for the Allied player, depriving him of all the fun of planning the move, or the defending German player, knowing it doesn??™t matter what he does. Unless he can garrison the entire coast, which he can??™t, the Allies are bound to get ashore somewhere without opposition.

I think one solution to this dilemma could be if the defending units could ???stretch??? its defence value into several coastal hexes. As an example, if a defending unit had a strength of ???8???, it could be nice if it??™s adjacent coastal hexes could be lended half of that strength, giving them a defence value of ???4???, moving another hex in both directions the defence value would be ???2???. Thus a single unit could cover a stretch of 5 hexes, blocking one, giving the value of ???4??? to two of them and the value of ???2??? to two more. If the defending player raises this unit??™s strength to ???10???, the values in the bordering coastal hexes would be raised accordingly.

When an invading force moves into one of those hexes, it will have to attack the defence value the same way it would if it attacked an adjacent ???solid??? unit. If it succeeds it may stay in the hex; if not, it is forced back into the sea, or even better, being destroyed altoghter, giving the invading player a taste of the hazards involved in this kind of operation.

The defending unit takes losses in a normal way (but halved), but it remains in it??™s hex regardless of the result.

If a second invading force lands in another hex within the same defending units ???sphere of influence???, it will attack just like the first one, having no reduction of the hex value (???2??? or ???4??? depending of proximity to defender), even though the defending unit may have taken losses in the first combat.

Once the attacking units are ashore, they may attack the defending unit normally in a ???follow-up??? phase, or in subsequent turns, as the game engine dictates.

This way the defending player will be given the fun of chosing defensive positions, calculate defence values, strenghtening his beaches with fortifications and what else; and the attacking player have to figure out how to best assault an enemy shore, with air power, naval assets and amphibious units, instead of simply walking ashore at leisure when the time comes.

[vveedd]

We've not put too much thought in to this yet. Currently you need an empty tile to offload on to, though the increased hex size of the map makes it difficult to block off areas. France's Atlantic coast alone has 30 hexes, Benelux anther 10, Germany & Denmark North sea coast add another 13. Assuming Russia is in the war I think it will be impossible to block landings.

Well you should be very careful with this when time comes. In SC2 game developers have had the same explanation (lots of empty hexes) but still issue remains and it has enormous bad effect to gameplay. Besides blocking tactic it is very important how you will manage unit load and unload mechanics. For example: SC1 has load units and move transports in one turn, unload in next. BAD, because turn length is a few weeks or month (can??™t remember exactly) so units in this case are waiting next to enemy shore all this time and opponent player can use blocking tactic. GOOD because opponent player can react with his navy and air force.
SC2 has load units in one turn, move and unload in next. GOOD because waiting issue from SC1 is eliminated. BAD because opponent player can NOT react with his navy and air force, sea invasions are (almost always) success and blocking tactic is not entirely eliminated.

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks for the suggestions. Some ideas are now forming which could work well, but I dont want to discuss them until we're closer to implementing them. Keep throwing the suggestions out there though - thanks guys.

[SMK-at-work]

I don't think the concept of only invading empty areas is credible any more - perhaps it was when we only had 64k RAM on our desktops, but today we have gigabytes, and if we can't figure out a better way with all that computing power then something is seriously wrong!

The SC system(s) for amphibious invasion are clearly wrong. Invasion preparations took place in ports and their hinterlands - as witnessed in the build up for Sealion and Overlord both - in each case the defenders knew something was coming, and approximately when (+/- a few weeks) and where (+/- a hundred miles or so). There was sometimes also a need to secure sea lanes, lay protective mine barriers, etc.

there were cases where it seems to have been a surprise - Torch, Anzio, Husky and Dragoon perhaps, but for Dragoon & Husky the general idea that an invasion was planned for some time was well enough known.

Defended beaches were often encountered - Overlord is the prime example in Europe, but Sealion would ahve been another an there are numerous examples in the Pacific - sure this isn't going to cover the pacific but I see no reason to ignore the theatre jsut because of that - it contains many examples and lessons on what might have happened in Europe, and this game is going to be largely about what might have happened.

So IMO invasion should be a "theatre" option - ie it is something you plan at a high level, lay in supplies and resources for, etc. enemy knowledge of it should therefore be gained at the level of theatre intelligence - however this is portrayed or handled (ie rather than by actually seeing units "on ships")

Invasion movement, etc should be almost instantaneous give the time scale - how long did it take to load, hold, transport and unload for D-Day? For Sealion the troops were going to be loaded a day or 2 prior to sailing, then the ships would roadstead off the English coast for up to 3 days to unload before heading back to pick up the 2nd wave - if the time scale is 2 weeks per turn then that's all done in less than 1 turn!

Long distance invasions might take longer of course, but only due to the distance to be travelled.

coastal defence should be allowed as some sort of fortification - and it should be on the coast!! It might be disbanded to return manpower and equipment to the central pool, but if so then some of hte preparations should be considered permanent to allow easier return to service than from new build.

The primary function of the landing fleet is to get the troops ashore with as few casualties as possible - so losses of early-style amphib invasions should run the risk of being much higher than for D-Day style - I believe there weer thoughts of evacuating Omaha for example, but Sealion had no ability to evacuate significant numbers of troops had it gone wrong - they would all have been lost.

[vveedd]

I don't think the concept of only invading empty areas is credible any more - perhaps it was when we only had 64k RAM on our desktops, but today we have gigabytes, and if we can't figure out a better way with all that computing power then something is seriously wrong!

The SC system(s) for amphibious invasion are clearly wrong. Invasion preparations took place in ports and their hinterlands - as witnessed in the build up for Sealion and Overlord both - in each case the defenders knew something was coming, and approximately when (+/- a few weeks) and where (+/- a hundred miles or so). There was sometimes also a need to secure sea lanes, lay protective mine barriers, etc.

there were cases where it seems to have been a surprise - Torch, Anzio, Husky and Dragoon perhaps, but for Dragoon & Husky the general idea that an invasion was planned for some time was well enough known.

Defended beaches were often encountered - Overlord is the prime example in Europe, but Sealion would ahve been another an there are numerous examples in the Pacific - sure this isn't going to cover the pacific but I see no reason to ignore the theatre jsut because of that - it contains many examples and lessons on what might have happened in Europe, and this game is going to be largely about what might have happened.

So IMO invasion should be a "theatre" option - ie it is something you plan at a high level, lay in supplies and resources for, etc. enemy knowledge of it should therefore be gained at the level of theatre intelligence - however this is portrayed or handled (ie rather than by actually seeing units "on ships")

Invasion movement, etc should be almost instantaneous give the time scale - how long did it take to load, hold, transport and unload for D-Day? For Sealion the troops were going to be loaded a day or 2 prior to sailing, then the ships would roadstead off the English coast for up to 3 days to unload before heading back to pick up the 2nd wave - if the time scale is 2 weeks per turn then that's all done in less than 1 turn!

Long distance invasions might take longer of course, but only due to the distance to be travelled.

coastal defence should be allowed as some sort of fortification - and it should be on the coast!! It might be disbanded to return manpower and equipment to the central pool, but if so then some of hte preparations should be considered permanent to allow easier return to service than from new build.

The primary function of the landing fleet is to get the troops ashore with as few casualties as possible - so losses of early-style amphib invasions should run the risk of being much higher than for D-Day style - I believe there weer thoughts of evacuating Omaha for example, but Sealion had no ability to evacuate significant numbers of troops had it gone wrong - they would all have been lost.

I absolutely agree with you but maybe will be much more helpful for guys that you give more precise suggestions for load/unload mechanics. 3R game has excellent solution but it has stacking also. Nevertheless, to my opinion this game should have beach hexes.

[IainMcNeil]

It's easy to say there should be beach hexes but where should they go!

Look at the Channel and tell me which hexes would be beach, which sea and which land. You'd either end up with no sea route through the channel or beaches pushing as far in land as London, neither of which make sense. There just cannot be a hex around the coast for beaches, as there is no room at ths scale of map we are dealing with.

We have other ideas for handling this

[vveedd]

It's easy to say there should be beach hexes but where should they go!

Look 3R map where beach hexes should go. It is almost the same scale as your map.

We have other ideas for handling this

OK. JUST TRYING TO HELP

[Redpossum]

It's easy to say there should be beach hexes but where should they go!

Look at the Channel and tell me which hexes would be beach, which sea and which land. You'd either end up with no sea route through the channel or beaches pushing as far in land as London, neither of which make sense. There just cannot be a hex around the coast for beaches, as there is no room at ths scale of map we are dealing with.

We have other ideas for handling this

An excellent point, Iain.

I think one big reason for the near-fanatical loyalty to Slitherine seen among many of us in the community is precisely this. We can talk to you, and you talk back - you explain your thinking, your reasons, and solicit our opinions.

All that aside, this is a tricky issue. The sea/land transitions always have been in any game of this scale.

[IainMcNeil]

It's easy to say there should be beach hexes but where should they go!

Look 3R map where beach hexes should go. It is almost the same scale as your map.

We have other ideas for handling this

OK. JUST TRYING TO HELP

Sure, we appreciate it, but sometimes I think people get too fixed on a specific solution they have seen before in another game that may or may not slot in to the existing game. I know you do not know the details of how CEAW works yet, but the 3R options just don;t seem to fit with the design philosophy we're going for.

Having theatre build of supplies is not something we're planning to include. Attack occupied land hexes is definitely a possibility, but adding beach hexes for untis to land on seems to make no sense to me. Maybe I miusnderstand as I've never played 3R or seen the map.

[firepowerjohan]

We have many tools in our hand, but we will see how game balance turn out before changing things that already migth work.

For example, when having these many hexes as we have in this game it becomes impossible to guard every hex. That means attacking a enemy unit is not crucial, i mean all you have to do is find an empty hex and land.

So, for instance one solution is to have the landing units oboy ZOC penalty rules which basically mean (with our rules) you can prevent enemy landing just by guarding every second hex. This ofcourse then means only way to land is to beat an enemy unit and make it retreat, which means a direct attack rule (landing ON enemy unit hex) becomes more usable.

But another solution is simply to give morale penalties to landing units, meaning they are very vulnerable to counter attacks for 1-3 turns so unless you have the superior numbers you can land but at great risk!

[SMK-at-work]

What would be hte justification for a morale penalty for landing units?

An equipment/readiness penalty maybe for not having the full depth of equipment available and depth of position with which to use it, but invading units usually seem to have high morale, not poor

Assaulting defending units, if there are any present, is, IMO, the only way to go - I thought that I'd made that clear by saying that only invading empty hexes is not a credible mechanism, but I could have been clearer and said is specifically!!

[IainMcNeil]

Morale is the term we're using but it equates to morale,readiness and efficiency all rolled in to one. We might want to relabel it to readiness as I think it makes more sense. We're already renamed it once

[vveedd]

Sure, we appreciate it, but sometimes I think people get too fixed on a specific solution they have seen before in another game that may or may not slot in to the existing game.

This ???specific solution??? linked to amphibious assaults if is bad can mess up whole game. Great example for this is Strategic Command 2. That??™s why I so insist on this matter. I only want that you do not make same mistake as they did in SC2.

I know you do not know the details of how CEAW works yet, but the 3R options just don;t seem to fit with the design philosophy we're going for.

Having theatre build of supplies is not something we're planning to include. Attack occupied land hexes is definitely a possibility, but adding beach hexes for untis to land on seems to make no sense to me. Maybe I miusnderstand as I've never played 3R or seen the map.

3R is a game with totally different philosophy and I never said that 3R game mechanics can fit in to your game but with some adjustment some good stuff you can use. Stalins Organ, John_J_Rambo (even I hate this guy) and me obviously have played and still playing lots of similar games so we are know what we are talking about. You guys are too touchy.

By the way ??“ why your map is looking so unbelievably like 3R map (or to be more precise like Advanced 3R map) if you have never seen or played 3R game?

[IainMcNeil]

We're happy to listen to any ideas that come so please keep them coming. Having said that, if we don't agree with them we won't put them in!

Any similarity to the 3R map is entirely coincidental. You'd have to show me a copy of it before we can comment any more! On the wargamer forum we've been told we're using graphics from Panzer General , not 3R

[vveedd]

We're happy to listen to any ideas that come so please keep them coming. Having said that, if we don't agree with them we won't put them in!

This is the whole point. I have no problem with this.

Any similarity to the 3R map is entirely coincidental. You'd have to show me a copy of it before we can comment any more! On the wargamer forum we've been told we're using graphics from Panzer General , not 3R

Units graphics is from Panzer General absolutely, but map is very, very similiar like Advanced 3R map. You can see it here http://www.warplanner.com/

[IainMcNeil]

Ok I can see a small section. I think the only major similarity seems to be they have also gone for a stylized map, rather than trying to make it look realistic. Once you make this decisions there you can't vary teh colour of thigns too much because they will look wrong (rivers blue, forests green, desert yellow).

I doubt they've used teh same map projection as us though, but I cant tell from the small section of the map I can see.

And the icons are nothing to do with PG! They are photographs of models in my collection. Yesterday I sepnt 3 hours taking around 200 photos of various pieces of equipment from a friends house as he had a far larger selection than me. Next job is to get the best ones in the game format! The models in PG are almost certainly rendered from a 3D program like 3DS MAX.

[uxbridge]

More of the 3R map covering France and Britain can be seen here:

http://www.aworldatwar.com/Files/Sneak% ... 201%20.jpg

Unless we're talking about different versions of this game vveedd, I must disagree with your hint that the idea was taken from this source. There's more dissimularities than simularities.


Regarding the above discussion about beach hexes, I think that vveedd was just a a bit unclear about it. As I see it, with beach hexes he doesn't mean that any new hexes should be added to the map, or that the terrain in the hexes already existing should be changed to allow for specific beach hexes between those of land or sea. I played 3R 25 years ago and remember that certain land hexes, adjacent to sea hexes, were simply assigned as suitable for amphibious landings. These can be seen on the map in the link.

In a game with the scale like that in Commander, if seaborne units acctually attack units on land instead of only landing in empty hexes, this idea isn't so bad. It will remove the impossible task of a defender to have to defend every hex along a coast, and it will also deprive the attacker of the unlimited choice of hexes along a long coast line. But, of course, this is only if the method of using empty hexes as attacking point is not used.

Another point that occured to me - this is slightly besides the issues above - is that it could be good to split sea movement into three different categories instead of the normal two of transport and amphibious assault.

(A) Transport = Units are transported from port to port in common fashion.

(B) Landing = Units are loaded on transports just lika A above, but is then moved to enemy coastal hexes where they are disembarked. This way of attacking is highly ineffective. It will give losses, even if the hex is empty, and is almost certain to fail if the hex is occupied by a normal combat unit. But it could work against very weak units, like those encountered in Norway and during the Torch operation. A nice twist could be that an operation like this is more effective immediately after a declaration of war. The range of such undertakings should be as normal transport.

(C) Amphibious assault = Units with specific equipments or upgrades attack a fully derfended enemy hex after a short sea transport. It's mostly like regular combat, but with certain factors as fortifications, amphibious penalities, etc, taken into account.

This way there's no need for special cases to differ between operations like Weser??bung and Torch on one side, and Shingle and Overlord on the other. It all comes naturally.

[IainMcNeil]

Ahhh I see, that makes much more sense now that I understand and is a possibilty, only allowing players to unload at specific locations around the coast. I see the beaches marked on the 3R map now. We'd need a way for you to attack units defending the hexes that could be unloaded to. We'll keep it in mind