Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Make seaborne landings more difficult?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wminus

Wminus

Major
15 Badges
Dec 2, 2011
529
123
  • Darkest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
Right now it's easily possible to send an entire Army into France and get it moving in a matter of hours. This is extremely unrealistic. If the AI performance doesn't get screwed up, I'd like these changes to take effect:

1) Any brigade landing in a non-port province will automatically lose 50% of its max org.

2) Any brigade landing in a non-port province will get the "attack delay" modifier. The same one brigades get after attacking.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Sorry 4 the confusion, I was talking against UNOPPOSED landings, as they are in the current game. Namely the silliness of situations like an armoured division, along with its massive amounts of heavy equipment, landing on a beach in ~ 5 hours and being at 100% org and ready to go on a conquest spree.
 
Last edited:
With all the current suicide invasions of the UK (mostly) I don't think that would be such a good idea at this moment.:unsure: It's already hard enough for the AI to do a successful invasion, better not make it harder for the AI to do so.

just my 2 cents..
 
There's already ridiculous modifiers for landings. What more do you want?
 
Portal said:
There's already ridiculous modifiers for landings. What more do you want?
Click to expand...
You mean like the 0% penalty teched marines get when landing, while shore bombardment would give their enemy -25% combat modifier?

Considering this it's actually easier to make an amphibious assault with marines, then it is to attack over land without any penalties at all with them/infantry so I wouldn't really worry about those modifiers. If anything I would call it ridiculous that marines perform better attacking from the sea then they would if being landed unopposed and attack over land crossing for example a river, or attacking without the shore bombardment.

Besides it's not like your forced to land where the enemy is defending if your using something else then Marines and not attacking a small island.
 
Unless opponents actually took care to build coastal fortresses - landing should be easy as is. Let's not fool ourselves that 2nd or 3rd rate troops ( MIL/GAR ) can survive onslaught of elite troops supported by navy. Shore bombardment should have even larger effect (but downscaled with coastal fort levels and maybe dig in levels), as 6 or 8 inch arty shells are bad for health.

But i agree with OP, that divisions should incur attack delay and some sort of ORG penalty on landing on shore ( if they were not brought by sea transport mission into port ).
 
Perhaps it would be interesting to add a feature where ports are damaged when a province is conquered. I mean, if you are a German occupying France and the Allies are landing you are going to blow up all the harbors they are about to take from you if you can't prevent it.
 
JoeRambo said:
Unless opponents actually took care to build coastal fortresses - landing should be easy as is. Let's not fool ourselves that 2nd or 3rd rate troops ( MIL/GAR ) can survive onslaught of elite troops supported by navy.
Click to expand...
No one have claimed that, but with a 100% attacking efficiency and 75% defending efficiency we are talking about elite troops landing defeating the same number and quality off elite troops defending. That is not plausible and should simply not be possible at all.

When taking shore bombardment into account marines would be equal (win half the time) versus marines defending even if the attacking marines had a -25% penalty!
 
JoeRambo said:
Shore bombardment should have even larger effect (but downscaled with coastal fort levels and maybe dig in levels), as 6 or 8 inch arty shells are bad for health.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical; the Atlantic Wall forts are nothing like what you see in Saving Private Ryan at all really. The Germans sited their bunkers incredibly well in their fortification works generally building them behind or into exsiting rock outcroppings where they could to produce fields of enfilading fire across the beachs, rather than direct fire across the beaches. Not only are those bunkers difficult to spot from the beach, try doing so from out at sea and trying to hit them must be even harder*.

Thus the naval artillery didn't have a substialtial effect at knocking out bunkers until it was called in by officers already on the beachs. At which point historically the German defenders were already falling back at they began to get outflanked where breechs had been made. :/

Shore bombardment should really count more like 1/4 of a standard artillery brigade or simmilar, based on balencing number/size of guns.


*As for other Coastal fortifications during the time, of which there are many. Not all were sited as well as those on the Atlantic Wall, however the principle of directing fire onto targets of interest will still stand.
 
Sorry 4 the confusion, I was talking against UNOPPOSED landings, as they are in the current game. Namely, silly situations like when an armoured division, along with its massive amounts of heavy equipment, landing on a beach in ~ 5 hours and being at 100% org and ready to go on a conquest spree.
 
Wminus said:
Sorry 4 the confusion, I was talking against UNOPPOSED landings, as they are in the current game. Namely, silly situations like when an armoured division, along with its massive amounts of heavy equipment, landing on a beach in ~ 5 hours and being at 100% org and ready to go on a conquest spree.
Click to expand...

I agree about that too. Espcially when you land the tanks in for example mountain terrain and they are perfectly positioned to defend the province from counterattacks in a matter of hours.
 
While I agree in principle with the OP, I don't think it'd be such a good idea for the reasons stated by Kadanz:

Kadanz said:
With all the current suicide invasions of the UK (mostly) I don't think that would be such a good idea at this moment.:unsure: It's already hard enough for the AI to do a successful invasion, better not make it harder for the AI to do so.

just my 2 cents..
Click to expand...

For all I care the suggested modifiers could apply to human players only. We can deal with something like that, the UK AI can't.
 
I come back to an old suggestion (made not only by me) that the transports we have today should only be able to unload (and attack) ports.

To land in a non-port province you should first have to research and build special naval units - i.e. Landing Crafts - made to be able to beach and unload troops and equipment without a nice dock.

For added flavor you can differentiate so:
INF can be landed by LCM (upgradable to LCA)
Mot by LCVP
MECH and ARM by LCT

I am by no means an expert here, but at least UK, US and Japan had the basics here well before 1936 - to build the things - but maybe not the doctrines to land without org loss.

Given all above it could be OK to make an unopposed landing without org loss - but why not have a 50%org loss modified by doctrines?
 
I had exactly same suggestion. So I completely agree with the OP.

I also agree with the suggestion to make AI an excempt from this rule.


BTW you do not need forts to defend beaches. Take some Tigers and I believe they can relatively easy to sink an incoming craft.
 
More importantly, it should also be harder to EMBARK after a landing (from the beach). No more marching tank divisions onto landing craft form a beach after a humiliating defeat. I always wondered how a division can be broken in battle, have its territory occupied, and still retreat 10k men and heavy equipment onto a naval ship while its out to sea. This definitely needs a fix.

However, Alex makes a good point. The amphib assault penalty should be severe enough to where Marines don't get a bonus while attacking from sea. So yes it should be a little harder. AI compatibility be damned.
 
griswolds686 said:
More importantly, it should also be harder to EMBARK after a landing (from the beach). No more marching tank divisions onto landing craft form a beach after a humiliating defeat. I always wondered how a division can be broken in battle, have its territory occupied, and still retreat 10k men and heavy equipment onto a naval ship while its out to sea. This definitely needs a fix.

However, Alex makes a good point. The amphib assault penalty should be severe enough to where Marines don't get a bonus while attacking from sea. So yes it should be a little harder. AI compatibility be damned.
Click to expand...


Dunkirk. Gallipoli.

They should lose strength though.
 
The problem with Dunkirk-esque evacuations is how one represents the saving of men but the loss of just about all heavy equipment. Men can be loaded onto a boat under fire, but artillery any larger than a mortar, even things like heavy machine-guns are not so easy. Thus, an infantry division having went through an emergency evacuation would be more like a militia division in game terms.

As for tanks, they are just about impossible to save, thus a tank division would be better represented by just disbanding the division and giving the owner 50% of the manpower.
 
cpreston5 said:
As for tanks, they are just about impossible to save, thus a tank division would be better represented by just disbanding the division and giving the owner 50% of the manpower.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that of saving knowledge. If you save all the men in the division you already have trained tank crews and trained support crews. That makes it much quicker to put a division back together then if they all have to train to work together, as long as there are replacement tanks/vehicles.

But as long as reinforcements is as dirt cheap as it is in HoI3, even 1% strength wouldn't be enough to represent the actual industrial cost of all lost vehicles and heavy equipment.
 
I completely agree with biggus dickus It's completely pointless to actually accommodate for AI problems, instead of fixing them. Just ridiculous - and sets a bad precedent. PI need to take the time and make AI nations stop launching suicide invasions.

Panncakemouse said:
I come back to an old suggestion (made not only by me) that the transports we have today should only be able to unload (and attack) ports.

To land in a non-port province you should first have to research and build special naval units - i.e. Landing Crafts - made to be able to beach and unload troops and equipment without a nice dock.

For added flavor you can differentiate so:
INF can be landed by LCM (upgradable to LCA)
Mot by LCVP
MECH and ARM by LCT

I am by no means an expert here, but at least UK, US and Japan had the basics here well before 1936 - to build the things - but maybe not the doctrines to land without org loss.

Given all above it could be OK to make an unopposed landing without org loss - but why not have a 50%org loss modified by doctrines?
Click to expand...
ugh, pointless complexity without fixing even touching the problem (unrealistically easy landings).
---

I also agree it's too easy to retreat units to the sea as well.. How about armoured divisions retreating into a transport automatically lose 60% of their strength, infantry divisions 30%, militia divisions 10% etc. It's not perfect, but would be better than the alternatives I can think of.
 
Last edited:
Maestor said:
Dunkirk. Gallipoli.

They should lose strength though.
Click to expand...

Lol, The endless debate. Our MP group went round after round debating this. My argument was:

Dunkirk had a rearguard screen which allowed the bulk of the forces to get away. The army was not defeated with panzers zooming around the beach. And even then, many thousands were captured...those poor souls who stayed behind to ensure escape. This would be represented by the adjacent provinces holding back while larger numbers got away. The mechanics in game have no comparison to Dunkirk. Gallipoli isnt even a remote comparison imo. Embarking is far too easy in game and is one of its serious flaws.

The counter to easy evacs is to leave an inland province open and force the defender to retreat inland. This however is a gamey tactic which started the endless debate referred to above. I guess its a matter of opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back