Thoughts on the best way to limit naval movement in TOAWIII?

[LOK]

One of the things that really bugs me about this great game is the almost infinite naval movement and transport, resulting in amphibious assaults originating on one end of the map and ending on the other without your opponent being able to stop them. I know James and Ralph are hard at work addressing all these issues. :hail:

In the meantime, I was wondering what do other players think about different approaches in limiting these assaults:

1) Use sea "zones" where the capture of a single, vital port allows the player to player to execute naval assault in the sea zone.

2) Use of twisted sea routes to slow down naval movement (it can get very annoying if a lot of units need to be moved :mad:)

3) Use of honor rules to limit the naval movement/transport/amphibious assault to N hexes, where N is determined by the designer or the players.

Any thoughts/preferences?
i am interested in what other people prefer.

[rasmus]

One of the things that really bugs me about this great game is the almost infinite naval movement and transport, resulting in amphibious assaults originating on one end of the map and ending on the other without your opponent being able to stop them. I know James and Ralph are hard at work addressing all these issues. :hail:

In the meantime, I was wondering what do other players think about different approaches in limiting these assaults:

1) Use sea "zones" where the capture of a single, vital port allows the player to player to execute naval assault in the sea zone.

2) Use of twisted sea routes to slow down naval movement (it can get very annoying if a lot of units need to be moved :mad:)

3) Use of honor rules to limit the naval movement/transport/amphibious assault to N hexes, where N is determined by the designer or the players.

Any thoughts/preferences?
i am interested in what other people prefer.

number three works OK for the paratroopers in EA .

[LOK]

number three works OK for the paratroopers in EA .
I am kind of leaning that way too. It would make things much more realistic in my opinion.

[Veers]

1) Use sea "zones" where the capture of a single, vital port allows the player to player to execute naval assault in the sea zone.
I, personally, am a fan of this approach. You can see it, to an extent, in EA, with strategic places like Malta, Tripoli, Messina, and Gibraltar.


2) Use of twisted sea routes to slow down naval movement (it can get very annoying if a lot of units need to be moved :mad:)
These are much more practical with the new pathfinding available in T3.


3) Use of honor rules to limit the naval movement/transport/amphibious assault to N hexes, where N is determined by the designer or the players.
This is another sensible way to do, as Rasmus says, it works for the Paras in EA.

[Foggy]

I, personally, am a fan of this approach. You can see it, to an extent, in EA, with strategic places like Malta, Tripoli, Messina, and Gibraltar.


These are much more practical with the new pathfinding available in T3.


This is another sensible way to do, as Rasmus says, it works for the Paras in EA.

Those are paras - we are talking about large troop movements - injecting
honor rules into T3?

[Veers]

Those are paras - we are talking about large troop movements - injecting
honor rules into T3?

*raises eyebrow, as he a bit unclear what you are asking here*

[jlbetin]

Hi,

Look at WWII landing operations what is the biggest distance the embarked units ran between embarling port and beaches ??
In European Area Dragoon was round 600, Napoli to French Riviera.

But what about Torch ??

More in Pacific ? I have few knowledge for this theater of Operation

This to ponder our will to shorten sea moves

Der WanderNotPleasedAtAllWithPoint34
________________________________
The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a ███ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
To get news on the Birth of European Army Tournament round one & two, clich here -> Results on 05/17/2007 (http://www.gamesaquad.com/toaw/?p=67)

[LOK]

Hi,

Look at WWII landing operations what is the biggest distance the embarked units ran between embarking port and beaches ??
In European Area Dragoon was round 600, Napoli to French Riviera.

But what about Torch ??

More in Pacific ? I have few knowledge for this theater of Operation

This to ponder our will to shorten sea moves

Der WanderNotPleasedAtAllWithPoint34
________________________________
The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a ███ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
To get news on the Birth of European Army Tournament round one & two, clich here -> Results on 05/17/2007 (http://www.gamesaquad.com/toaw/?p=67)
Yes you are quite correct on the distance but that is not really the issue. It's the total lack of interception by enemy fleets and aircraft that I was trying to address. If one side has total naval and air superiority it should be able to mount amphibious assaults over large distances (if it has the capability, which in reality only a few countries do in modern times). But if it doesn't, it should not be able to mount amphibious (or even transport troops) from one end of the map to the other unmolested. That's what I was trying to ask (perhaps not very eloquently).

[Mark Stevens]

Didn't some of the 'Operation Torch' units sail directly from the USA to North Africa?

"The Western Task Force (aimed at Casablanca) comprised American units, with Major General George Patton in command and Rear Admiral Henry K. Hewitt heading the naval operations. This Western Task Force consisted of the U.S. 2nd Armored Division, the U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions—35,000troops in all. They were transported directly from the United States": I know, it's only Wikipedia!


I quite like the sea zones/strategic ports method.

[Veers]

Didn't some of the 'Operation Torch' units sail directly from the USA to North Africa?

"The Western Task Force (aimed at Casablanca) comprised American units, with Major General George Patton in command and Rear Admiral Henry K. Hewitt heading the naval operations. This Western Task Force consisted of the U.S. 2nd Armored Division, the U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions—35,000troops in all. They were transported directly from the United States": I know, it's only Wikipedia!
Only Wikipedia, but it is true from other sources I haev read, as well.


I quite like the sea zones/strategic ports method.
Seconded.

[LOK]

Didn't some of the 'Operation Torch' units sail directly from the USA to North Africa?

"The Western Task Force (aimed at Casablanca) comprised American units, with Major General George Patton in command and Rear Admiral Henry K. Hewitt heading the naval operations. This Western Task Force consisted of the U.S. 2nd Armored Division, the U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions—35,000troops in all. They were transported directly from the United States": I know, it's only Wikipedia!


I quite like the sea zones/strategic ports method.
No question that some seaborne invasions were launched from thousands of miles away. No argument there. (I think Wikipedia is correct btw on Operation Torch).
My question was what's the best method to implement an "interception" method in TOAWIII as it exists, which you answered.
May be a combination of all 3 methods would be the best. Where applicable a key port would mark a sea zone, but in other cases that is less practical or less realistic.
of course, all this discussion will be moot once we have naval interception...hint for James & Ralph.;)

[macgregr]

If you use the honor system, consider including the individual unit speeds in the name.

[LOK]

If you use the honor system, consider including the individual unit speeds in the name.
That is actually a very good idea.
That would differentiate major ocean going vessels (and fleets) from smaller coastal vessels.