Slitherine

I've done this, and so have al lot of people, but it is silly. There was no capacity for any of the minor powers to put troops on an enemy shore. Norway, perhaps, might have been able to, since it had a massive merchant marine, but its pretty much academic, since it is always either wiped out immediately or neutral for the whole game.

Examples of this include putting Finish troops ashore in the Baltics, Romanian troops in Crimea and Spanish troops on the American coast.

I'm not saying this isn't entertaining and inventive. It's just that I don't think this could have happened in the real WWII.

So, I'd suggest that it be made impossible for minor power troops to engage in amphibious landings (if that can be done).

One could argue that the major power provides logistical support... I'm not saying that the scenarios you described are plausible, but they are the result of game mechanics flaws and don't have much to do with minor troops.

Cybvep wrote:One could argue that the major power provides logistical support... I'm not saying that the scenarios you described are plausible, but they are the result of game mechanics flaws and don't have much to do with minor troops.

A fair point, but it seems like the minor power units are often well placed on the board for this sort of thing. For example, the Spanish unit at Las Palmas. If the Germans want to rail a division down to Cadis and send it by boat to the US, on a 'raid', is one thing.

Telling the Spanish in Las Palmas to assemble all available fishing boats and invade the United States... well, that is just silly.

May be before the defitive patch release we could take a look at the amphibious rules. It has been mentioned about nearby friendly sea ports as a prerequisite for an amphibious landing to be possible which seems to make sense and it is a simple rule to remember.

Not only the spanish garrison in Las Palmas landing in USA but also egyptian or iraqi transports threatening a landing in Adriatic sea in Italy for capturing a possible ungarrisoned italian city seem to be exploits of the current amphibious rules in both cases. No way for succeeding such a landing operations in the real war.

I think that is a great idea. It seems like sea-supply should require:

1) a naval vessel connected to friendly hexes connected to the unit in question (that's how it is now),
2) IN ADDITION, that the naval unit should be no more than 10 hexes from a friendly port.

I'd amend the 'mulberry' rule a little, so that the Allies after 1943 (or whenever that date is), the Allies can:

a) supply supply level 1 without having a port city within 10 spaces.
b) supply level 2 if they have a friendly city within 10 spaces.
c) (maybe) supply level 3 if they have a friendly capital (e.g. London) within 10 spaces.

metolius wrote:Telling the Spanish in Las Palmas to assemble all available fishing boats and invade the United States... well, that is just silly.

I could even expect such order from a dictator...

The key here is definition of who provides landing vessels. Since limits are owned and paid off (when overused) by Germans than it should be possible for minors to land as well. Is it Germans of Spanish Las Palmas garrison shouldn't really matter.

But it seems more realistic that Germans would like to use their landing vessels by their own troops. Same with Allies.

Also this would make amphibious landing more difficult which I favor.

So, No

I think when considering amphibious landings we should note that some quite large undertakings were made over very long distances in WWII.

for eaxmple in operation Torch the Western US Task Force? (I think it was the western one) sailed directly from the US!

This was a multi division assault mounted directly fron the US.

richardsd wrote:I think when considering amphibious landings we should note that some quite large undertakings were made over very long distances in WWII.

for eaxmple in operation Torch the Western US Task Force? (I think it was the western one) sailed directly from the US!

This was a multi division assault mounted directly fron the US.

Any other examples of such? From what I read 'Torch' was considered very risky and only due to the fact that it was Vichy (no resistance expected so proper supply can be established) they decided to land there.

I like leridano's port idea. It would provide some sense on the amphib ops and as he said, a fixed (or yearly maybe) hex radius from a port is easy to remember so the rules wouldn't be complicated too much. Torch was pretty much the exception to prove the rule possible due to special circumstances in Morocco/Algeria.

A reverse Sealion might need some working though since a determined SL is very hard to stop.

A simple rule could be that the units that are amph capable will only be amphs if within 10 hexes of a friendly port. Outside the range they will operate like regular transports and can only land in empty hexes. That would make it more important to grab ports to jump to the next area. E. g. like taking Sardinia or Corsica to support Operation Anvil.

like this

I propose you setup a please vote thread with the following.

1. Amph capability only within 10 hexes of a friendly port
a. no (as is)
b. yes

If majority of votes is yes then I can add this for GS v2.01.35 that you will get this weekend

PionUrpo wrote: Torch was pretty much the exception to prove the rule possible due to special circumstances in Morocco/Algeria.

We must remember that Torch was possible because Gibraltar british base. So british and american landing fleets did not landed DIRECTLY in Casablanca and Oran from their respective embarking ports but they both converged in Gibraltar port and then they performed the landing operation. I have read that every available area of Gibraltar was occupied by ammunition, fuel and other supplies needed for the operation so there was not almost room for IKE´s HQ . Many people might think that the landing operation was performed directly from "Plymouth to Oran" or from "New York port to Casablanca" but this is not correct since the combined landing fleet sailed firstly to Gibraltar port and it stood in this port several days awaiting for the final order to land.

This really makes sense since the combat effectiveness of the landing forces would haven´t been the best if they would have had to directly land after being at sea for several days. On the other hand, how would have been the supply situation of those troops without having a nearby friendly port, in this case, Gibraltar?

IMO this rule would add a little bit more realism to landing operations so the attacker has to firstly secure vital sea ports before trying the next "jump". And it would be easy to remember. Not sure if we should make the distance from friendly sea port a little bit shorter in the first years of the war (e.g. we can start with only 6 hexes) and then to finally reach 10 hexes by 1943-1944 when main landing operations occurred. I say this mainly because of Sea lion. If you read about german plans for Sea lion you will see that the chosen landing points were pretty near of the french English Channel french ports so the landed troops could be properly supplied following the shortest route. This way even in CEAW GS you can perform a Sea lion operation in the hexes north of Norwich, Newcastle or even in Edimburgh I have serious doubts that such a landing operation would have succeeded because of overextended supply routes.

Stauffenberg wrote:A simple rule could be that the units that are amph capable will only be amphs if within 10 hexes of a friendly port. Outside the range they will operate like regular transports and can only land in empty hexes. That would make it more important to grab ports to jump to the next area. E. g. like taking Sardinia or Corsica to support Operation Anvil.

This makes sense with amphibious capable units. Not sure what to do with embarked non capable units: we could make impossible the landing if those units are not within the range of a friendly port so they can only land if they are within the range of a friendly sea port and if the enemy hex is empty.

Telling the Spanish in Las Palmas to assemble all available fishing boats and invade the United States... well, that is just silly.

If you ask me, its OK to cross atlantic on fishing boats in the universe, where whole USA is ungarrisoned

Also I can't see how this minor transports affect gameplay at all. They use points from major power limit, so you just pay all same PPs and limits to move overseas weaker unit with different insignia.

leridano wrote: We must remember that Torch was possible because Gibraltar british base. So british and american landing fleets did not landed DIRECTLY in Casablanca and Oran from their respective embarking ports but they both converged in Gibraltar port and then they performed the landing operation. I have read that every available area of Gibraltar was occupied by ammunition, fuel and other supplies needed for the operation so there was not almost room for IKE´s HQ . Many people might think that the landing operation was performed directly from "Plymouth to Oran" or from "New York port to Casablanca" but this is not correct since the combined landing fleet sailed firstly to Gibraltar port and it stood in this port several days awaiting for the final order to land.

I'm pretty sure Western TF did sail from East Coast to Morocco without a stop at Gibraltar. No Gib available situation would've scaled down Torch significantly but assuming otherwise similar situation in Vichy North Africa the Moroccoan landings could've been done. The follow up simply would've been slower due less initial forces/supplies. Against credible opposition posessing Gibraltar wouldn't have mattered(at least in '42'/'43) since it's simply too small a base.

Since in-game Torch is always done against 2/3 GARs this is sort of a moot point anyway.

The 6 hex radius sounds good to me for a starting value especially wrt Sealion. It still allows a fair amount of coast for an opposed landing while limiting the more outlandish places.

PionUrpo wrote:I'm pretty sure Western TF did sail from East Coast to Morocco without a stop at Gibraltar. No Gib available situation would've scaled down Torch significantly but assuming otherwise similar situation in Vichy North Africa the Moroccoan landings could've been done. The follow up simply would've been slower due less initial forces/supplies. Against credible opposition posessing Gibraltar wouldn't have mattered(at least in '42'/'43) since it's simply too small a base.

The fact that Torch landings were directed and coordinated by Eisenhower from Gibraltar makes us think that this british air base had a significant importance in this operation. Read this quoted from this wikipedia page:

One hundred thousand soldiers on the high seas in a multitude of transports converged on Gibraltar.[29] More than 400 aircraft of all types were crammed into the dispersal areas around the Gibraltar runway.[30] Fighters had been shipped in crates and assembled on the airfield.[5] Every available area of storage was taken up with ammunition, fuel, and other essential supplies. 168 American pilots were housed in the RAF messes at North Front.

On 8 November 1942, 466 aircraft from Gibraltar landed on captured North African airfields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... rld_War_II.

400 aircrafts in Gibraltar air base means a nice initial air support that could not have been provided in case of not having available Gibraltar. It also seems that the allies attempted till the last moment to achieve a Vichy French surrender without a fight so the landing fleet would have been awaiting for the definitive orders to land. Such an allied warships and naval transport bottleneck in Gibraltar Strait would have been dangerous without the air and naval escorting that Gibraltar base provides keeping the U-boats far away.

So IMO, without Gibraltar, Torch operation, although possible to be launched, would not have been the same.

PionUrpo wrote: Since in-game Torch is always done against 2/3 GARs this is sort of a moot point anyway.

Anyway, as Torch operation in CEAW-GS means an unopposed landing if we finally implement the rule this landing operation would be possible to make no matter having Gibraltar.

I think this thread has lost clarity around what is an 'opposed' landing/ amphibious assualt
are we talking about retsricting amphibious assualts against defended hex's of empty hex's?

leridano wrote: The fact that Torch landings were directed and coordinated by Eisenhower from Gibraltar makes us think that this british air base had a significant importance in this operation. Read this quoted from this wikipedia page:

One hundred thousand soldiers on the high seas in a multitude of transports converged on Gibraltar.[29] More than 400 aircraft of all types were crammed into the dispersal areas around the Gibraltar runway.[30] Fighters had been shipped in crates and assembled on the airfield.[5] Every available area of storage was taken up with ammunition, fuel, and other essential supplies. 168 American pilots were housed in the RAF messes at North Front.

On 8 November 1942, 466 aircraft from Gibraltar landed on captured North African airfields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... rld_War_II.

400 aircrafts in Gibraltar air base means a nice initial air support that could not have been provided in case of not having available Gibraltar. It also seems that the allies attempted till the last moment to achieve a Vichy French surrender without a fight so the landing fleet would have been awaiting for the definitive orders to land. Such an allied warships and naval transport bottleneck in Gibraltar Strait would have been dangerous without the air and naval escorting that Gibraltar base provides keeping the U-boats far away.

So IMO, without Gibraltar, Torch operation, although possible to be launched, would not have been the same.

The initial airsupport for the landings in Morocco came from carriers only. Gibraltar fields were used to support the first days of the Algerian landings.

Obviously a Gibraltarless Torch wouldn't have been as we know it but the Western TF part could still have been done. It would've been even more risky than in reality but they did get ashore and on their way to Casablanca after all.

leridano wrote:

PionUrpo wrote: Since in-game Torch is always done against 2/3 GARs this is sort of a moot point anyway.

Anyway, as Torch operation in CEAW-GS means an unopposed landing if we finally implement the rule this landing operation would be possible to make no matter having Gibraltar.

That's what I meant to say but seems I wrote it badly, my bad.

Since we agree on the Port Rule I think we're getting sort of sidetracked here jabbering about Torch