Amphibious Warfare Poll

[lodilefty]

There have been several posts about the reality (or lack thereof) of the accesibility of areas for ambhibious assults (most conversations around Wilmington, NC)

PBBoeye has suggested this thread to consolidate the conversation.

Proposals:
1. Modify the approaches to places like Wilmington, so you just CAN'T attack from open coastline.
- or -
2. Create an "attrition factor" that will cause casualties to both the land forces coming ashore and the transports that unlad them. This would function similar to the "severe weather losses" we get in winter. Each costal area/land area combination would need a factor, in order to properly model the different coastlines. "Shelered waters" wold be low loss, but not zero! (It's pretty easy to capsize a longboat loaded with soldiers not traned for it!)

[GShock]

I think you should make a poll about this. I would vote for the Nr.2.

[lodilefty]

I think you should make a poll about this. I would vote for the Nr.2.

If I knew how, I would!!!!

[McNaughton]

I personally say that #1 will be more likely to ever get into the game. Too much stuff to do to get #2 to work, and will very likely never be implemented.

[lodilefty]

Proposals:
1. Modify the approaches to places like Wilmington, so you just CAN'T attack from open coastline.
- or -
2. Create an "attrition factor" that will cause casualties to both the land forces coming ashore and the transports that unload them. This would function similar to the "severe weather losses" we get in winter. Each coastal area/land area combination would need a separate factor, in order to properly model the different coastlines. "Sheltered waters" would be low loss, but not zero! (It's pretty easy to capsize a longboat loaded with soldiers not trained for it!)

[lodilefty]

Poll created.

Moderators, can we delete this thread, or consolidate it somehow?

Thanks.

[McNaughton]

How about an option - leave as designed?

[Hobbes]

How about an option - leave as designed?

That gets my vote.

[wyrmm]

Something needs to be looked at though. There was nothing to stop Dupont and T.W. Sherman from advancing from Port Royal into South Carolina and Georgia, except themselves and the lack of reinforcing troops. Only 2 union amphibious operations were intended to advance beyond the immediate lodgement area, New Orleans and the Peninsula. All union operations except the Peninsula were for Naval not Army purposes, and none were reinforced sufficiently enough to permit expansion from the initial lodgements (exception N.O. , the Peninsula having turned into a land campaign despite sea supply). I voted for weather effects, as there were few mishapless landings, and some suffered major casualties. But the effects should be somewhat random, some good landings, some disasters. IMNSHO

[Clovis]

That gets my vote.

+1

[PBBoeye]

Whatever happens, landings off the NC coast need to be minimized. That is a treacherous area.

[McNaughton]

What you must realize, that anyone voting for the attrition factor will most likely face a "good idea, but too much work to implement" by AGEOD.

At this point in game development, patching, etc., such minor issues such as this will not gain the attention needed in order to implement such a drastic redesign. So, in a way, I believe you are wasting time for this vote because the chance of option #2 to be implemented at all is virtually zero.

Best to focus on the more likely option, of making some territories impossible to land amphibiously (since such operations are not the driving force behind this game anyway).

[PBBoeye]

I'll agree with that. It reminds me of HOI/HOI2 - some provinces were flagged as 'beach' provinces and thus could be amph invaded. Those that had no 'beach' were not invadable. For example, the Oregon coast for the most part needs to be 'no invade'.

Having a simple 0/1 (yes/no) option in a region datafile regarding amph invasion would be a good idea and lend a lot towards geographic autheticity in the game.

[Jabberwock]

In NC, the passage from Currituck Sound to Oregon Inlet needs to be eliminated. Fleets had to go through Hatteras Inlet to access this area historically. Add in Roanoke Island as a region with the ability to entrench or fortify with artillery there, and you have a much more realistic model.

Other than that leave as designed. Small naval amphib operations were going on constantly throughout the war, they just didn't get much publicity.

[Jabberwock]

Proposals:
1. Modify the approaches to places like Wilmington, so you just CAN'T attack from open coastline.
- or -
2. Create an "attrition factor" that will cause casualties to both the land forces coming ashore and the transports that unload them. This would function similar to the "severe weather losses" we get in winter. Each coastal area/land area combination would need a separate factor, in order to properly model the different coastlines. "Sheltered waters" would be low loss, but not zero! (It's pretty easy to capsize a longboat loaded with soldiers not trained for it!)

Lodi -
You make some excellent points in the other thread.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=45170#post45170

However, I just don't see a great difference between trying an amphibious landing at Wrightsville or Masonboro as opposed to Carolina Beach, where it actually took place.

I agree the march over from Wrightsville to Wilmington would be bad news, pocosins are no fun, but worse would be one coming from New Bern or Morehead.

[Le Tondu]

How about an option - leave as designed?

That gets my vote too.