Hello, recently I was losing badly in a game and tried to back door(flank) my opponent with a sea borne invasion of an objective port! First I moved a battleship into the objective port, as well as a near nonobjective port ( to disrupt wheeled road traffic as well as reinforcements) thinking with my ships in the ports, my opponent would not be able buy reinforcement in these 2 ports because of my occupation of them! All went well until I moved my ship out 1 hex(the port still being in it's ZOC) and moved in my sea transport, at which time my opponent WAS able to buy reinforcements, even though the port was still in my Battleships ZOC and occupied by my sea transport! Is this as intended?
I realize that ships ZOC have no effect on ground movement( which i would like to be changed, not unlike artillery), but even with the rules as they are, shouldn't it take at least one turn after the ship LEAVES the port hex for owner of the port to reestablish control, thus being able to buy reinforcements from that port/hex? Or because it is still occupied (by the sea transport)?
Needless to say that my success was short lived( I did get the prestige points though)! Instead of having to bring down units from the front, he just bought them, not from the nearest city, but the port itself! Sure would like to see this changed!!!!
Another method would be to give Ships of the Line the ability to NEUTRALIZE a port, not unlike Strategic bombers, thru occupation and /or bombardment! They would naturally have to pay the price when attacked from ground/air or sea units, because of their inability to maneuver, being in the port!
Is this the right place to post this?
Thanks for your time!
Sea invasion of ports
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: Sea invasion of ports
The more I think about it, it seems the easiest way change this is to simple change the movement rules for Sea borne transports just like was done for railroad transport. One turn to the invasion hex, next turn disembark and be able to move and fight! Now that I have learned that having a Ship of the Line occupying the port hex, does not prevent the buying of reinforcements either!
Re: Sea invasion of ports
I believe this is a case where you're thinking about it too much as a game and too little as a simulation (even though Panzer Corps makes no pretenses about being a game first and foremost).
1) A naval vessel would never approach an enemy port - it would easily get trapped and then shot to pieces.
2) Your units are sitting ducks inside their transport ships. And any type of duck is poor at controlling ports
In other words, while I can see your logic, it is unfortunately flawed in this regard. What you need to do is disembark your ground units and use them to assert control - that is, conquering the port.
The fact that this is normally super risky just goes to show that amphibious assaults are a bitch
My thought is that no game rule change is needed - you just need to approach your invasion differently.
Neutralizing the port through strategic bombing is one option. Disembarking your units along the coastline unseen by any enemy sentries and then swooping into town by surprise is another.
The third option is to see the enemy reinforce his ports - but blast him to pieces using an overwhelming air force plus an armada of battleships. In other ways, the way the Allied did it back in '44
1) A naval vessel would never approach an enemy port - it would easily get trapped and then shot to pieces.
2) Your units are sitting ducks inside their transport ships. And any type of duck is poor at controlling ports
In other words, while I can see your logic, it is unfortunately flawed in this regard. What you need to do is disembark your ground units and use them to assert control - that is, conquering the port.
The fact that this is normally super risky just goes to show that amphibious assaults are a bitch
My thought is that no game rule change is needed - you just need to approach your invasion differently.
Neutralizing the port through strategic bombing is one option. Disembarking your units along the coastline unseen by any enemy sentries and then swooping into town by surprise is another.
The third option is to see the enemy reinforce his ports - but blast him to pieces using an overwhelming air force plus an armada of battleships. In other ways, the way the Allied did it back in '44
Re: Sea invasion of ports
Molve my friend,
I appreciate your Critique on this issue, but I find your thinking stuck in the trench's.
Did the Admiral Hipper land troops at Trondheim?
Did General MacArthur land troops at Inchon?
The facts are;
1. Though losing on land, I had totally destroyed my opponents Sea and Air forces.
2. I'm not talking about sailing into Pearl Harbor, Scapa Flow or Kiel. I'm talking about an un-garrisoned, un-defended port FAR to my opponents rear( the fact that I was able to sail INTO these port's shows that they where un-defended)!
3. Nobody said they where going to SERVIVE!!! This was a raid to pull forces and recourses from my opponents front lines, and if successful, to create HAVOC to his rear, and force him to Garrison further City's and Port's( and the PRISTEGE POINTS that come with them)!!!
4. I find it TOTALLY UNREALISTIC that once my raid began, that ARMOUR, ARMOUR INF., and ARTTILERY can just spring up out of the ground, and not have to be Transported down from the nearest CITY ( which was also an UN-DEFENDED PORT that I had occupied with navel forces), or build them there, and the reason for the raid in the first place.
5. Now I have to admit that my raid was partially effective, with the gain of the PRISTEGE points for myself, and his expenditures, that should have gone to his front lines, but with him being able BUILD THESE FORCES IN THE PORT IT"S SELF,
and the rules for movement for disembarking sea transports, I was unable to move out of the port HEX.
6. I also find UNREALISTIC that Landing craft have to sit on the beach for two turns ( one to land, than the next to disembark the troops), and would like to see that rule changed to that like rail transport!!!! They may be disrupted, but landing and disembarking happened as a single movement. God help them!!
Again Molve, I appreciate your ideas on this issue, but I think we will have to agree to disagree!
I appreciate your Critique on this issue, but I find your thinking stuck in the trench's.
Did the Admiral Hipper land troops at Trondheim?
Did General MacArthur land troops at Inchon?
The facts are;
1. Though losing on land, I had totally destroyed my opponents Sea and Air forces.
2. I'm not talking about sailing into Pearl Harbor, Scapa Flow or Kiel. I'm talking about an un-garrisoned, un-defended port FAR to my opponents rear( the fact that I was able to sail INTO these port's shows that they where un-defended)!
3. Nobody said they where going to SERVIVE!!! This was a raid to pull forces and recourses from my opponents front lines, and if successful, to create HAVOC to his rear, and force him to Garrison further City's and Port's( and the PRISTEGE POINTS that come with them)!!!
4. I find it TOTALLY UNREALISTIC that once my raid began, that ARMOUR, ARMOUR INF., and ARTTILERY can just spring up out of the ground, and not have to be Transported down from the nearest CITY ( which was also an UN-DEFENDED PORT that I had occupied with navel forces), or build them there, and the reason for the raid in the first place.
5. Now I have to admit that my raid was partially effective, with the gain of the PRISTEGE points for myself, and his expenditures, that should have gone to his front lines, but with him being able BUILD THESE FORCES IN THE PORT IT"S SELF,
and the rules for movement for disembarking sea transports, I was unable to move out of the port HEX.
6. I also find UNREALISTIC that Landing craft have to sit on the beach for two turns ( one to land, than the next to disembark the troops), and would like to see that rule changed to that like rail transport!!!! They may be disrupted, but landing and disembarking happened as a single movement. God help them!!
Again Molve, I appreciate your ideas on this issue, but I think we will have to agree to disagree!
Re: Sea invasion of ports
The mechanic for purchasing reinforcements leaves a lot to be desired, to say the very least, there's no doubt about that imo.
In the DLCs the scenario designers have mitigated this somewhat, but in the original campaign it was pretty in-your-face, you always were racing the clock (quicker victory neccessary for DV) and the AI was ALWAYS fortrifying every place with the defense trinity, AA, ART and AT, which - especially early in the war - made advancing really hard. You essentially always had to play it safe and it was neccessary to bring a lot of artillery to the field - much moreso than in PG.
The root cause of this issue was that in PG, AI reinforcements were free, whilst in PzC, the AI needs to pay for theirs, which means it needs to be given some prestige to do so.
However, most players will almost never leave injured units around if they can at all help it, finishing off units whenever it's at all possible. And this, in turn, means the AI has the freedom to use it's prestige for other purposes, namely fortrifying all it's objectives.
I'm a bit sad that Rudankort never considered completely seperate pools for this, which sould have solved this issue AND provided excellent scenario design opportunities - think about restricting a players reinforcement allotment during certain missions - but that was of course his call to make. I'm hoping for some improvement should a sequel ever be released.
Back to the core issue, like I said, in the DLCs the scenario designers were much smarter about this (AND you usually aren't racing the clock, at least not literally), so the "defense trinity" is less common, and even if it's there, in the vast majority of scenarios (say, post '41) it's much less of an issue because your tanks are able to shrug off artillery fire more easily and your bombers have better survivability vs. AA batteries.
What you CAN frequently see in the late-war scenarios is the AI thinking an eternity about what to purchase (the game literally freezes during that time) and then, if possible, putting a couple of IS-tanks around some minor city SOMEWHERE.
In earlier years, it's common for it to surround a minor city with BT tanks, which it loves for some reason. That makes just as little sense.
In practice, I think "staging grounds" would be a much preferable solution, "purchasing" a piece of equipment makes basically no sense at all in the context of the game and I'm not sure why Rudankort left this untouched, but that's how it is.
To a degree, any scenario designer can work around this, though.
TL:DR: Yes, the mechanic sucks and doesn't make much sense in most cases, but that's how it is and it isn't going to change at this stage.
_____
rezaf
In the DLCs the scenario designers have mitigated this somewhat, but in the original campaign it was pretty in-your-face, you always were racing the clock (quicker victory neccessary for DV) and the AI was ALWAYS fortrifying every place with the defense trinity, AA, ART and AT, which - especially early in the war - made advancing really hard. You essentially always had to play it safe and it was neccessary to bring a lot of artillery to the field - much moreso than in PG.
The root cause of this issue was that in PG, AI reinforcements were free, whilst in PzC, the AI needs to pay for theirs, which means it needs to be given some prestige to do so.
However, most players will almost never leave injured units around if they can at all help it, finishing off units whenever it's at all possible. And this, in turn, means the AI has the freedom to use it's prestige for other purposes, namely fortrifying all it's objectives.
I'm a bit sad that Rudankort never considered completely seperate pools for this, which sould have solved this issue AND provided excellent scenario design opportunities - think about restricting a players reinforcement allotment during certain missions - but that was of course his call to make. I'm hoping for some improvement should a sequel ever be released.
Back to the core issue, like I said, in the DLCs the scenario designers were much smarter about this (AND you usually aren't racing the clock, at least not literally), so the "defense trinity" is less common, and even if it's there, in the vast majority of scenarios (say, post '41) it's much less of an issue because your tanks are able to shrug off artillery fire more easily and your bombers have better survivability vs. AA batteries.
What you CAN frequently see in the late-war scenarios is the AI thinking an eternity about what to purchase (the game literally freezes during that time) and then, if possible, putting a couple of IS-tanks around some minor city SOMEWHERE.
In earlier years, it's common for it to surround a minor city with BT tanks, which it loves for some reason. That makes just as little sense.
In practice, I think "staging grounds" would be a much preferable solution, "purchasing" a piece of equipment makes basically no sense at all in the context of the game and I'm not sure why Rudankort left this untouched, but that's how it is.
To a degree, any scenario designer can work around this, though.
TL:DR: Yes, the mechanic sucks and doesn't make much sense in most cases, but that's how it is and it isn't going to change at this stage.
_____
rezaf
Re: Sea invasion of ports
I think you misunderstood the intention of my post.4p0int wrote:Again Molve, I appreciate your ideas on this issue, but I think we will have to agree to disagree!
I wasn't trying to get in an argument with you. I am not really addressing your specific complaints and I am not contradicting you. I was merely offering my views on how to best appreciate the current game in a constructive manner!
Just like rezaf, I do not believe the mechanisms for reinforcements/supply are changing anytime soon. Don't forget that in Panzer Corps, you can buy half a dozen Tiger tanks in a city even if it is completely surrounded in all directions by enemy units, just as long as the city hex itself isn't threatened.
It simply isn't the kind of complex wargame you might wish for. Unless you can accept the game for what it is I'm afraid you won't get the full enjoyment out of playing, so I wanted to post a positive slant, that if taken to heart, hopefully gives you many years of good fun with the game.
Cheers,
M
Re: Sea invasion of ports
My friend Molve,
Sorry if I seemed out of sorts, and was not looking to argue with you, maybe debate would be a better phrase. After reading rezaf and your reply's, I appreciate what you are saying, and would agree with you that I'm looking to the "GAME" for something that does not exist yet. But that's why I post, to encourage the change! Maybe I misunderstand the reason for this forum.
I started playing tabletops over 50 years ago when Avalon Hill was king, and Computers, The net, and AI were the things of Star Trek and Isaac Asimov! We dreamed of such things and here it is! Many have tried and made great strides in the past, but the AI was always lacking (Tallonsoft comes to mind), and no Ability to play others on line, other than E-mail.
It's just that I think this game has the potential to stand above the rest!!
To be a Strategy game for the Historic Realist, to try to change history, and get the FEEL of what really went down.
A Slugfest for the Tactician, as well as just for fun!!
If I was a Modder I could make my own maps and such, but I'm just a mouse clicker and modding is beyond me. There is quite a bit that is not in the manual. So I post for change!
So thanks for your comments, sorry if I misunderstood, and Happy Hunting!!!!
4p0int
Sorry if I seemed out of sorts, and was not looking to argue with you, maybe debate would be a better phrase. After reading rezaf and your reply's, I appreciate what you are saying, and would agree with you that I'm looking to the "GAME" for something that does not exist yet. But that's why I post, to encourage the change! Maybe I misunderstand the reason for this forum.
I started playing tabletops over 50 years ago when Avalon Hill was king, and Computers, The net, and AI were the things of Star Trek and Isaac Asimov! We dreamed of such things and here it is! Many have tried and made great strides in the past, but the AI was always lacking (Tallonsoft comes to mind), and no Ability to play others on line, other than E-mail.
It's just that I think this game has the potential to stand above the rest!!
To be a Strategy game for the Historic Realist, to try to change history, and get the FEEL of what really went down.
A Slugfest for the Tactician, as well as just for fun!!
If I was a Modder I could make my own maps and such, but I'm just a mouse clicker and modding is beyond me. There is quite a bit that is not in the manual. So I post for change!
So thanks for your comments, sorry if I misunderstood, and Happy Hunting!!!!
4p0int