Invasions need to be toned down

[JagdFlanker]

playing a game as CSA, first war is against UK, which usually means i have to restart the game since unless you are playing USA it turns the war into a big grind and you'r going to get overrun, but i figured i'd just play it through

knew i was going to get invaded a lot (in the Caribbean) so decided i would save the game at the beginning of each battle and replay the battle until i found a way to beat it back - i only have 3 Bs left compared to the 14+ UK has but my B's go 22kts so at least i can dictate when and where i engage

even though it's a huge pain replaying the same battle several times until it's successful, i'v been doing a solid job of finding a way to either kill the AKs or chase them away to hold off the invasion

problem is the war has been going on for 24+ months and i'v been invaded 20+ times (likely because the weather is good in the Caribbean) and it's just sucking the fun out of the game

it doesn't make sense that even though a country trying to invade is getting beaten back that they would keep coming over and over and over again - especially since more often than not i'm killing the ships they use for invasion

invasions can/should be very costly and fragile, and they need to be well planned out to be executed properly or else they will fail, and i don't think an invasion every month represents any sort of proper planning or execution

also there are many times i beat off the invasion force with little/moderate damage, yet the invasion was still successful only because i sustained slightly more damage than the enemy which again doesn't make sense - if the enemy wins because he damaged me more then that's fine, but if the troops never landed then the actual invasion should still be a failure

for example this was a 'successful' invasion so i had to replay the battle AGAIN to get a better result:

no landings should mean no invasion regardless of the battle outcome

finally in the latest invasion the invasion AKs start landing less than 100 ticks into a 1400 tick battle so i'm being given zero chance to repulse the invasion since i can't end run the entire UK force, therefore to have a chance to win i would have to dive into an invasion force with 3 B's against 14+ UK B's.  i guess i could just let the invasion happen but it's not fun when i'm likely to get invaded somewhere else again next month and the entire war is turning into an invasion battle every turn

[talbot797]

AI typically is poor at escorting, can't you pick off most of the invasion transports with clever manoeuvring? I agree with you that if you sink the transports, it should affect how often a repeat invasion can be attempted - but your example shows you didn't even damage any transports. A typical invasion scenario requires 4 transports to reach the objective, you need to play against that. Granted there may be a slight logic gap that says if they aren't sunk, the AI somehow manages to get them there and achieve the objective...

[christian]

Mar 8, 2021 8:41:50 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

playing a game as CSA, first war is against UK, which usually means i have to restart the game since unless you are playing USA it turns the war into a big grind and you'r going to get overrun, but i figured i'd just play it through

knew i was going to get invaded a lot (in the Caribbean) so decided i would save the game at the beginning of each battle and replay the battle until i found a way to beat it back - i only have 3 Bs left compared to the 14+ UK has but my B's go 22kts so at least i can dictate when and where i engage

even though it's a huge pain replaying the same battle several times until it's successful, i'v been doing a solid job of finding a way to either kill the AKs or chase them away to hold off the invasion

problem is the war has been going on for 24+ months and i'v been invaded 20+ times (likely because the weather is good in the Caribbean) and it's just sucking the fun out of the game

it doesn't make sense that even though a country trying to invade is getting beaten back that they would keep coming over and over and over again - especially since more often than not i'm killing the ships they use for invasion

invasions can/should be very costly and fragile, and they need to be well planned out to be executed properly or else they will fail, and i don't think an invasion every month represents any sort of proper planning or execution

also there are many times i beat off the invasion force with little/moderate damage, yet the invasion was still successful only because i sustained slightly more damage than the enemy which again doesn't make sense - if the enemy wins because he damaged me more then that's fine, but if the troops never landed then the actual invasion should still be a failure

for example this was a 'successful' invasion so i had to replay the battle AGAIN to get a better result:

View Attachment

no landings should mean no invasion regardless of the battle outcome

finally in the latest invasion the invasion AKs start landing less than 100 ticks into a 1400 tick battle so i'm being given zero chance to repulse the invasion since i can't end run the entire UK force, therefore to have a chance to win i would have to dive into an invasion force with 3 B's against 14+ UK B's.  i guess i could just let the invasion happen but it's not fun when i'm likely to get invaded somewhere else again next month and the entire war is turning into an invasion battle every turn

I get that its annoying to be continuously invaded but the British have such a big numbers advantage that in real life you would just be permanently blockaded and permanently navally invaded
there is absolutely no way you should realistically be able to win against Britain with only 3 battleships 


its like playing as japan and declaring war on UK/USA in 1910 and wondering why you are getting permanently invaded blockaded and attacked
they have at least 2x-3x maybe 4x your ship numbers


also realistically speaking with 3 battleships and a few cruisers there is absolutely no way in real life you would defeat an invasion force of 13 battleships 

its comparable to the Germans trying to break the Normandy invasion by sea its just not gonna happen

[JagdFlanker]

in my example none of the transports reached their objectives because they ran away, therefore there should be no invasion

sure realistically i can't win with 3 B's, but i'm not trying to win, just survive. i'v already repelled 20 invasions in 2 years in this specific run and more often than not it was from killing the AKs

i'm fine getting invaded, i have a problem with getting invaded almost every month for 2 years straight when in reality it's not easy to plan/execute a proper invasion

[JagdFlanker]

still plugging away at chasing away invasions, thought i'd post a couple pics of how the invading force has more options to win compared to the defender

so here the transports made it to the objective, i caused much more damage to the enemy that they did to me yet the UK still 'won' - i get that the invasion should be successful but the final result was that the UK won when in reality they didn't

next the transports made it to the objective (within 100 ticks of a 1400 tick scenario so i had no chance to intercept, which doesn't seem reasonable considering the length of the battle) but were all destroyed immediately before realistically having a chance to land troops, plus i gave far more damage than i received yet the UK still won and the invasion succeeded

i would think reaching the objective is 1 thing, but staying alive long enough to actually disembark troops should also be part of the scenario

even if the end result possibilities remain unchanged at the very least it should take months to plan an invasion before it's carried out, and if the transports are sunk there should be a couple months delay before the same or another invasion is carried out

[nimrod]

I have to agree - "at the very least it should take months to plan an invasion before it's carried out, and if the transports are sunk there should be a couple months delay before the same or another invasion is carried out." I also find the transports unloading within a super short time period to be off given that the invasion troops don't need to be resupplied. US and Japanese troops were rapidly unloaded at Guadalcanal, but that invasion took months with numerous resupply / reinforcement missions... Lacking those resupply missions, an immediate offloading of troops (i.e. troops that would lack heavy equipment or significant supplies) that then stay at full combat effectiveness for months just doesn't seem valid...

Seems like my invasions take on average 3-4 months before they occur after setting a target - sometimes less, but sometimes more. I think this is very reasonable for territory that I don't share a land connection to or a high value territory.

I think JagdFlanker's is noting that their is no merchant marine / logistic system in place. Additionally there is no need to keep supplying the land force - which would take up available supplies and transport ships. Having logistics (what ever that means) or a random two to three month cool down between invasion attempts would help mimic the need to replenish the invasion troops; as well as bring in fresh troops and supplies for the next invasion.

Personally, from what I can tell there is no scaling of the invasion force to the territories value. I would sure think a territory worth 1 point could by taken by a pretty small force while a territory worth 5 points would need a significant force to secure. I can see back to back low point territory invasions like the Japanese did in early WWII, but those were pretty well planed in advance and generally meet little opposition - lot were done by the army as well.

Ultimately I think 2-3 months between major sea-born invasions is fairly true to WWII when large stockpiles are close at hand. Just looking at Europe in 1943 you have Operation Husky July 9th and Operation Avalanche September 3rd. In 1944 Operation Overlord June 6th and Operation Dragoon August 15th.

[navalperson]

Mar 11, 2021 12:21:18 GMT -6 nimrod said:

I have to agree - "at the very least it should take months to plan an invasion before it's carried out, and if the transports are sunk there should be a couple months delay before the same or another invasion is carried out." I also find the transports unloading within a super short time period to be off given that the invasion troops don't need to be resupplied. US and Japanese troops were rapidly unloaded at Guadalcanal, but that invasion took months with numerous resupply / reinforcement missions... Lacking those resupply missions, an immediate offloading of troops (i.e. troops that would lack heavy equipment or significant supplies) that then stay at full combat effectiveness for months just doesn't seem valid...

Seems like my invasions take on average 3-4 months before they occur after setting a target - sometimes less, but sometimes more. I think this is very reasonable for territory that I don't share a land connection to or a high value territory.

I think JagdFlanker's is noting that their is no merchant marine / logistic system in place. Additionally there is no need to keep supplying the land force - which would take up available supplies and transport ships. Having logistics (what ever that means) or a random two to three month cool down between invasion attempts would help mimic the need to replenish the invasion troops; as well as bring in fresh troops and supplies for the next invasion.

Personally, from what I can tell there is no scaling of the invasion force to the territories value. I would sure think a territory worth 1 point could by taken by a pretty small force while a territory worth 5 points would need a significant force to secure. I can see back to back low point territory invasions like the Japanese did in early WWII, but those were pretty well planed in advance and generally meet little opposition - lot were done by the army as well.

Ultimately I think 2-3 months between major sea-born invasions is fairly true to WWII when large stockpiles are close at hand. Just looking at Europe in 1943 you have Operation Husky July 9th and Operation Avalanche September 3rd. In 1944 Operation Overlord June 6th and Operation Dragoon August 15th.

I agree a little bit that invasions need to be toned down but more so I wish invasions could be improved I like the points you made but would like to add some in that I feel their needs to be a little more play value like maybe amphibious assaults could be added or reworked to become more like it in a way possible carrier operations could be implemented and to be able to build troop transports or at the very least Lst’s. I also wish their was a way to invade a country instead of just territories but only if you have a fairly large VP lead. In that this could trigger a unconditional surrender but you don’t keep the country kind of what we did to Japan and that things turn back to normal because their have been too many times that I have waited for a country to collapse to claim unconditional surrender in that being able to invade it would make things a lot easier.

[wlbjork]

Mar 11, 2021 8:26:55 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

still plugging away at chasing away invasions, thought i'd post a couple pics of how the invading force has more options to win compared to the defender

so here the transports made it to the objective, i caused much more damage to the enemy that they did to me yet the UK still 'won' - i get that the invasion should be successful but the final result was that the UK won when in reality they didn't

View Attachment

This one is bugging me. Yes, the UK won by virtue of the 80,000 bonus points for getting at least 4 TRs to their objective marker. However, adding in ship damage and the surviving merchant bonus scores makes 84,297. I seem to be missing 40,900 points?

[JagdFlanker]

Mar 11, 2021 12:21:18 GMT -6 nimrod said:

I think JagdFlanker's is noting that their is no merchant marine / logistic system in place. Additionally there is no need to keep supplying the land force - which would take up available supplies and transport ships. Having logistics (what ever that means) or a random two to three month cool down between invasion attempts would help mimic the need to replenish the invasion troops; as well as bring in fresh troops and supplies for the next invasion.

to be fair if the invasion is successful (and the territory isn't immediately taken) there are resupply battles to support the invasion that start popping up so logistics are kind of taken care of, and i fully understand why invasion battles resolve like they do (to prevent opening a can of worms programming-wise), but invasions definitely could use a little more attention to detail

i didn't have as much issues with invasions in the other countries i'v played since most of them seem to be in an area where the weather is bad for about half the year which limited the amount of invasions launched against you, however it seems in the Caribbean the weather is nice all year round and i'v been getting bombarded with invasions relentlessly

[nimrod]

JagdFlanker - I hope I didn't put words in your mouth.

What I was referring to with the logistics was that we really don't have any additional funds having to go to support the invasion once it is "successful". We pay a monthly cost for our ships ammo and fuel and payroll to the sailors, yet the ground troops have no monthly cost associated to them and transports are free as well. We have elevated maintenance costs for the ships when they are out of the home waters to mimic a fleet train, but nothing for the troops or AC that I can see.

FYI - I rarely get the followup battles; but I often play the underdog.

Worst issue I've had is as Italy; I "successfully" invaded Malta and the next message (on the same day) was "invasion failed"; pictures below. Had debated putting them in the unintended humor thread... I find it quite ironic and funny, "our successful invasion was repulsed!"

[JagdFlanker]

finally scraped my way through the war when a compromise peace was negotiated, yay!

had an interesting result in one of my final battles where i chased away the AKs and did more damage to the enemy, yet the UK won

however to my surprise the invasion was averted - so in some cases chasing away the transports is good enough to avert the invasion

[williammiller]

The current Invasion system is something I'd like us to take a good look at when time allows - thanks.

[potrero]

A disastrously failed invasion should be a major hit to the invader. Large numbers of troops lost, along with vehicles, artillery, equipment, specialized landing craft and transports, etc. Just look at what went into any of the ETO amphibious invasions during WWII. It’s not the end of the war, but nobody just shrugs it off as if nothing happened and tries again a month later. Even the British at their imperial apex couldn’t do that. They may very well maintain their naval superiority and hold a blockade, but invasions are not a mass-produced item. Their offensive capabilities will be severely diminished for months at the least.

I’ve personally had games where the enemy landed successfully (circumstances questionable, but whatever). I’ve won every subsequent action in-theater, absolutely swept their fleet from the seas, completely eliminated their lines of supply while safeguarding my own, only to be notified that my land forces have been forced to surrender.

For my own suggestion, any invasion battle should include a shore bombardment action. Just because the transports reached the beach shouldn’t automatically mean they overwhelmed the defenses. A beach landing without proper fire support should be massacred at the high-tide line.

Additionally, an invasion that’s not working out for the invader should open the possibility of an evacuation that will need to be covered; think Dunkirk, Crete, or the Japanese in the later stages of Guadalcanal. A successful evacuation will minimize the loss of VP and may actually gain the admiral some prestige for leaving no man behind. On the other hand, a failed invasion should come with a massive loss in VP and prestige for sending the Army/Marines into a slaughter.

[wlbjork]

Apr 5, 2021 19:13:20 GMT -6 potrero said:

For my own suggestion, any invasion battle should include a shore bombardment action. Just because the transports reached the beach shouldn’t automatically mean they overwhelmed the defenses. A beach landing without proper fire support should be massacred at the high-tide line.

Additionally, an invasion that’s not working out for the invader should open the possibility of an evacuation that will need to be covered; think Dunkirk, Crete, or the Japanese in the later stages of Guadalcanal. A successful evacuation will minimize the loss of VP and may actually gain the admiral some prestige for leaving no man behind. On the other hand, a failed invasion should come with a massive loss in VP and prestige for sending the Army/Marines into a slaughter.

Shore bombardments are only needed if there are fortifications present. Consider that the Atlantic Wall had some 600 batteries of guns 4"-16" running from the North Cape (Norway) to the Spanish border in German-held territory - the equivalent of 600 fortifications in RTW2 terms. Heavy naval gunfire support - and aerial bombardment - were absolutely necessary.

The British troops landing in the Falklands Islands on the other hand, strolled ashore completely unopposed. One of the British troopers that was there said the invasion could have been defeated by 2 LMGs and a rocket launcher, it was that disorganised.

At the moment, the landings are very abstracted. I suspect a part of this is due to the limitation of one engagement per month meaning there is no guarantee that the battle would occur, and it would be unreasonable to deny a successful in invasion due to said limit.