Page 1 of 1
Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:16 am
by devoncop
Hi
I understand that land units can now stack with naval units easily to escort them to a destination.
My question is : if Rome for example decides to launch an escorted naval invasion from the mainland into Syracuse does the route of the stack end in the province to be attacked, with the land forces automatically disembarking into the region on arrival of does the fleet and embarked army have to sit offshore until the following turn when the land units are split from the stack and then march ashore.
Furthermore is there a combat penalty to an opposed landing or not ?
Many thanks for any help with this .
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:12 am
by Lysimachos
And adding one more related question:
Is the manual of the game already visible anywhere?
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 pm
by Pocus
If you want to combine both stacks in one, you would need to stop in the coastal sea, then the next turn, the land units would be split up and they would disembark (no combat penalty, we don't consider you do opposed landings in ancient time, you disembark in a place where there is no one and then march to encounter the nearby enemy).
But that's not optimal. You are better to keep your land units as a stack of land units, commanded by their general, and escorted by another stack of naval units. Even if the two stacks don't have the same movement allowance, they will enter each region at the same time, so they are escorted. Only if you pushed your naval units further then you can find yourself with your embarked land units unprotected.
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:21 pm
by Yaitz331
Pocus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 pm
If you want to combine both stacks in one, you would need to stop in the coastal sea, then the next turn, the land units would be split up and they would disembark (no combat penalty, we don't consider you do opposed landings in ancient time, you disembark in a place where there is no one and then march to encounter the nearby enemy).
Caesar's first landing in Britain was an opposed naval landing. He had a very difficult fight initially, until the legionaries got onto dry ground.
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:50 pm
by loki100
Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:21 pm
Pocus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 pm
If you want to combine both stacks in one, you would need to stop in the coastal sea, then the next turn, the land units would be split up and they would disembark (no combat penalty, we don't consider you do opposed landings in ancient time, you disembark in a place where there is no one and then march to encounter the nearby enemy).
Caesar's first landing in Britain was an opposed naval landing. He had a very difficult fight initially, until the legionaries got onto dry ground.
lets unpack that a wee bit. Ceasar, a notorious over-claimer for his exploits, claims he was opposed on landing. Now since the invasion failed = not good for his wider ambitions, what better excuse than an unusual event to explain it away?
He may well have been attacked soon after landing, perhaps with only a portion of his army available - or he may have badly underestimated the local strength. The Romans knew that the Belgae had invaded successfully not long before so may have been working on the logic we beat the Belgae, they beat the British so ....
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:43 pm
by devoncop
Pocus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:01 pm
If you want to combine both stacks in one, you would need to stop in the coastal sea, then the next turn, the land units would be split up and they would disembark (no combat penalty, we don't consider you do opposed landings in ancient time, you disembark in a place where there is no one and then march to encounter the nearby enemy).
But that's not optimal. You are better to keep your land units as a stack of land units, commanded by their general, and escorted by another stack of naval units. Even if the two stacks don't have the same movement allowance, they will enter each region at the same time, so they are escorted. Only if you pushed your naval units further then you can find yourself with your embarked land units unprotected.
That makes perfect sense. Thank you.
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:50 pm
by devoncop
Pocus literally answered your question in the post you quoted.....
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:24 am
by vakarr
My question is, will your troops and fleet suffer from lack of supply if you wait a turn in that sea area before landing- potentially destroying them from lack of supply? Say, for instance, you move your ships and troops across the Black Sea for two turns to the landing site - they have then been out of supply for two turns - bang! They sink from lack of supply?
My other question is that if you move an army across the sea without going through a port, it loses efficiency (ie a temporary loss of experience), so will it do that if it attacks from the sea a region without a port?
Re: Invasions by sea question.
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:21 am
by loki100
For (a) I'd refer to 6.5.3 of the rules, so up to a point a fleet will protect an army on a multi-turn naval move. Remember also 10.4.3, it might be worth assigning a leader with the right traits rather than the best stats to this type of action.
Rule 6.5.2 is also relevant as to how the effect of low supply is applied.
But in general, I'd try to avoid naval invasions that take over 2 turns to execute.
For the second part, no. You'd not invade via a port in any case, my assumption is that a landing is by open boats onto a suitable beach somewhere in the wider region. if the port is undefended then you can take that as part of the tactical action within the region. If its defended, you need to besiege it etc.