Invasions - Max Range

[fredgiblet]

I think the only reason why Britain didn't invade Latvia during World War II was because they had no reason to, not because they couldn't.

Going into the Baltic would have been a moderately bad idea. Lack of room to hide and maneuver means that if the Germans found out they'd probably be bombed and torpedoes mercilessly.

 

[BathroomSinger]

I would argue that there should be heavy penalties and high attrition on any division with heavy equipment attacking from the sea. Is sea weather modeled so it affects attrition like on land? Specialist tanks, maybe something like mechanized engineers would be the exception.

 

[omnib]

Going into the Baltic would have been a moderately bad idea. Lack of room to hide and maneuver means that if the Germans found out they'd probably be bombed and torpedoes mercilessly.

Plus, if there would be any real threat of British entering the Baltic Sea, Germans could easily mine the Danish Straits and shoot British fleet from the coasts.

 

[Denkt]

Why should it be impossible?

Long distance invasions need more convoys and the convoys need to travel futher which make them vulnerable to raiding. However if you can not take advantage of these disadvantages then your enemy may do such invasion.

 

[Mannstien]

Underway Replenishment would be a good tech to put in the early 40ish tech's so unless you have it your limited by X amount, not sure what a good place for X amount is but anyone can use some DD's/CL's etc if they have them to move a division or some brigades but to move across a vast ocean with a force of several divisions expecting to meet a beach defense you should not be able to just land troops in Florida. I mean it would make sense if your opponent has no sea lane defense in any of the areas you have to transit but there is no chance of success but more for exploiting with the current mechanics the way I've seen them work.

 

[Gratch11]

Being from Sweden I would say that an allied navy passing through Öresund is stupid, it has a width allmost a quarter of the Gibraltar strait. Has nothing to do with distance

ie they cant invade Gotland in the first place

 

[HeilLoki]

The worst invasion I've seen so far was the Invasion of Crimea with US troops.

They shipped their troops from Great Britain or US mainland (?) through Axis-controlled Gibraltar and through Axis-controlled Bosporus and landed in Crimea... 20+ divisions...

I hope this gets fixed.

 

[Axe99]

The worst invasion I've seen so far was the Invasion of Crimea with US troops.

They shipped their troops from Great Britain or US mainland (?) through Axis-controlled Gibraltar and through Axis-controlled Bosporus and landed in Crimea... 20+ divisions...

I hope this gets fixed.

Podcat's already let us know that the straight blocking is broken in the WWW build, so all being well it's just an artifact of playing an in-development build.

 

[HeilLoki]

Podcat's already let us know that the straight blocking is broken in the WWW build, so all being well it's just an artifact of playing an in-development build.

You're right. I remember reading this.

 

[Praetori]

Being from Sweden I would say that an allied navy passing through Öresund is stupid, it has a width allmost a quarter of the Gibraltar strait. Has nothing to do with distance

ie they cant invade Gotland in the first place

As was previously mentioned the feature of blocking is broken in their current build. The real historical block however wasn't the sound but instead between southern Norway and Northern Denmark with a staggering amount of naval mines (some still floating ashore every year today) and some wicked long range 38cm guns with special ammunition (56km range) in fortresses on each side which could actually engage any allied ship messing about.

But yes going through the sound would be a very bad idea so let's hope they fix that mechanic quickly.

 

[Big Nev]

There shouldn't be a limit on naval range, the need to maintain naval superiority should be the limit. If you can keep a large task force constantly patroling the waters for weeks before the invasion, you should be able to invade all the way from San Francisco to Tokyo if you want. If you can't maintain a large task force in the waters before the invasion, you shouldn't be able to invade Calais from Dover.

I think that there should be a rather severe limit on the range of amphibious invasions.

Like, starting at about 50m for infantry & 3m for an AFV.

BUT

If you’ve got the requisite technology levels & ocean-going invasion ships, crossing an ocean to put troops, or even tanks, on a beach (like Kota Baru in Dec 41) is not at all impossible. In fact, as has been proven, it’s not really that difficult at all.

On the other hand, if you don’t have the tech’s & kit, then you end up looking stupid like Sealion.

Casualties, attrition, supply* are all dependent upon the level of resistance & the level of training & experience of the invading troops. Heavier troop types getting really heavy penalties until, again, the appropriate research & construction has been completed.



** apparently, once you’ve built a tank, it will run for ever. So the few hundred miles worth of fuel a… let’s say a Sherman during D-Day, landed with becomes largely irrelevant as long as you land it somewhere that has nice roads/infrastructure.

 

[Sir Garnet]

There are all kinds of tradeoffs in amphibious operations and defending against potential and actual invasions, some controllable and some not. Not least of these is the challenge of seeking to penetrate the veil of uncertainty by each side. These set the odds for triumph or disaster. Knowing that an invasion of 2500 miles is possible and one a mile further is not - well, that creates an undeserved sense of insular security. It is important that the player experience these uncertainties and probabilities in making strategic decisions.

So long as the relevant factors are reflected in the game and the fate of invasions is in large part a game of intelligence, guesswork, deception and bluff , it will work at least tolerably.