Operation Overlord in CEAW

[Diplomaticus]

This is a follow-up from a point made in Supermax's AAR--it's already being hijacked enough, so I'm starting a separate thread.

The point made in the AAR discussion was this: Following a successful Sealion, we've seen games apparently where the Allies just bypass the German-held UK entirely and go straight for France.

This got me to thinking...

Operation Overlord took place in the summer of 1944, following massive, long-term commitment of resources, planning, training, assembling forces, etc., etc. Even at that point in the war--1944, mind you, not 1942--Overlord was fraught with difficulties, and a more effective Axis response was certainly in the realm of historical possibility. Could the Nazis have pushed them back into the Channel? Doubtful, but they could have made the invasion far most costly and less effective.

So, now in CEAW we find large-scale Normandy-type invasions regularly happening in 1942. Just take a look at Supermax's AAR. He kicked the hell out of the RN, got Spain on his side and seized Gibraltar, dispatched a moderate 1941 (!) Normandy invasion... and still. Well, you see the point.

It's just too blinking easy for the Allies to do these big invasions. Without the UK it ought to be completely unthinkable.

Well, that "ought" is based on my understanding of history. Now, CEAW is a game, and maybe in game terms it would be bad to make it even harder to do amphibious landings. Historically, there were all sorts of smaller scale amphibious assaults--such as Dieppe and Anzio--and these seem to be well-represented in the game. I just think about how many people complain how hard it is for the Axis, how they have to play nearly flawlessly while Allies can afford to be sloppy, and I wonder if the sea-invasion rules aren't a big part of that. Maybe the penalties for failure in an Overlord-type of invasion need to be stiffer?

[PionUrpo]

Hmm... less amphibious and/or transport points available for UK/US in '41-'42 (-'43) period or their slower recovery. That ought to curb landings a bit. Or alternatively up the costs for going over the limits, IIRC it's 35PP now for the 1st amphibious point over limit. Although, I have a nagging feeling this would affect less aggressive players more as they'd have less to use on their one or two "more solid" landing attempts... then again, it might make them think it through bit harder too.

[Kragdob]

You'd have problems with coding what it means "unsuccessfull". It may be easy to say but to tell it to computer may be a bit different...

I think it is too easy with supply. In short it should be provided by BB/CV only and one unit for one hex only.

The rest - loosing effectiveness at see is implemented (but I think it should be more severe).

[Cybvep]

Large-scale amphibious invasions were difficult IRL because of logistical problems and fighting on the beaches. Fighting on the beaches is represented in the game, but IMO the game is far too forgiving when it comes to logistics. You can supply the whole army with one destroyer flottila or one battleship and the Axis cannot even sink transport ships with supplies. Supplying the forces over the whole Atlantic would be much harder than supplying them over the Channel. Even slight delays could be catastrophic because of the distance factor alone.

The logistical aspect of the invasions should be harsher IMO.

[zechi]

I think this problem has nothing to do with Operation Overlord, but in fact is a result of the current amphibious invasion system. In fact it is the current system which makes amphibious invasions a lot easier then in the real war.Even the Western Allies could not go for more then one big amphibious invasion per year in the European Theater. In GS even the Axis as well as the Soviets can pull off decent amphibious invasions in several theaters of war.

However, if it would be a lot more difficult to support amphibious invasions, this would change the game significantly. In fact the current system allows for many operations, which were not possible in the real war, like Operation Sealion, amphibious invasions in the Med by the Axis or in the Black Sea region. Most of the operation were not possible in the real war, but I think should be possible in the game to make it more interesting. If the system would become more complicated then the easy to learn, hard to master principle of GS would also suffer.

Nevertheless, it could be perhaps an option included for players who like more "historical" amphibious invasions. Then the Axis should have no amphibious invasion capacity at all and the Allies should be significantly reduced.

[Cybvep]

Nevertheless, it could be perhaps an option included for players who like more "historical" amphibious invasions. Then the Axis should have no amphibious invasion capacity at all and the Allies should be significantly reduced.

Bad idea. This would make extreme Allied strategies in France even more pronounced and the African Campaign would be absolutely impossible for the Axis.

[Rasputitsa]

The Germans launched the invasion of Norway with no specialist ships, the sea element of the invasion of Crete used effectively fishing boats (it failed because of the presence of the RN, without that it might have been an effective part of the landing). Operations like Dieppe, landing division sized units, should always be possible, otherwise neither side would have to take precautions.

Supply through one naval unit I see as mainly symbolic, it just means that you control that sea area and supply is able to flow, even if not shown on the map.

Launching large scale operations such as D-Day are something else, they do need huge preparation, but the question would be - what do the game mechanics allow us to change.

Can we limit the number of strength points that can use amphibious transport and be supplied unless a certain level of resources are available ...........

e.g., unless a nation has invested in and reached a required level of Surface Ship technology and paid for the upgrades, it would not be able to launch major amphibious operations (strength point limit ?). This would disadvantage the nations that could not afford, or want to invest in, naval capability.

or, the higher level of naval technology and upgrades are required to carry armoured (and mech ?) units, no armour no D-Day.

and, the time set for the level of naval technology to develop should ensure no early D-Day type landings.

or, low level naval tech can land GAR, higher level - Infantry, then Mech, highest level tech can land Armour.

It should be possible to launch Sea Lion, if you are able to destroy air and land defences and control the sea area, but you won't be taking many AFVs.

However, it should made always possible for small scale operations (how small ?) by all major nations of both sides, at any time.

[metolius]

The issue here, as has already been noted, is logistics.

And the solution, from a gaming perspective, could be to institute some more sophisticated supply line rules.

One option would be to require a naval unit for EACH ground unit being supplied (with computer allocating automatically if there is less than enough to go around).

[Rasputitsa]

The issue here, as has already been noted, is logistics.

And the solution, from a gaming perspective, could be to institute some more sophisticated supply line rules.

One option would be to require a naval unit for EACH ground unit being supplied (with computer allocating automatically if there is less than enough to go around).

The issue is, what can be changed in the present game system, we can ask for many things, but what can actually be done.

[zechi]

Nevertheless, it could be perhaps an option included for players who like more "historical" amphibious invasions. Then the Axis should have no amphibious invasion capacity at all and the Allies should be significantly reduced.

Bad idea. This would make extreme Allied strategies in France even more pronounced and the African Campaign would be absolutely impossible for the Axis.

I think you misunderstood me. With "amphibious invasion capacity" I meant the ability to land combat troops without port facilities. The Axis did not have any relevant amphibious invasion capacity, i.e. they did not had any landing crafts etc. to land a whole corps in enemy or even in friendly territory without a port.

Of course the Axis should be able to bring in reinforcements to North Africy with transports, but transports would only be able to be unloaded in a port which is what happened in the real war.

[Cybvep]

But that would allow the British to ignore anti-invasion measures completely. Sea Lion would be impossible even with air superiority and the Allied player wouldn't have to fear anything from the Axis. He could leave sth like 3 GARs and 1 INF in the UK and ship everything else to France or to the Middle East. Also, the Axis wouldn't be able to conquer Norway or land in North African French territory after the armistice is refused. They also wouldn't be able to land on Crete, on Malta or on Cyprus, even if they managed to gain total dominance in the Mediterranean.

It's not the small-scale invasions that we have to worry about. It wasn't extraordinarily difficult to supply one infantry corps as long as the sea supply lines were safe (which required local air and naval superiority). However, if we are talking about large-scale amphibious invasions involving whole armies, then it's a different story. They required extensive planning, total naval and air superiority and massive logisitcal support, so few countries had the capability to perform them.

[Kragdob]

Maybe we should remove 'fixed' invasion capacity limit and instead let Players build them. Building would reflect resources needed for preparations/logistics etc. You would not be able to land without invasion capacity.

E.g. German could start the war with 2 CP (Capacity Points) as it is now, but to get more they would need to build them. Same for UK, US, Soviets.

Price could be like 50 PP, build time 5 turns. This would reflect long time for preparation and relatively high effort related.

Or you could even split that and landing corps unit would cost 2 and landing GAR would cost 1 (so you could simulate Dieppe and other e.g. Mediterranean small scale operations) - then cost of 1 CP could be like 25 PP and (still) 5 turns to build.

For small scale landing the cost would not be that huge (you could take empty port with single GAR landing and then transport troops freely) but to launch Overlord where you'd need to land like 5-10 units on beaches you'd need to spend very high number of PPs which means that you couldn't afford to loose (careful preparation, air/naval superiority would be needed etc).

For such system current supply rules fits so implementation of that wouldn't be horrific (GS development team do not treat that as urge to implement this in GS 2.10! )

[zechi]

But that would allow the British to ignore anti-invasion measures completely. Sea Lion would be impossible even with air superiority and the Allied player wouldn't have to fear anything from the Axis. He could leave sth like 3 GARs and 1 INF in the UK and ship everything else to France or to the Middle East. Also, the Axis wouldn't be able to conquer Norway or land in North African French territory after the armistice is refused. They also wouldn't be able to land on Crete, on Malta or on Cyprus, even if they managed to gain total dominance in the Mediterranean.

I don't think that is true. The Axis still could capture a port with their para divisions. With a para and TAC in range the 2 step GAR in Oslo could easily be captured. The same goes for Crete or Malta, both were planned primarily as Airborne operations in the real war.

Furthermore, it could be allowed to land transports in an enemy empty city, which would make it necessary for the defender to guard any coastal cities.

Furthermore, the British will suffer a morale loss if empties Britain. It is also not uncommon that the British player does ignore anti-invasion measures, either because the player likes the gamble or because he can be quite sure that Sealion will not be possible. So this should not be a problem.

It's not the small-scale invasions that we have to worry about. It wasn't extraordinarily difficult to supply one infantry corps as long as the sea supply lines were safe (which required local air and naval superiority). However, if we are talking about large-scale amphibious invasions involving whole armies, then it's a different story. They required extensive planning, total naval and air superiority and massive logisitcal support, so few countries had the capability to perform them.

It is questionable that the Axis were ever able to supply one Infantry corps with naval forces. Furthermore, in GS the Axis player uses a quite large force for Sealion. I normally have about 6-8 transports with different Corps units (ARM, INF, MECH) threatening to land at different invasion spots. In the games I played Operation Sealion is often a greater invasion as the initial landing by the Allies in France or Sicily.

As pointed out, I like the current system and does not think that it should be changed, but if someone wants a more historical amphibious invasion system, Axis amphibious invasion capacity should be reduced significantly or removed at all.

[Cybvep]

I think that the current system is too forgiving for both sides when it comes to amphibious invasions, but I wouldn't go as far as removing the Axis amphibious capability altogether. I do not object to the reduction of their capabilities, though.

We also need to be fair. If the Allies can freely cross the whole Altantic, easily land in the UK/France and then carry on with the Overlord, then the Axis should have some amphibious landing capability, too.

Personally, I think that Sea Lion should be very hard to perform, but when it happens, the Allies should have big problems with winning the game, unless the Soviets really butcher the Germans in the East. It shouldn't be impossible for them to win, but it should be much harder than it currently is.

I like the Kragdob's idea. It wouldn't be very complicated and the cost of Capacity Points could be very high for the Soviets, high for Germany and Italy, balanced for the UK and low for the USA. It could also be non-linear, i.e. the more CPs you have, the more expensive they become.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think we have to focus on what we're playing here. That's a WAR game, not a logistics game. The point is that when you get an invasion fleet of Allied transports then you also have the necessary supply units to bring supply to the beaches. OK, you don't pay a lot of PP's building up the invasion capability. That comes indirectly from increasing the surface ship and industry techs.

The reason for that is to let the capability grow with time without bothering the players with logistics. We also have to realize the limitations in the game engine. It's not designed for logistics and we don't have purchase screens for not combat units.

So if things should be altered it has to be done regarding the formula for getting amph and transport points. Maybe the simplest would be to alter the regeneration rate of such points. If it's slower then you can't make another invasion a few turns later without a huge overuse cost. The overuse cost is 35 for the first amph point, 70 for the next and so on. You also pay an overuse cost for keeping transports / amphs at sea. Maybe we should increase that cost so it's not lucrative swamping the coast line with possible invaders.

I think the current transport and amph limits are actually fine, both for early in the game and in 1944. That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem is that the overuse cost is to little that you go for that.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is what we have now:
TRANSPORT_OVER_PP 4
TRANSPORT_OVER_PP_WINTER 8
TRANSPORT_OVER_GROUP 2
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_GERMANY 3
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_ITALY 3
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_UK 2
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_FRANCE 3
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_USA 1
TRANSPORT_REGEN_TURNS_USSR 3

This means the first overuse for transport costs 4, the second 4, the third 8, the fourth 8, the fifth 12 and so on. Maybe we can set transport_over_group to 1. Then the overuse cost will be:
First 4, second 8, third 12, fourth 16, fifth 20 and so on. This way it won't be possible to have a huge invasion fleet at sea for turns without losing most PP's needed for repairs.

Transport regen rate can also increase by 1 turn for each country. That would take it longer to regain spent points.

[zechi]

I think we should be really careful before changing anything concerning transport overuse. In contrast to the real war the defender will normally know were the attacker will invade as it is not possible to move a transport and disembark the unit on the same turn. Therefore the attacker often needs a lot of transports threatening several possible landing spots to force any landing at all. From my point of view this represents the uncertainess for the defender were the attacker will actually disembark. In the real war the Axis did not know were the Allies would invade and were forced to spread their forces.

As we are doing som brainstorming here, what about allowing a unit which embarks on a transport in a port to disembark on the same turn. This would make it a lot more interesting to embark from a port which is near enough to disembark on the same turn, i.e. Britain would be perfect for a surprise invasion as in the real war. Transports which start from the US would in contrast not be able to disembark on the same turn. Perhaps this is a bad idea, but I wanted to throw it in.

[Kragdob]

So if things should be altered it has to be done regarding the formula for getting amph and transport points. Maybe the simplest would be to alter the regeneration rate of such points. If it's slower then you can't make another invasion a few turns later without a huge overuse cost. The overuse cost is 35 for the first amph point, 70 for the next and so on. You also pay an overuse cost for keeping transports / amphs at sea. Maybe we should increase that cost so it's not lucrative swamping the coast line with possible invaders.

I think the current transport and amph limits are actually fine, both for early in the game and in 1944. That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem is that the overuse cost is to little that you go for that.

Well if shipping limits were increased a little bit but cost for overuse would be increased much then it would be extremaly costly for anyone to have huge fleet of transports. You'd need to carry them slowly in order not to loose to many PPs. Redeployments: Europe to Africa, US to Europe, US to Africa would be much slower. This would effectively prevent packing 6 or more American units have them 3-6 turns on the water and then land in France. If the cost of such endeavor would be like more than 100 PPs than Player would think twice if he wants to have this and would think 5 times if he looses such landing.

Or
regeneration should be much slower if you do huge invasion and fast (as currently) if just do small landing. And I would count also landing in friendly territory.

For example:
If you land 1 or 2 units you regain your landing capability quickly (say in 3 turns each). But if you land 5 units and another 5 in next turn you will regain landing in (say) 10 turns or even longer. It is to be debated how quickly Allies would be able to make another Overlord if they lost in 1944.

This would reflect not only one-time expenses for over-landing but also long term impact (regeneration e.g. you need to repair/recreate all civilian vessels you used as a replacement for missing war vessels).

Or
You have landing capacity for each BB/CV/DD(?) you have. This way you can target navy in order to lower amphibious capabilities and contrarily you need to protect your ship so you do not pay huge landing costs.

Or
You can overuse landing and pay 35/70/... for landing only if transport adjacent to your BB/CV/DD (vessel could move to hex adjacent to a transport in landing turn). Any vessel should support only one landing per turn. This simulates naval support for big landing (just in terms of number of vessels available). If you control the waters you could buy just bunch of DDs if not BB/CV is also needed. This would made any warship in the game very precious and loosing RN would have big impact on Allied invasion abilities.

Anyway I think that regeneration of landing capacity after 1 turn is a little bit extreme...

[pk867]

leave this alone

[gerones]

I would like to bring here again the idea of the friendly sea ports as a prerequisite for launching an amphibious invasion. A landing operation needs a huge supply support so the closer a friendly sea port is to a landing operation the better can be supplied the troops. CEAW GS allow a landing operation directly launched from the USA (if UK conquered) to occupied Europe but I have serious doubts that this would have been possible to achieve in the real war without a friendly nearby sea port to support the landings. Yes, Torch was a long range sea invasion but it would have been almost impossible without Gibraltar british naval base to support the operation.

On the other hand, all the allied amphibious invasions were launched from nearby friendly sea ports: Husky, D-Day, Operation Dragoon, etc. So I would propose that in CEAW GS it would be necessary for launching an amphibious operation to have a friendly sea port within 6-8 hexes to supply the operation.

Also I kind of like the proposal of Zechi about a unit being able to embark and to disembark in the very same turn but may then we would need to tweak some the attacking values of the amphibious units.