Did Siberia have so many beaches IRL when compared to AoD?

[Mr_B0narpte]

I ask because the USSR has about 10-15 beaches in Siberia, which may seem irrelevant in single-player, but can be quite a problem on multi-player!

If there were beaches all along the Siberian coast that could've been amphibiously attacked, fair enough, but if not can they please be removed for 1.09.

 

[lollibast]

You mean in the far east? Don't know much a bout the geografy, but it sure is a large area so there probably are spots to land an army. And well, why shouldn't one be able to invade the SU from the east? It's a long way to Moscow...

 

[Epaminondas]

One of the things that AoD doesn't handle well (though it's no orphan in this) is the issue of supply of invasion sites. In reality the Siberian coast offers many more than fifteen beaches against which amphibious invasions might have been mounted in WWII, but whether any of those beaches could have functioned as supply centres sustaining the invading force is another question entirely. Supplying a substantial invading force 'across the beach' is a monumental undertaking even now, and was almost unthinkable seventy odd years ago. Then it was considered a given that significant port facilities would be required simply to unship all the supplies and materials that would have to be brought in just to maintain a large invasion force, let alone the additional amounts required to permit it to continue to prosecute the invasion. That's why the capture of Caen was so high on the list of objectives for D Day and why the Mulberries proved so critical when that capture was delayed.

All that's just a long winded way of saying that it's not the number of beaches in Siberia that should be important but the number of beaches adjacent to substantial ports. I'm aware that some effort was made at one point to trim down the number of minor ports on the map but I'm not sure this extended into the Far East. We'd have to examine the major trading destinations along the Siberian coast at that time to know with any certainty, but I for one would be really surprised if they totalled anything close to fifteen.

 

[Autolykos]

I say, leave the beaches but make supply convoys only go from port to port, never from port to beachhead, and maybe scale the max amount of convoys with [port level]². If you can't reach a port with the supplies dropped off at landing, you have to hope air supply does it or you're out of luck. For additional polish, give transport ships a "sea supply" mission that can drop supplies at beaches but is about as inefficient as air supply.
After all, the Soviets may want to extend the Transib and build a few more ports Far East to engage in a Pacific war. In that case, they'd be more vulnerable to landing. But with the above changes, they'd only need to garrison/hold Vladivostok and Okhotsk until the invaders starve in the middle of nowhere, which binds way less forces.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

You mean in the far east? Don't know much a bout the geografy, but it sure is a large area so there probably are spots to land an army. And well, why shouldn't one be able to invade the SU from the east? It's a long way to Moscow...

I just meant because of the geography, should it be able to be amphibiously invaded?

One of the things that AoD doesn't handle well (though it's no orphan in this) is the issue of supply of invasion sites. In reality the Siberian coast offers many more than fifteen beaches against which amphibious invasions might have been mounted in WWII, but whether any of those beaches could have functioned as supply centres sustaining the invading force is another question entirely. Supplying a substantial invading force 'across the beach' is a monumental undertaking even now, and was almost unthinkable seventy odd years ago. Then it was considered a given that significant port facilities would be required simply to unship all the supplies and materials that would have to be brought in just to maintain a large invasion force, let alone the additional amounts required to permit it to continue to prosecute the invasion. That's why the capture of Caen was so high on the list of objectives for D Day and why the Mulberries proved so critical when that capture was delayed.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. While I applaud AoD for having an advanced logistical system compared to the HoI2 system, it still has a very long way to go if it wants to be realistic. It is not just amphibious invasions, but the ease by which (logistically) Germany can invade Russia (I would go as far to say, even in France).

 

[Autolykos]

I just meant because of the geography, should it be able to be amphibiously invaded?

You may be asking the wrong question here. It's technically possible to land almost anywhere (including the moon) as long as there's nobody to defend. And the coast there is long enough, the terrain hostile enough and the infrastructure bad enough that defending all of it is pretty much impossible. But these difficulties for the defender will immediately turn into difficulties for the attacker once he's landed. This is the point where the simulation fails, and this is the point where it needs to get fixed.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Afaik one could easily "jump" a level 10 naval base over the ocean by building 10 level 1 and dropping them at the target.

 

[Autolykos]

And that's another problem. I don't object to pre-building the first level and dropping it at a beachhead (as that was done IRL), but further levels should only be buildable in-province like infra or factories, as building a large port in parallel is somewhat strange. If that's hard to code, forbid it entirely and do the improvised D-Day ports by event.

 

[lollibast]

One of the things that AoD doesn't handle well (though it's no orphan in this) is the issue of supply of invasion sites. In reality the Siberian coast offers many more than fifteen beaches against which amphibious invasions might have been mounted in WWII, but whether any of those beaches could have functioned as supply centres sustaining the invading force is another question entirely. Supplying a substantial invading force 'across the beach' is a monumental undertaking even now, and was almost unthinkable seventy odd years ago. Then it was considered a given that significant port facilities would be required simply to unship all the supplies and materials that would have to be brought in just to maintain a large invasion force, let alone the additional amounts required to permit it to continue to prosecute the invasion. That's why the capture of Caen was so high on the list of objectives for D Day and why the Mulberries proved so critical when that capture was delayed.

All that's just a long winded way of saying that it's not the number of beaches in Siberia that should be important but the number of beaches adjacent to substantial ports. I'm aware that some effort was made at one point to trim down the number of minor ports on the map but I'm not sure this extended into the Far East. We'd have to examine the major trading destinations along the Siberian coast at that time to know with any certainty, but I for one would be really surprised if they totalled anything close to fifteen.

Imo AOD does handle it pretty well through infra. Take siberia and its low (maybe not low enough) infra and you (should) get poor ESE for an invading force. But you are right, maybe ESE in coastal provinces should be tied stronger to the level of the naval base. If you have enough ports to supply a troop in a coastal province, but the province itself has a poor infra rating, the troops should have a good ESE as long as they are stationary, i.e. staying close to the ports and a poor ESE as soon as they start moving. As it is now, if I'm not misguided, coastal provinces alwas have a considerably higher ESE than neighboring landlocked provinces.

 

[Autolykos]

Good point, handling it through ESE would probably be more elegant than doing it with the convoy system.

 

[Blecky]

Good point, handling it through ESE would probably be more elegant than doing it with the convoy system.

AFAIK this is already the case. Improving the naval base increases ESE in that province.

 

[Autolykos]

So it's only a few parameters that need to be adjusted. Reducing ESE without port to almost zero and increasing the effects of ports should be good enough (please move the parameters to misc.txt for modding), and preventing exploits with pre-built lvl 10 ports would make it very good indeed.

 

[Titan79]

So it's only a few parameters that need to be adjusted. Reducing ESE without port to almost zero and increasing the effects of ports should be good enough (please move the parameters to misc.txt for modding), and preventing exploits with pre-built lvl 10 ports would make it very good indeed.

+1

This would also make more important to defend e.g. ports like Brest or Le Havre in France for Germany against an Allied landing, just to deny the invaders better ESE levels.

 

[clist123abc]

I ask because the USSR has about 10-15 beaches in Siberia, which may seem irrelevant in single-player, but can be quite a problem on multi-player!

.

There have always been and there will always be exploits you can game in MP if you know where to look that's why its essential to have home rules before any game. For instance one useful rule is to not attack Denmark or Northern Germany if either Norway has not been liberated or if France, and the Low Countries haven't at least had substantial forces land. The sandbox nature of MP leaves quite a few ahistorical opportunities on the table that have to be dealt with otherwise you get odd results, unless you actually want a wild game.

If you have any MP game screens a mini AAR would be appreciated I certainly have no idea how i'd deal with Marines in Siberia

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

There have always been and there will always be exploits you can game in MP if you know where to look that's why its essential to have home rules before any game. For instance one useful rule is to not attack Denmark or Northern Germany if either Norway has not been liberated or if France, and the Low Countries haven't at least had substantial forces land. The sandbox nature of MP leaves quite a few ahistorical opportunities on the table that have to be dealt with otherwise you get odd results, unless you actually want a wild game.

We now have at least two pages of rules set out for our future games. But the more rules we make, the more rules we need. The quote "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" comes to mind!

If you have any MP game screens a mini AAR would be appreciated I certainly have no idea how i'd deal with Marines in Siberia

I've created a thread for it now, updates will eventually follow! We've already started a new game, and this time we'll be using the 1.09 proposed changes so it will be good to test them out.

 

[MagooNZ]

I like your suggestions Autolykos. Keep the same number of beaches, only allow port to port convoys, allow manual beach suppy using transports
(not convoys). I would go further and not allow pre-built ports to be dumped on an invasion beach. There are a number of other province improvements that should not be allowed to be pre-built & held in the deployment pool.

 

[Titan79]

There are a number of other province improvements that should not be allowed to be pre-built & held in the deployment pool.

...pretty much all, IMHO, except for AA and airbases which are ok.

 

[MagooNZ]

I agree Titan79, although airbases should be limited to size 2, in recognition that many WW2 aircraft could use a hastily mowed grass strip immediately. I also think province AA should be strategically redeployable from province to province. After the liberation of France, the WAllies found that German AA was much stronger over Germany because they had moved much of it out of France. All the factory type province improvements & ports should have to be built & remain in the one province.

 

[Titan79]

I agree Titan79, although airbases should be limited to size 2, in recognition that many WW2 aircraft could use a hastily mowed grass strip immediately. I also think province AA should be strategically redeployable from province to province. After the liberation of France, the WAllies found that German AA was much stronger over Germany because they had moved much of it out of France. All the factory type province improvements & ports should have to be built & remain in the one province.

Good points - I agree!

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I agree Titan79, although airbases should be limited to size 2, in recognition that many WW2 aircraft could use a hastily mowed grass strip immediately. I also think province AA should be strategically redeployable from province to province. After the liberation of France, the WAllies found that German AA was much stronger over Germany because they had moved much of it out of France. All the factory type province improvements & ports should have to be built & remain in the one province.

I agree as well.