Slitherine

I try to show one example of how sea invasion with the new amphs can work.

Here is the situation before the landings. The Germans have blocked all the transports and amphs:


So first I bombard as many units as I can to check where I get very depleted defenders. It seems to be some quite depleted garrisons near Cherbourg:


I let the southernmost amph test the landing odds against the German armor. Odds of 1:6 is terrible and not a good idea to land there:


Instead we try the adjacent depleted garrison and see very nice 4:0 odds. Let's attack there:


Combat resulted in defender destroyed. Advance after combat is possible for the amph:

Instead it's better to land an adjacent amph into the empty hex so it can attack from land and get full firepower as a mech unit. Now it can attack and easily capture Cherbourg with 8:0 in odds:


Cherbourg fell as expected and now the next amph can attack the remaining depleted garrison:


Attack went well and caused the garrison to retreat. Now it's possible to advance:


Instead we want to land the last amph so it can finish off the garrison and move inland to be a buffer to protect Cherbourg from recapture:

It will be interesting how this would play out in a Sealion context. I wonder if either yourself or Ronnie will be able to attempt that in your current AARs. Yeah that's a rhetorical question for this thread.

Now the Allied player could send BB's to bombard the strong coastal units or send even more transports so they can land at the beachhead next turn.

The Allied player is in for a problem because the Germans have quite a strong force southwest of Cherbourg. Hopefully the front corps can hold the armor, mech and corps at bay long enough for the Allied reinforcements to land. At least the German coastal defenders will have to leave their coastal hexes to try to destroy the beachhead. That opens up new possibilities next turn.

A good Allied setup would have had more transports / amphs in the area so the captured hexes could be occupied even on the first turn of the invasion. The Allied airforce did a lot of damage, but could not deplete all the Germans. But after the German turn the Allied commander hopes to seriously deplete the German mech and armor and use the surviving units already ashore to deplete them further and use more amphs to reinforce the beachhead.

This example shows the difference between the old invasion rules vs the new rules with the amphs. With the old rules the Allies would not have been able to land at all. With the new rules they captured Cherbourg and got some units ashore.

The Germans made a terrible mistake by placing garrisons in cities and adjacent to them. Garrison can easily be bombarded down to red efficiency and then they almost always retreat after battle. So amphs can force empty hexes that can be exploited. So it's smarter for the Germans to use corps units in the critical areas and garrisons where you can
live with a landing. But the problem with a hole in the defense line is that the Allied player can land e. g. an armor in the hole and attack an adjacent unit and force another retreat. Then a part of the entire line can be rolled up.

I deliberately made a mistake with the advance after Cherbourg was destroyed. Instead I should have landed the northernmost remaining amph in the hex and attacked the garrison from land. That would have forced another retreat that the next amph could land in and forced yet another retreat. So I could have got 4 units ashore instead of just 2. This just shows that proper planning can be the difference between failure and success.

This would not have been possible if the Germans had placed a corps unit in Cherbourg. Then the hex would have been occupied at low strength and the amphs would have tried to take it by direct invasion.

One reason the Allied player had problems with a strong German coastal defense (not depleted units) was that these units were hidden inland in France (armor and mech) and they moved to the coastal hexes only when they saw the invasion force. Other units were railed to the coastal area. What this caused was to give the Allied bombers so many targets that needed to be bombarded that not all could be bombarded. Those undepleted units can then counter attack and maybe destroy the beachhead.

So an alternative for the Allies could be to just bombard with air units this turn to make sure the mechs and armor become depleted. Then the Germans would have to repair losses and remain with lower efficiency or move the depleted ones out and rail in new ones. A few turns of bombardment would mean that the Allies can probably land with less risk of counter attacks. But some vital turns would have been lost that could mean they would reach the Siegfried line too late to break it before the winter.

This looks great! Overlord will feel much more realistic now. Maybe the days of blocking landing sites with fighters will be over?

One question regarding the number of landings an amph can do. If you attack an occupied coastal hex once and don't land the unit afterwards, can it then attack another occupied coastal hex the following turn or has it used its landing at that point?

Awesome job guys, I look forward to playing this mod when it is released!

TotalerKrieg wrote:One question regarding the number of landings an amph can do. If you attack an occupied coastal hex once and don't land the unit afterwards, can it then attack another occupied coastal hex the following turn or has it used its landing at that point?

Yes. Amphibious points are not tied to any one unit.

TotalerKrieg wrote:Awesome job guys, I look forward to playing this mod when it is released!

Thanks. Borger did all the coding on this. It's amazing what he can do.

Woot, finally the Allies will have a chance to actually win a game in the Grand Strategy mod!

Seriously, it's a great idea and seems like a good way to get around the gamey beach blocking that occurred previously. Since the Grand Strategy mod is already weighted for an Allied advantage further changes (beyond an extra garrison per year) might be needed to balance wins and losses.

Actually, the proposed beach fortress changes will likely even things out a fair bit. This is a pretty massive game change - you guys might want to consider resetting the Axis-versus-Allies Victory Stats and Summary when this update is released.

Great update this, more flexibility to stop the silly stuff like fighters rebasing to stop invasions - and balanced since each attack uses up one invasion point so massive spoiling invasions will quickly become very expensive.

If you implement this change, I'd suggest also removing the ability to rename transports to disguise the type of unit being transported. Otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to reasonably defend against invasions (for both the British in the early game and for the Axis later on). As it is, by agreement in my currrent games, we don't rename transports (I think that it's something both players should agree on before a game). But I think you should consider removing the ability entirely.

Something else that might be considered is allowing surface naval units that are moving to pass over subs that have already been discovered, perhaps at some type of movement penalty or chance of damage to the surface unit.

There is no need for that because transports will show as Transport [ ? ] for the opponent. You will know which units can invade or not by the symbol. Amphs use the anchor symbol while the transports use the old symbol. So if you see an anchor symbol at your coast you know it can invade. You just don't know if it's a corps, mech or armor unit the amph is carrying.

Does this mean garrisons will not be able to amphibiously invade? That would be a very welcome change.

They never were intended to invade. Air units on transports can't invade either. Only corps, mech and armor can invade, but it's possible to turn of one or more of these as well. Playtesting will show what's best.

ncali wrote:Does this mean garrisons will not be able to amphibiously invade? That would be a very welcome change.

From what I know, garrison units will be able to invade unoccupied enemy hexes but not to invade occupied enemy hexes and force a retreat.

Stauffenberg wrote:They never were intended to invade. Air units on transports can't invade either. Only corps, mech and armor can invade, but it's possible to turn of one or more of these as well. Playtesting will show what's best.

To to clarify, for now only corps, mech and armor amphibious can perform contested landings (i.e., attack coastal targets). All other units can still invade empty enemy hexes.

OK, I think I get it. So if a unit is a corps, mech, or armoured unit and can amphibiously invade - it will appear as an anchor rather than a transport ship. So everyone will at least be able to tell such units apart from garrisons and air units in planning your defenses. And players who, like me, don't agree to allow renaming of units will continue to know exactly what unit is what.

Seems like this would be a big advantage to the Allies, unless amph. landings were only allowed on "beach" hexes like in other games (AH 3R).
BTW: I've always wanted to see amph. types of shipping (like LSTs, LCIs, etc) which could increase the supply level for beachheads, just like in the real war. But it seems this would mean a big change to the game engine.

StevenCarleton wrote:Seems like this would be a big advantage to the Allies, unless amph. landings were only allowed on "beach" hexes like in other games (AH 3R).
BTW: I've always wanted to see amph. types of shipping (like LSTs, LCIs, etc) which could increase the supply level for beachheads, just like in the real war. But it seems this would mean a big change to the game engine.

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.

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.

harrybanana wrote: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.

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.

harrybanana wrote: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.

leridano wrote:

harrybanana wrote: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.