Operation Overlord in CEAW

[freeboy]

one simple fix, rather than a huge code redo, would be to add costs to ampibs thus limiting them by default.. so by example, it costs 40 pp for each unit amphibed etc

[gerones]

Nearby friendly ports rule would allow to leave amphibious points as they are now without changing them. Also, it wouldn´t be a rule difficult to learn.

[jjdenver]

So, now in CEAW we find large-scale Normandy-type invasions regularly happening in 1942. Just take a look at Supermax's AAR. He kicked the hell out of the RN, got Spain on his side and seized Gibraltar, dispatched a moderate 1941 (!) Normandy invasion... and still. Well, you see the point.

It's just too blinking easy for the Allies to do these big invasions. Without the UK it ought to be completely unthinkable.

I haven't played this game in a year or two but decided today to browse the forum and came across your post Diplo.

I'm not sure it should be "unthinkable" for the allies to get back ashore in europe without the UK. They launched Torch over a large distance. Planners and scientists on both sides were pretty ingenious and I don't think we can categorically say that it's "unthinkable" that they could have launched a large invasion of europe without England as a base. It might have been harder but might have been possible.

Maybe there should be some troop morale drop for being at sea longer before invading, or some longer amph penalty that cuts down on invasion capability for a longer period after one invasion is launched. Something less than "unthinkable" for the allies to invade after losing England. If the Germans thought that way I bet you my bottom dollar the allies would have surprised them with a bigger invasion somewhere than they expected.

Cheers

[gerones]

Torch long range invasion was possible because of Gibraltar british base. If you read about how full of soldiers, ships and aircrafts was Gibraltar before Torch you will see that this british base was crucial for the landings to succeed. So the landing fleet from USA and UK did not land DIRECTLY in North Africa but converged in Gibraltar port before landing. Every available area of Gibraltar was used for storing ammunition, fuel and other supplies needed for the operation.

No need to say that if we compare Torch with Overlord we would have to conclude that without UK as a base the landings would have been almost impossible in France.

This is why it has been mentioned if it might be implemented a rule so the amphibious landing would need a nearby (7-8 hexes from landing points) friendly port to simulate that the landing operation can be properly supplied.

[shawkhan]

The main requirement for amphibious invasions in WWII was that they take place within range of air cover. If anything should change I would make the rule that amphibious ops are only allowed within fighter range of a friendly port. This would be nice as the range would increase with tech levels as the war went on.

[gerones]

The main requirement for amphibious invasions in WWII was that they take place within range of air cover. If anything should change I would make the rule that amphibious ops are only allowed within fighter range of a friendly port. This would be nice as the range would increase with tech levels as the war went on.

This is quite obvious. No less than 400 aircrafts (with almost no room for them) were stationed in Gibraltar airbase before Torch. Air support for Overlord was almost infinite.

But the fact is that fighters could not provide supply to the troops. So are the ships which have to transport ammunition, fuel and food to the landed troops. The further are the sea port from which these supplies can be taken the worse the troops will be supplied.

[Schnurri]

I like "Freeboy's" suggestion above. The logistical and supply costs for Overlord were enormous and are totally unreflected here allowing the Allies to launch nuisance invasions all the time. The same would go for the Axis. Instead of the escalating cost for invasions, make each one cost a fixed amount - say 30 PP. Then, huge Overlord invasions would be very costly forcing the Allies to save up for a while and small nuisance ones would be to costly.

[Rasputitsa]

one simple fix, rather than a huge code redo, would be to add costs to ampibs thus limiting them by default.. so by example, it costs 40 pp for each unit amphibed etc

The invasion of Norway was launched with hardly any specialised equipment and the success of any landing depends on the defence, if it is weak, or destroyed, then the landing is easier to make, without the need for huge D-Day type investment and we would not want to lose that possibility, by removing the threat of smaller landings.

If it were possible to limit landings depending on Surface Ship tech, it could control the size and effectiveness of invasions, irrespective of PP levels and amphib points.

If the lowest tech level could carry GAR units, this would represent a sub-Corps force with limited equipment and capability, such as Dieppe and other early war operations. The defender would need to take precautions, as in reality, but with reasonable deployment these could be dealt with.

The higher the Surface Ship tech level the more capable the units that could be landed, through INF, to Mech, up to ARM. If you want to launch D-Day you will need ARM units to succeed and investment in the highest levels of Surface Ship tech. This will favour the Allies, which is historical, but D-Day will need that high level of investment and upgrade and it would take some time before the required level could be reached . This could be adjusted in play-testing to find the appropriative time for labs to improve Surface Ship tech levels and irrespective of PP levels it should reduce early D-Day sized landings. You cannot buy time.

If you don't, or can't, make the Surface Ship tech level and upgrade investment, you will have limited landing capability, you will not be able to land the more capable Mech and ARM units, irrespective of the PPs you may have.

[StevenCarleton]

This is a great proposal. Yes, CEAW isn't a logistical game, but logistics most certainly had strategic/operational impact on the war. Some have said that the Western Allies' greatest weapons were the 6x6 truck, the C-47 cargo plane and the Liberty transport ship. We have an LST docked here in Michigan as a museum and they were incredibly complex and capable ships.

The British found out the hard way in WW1 at Gallipoli that its not enougth to dump a bunch of troops on a beach. They have to be reinforced by a large force and a huge logistical trail. Its kind of amazing that not a single Allied amph. invasion, in Europe or the Pacific, failed (unless you include Dieppe '42).

Perhaps there are too many hexes exposed to amph. invasion? I'm not a geography expert, but it seems many coastal hexes in the Mod are in reality sheer cliffs rising out of the surf. Fact is, the more hexes that are vulnerable to sea invasion, the harder it is for the defenders.
At the Corp level of the game, it would take pretty favorable coastal terrain to land such a large force in the space of a CEAW turn.

And as others have stated, the key is defended beaches. Its not hard to amph. land troops using row boats and barges on an empty beach. But investing in amph. ships and armour (i.e. LVTs) should be the only way to land on heavily defended coastal hexes.

[Rasputitsa]

And as others have stated, the key is defended beaches. Its not hard to amph. land troops using row boats and barges on an empty beach. But investing in amph. ships and armour (i.e. LVTs) should be the only way to land on heavily defended coastal hexes.

I was thinking not so much of forcing defenders to cover every beach during the early years, but it would be necessary to have forces in the area to react to any landings. It would always be a good policy to have a GAR unit in every port, but you would not be faced with powerful D-Day type landings (containing Mech and ARM units) appearing, until, or unless, your opponent has made substantial investment in Surface Ship development and implemented the upgrades, which is more historical and not governed by PPs and Amphip points alone. It would require a long term commitment to naval development, but not stop the possibility of small scale landings, or even a Sea Lion with GAR , or INF, provided you had won control of the air and sea, and/or captured a port, which again is historical.

[Plaid]

Its kind of amazing that not a single Allied amph. invasion, in Europe or the Pacific, failed (unless you include Dieppe '42).

Actually several invasions failed badly in Crimea. From both sides.

[Rasputitsa]

Its kind of amazing that not a single Allied amph. invasion, in Europe or the Pacific, failed (unless you include Dieppe '42).

Actually several invasions failed badly in Crimea. From both sides.

With massive Allied air and naval forces available failure was unlikely, but you would have to think carefully if you did not have the capability to land Mech and ARM units. It should be made difficult to launch a landing with tanks, unless a large investment has been made to build up naval tech, not just have lots of PPs to throw around.

[StevenCarleton]

Actually several invasions failed badly in Crimea. From both sides.

Sorry, I was referring to the western allies.

I'm not aware of any tactical amph Axis landings in the Crimea. I do know there were small scale Soviet landings in support of the besieged Sevastopol garrison in 42 (Manstein's memoirs). Later, the Soviets would again land in the Crimea after Stalingrad. This was the "Little Land" operation directed by Commisar Brezhnev (Carrel's 43-44 account).

Anyway, I totally agree that amph capability should increase with surface ship techs. This capability would include amph sealift capacity and amph attack strength. This would reflect the US's huge range of amph ships (LSTs, LCIs, etc) which was unmatched by any other nation and had clear strategic impact.

So, how would this affect game balance? Well it obviously hurts the Axis since there are so many many coastal hexes to defend and CEAW doesn't include sea mine warfare. These types of amph assault ships really don't require much logistical setup time. Just consider the central Med in 43. They landed 3 divisions (initially, see Operation Huskey) on Sicily in July and then followed up with an even bigger amph attack at Salerno in Sept, with the British landing near Taranto.

Perhaps if the next mod would allow dynamic construction of fort hexes (Atlantic Wall) , this would buy time for the Axis...

[Rasputitsa]

Actually several invasions failed badly in Crimea. From both sides.

So, how would this affect game balance? Well it obviously hurts the Axis since there are so many many coastal hexes to defend and CEAW doesn't include sea mine warfare. These types of amph assault ships really don't require much logistical setup time. Just consider the central Med in 43. They landed 3 divisions (initially, see Operation Huskey) on Sicily in July and then followed up with an even bigger amph attack at Salerno in Sept, with the British landing near Taranto.

Perhaps if the next mod would allow dynamic construction of fort hexes (Atlantic Wall) , this would buy time for the Axis...

Any feature which delays the possibility of a major D-Day/Husky type operation until 1943, or later, initially helps the game balance in the favour of the Axis, obviously they might have to face such operations eventually, but it would be more historical if they are available later. However, you would not want to remove the possibility of smaller Dieppe/Norway, or even Sea Lion, type operations early in the game.

If the Germans had ever launched Sea Lion, I doubt that many tanks could have been lifted, until a port had been captured, which is why tying the landing of Mech and ARM units directly to the higher levels of Surface Ship tech would delay major landings, but not stop the possibility of a realistic Sea Lion operation (e.g. destroy defending units with air power, land with GAR/INF/Para, capture a port, complete full scale landing - all of which could be done with lower levels of naval tech).