Five more things

[gerones]

1. Marine units that can attack from sea to enemy land forces on beach hexes so they can force a retreat and occupy the abandoned hex.
One of the most unrealistic things of CEAW GS now is the amphibious warfare: a landing force that have planned to land in a choosen zone have to move to another "empty" zone only because the enemy has cover with units all the beach hexes. And when this landing force moves to that supposed empty zone the enemy has also covered this other one with units. And this way turn by turn. In the real war, when the allies planned an invasion in a choosen point they did not cancel the landings in that planned point and move to another "empty" zone as it happens in CEAW when we see a beach completely covered with enemy units. If we don´t have this marine units in CEAW we can´t properly represent D-Day, the landings in Anzio or Operation dragoon (landings in southern France).

Likewise, with these marine units, we won´t use any more air units as roadblocks for landings (I have to recognize that I have used them for this which is fairly unrealistic) since air units can easily be forced to retreat when they are attacked by land.

All of this also have something to do with the CEAW 1 unit per 1 hex limitation so if you occupy a sea hex with a transport for landing you can not make shore bombardments from that hex which is unrealistic unless we increase the attack range of the BB´s (only BB´s not DD´s) units to 2 hexes so we can make shore bombardments of the beach hexes where we want to land.

2. Possibility of different weather on axis/allies turn.
The axis always know what will be the weather on the whole turn and this is an important advantage. We have to go back again to D-Day example: D-Day took by surprise to High German Command. In CEAW there´s not surprise possibility about an allied landing in France. To the a little bit excessive spotting range of some units we will have to add that as the weather is applied to the whole turn if the germans get mud weather they don´t have to worry for a landing on that concrete turn and this could be an important advantage.

3. Strats due to their firepower should also be able to reduce steps on units positioned in fortresses.
The strategic bombers actually can only damage uselessly the fortress. B-17´s, B-24´s or Lancaster´s in the real war have much more fire power than tactical bombers but in CEAW it seems they don´t since they can´t reduce the steps of the defenders of a fortress as the tactical bombers can. The same could be said when in mud weather the strats can not reduce steps on the units and the tactical units can.

4. Allied convoys should have a much random route for avoiding the uboats
It´s a little bit unrealistic and a cake walk for the axis player to put the uboats in the expected route of the convoys and ambushed them. This way, the allied naval surface units are almost useless in convoys protection and can only be effective for escorting transport of units.

5. Less partisan spawning on the early years.
People actually just does not invade Yugoslavia or Greece because of the excessive partisan activity there on the early years. It´s not worthy to invade such a countries because of this.

[patton]

I agree on point one, sort of, but I don't see a way to implement contested landings given the combat engine.

One way would be to make tranports clickable into ground units when they are in hexes adjacent to land. Then that ground unit could attack a ground unit in the hex it wants to occupy. On the game map it would look like a ground unit in water, but this would simulate the landing.

However, in order for that corps to be able to land, the offensive would either have to destroy the opposing unit or knock it back. Destroying it would be hard. You just would not be able to bring enough fire power to bear in most cases. Even knocking it back would be hard. Let's say you could bring two TACs in close enough. Two shots there. The land unit's shot would be three. If they adopted your BB rule that would help. But you would still need another surface ship to come in behind and supply the landed troops.

And even if you got that far, your landed corps would be so bloodied by the battle that it would likely be cut to pieces by enemy counter attacks.

So, I support the concept but I don't see how to make it work.

[BuddyGrant]

1. Marine units that can attack from sea to enemy land forces on beach hexes so they can force a retreat and occupy the abandoned hex.
One of the most unrealistic things of CEAW GS now is the amphibious warfare: a landing force that have planned to land in a choosen zone have to move to another "empty" zone only because the enemy has cover with units all the beach hexes. And when this landing force moves to that supposed empty zone the enemy has also covered this other one with units. And this way turn by turn. In the real war, when the allies planned an invasion in a choosen point they did not cancel the landings in that planned point and move to another "empty" zone as it happens in CEAW when we see a beach completely covered with enemy units. If we don´t have this marine units in CEAW we can´t properly represent D-Day, the landings in Anzio or Operation dragoon (landings in southern France).

Likewise, with these marine units, we won´t use any more air units as roadblocks for landings (I have to recognize that I have used them for this which is fairly unrealistic) since air units can easily be forced to retreat when they are attacked by land.

All of this also have something to do with the CEAW 1 unit per 1 hex limitation so if you occupy a sea hex with a transport for landing you can not make shore bombardments from that hex which is unrealistic unless we increase the attack range of the BB´s (only BB´s not DD´s) units to 2 hexes so we can make shore bombardments of the beach hexes where we want to land.

It just seems that this could work if the game were able to treat transports as an offensive fighting unit, maybe with the offensive strength of the onboard unit halved.

4. Allied convoys should have a much random route for avoiding the uboats
It´s a little bit unrealistic and a cake walk for the axis player to put the uboats in the expected route of the convoys and ambushed them. This way, the allied naval surface units are almost useless in convoys protection and can only be effective for escorting transport of units.

Changed routes and more staggered departures, with the possibility of several convoys being created in the same area in one turn.

5. Less partisan spawning on the early years.
People actually just does not invade Yugoslavia or Greece because of the excessive partisan activity there on the early years. It´s not worthy to invade such a countries because of this.

I like the idea of creating a risk that forces tough decisions on garrisoning, but the current spam-like partisan messages every turn feels somewhat gamey. If the spawn % could change by year that might be a big improvement.

[patton]

If you halved the effectiveness of the onboard unit, I think landings would never succeed. As it is, they will be hard to make succeed and many or most landed units would be quickly destroyed.

On partisans, I think the presense of garrisons in occupied countries should decrease the probability and rate of spawning.

[gerones]

However, in order for that corps to be able to land, the offensive would either have to destroy the opposing unit or knock it back. Destroying it would be hard. You just would not be able to bring enough fire power to bear in most cases. Even knocking it back would be hard. Let's say you could bring two TACs in close enough. Two shots there. The land unit's shot would be three.

May be marine units would need a specific graphic to be distinguished. But the idea is that they would act as land units although they appear as naval units on the screen. If supported by air and naval fire they achieve to force a retreat they would disembark as a transported unit. I don´t really know if this finally could be implemented in the game.

If they adopted your BB rule that would help. But you would still need another surface ship to come in behind and supply the landed troops.

This is easier to implement since it has only to be modified the attack range value of BB´s on the unit.txt file.

[gchristie]

On partisans, I think the presense of garrisons in occupied countries should decrease the probability and rate of spawning.

Or increase partisans spawning, depending on how heavy handed the garrison behaves

I don't mind the partisans spawning so often, but in one pbem I garrisoned the cities but made the mistake of ignoring french partisans otherwise and one got into the fortress hexes on the french border and started to eliminate them That I did not like so much.

Well, whaddaya know, my little guy is a now scout and gets to ride a horse!

[BuddyGrant]

If you halved the effectiveness of the onboard unit, I think landings would never succeed.

They could succeed considering the defensive units would likely be garrison size, and the landings could take place from 2 hexes (2X air bombardment, then 2 attacks on a garrison). Now if the defender had a double row of garrisons that might be a bit trickier:).

As it is, they will be hard to make succeed and many or most landed units would be quickly destroyed.

I agree a landing like this should always be a major challenge for the invaders.

[patton]

I guess you could attack with two corps but only on penninsulas/promontories. But since you could only land one (at least on the attack turn) in that case, what happens to the other one?

[gerones]

As it is, they will be hard to make succeed and many or most landed units would be quickly destroyed.

I don´t think so if you make overwhelming air bombardments to weaken the units close to the landing zone.

Now if the defender had a double row of garrisons that might be a bit trickier:)

That would mean a lot of units to built. And keep in mind that garrison units are really vulnerable to air attacks.

[ftgcritt2]

The point about the predictable convoys is a good one. I am playing a game against Leridano right now where I had a convoy start at 100 points and I gave it a full escort. My opponent, however, is holding it up with just one sub, since he knows exactly where the convoy will go. Each turn, the convoy will move one or two hexes and then bump into his sub (which is just out of range of the escorts). This is very frustrating, and as far as I can tell there is no way to stop it short of saturating the Atlantic with strats. It seems very unrealistic that a force of just 3 uboat units can hold up ALL Allied shipping regardless of how strong the Allied navy is.

[schwerpunkt]

The point about the predictable convoys is a good one. I am playing a game against Leridano right now where I had a convoy start at 100 points and I gave it a full escort. My opponent, however, is holding it up with just one sub, since he knows exactly where the convoy will go. Each turn, the convoy will move one or two hexes and then bump into his sub (which is just out of range of the escorts). This is very frustrating, and as far as I can tell there is no way to stop it short of saturating the Atlantic with strats. It seems very unrealistic that a force of just 3 uboat units can hold up ALL Allied shipping regardless of how strong the Allied navy is.

The answer is to start sweeping ahead of the convoys with DD's - as long as you have CV and/or STR support, this slowly wears the axis SUBs down - or at least forces them to base more often for repairs...

[ftgcritt2]

The point about the predictable convoys is a good one. I am playing a game against Leridano right now where I had a convoy start at 100 points and I gave it a full escort. My opponent, however, is holding it up with just one sub, since he knows exactly where the convoy will go. Each turn, the convoy will move one or two hexes and then bump into his sub (which is just out of range of the escorts). This is very frustrating, and as far as I can tell there is no way to stop it short of saturating the Atlantic with strats. It seems very unrealistic that a force of just 3 uboat units can hold up ALL Allied shipping regardless of how strong the Allied navy is.

The answer is to start sweeping ahead of the convoys with DD's - as long as you have CV and/or STR support, this slowly wears the axis SUBs down - or at least forces them to base more often for repairs...

That works great when you are escorting a troop transport that moves on your turn. But what about when you are escorting lend lease convoys? What then? Since the convoys move (and are ambushed) after the Axis turn and before the Allied turn, the subs have already been revealed by the time the Allied turn arrives. You can't sweep for subs that are already in the open.

[richardsd]

he means sweep in the turn before the convoy moves i.e. in the route its going to take (just like the sub is being placed) and surely he is using two subs?

I sometimes get 5 or six DD's together and sweep the key atlantic routes, can be quite fun

convoy warefare is tricky to get right, lots of tricks to learn

[trulster]

he means sweep in the turn before the convoy moves i.e. in the route its going to take (just like the sub is being placed) and surely he is using two subs?

I sometimes get 5 or six DD's together and sweep the key atlantic routes, can be quite fun

yeah, but this is only viable from late 42 onwards - you also need enuogh DDs to actually escort the convoys (not to mention troop transports). This game definitely needs more variable convoy routes, the "plonk-sub-three-hexes-ahead-of-convoy"-trick gets gamey fast.

[richardsd]

but you shouldn't be 'winning' the Atlantic war before then (although I agree random routes would be nice)

[trulster]

It is not about "winning" the Atlantic, but giving subs a total free hand before 43 even with little Axis commitment neither seems appropriate. Anyway it is more about the silliness of subs knowing the route of the convoys before they move.

[ferokapo]

It is not about "winning" the Atlantic, but giving subs a total free hand before 43 even with little Axis commitment neither seems appropriate. Anyway it is more about the silliness of subs knowing the route of the convoys before they move.

I don't think it's a silly rule. Remember that subs were faster on the surface than convoys. So usually they would spot a convoy, estimate its course, try to intercept it in an ambush - just as it is happening in CEAW. Of course, the convoys tried zig-zagging to prevent this, but one sub unit represents a whole flotilla spread out over some area, so on the scale of CEAW this would not work. Preventing the subs from anticipating a convoy's course would actually be unrealistic (on the scale of CEAW, that is).

What I find more annoying is the sequence of movement: Convoys should move after their escorts, not before. The Allied player should know the designated target hex for the convoys movement, then move the escorts accordingly (with the chance to sweep the area), before the convoy follows.

[trulster]

What I find more annoying is the sequence of movement: Convoys should move after their escorts, not before. The Allied player should know the designated target hex for the convoys movement, then move the escorts accordingly (with the chance to sweep the area), before the convoy follows.

Exactly. With current system it is impossible to sweep ahead of the convoy.

[ftgcritt2]

surely he is using two subs?

Nope, just the one.

[richardsd]

So he isn't attacking, just letting the Sub get hit and moving again.

You only need 1 DD to stop this, sweeping ahead to unmask the sub then the convoy will pass it, benefit of convoy's moving last.

The only thing that I really think is wrong with Sub warefare is that it 'stops' a convoy - that would never happen, the mod I would like to see is that the convoy keeps to its route, but takes damage from subs it passes through