Amphibious assaults – unpopular tactic
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
Amphibious assaults – unpopular tactic
Just a few words about this unpopular tactic between us gamers; load units on transports, move it to neutral country sea-shore hexes, DECLARE WAR TO NEUTRAL COUNTRY, unload units and attack. To be clear, nothing is wrong or unrealistic here but this is very unpopular tactic so many strategy games have good or less good rules to avoid it. In CEAW you have great chance to avoid it with good rule because of your huge map size. What I am suggesting is this; make sea-shore hexes to be territorial sea hexes. Foreign or enemy naval unit can enter to them only if they declare war. To my opinion this is easy and very good solution to avoid this unpopular tactic. As I say, it is not an issue just suggestion.
-
SMK-at-work
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train

- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 pm
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
I agree. This makes it possible for e. g. Germany to invade Norway in a nice and easy matter. They have to get ashore quickly or the transports will be sunk by the British fleet. German warships took Norway by surprise and only a few places the Norwegian forces shot back.stalins_organ wrote:It might be an unpopular tactic but it's exactly what Germany did to Norway, so I see no reason why it should actually be prevented.
One famous example is the Oscarsborg coastal battery south of Oslo. The battery shot several torpedoes against the German invading force and sunk the leading heavy cruiser Blücher. The other German warships turned back to sea and the Luftwaffe was summoned to bomb Oscarsborg to smithereens. These warships contained the invading force to Oslo and because they were delayed a few hours (they had to wait until Oscarsborg was silenced) the Norwegian King and Government escaped Oslo and fled north until they reached a port so they could reach Britain.
But the Germans managed to invade most Norwegian ports unopposed (Kristiansand, Egersund, Bergen, Trondheim and Narvik). The city of Stavanger was taken by airplanes landing at the airport of Sola. In Oslo the airplanes landed at the airport of Fornebu unopposed too. The Oscarsborg battery only fired back because the commander there ignored to wait for approval by the high command (that was not ready to give any orders at all). He saw warships in the dark that were not supposed to be there and fired without knowing whether they were British or German. All he knew was that the warships sailed towards Oslo without any lights. So he took matters in his own hand and saved the King and Government.
So I think it's fine that it's possible to position ground troops, transports and warships very close to a neutral power without having to declare war upon them.
I think the amphibious invasion system of CeaW works great. It's simple and easy to understand. The only thing that could be better is that every invasion succeeds without any risk of repulse. My example with Blücher being sunk by the Oscarsborg battery shows that even surprised countries could do some damage. And the Allied Overlord invasion suffered heavy casualties ashore (especially the Omaha beach). In CeaW you can select to invade empty hexes and know you will get ashore. Then the enemy has to destroy you on the shore to get rid of you. That's not easy when you select to invade an area not very well defended. Germany can't afford to garrison every English Channel coastal hex. So there should be a chance to repulse invasions, especially when you invade hexes in enemy ZOC.
-
SMK-at-work
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train

- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 pm
IMO the main problem with invasion is that it is too easy - you can land anywhere at all and it takes no resources.
The German plan for Sealion was going to use about 1/4 of all the cargo capacity available on the Rhine (mainly barges), and pretty much all the captured French and low countries coastal fleets, plus a significant nubmer of large merchant vessels.
This commitment of cargo capacity would ahve had a signficant effect on internal European commerce.....and it would mostly have been destroyed, so there would ahve been a major ongoing effect.
The allies got around this from 1942 (Torch) - 44 (Dragoon) and everything inbetween (Husky, Overlord) by building dedicated fleets of invasion craft - at substantial cost of course.
Yet shipping costs nothing at all........oh and of course the allies cannot interdict Axis supply to Africa.....
The German plan for Sealion was going to use about 1/4 of all the cargo capacity available on the Rhine (mainly barges), and pretty much all the captured French and low countries coastal fleets, plus a significant nubmer of large merchant vessels.
This commitment of cargo capacity would ahve had a signficant effect on internal European commerce.....and it would mostly have been destroyed, so there would ahve been a major ongoing effect.
The allies got around this from 1942 (Torch) - 44 (Dragoon) and everything inbetween (Husky, Overlord) by building dedicated fleets of invasion craft - at substantial cost of course.
Yet shipping costs nothing at all........oh and of course the allies cannot interdict Axis supply to Africa.....
This is main reason why other games have mentioned rule to prevent this tactic. I agree with you guys about amphibious assault but it is too easy when you attack neutral minors. I am still suggesting that CEAW guys should add beach hexes. Actually, never mind, it was just a thought about this tactic.stalins_organ wrote:IMO the main problem with invasion is that it is too easy - you can land anywhere at all and it takes no resources.
-
vypuero
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad

- Posts: 628
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA - USA
shipping costs 4 PP each. It could be increased - I have been thinking about this. However, I do think if it is the Allies, especially US, should get a slight production boost to compensate for it. I am thinking we could go for 6, 8 or even 10 PP each. No one would be likely to send Garrisons much at 10 each, but maybe 8 would work.
You do pay a pretty heavy price on the ground, at 1 supply level and low effectiveness its very hard to fight against well supplied troops.
You do pay a pretty heavy price on the ground, at 1 supply level and low effectiveness its very hard to fight against well supplied troops.
-
firepowerjohan
- Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41

- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:58 pm
- Contact:
True, unles you capture a city to get half supply you are going to become very weak after a while. You probably need 2:1 advantage in numbers and also you need air superiority.
Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead Developer of CEAW, CNAW and World Empires Live (http://www.worldempireslive.com)
Lead Developer of CEAW, CNAW and World Empires Live (http://www.worldempireslive.com)
-
SMK-at-work
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train

- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 pm
It does?? Heck...I never noticed!!vypuero wrote:shipping costs 4 PP each.
Make it a tech that can be developed.....It could be increased - I have been thinking about this. However, I do think if it is the Allies, especially US, should get a slight production boost to compensate for it. I am thinking we could go for 6, 8 or even 10 PP each. No one would be likely to send Garrisons much at 10 each, but maybe 8 would work.
Yep - but it's often good enough vs England and Norway in 1940.......You do pay a pretty heavy price on the ground, at 1 supply level and low effectiveness its very hard to fight against well supplied troops.
