Slitherine

Please vote on amphibious capability

I vote yes. I think it's important that we list/discuss all potential consequences of this change.

1. No axis invasion of US or Canada would be possible.

2. Loss of France, England and Northern Ireland would mean that it would be impossible for the allies to re-land in Europe.

3. Loss of Gibraltar would make Torch nearly impossible.

4. Also, should we allow garrison size invasions at any range? These could be through of as division size raids

I was thinking of this rule only.

1. If within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports are real amphs and can land in occupied hexes
2. If not within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports become regular transports and can only land in empty hexes

So this will not prevent landings, only opposed landings. I think that could be a good compromise.

The US would be the only country that would be able to perform opposed landings no matter the distance.

They proved it performing Torch which lead to the landings in the Pacific.

The US was the only country that had the capability during WWII.

Stauffenberg wrote:I was thinking of this rule only.

1. If within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports are real amphs and can land in occupied hexes
2. If not within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports become regular transports and can only land in empty hexes

So this will not prevent landings, only opposed landings. I think that could be a good compromise.

OK, I have to admit that I can't keep myself straight on all the changes ... can regular transports unload now into unoccupied enemy hexes? If that's the case, I would advocate for changing that to invasion transports. And also, I think I would support NO invasions using corps size units from any country against hexes further that 10-hexes away from a friendly port.

What do you think?

I think that Torch, although possible to make without Gibraltar, would have been a much more difficult and dangerous operation. And, on the other hand, we should not compare the supply situations of the landings in PTO that in many cases were performed invading small islands with a massive landing operation in a continent like D-Day was.

I particularly have serious doubts that the americans would have been able to land in Europe/France without UK as their base of operations. If D-day operations proved to be difficult what to say in this hypothetical scenario.

So IMO this rule should be so:

1. Amphibious capable units (inf, mech and armour) can perform contested landings in enemy occupied beach hexes within 10 hexes of range of a friendly sea port and they can perform normal landings (in empty enemy hexes) in any enemy beach hex all over the map.

2. Non amphibious capable units (garrison, air units) can land in empty enemy beach hexes within range of a friendly sea port but they cannot land in any enemy hex if the garrison unit to land is not within the range of a friendly port. We really should remove the possibility of such a landings (spanish garrison in Canary islands landing in USA or egyptian garrison landing "by surprise" in Italy).

leridano wrote: 1. Amphibious capable units (inf, mech and armour) can perform contested landings in enemy occupied beach hexes within 10 hexes of range of a friendly sea port and they can perform normal landings (in empty enemy hexes) in any enemy beach hex all over the map.

I agree, unopposed landings should still be possible without a nearby port. Making e.g reverse Sealion impossible with no possibility of far-away unopposed landings would have too much implications on the game.

Hi,

Ok, I agree with Borger's and Ronnie's ideas. The proof will be in play-testing.

Stauffenberg wrote:I was thinking of this rule only.

1. If within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports are real amphs and can land in occupied hexes
2. If not within 10 hexes of a friendly port then amph capable transports become regular transports and can only land in empty hexes

So this will not prevent landings, only opposed landings. I think that could be a good compromise.

YES! I think this is the way to go! Sorry Ronnie, I think Borger is right, it should be difficult, not IMPOSSIBLE to make amphibious landings. The Pacific and Torch come to mind.

J.

Could the question be rephrased to incorporate the thinking on this thread and put to a new vote?