Post by generalvikus on Aug 16, 2023 15:31:59 GMT -6
I've just had an interesting battle with my US fleet invading Saipan. While my carrier force was able to defeat its opponents, sinking one enemy carrier and damaging a second and receiving no damage in return, the Japanese battle line was able to intercept and sink all the friendly transports before my own battle line could intercept them on the way back. There were two problems here: firstly, my battle line was spawned far from my own transports; and secondly, the invasion was considered a success (because I came out ahead in VPs) even though all of the invasion transports were sunk. If possible, it would be good to make the success or failure of invasions contingent on the survival of transports rather than VPs. Furthermore, different forces should be spawned close to one another, so that the player can freely decide how to dispose of them; while widely separated forces were of course a feature of naval warfare in this era, this was a result of plans freely decided upon by the actors involved, rather than of unavoidable constraints. The player should therefore be given agency over whether to concentrate or disperse his forces, and this can only be achieved by spawning them close together at the outset of a battle. Either way, the battle force should spawn close to transports in an invasion or convoy battle.
The game only determines the winner of a scenario based on VPs.
Only one objective can have VPs attached, and it must be for the attacker.
The scenario is slightly biased towards the attacker - and IMO this is reasonable, as the cost of planning an invasion is quite high.
The second complaint sounds a bit like one of the issues I've noticed with other scenarios, in that sometimes the position of forces seems to get swapped around. It seems pretty rare, and I miss saving the game to post for a bug check when the event happens.