Example of how new Amphibious landings will work

[rkr1958]

Actually I think this change may favor the Axis as much if not more than the Allies.

In 3 out of my last 4 games as the Allies (I generally prefer playing the Allies) the Axis player has launched Sealion. The first game was using 1.05 I think (help me out ncali) and the Axis palyer was able to conquer the UK but was then crushed by the Russians and their high tech tanks. In the second game, with 1.06, the Axis not only conquered the UK but were able to maintain the offensive in Russia until well into 1943 and ended up winning a major victor and really deserved better. In the last game I only sent 1 corps and the 2 Canadian GAR to France, moved all other Canadian forces to the UK, and built 1 UK MECH and 2 INF (whcih really put a crimp in my tech spending), but I still only saved the UK by making a lucky counterattack.

I predict that with these new rules we will see Sealion launched more and more frequently. Indeed I believe it will become a standard move just like invading Denmark on turn 2 and Holland on turn 2 or 3. The Axis will choose to invade the UK for 2 primary reasons: namely, that it will now be much easier to do so and to prevent the Allied player from using it as a base to invade France.

In those 3 games were you opponent launched Sea Lion, what was the level of the UK commitment and loss in France? Also, what shape was the RN in before and after the landings in the UK?

[xriz]

I'm glad to see they are working on something to help with amphibious landings.

The only other way I can see to deal with it would be creating a new unit and calling it Marines. Basically a surface ship that has a high ground and artillery attack for clearing the beach to unload regular ground units. You could also have to option of unloading the unit and maybe have it unload as a regular infantry corp. It would be expensive and lack a lot of offensive and defensive power until a fair amount of research in both infantry and navy is completed. You could also create air born units if this were possible.

[StevenCarleton]

Yes it seems weird and gamey that subs should be allowed to block anything. We pretend the subs in this case represent minefields! But how to change things?

[gerones]

I agree with ncali that if this change is to be made there needs to be a change made (if the game engine permits it) that allows surface fleets to move over detected uboats. It seems to me that subs are too versatile. They can move under surface fleets, but surface fleets can not move over them. It seems to me unfair that they can not be attacked by a surface fleet that does not start adjacent to them (presumably because they submerged and went into silent running mode), yet they can still block that surface fleet from moving over them. They should not be able to have it both ways.

German subs in vanilla game had nothing to do against overwhelming allied surface fleets and by 1942 they were out of the game. This is what is completely unhistorical since the germans submarines in the real war sunk tons of allied merchant ships until 1943. GS is more historical about this so the german submarine threat lasts significantly more than in vanilla game so the allies have to spend many resources in fighting against u-boats. If a change is made on this there´s a risk in coming back to the situation in vanilla game where the german submarines were overrun by the allies and kick out from the early years of the war.

I don't really understand the response. If you allow surface naval units to move past uboats that are spotted, it will have no effect at all on the ability of uboats to attack convoys or shipping or to survive. All of the rules limiting attacks by ships against uboats would remain in place, so it will be just as difficult to attack and destroy uboats as before.

What was suggested would simply make it more difficult to use uboats to keep surface ships from moving. Thus, the RN could actually be used to intercept troops invading England - albeit, at significant risk still from the uboats and airpower. Right now, since there is no way to sail around uboats - the placement of a single uboat at a chokepoint like the English channel can have the effect of making any naval interception impossible.

If a submarine in GS is spotted that inmediately means that is not submerged so in this case we are talking of submarines as surface naval units. There is a thing called ZOC (zone of control) in wargames that do not allow to pass any unit over an enemy unit.

And if we allow surface ships to pass "over" subs that are submerged, then there won´t be any ambush at all between surface ships units and sub units. This would result in only air units (Strategic bombers) performing ASW missions which would be unrealistic. Actually, when you have high naval ASW levels (destroyer units) you can as the allies "search" for subs units and these ASW naval missions can result in a surprise contact with the sub unit being really halved by the allied destroyer unit and (many times) later finished off by strats in range of attack.

On the other hand, as steve carleton has pointed in this same thread, we can´t forget about the continued minesweeper missions performed by allied navies throughout the war: this is simulated in GS e.g. when we, playing as allies, move the destroyer units along the sea coastal hexes searching for subs before moving our landing forces to those hexes. We have also to keep in mind that a lot of german submarines in WW2 performed an important minelaying activity: so this "blocking" subs (both allied or german) positioned in the straits would simulate these minelaying missions. If we take a look at the naval losses caused by mines in WW2 we will realise about how effective were mines in WW2 as defensive weapons both at sea and land.

[ncali]

If a submarine in GS is spotted that inmediately means that is not submerged so in this case we are talking of submarines as surface naval units. There is a thing called ZOC (zone of control) in wargames that do not allow to pass any unit over an enemy unit.

And if we allow surface ships to pass "over" subs that are submerged, then there won´t be any ambush at all between surface ships units and sub units. This would result in only air units (Strategic bombers) performing ASW missions which would be unrealistic. Actually, when you have high naval ASW levels (destroyer units) you can as the allies "search" for subs units and these ASW naval missions can result in a surprise contact with the sub unit being really halved by the allied destroyer unit and (many times) later finished off by strats in range of attack.

On the other hand, as steve carleton has pointed in this same thread, we can´t forget about the continued minesweeper missions performed by allied navies throughout the war: this is simulated in GS e.g. when we, playing as allies, move the destroyer units along the sea coastal hexes searching for subs before moving our landing forces to those hexes. We have also to keep in mind that a lot of german submarines in WW2 performed an important minelaying activity: so this "blocking" subs (both allied or german) positioned in the straits would simulate these minelaying missions. If we take a look at the naval losses caused by mines in WW2 we will realise about how effective were mines in WW2 as defensive weapons both at sea and land.

I think you missed one aspect of the suggestion - that being that you could only pass over spotted subs. That would mean a hidden sub would still have combat with the first ship that tries to go by. So you can still use ships to seach/reveal/destroy subs in the same way as you can now. Also, my original suggestion (and it was a while back in the thread, so it's easy to miss) was to allow this pass over movement with some kind of movement penalty or even maybe a chance for some damage to the ship.

[harrybanana]

Actually I think this change may favor the Axis as much if not more than the Allies.

In 3 out of my last 4 games as the Allies (I generally prefer playing the Allies) the Axis player has launched Sealion. The first game was using 1.05 I think (help me out ncali) and the Axis palyer was able to conquer the UK but was then crushed by the Russians and their high tech tanks. In the second game, with 1.06, the Axis not only conquered the UK but were able to maintain the offensive in Russia until well into 1943 and ended up winning a major victor and really deserved better. In the last game I only sent 1 corps and the 2 Canadian GAR to France, moved all other Canadian forces to the UK, and built 1 UK MECH and 2 INF (whcih really put a crimp in my tech spending), but I still only saved the UK by making a lucky counterattack.

I predict that with these new rules we will see Sealion launched more and more frequently. Indeed I believe it will become a standard move just like invading Denmark on turn 2 and Holland on turn 2 or 3. The Axis will choose to invade the UK for 2 primary reasons: namely, that it will now be much easier to do so and to prevent the Allied player from using it as a base to invade France.

In those 3 games were you opponent launched Sea Lion, what was the level of the UK commitment and loss in France? Also, what shape was the RN in before and after the landings in the UK?

I believe in both the 1st and 2nd games I committed both the British MECH and the INF to France, but in one of them at least I was able to extricate one of them. I have already indicated that in the 3rd game I made a small commitment to France. In all 3 games the RN was in good shape. But keep in mind that the RN units in Egypt are unavailable before sealion and the German can block the RN from entering the channel with U-boats anyway. The UK only gets 1 DD for the defense of England. Given that England had 164 destroyers at the beginning of the war (8 times as many as Germany) I think they should get more DD units (even at the expense of BBs). I admit that in both the first 2 games I could have done a better job defending England. But I believe with these new rules the collapse of England will be almost guaranteed between two equal players. Time will tell if I am right.

[gerones]

I think you missed one aspect of the suggestion - that being that you could only pass over spotted subs. That would mean a hidden sub would still have combat with the first ship that tries to go by. So you can still use ships to seach/reveal/destroy subs in the same way as you can now. Also, my original suggestion (and it was a while back in the thread, so it's easy to miss) was to allow this pass over movement with some kind of movement penalty or even maybe a chance for some damage to the ship.

A sub is spotted in GS only if the sub has attacked a naval unit or if a surface naval unit has run into a sub unit: this is a spotted and visible sub unit.

But I think that you are referring to another kind of "spotting": when you know that there is a sub in a single hex but the sub is not visible. As you know, if you move with a sub unit to a hex that is occupied by an enemy sub unit and your sub is moved instead to another adyacent hex different from the destination hex, you know by sure that there is a sub unit on that hex but we can´t really say that this is a spotted sub. I don´t know if it is possible in this case to change this and then to allow surface ships to pass over this "spotted" sub. But if it´s not possible to change this, this "blocking" sub could simulate (as I mentioned in the last post) a sea mines zone that can not be crossed without suffering damage (sub ambush).

[StevenCarleton]

So I'm guessing the new amph mod won't support the Dunkirk scenario: things go wrong and the troops want to hop back on the amph ships and go home?

[harrybanana]

A sub is spotted in GS only if the sub has attacked a naval unit or if a surface naval unit has run into a sub unit: this is a spotted and visible sub unit.

But I think that you are referring to another kind of "spotting": when you know that there is a sub in a single hex but the sub is not visible. As you know, if you move with a sub unit to a hex that is occupied by an enemy sub unit and your sub is moved instead to another adyacent hex different from the destination hex, you know by sure that there is a sub unit on that hex but we can´t really say that this is a spotted sub. I don´t know if it is possible in this case to change this and then to allow surface ships to pass over this "spotted" sub. But if it´s not possible to change this, this "blocking" sub could simulate (as I mentioned in the last post) a sea mines zone that can not be crossed without suffering damage (sub ambush).

I don't think ncali was referring the "other kind of spotting" at all. What ncali and I are saying is this: If a friendly surface ship runs into an enemy sub then only other friendly surface ships starting their turn adjacent to the sub, if any, and friendly air units in range should be allowed to attack the sub (no change to current rule). However, other friendly surface ships should be able to pass over the hex the sub is located in. The sub should not be able to have it both ways. It shouldn't be able to avoid combat and at the same time block movement. Either it is actively engaging enemy ships, in which case it should block movement but be susceptible to further attacks; or it is running silent and deep and avoiding contact, in which case it should not be susceptible to further attack, but should also not block movement. Ideally the owner of the sub should be able, at the end of his turn, to mark his sub as either avoiding combat (and not blocking) or else engaging (and blocking). But I don't know if this is possible with the game engine

[harrybanana]

Sealion is always a risky operation for the germans and it will be on the future no matter the new upcoming amphibious capabilities. Keep in mind that each amphibious attack (regardless this attack is successful or not) in an occupied hex will spend 1 amphibious germany point so a massive german amphibious attack will be expensive for the germans both in PP´s and oil. In the early game there´s only 2 available amphibious invasions so the germans have not many possibilities by then.

I respectfully disagree. Under the current rules it is my experience that a player conducting an amphibious operation will move several (7 to 10 or more) units via transport to sea hexes adjacent to the hexes he wishes to invade. The enemy player will on his turn then try and cover as many of these hexes with his units as he can, but often can not do so for various reasons. On his next turn the invading player will have to pay a cost for transport over usage, but this is generally not too costly. He will then move an invading unit into one of the vacant hexes, and from there attack an adjacent enemy (which has 1st been softened up with air attacks and/or shorebombardment) either destroying it or causing it to retreat. He can then either advance into the hex and allow another unit to land in the first units vacated hex (which because the hex is now friendly doesn't cost any amphibious points) or else, as the situation dictates, allow another unit to unload on the now vacant hex (costing an amphibious point) and have that unit attack another enemy unit. In this way the invading player can often get 4 or more units ashore while only spending 2 or 3 ambhibious points. Also don't forget that the Italians also get an amphibious point which, strangely enough, they can use to invade England.

Now perhaps I don't understand the new rules. Will it be the case that every INF, MECH or ARM, that moves by sea adjacent to an enemy controlled coastal hex will, on that players next turn, cost that player an amphibious point whether the unit lands or not? If so I think this is great change. Even if not I still like the new rule; I am just worried that, unless other changes are made, it will lead to Sealion invasions every game.

[gerones]

However, other friendly surface ships should be able to pass over the hex the sub is located in.

What about ZOC (Zone of Control)?: we have to keep in mind that after a surface naval unit runs into a sub unit, the sub IS NOT submerged during all that turn: so the sub unit is also a surface naval unit until is moved on the next turn. We have to apply ZOC rule.

On the other hand, when a naval unit runs into a sub it does not necessarily have to mean a submarine ambush. As I posted above, submarines had a busy minelaying activity during WW2, so in GS when a naval unit runs into a sub unit this could also simulate losses caused from entering in a sea mines zone. So the "blocking element" don´t necessarily have to be only represented by submarines but also by those damned sea mines.

[StevenCarleton]

Seems we've wandered off the amph topic - oh well...

Sea mines would be an interesting feature. It definitely had strategic implications. One can imagine mine laying missions for subs, surface ships & air units. Could also imagine minesweeper unit types. Never liked how the van. game allowed fleets to cruise up to a major naval base and blast away at the anchored ships. Such ports like Taranto would've been covered by mine fields and sub nets and only vulnerable to air attack.

I understand why subs would be blocking from a gamey standpoint (no stacking, ZOCs, etc.), but I still don't understand the reality of it. A submerged wolf pack couldn't block anything. Subs would only be surfaced when moving to a hunting ground or charging batteries. Sometimes they would surface to engage cargo ships with their deck guns. But when surface ships showed up they submerged to periscope depth or deeper. After an ambush, they would go deep and try to slip away. So how does blocking fit this? The last thing they would do is act as an invasion blocking force in shallow coastal waters.

Suddenly I feel like renting Das Boat again!

[zechi]

So I'm guessing the new amph mod won't support the Dunkirk scenario: things go wrong and the troops want to hop back on the amph ships and go home?

Dunkirk was not an amphibious landing, but an evacuation of British and French land troops through a port. Since any unit can be loaded on a transport in a city with a port, this scenario is simulated in GS. Perhaps you meant the Dieppe Raid?

[trulster]

A sub is spotted in GS only if the sub has attacked a naval unit or if a surface naval unit has run into a sub unit: this is a spotted and visible sub unit.

But I think that you are referring to another kind of "spotting": when you know that there is a sub in a single hex but the sub is not visible. As you know, if you move with a sub unit to a hex that is occupied by an enemy sub unit and your sub is moved instead to another adyacent hex different from the destination hex, you know by sure that there is a sub unit on that hex but we can´t really say that this is a spotted sub. I don´t know if it is possible in this case to change this and then to allow surface ships to pass over this "spotted" sub. But if it´s not possible to change this, this "blocking" sub could simulate (as I mentioned in the last post) a sea mines zone that can not be crossed without suffering damage (sub ambush).

I don't think ncali was referring the "other kind of spotting" at all. What ncali and I are saying is this: If a friendly surface ship runs into an enemy sub then only other friendly surface ships starting their turn adjacent to the sub, if any, and friendly air units in range should be allowed to attack the sub (no change to current rule). However, other friendly surface ships should be able to pass over the hex the sub is located in. The sub should not be able to have it both ways. It shouldn't be able to avoid combat and at the same time block movement. Either it is actively engaging enemy ships, in which case it should block movement but be susceptible to further attacks; or it is running silent and deep and avoiding contact, in which case it should not be susceptible to further attack, but should also not block movement. Ideally the owner of the sub should be able, at the end of his turn, to mark his sub as either avoiding combat (and not blocking) or else engaging (and blocking). But I don't know if this is possible with the game engine

Definitely agree with this, the way it is now its just too strange. Why not just allow surface units to move over a *spotted* sub. If more subs are in place they can also ambush the moving unit, but maybe then the game engine will have trouble placing the unit.

[gerones]

A submerged wolf pack couldn't block anything.

We would have to bring up again the minelaying submarine activity example as the thing that would simulate the fact that ships can not pass over a spotted sub. So the blocking element would be a heavily mined sea zone represented by the sub unit.

[harrybanana]

We would have to bring up again the minelaying submarine activity example as the thing that would simulate the fact that ships can not pass over a spotted sub. So the blocking element would be a heavily mined sea zone represented by the sub unit.

Again with respect I think this is just a rationalization for the current rule. Yes submarines laid mines from time to time, but this was not their primary role and not a role they were particularly good at. Their was very little extra space on a submarine for the storage of more than a few mines. If submarines get to lay mines to stop enemy movement then DDs should get to lay mines to block enemy movement also as DDs were used in this role far more often than subs. Indeed historically the English channel was very heavily mined by both sides. Which is another reason why Sealion would have been difficult for the Germans as they had very few minesweepers.

With respect to a "spotted" sub having a ZOC which reduces enemy movement, I have no problem with this. So long as it does not block movement entirely.

In any event we may all be arguing about nothing as I am not sure if the game engine will even allow "spotted" subs to be moved over at a movement cost.

[gerones]

A naval unit in CEAW represent many ships: so in this unit can be included not only submarines, destroyers or battlehips but also ships specialized in specific roles like minelayers or on the other side minesweepers. These are specialized units that can not be represented in CEAW as separate units.

Again with respect I think this is just a rationalization for the current rule. Yes submarines laid mines from time to time, but this was not their primary role and not a role they were particularly good at. Their was very little extra space on a submarine for the storage of more than a few mines.

This is not exact at 100% since there were submarines designed as minelayers submarines (e.g. german Type X submarines).

If submarines get to lay mines to stop enemy movement then DDs should get to lay mines to block enemy movement also as DDs were used in this role far more often than subs.

DD´s actually can block enemy movement when they are moved to a sea strait hex so no problem at all here.

With respect to a "spotted" sub having a ZOC which reduces enemy movement, I have no problem with this. So long as it does not block movement entirely.

I don´t know if the game engine would allow this but for the reasons pointed above I think there´s no need for changing it.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just wanted to tell you all that there are several limitation in the game engine. E. g. one unit per hex and how units move. So we can't do everything we like. E. g. it's a basic functionality deep in the game engine that units in a hex stop movement if it's not possible to move around. Only air units can avoid that because they move directly to the target hex. If we do this with naval units then hidden subs can't intercept them and you don't see the movement path of the naval units.

Since ground and naval units have to move from hex to hex it means that they need a path of empty hexes or friendly hexes to reach their destination hexes. If a sub can block naval movements it's the same as surface ships can block the same movement. The difference is that with the surface ships you can instead attack the blocking units. With subs you will have them dive before you inflict any casualties. It's similar to the naval units arriving a bit too late to actually harm the subs. But you initiated a search for the subs and thus stopped moving on.

I think we can find many situations where the GS game engine doesn't simulate the real war accurately. A game can never do that. What's important is that the game is playable and fun. Trying to fix what you describe can introduce a lot of undesired situations and I don't see this as a big problem. There aren't many chokepoints on the map. A sub can always be attacked the turn after if they decide to remain in the hex to block further movement.

[StevenCarleton]

So I'm guessing the new amph mod won't support the Dunkirk scenario: things go wrong and the troops want to hop back on the amph ships and go home?

Dunkirk was not an amphibious landing, but an evacuation of British and French land troops through a port. Since any unit can be loaded on a transport in a city with a port, this scenario is simulated in GS. Perhaps you meant the Dieppe Raid?

Well I seem to remember Dunkirk as a sort of reverse amph landing. The accounts I read didn't describe an orderly loading of ships in a port, but rather troops being hastily evacuated directly over the beaches. Now granted, they had to leave behind all heavy equipment, but over 300,000 men got away! Dieppe was also a disaster. The Allies called it a raid and the German propaganda called it an invasion. Not sure they ever really established a solid beachhead.

Anyway, it just seems like if you can land forces on a beach, you could also evacuate them some time later. I'm not just talking about a retreat if an amph attack fails. An LST could easily load or unload men & equipment to/from a beach. So if you're the Brits in France '40, and Paris falls and you no longer can access a port, you do an amph. load & escape entrapment. (Yes, yes, I know: LSTs didn't exist in '40, but still....)

[StevenCarleton]

I think we can find many situations where the GS game engine doesn't simulate the real war accurately. A game can never do that. What's important is that the game is playable and fun.

Once again, quite correct. Many games at this level completely abstract strategic air & sub warfare. Tactical level games are more realistic, but cover a much smaller region with smaller units and very complex rules. Congrat's to the original designers and the GS team for trying to simulate operational warfare at the strategic level.

But still, I find it interesting in theory trying to figure out how to combine the non-blocking aspects of air warfare with the operational movement of naval operations. Both are ultimately three-dimensional.