Landing operations - realistic or not?

[Kriku]

Dear All

I have a strong stomach feeling that landing operations have always been over-simplified and unrealistic. The current approach that there is no need for special transport units does not make it better at all.

First, I believe that not all units are embarkable from landscape. Modern units most probably need ports. It might have been possible to embark a 19th century cavalry with makeshift rafts or boats (the horses swim, after all) but it will get rather complicated with tanks or other heavy weaponry of modern age. Do we need a flag to indicate if the unit is embarkable from shore and does not need a port?

Second, the very idea that an army does not need a fleet to get off a coast is ridiculous. For instance, Napoleonic army was trapped in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the transports.

Third, it is rather unrealistic that units can be disembarked on top of the hills to receive instant defense bonus.

Fourth, tanks can parachute. No version of Civ has featured this, has it?

 

[rastak]

Dear All

I have a strong stomach feeling that landing operations have always been over-simplified and unrealistic. The current approach that there is no need for special transport units does not make it better at all.

First, I believe that not all units are embarkable from landscape. Modern units most probably need ports. It might have been possible to embark a 19th century cavalry with makeshift rafts or boats (the horses swim, after all) but it will get rather complicated with tanks or other heavy weaponry of modern age. Do we need a flag to indicate if the unit is embarkable from shore and does not need a port?

Second, the very idea that an army does not need a fleet to get off a coast is ridiculous. For instance, Napoleonic army was trapped in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the transports.

Third, it is rather unrealistic that units can be disembarked on top of the hills to receive instant defense bonus.

Fourth, tanks can parachute. No version of Civ has featured this, has it?

That all sounds like anti-fun. I'd not want to micromanage to that level, the game would become work instead of fun for me.

On the transports, they are there. They are abstracted so we don't have spend an hour screwing around getting them in place.

Anyway, this isn't a simulation, it's just a game.

 

[oChuckles]

Units no longer really represent armies these days. They're far more abstract.

You'll be able to convert a war into something historical "Egypt defeated Greece through clever use of War Chariots and the defensive genius of a Great General" or "England conquered the world through its superior navy" but you can't translate an individual unit's position and behavior into army behavior or specific battles.

IMO, obviously.

I don't really mind as long as it makes the gameplay more fun and interesting. Notice the word "clever" above. Could not have used that word very often with SoD.

 

[Schuesseled]

I like how they have handled embarkation, they treat it as a promotion.

 

[marioflag]

Dear All

I have a strong stomach feeling that landing operations have always been over-simplified and unrealistic. The current approach that there is no need for special transport units does not make it better at all.

First, I believe that not all units are embarkable from landscape. Modern units most probably need ports. It might have been possible to embark a 19th century cavalry with makeshift rafts or boats (the horses swim, after all) but it will get rather complicated with tanks or other heavy weaponry of modern age. Do we need a flag to indicate if the unit is embarkable from shore and does not need a port?

Second, the very idea that an army does not need a fleet to get off a coast is ridiculous. For instance, Napoleonic army was trapped in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the transports.

Third, it is rather unrealistic that units can be disembarked on top of the hills to receive instant defense bonus.

Fourth, tanks can parachute. No version of Civ has featured this, has it?

There are 2 limits which are not considered in your argument.

1) The scale of the game. Civ5 features combat but it's arcade and the scale of the game is too big for such technicalities.This could be implemented for an RTS game like Company of Heroes.
2)AI efficiency. I also was really shocked when i knew that transport ships were removed. Nevertheless if you played Civ4 you know that AI wasn't simply able to make successful amphibious invasions. With the new implementation it shouldn't be any more troubling for AI. This is also valid for embarkments for ports which would really mess up AI.

 

[wapamingo]

what is the movement rate of embarked units??

 

[12agnar0k]

That all sounds like anti-fun.

Epic line.

 

[Tomice]

Only very special, ultralight "tanks" can parachute. You can't airdrop a MBT. In fact, most EU countries don't even have transports that could lift them (the UK for instance has only 4 transports big enough to lift a single MBT, Germany none)

 

[Kriku]

Units no longer really represent armies these days. They're far more abstract.

In that case, what do they represent?

 

[Kriku]

Only very special, ultralight "tanks" can parachute. You can't airdrop a MBT. In fact, most EU countries don't even have transports that could lift them (the UK for instance has only 4 transports big enough to lift a single MBT, Germany none)

Well, yes, but the Soviets did. Russia most probably does.

 

[Ahriman]

Is it realistic? Don't care.
It removes not-fun micromanagement, and is likely the single best way at improving the AI's ability to prosecute amphibious and inter-continental wars, which its always been pretty bad at.

And as far as being trapped by lack of transports a la Napoleon in Egypt; you can still obtain the same effect. If the English take out the French navy, the French won't want to be moving their land units into the water, because they'll get slaughtered by the English warships.

 

[Alki]

I think if we look around a modern map of Britain we'll see hundreds of ports where tanks could theoretically board ships. And yet a Civ map of the UK might only have 4 or 5 cities in it. Obviously the ports are there but just too small to put on the map.

When a tank embarks a transport we have to imagine it has driven up to a port, been picked up by a derrick and stuffed on a transport. The game doesn't get that granular to show it happening though.

 

[Kriku]

1) The scale of the game. Civ5 features combat but it's arcade and the scale of the game is too big for such technicalities.This could be implemented for an RTS game like Company of Heroes.

The scale of the game depends on the map size, doesn't it?

2)AI efficiency. I also was really shocked when i knew that transport ships were removed. Nevertheless if you played Civ4 you know that AI wasn't simply able to make successful amphibious invasions. With the new implementation it shouldn't be any more troubling for AI. This is also valid for embarkments for ports which would really mess up AI.

I do not actually think that the AI disabilities were caused by the transports. AI is weakest when estimating the size of a force which he needs to conduct a successful operation. Transports did not let him use a stack of doom which was his main weapon. He could make troublesome landings when given sufficient bonuses allowing the production of transports; the stacks of doom were also possible only if he was given bonuses. AI is very weak without bonuses anyway.

 

[Kriku]

I think if we look around a modern map of Britain we'll see hundreds of ports where tanks could theoretically board ships. And yet a Civ map of the UK might only have 4 or 5 cities in it. Obviously the ports are there but just too small to put on the map.

That is true. It is hard to handle all kinds of map sizes with a single game engine. That's why I suggest the "port" flag. I think that it is rather needed for large detailed maps (scenarios) although you are completely right about small maps, of course.

 

[Ahriman]

The scale of the game depends on the map size, doesn't it?

Even on the biggest maps you're still not representing every single city/town/port in the game.
And you're building a game design that needs to work across a range of map sizes.

I do not actually think that the AI disabilities were caused by the transports. AI is weakest when estimating the size of a force which he needs to conduct a successful operation. Transports did not let him use a stack of doom which was his main weapon. He could make troublesome landings when given sufficient bonuses allowing the production of transports; the stacks of doom were also possible only if he was given bonuses. AI is very weak without bonuses anyway.

Read your whole statement for inconsistencies.
If the problem is that the AI doesn't have enough transports to move its stack of doom to another continent, how is it possible to say that transports weren't causing the AI's problems?

And that they wouldn't be fixed by removing the need for explicit transport units?

With no explicit transport mechanic, the AI will easily be able to move its entire expeditionary force to attack an enemy, without any particular need for coordination or forethought other than supporting the transports with warships (which you had to do anyway).

The biggest AI problem with transports is that it require forethought to use optimally. You have to pre-build enough transports before a war. And then you have to move the transports to the right place at the right time to be there just when your army gets there ready to board.
AI is really bad at forethought.

 

[Kriku]

Even on the biggest maps you're still not representing every single city/town/port in the game.

Why not?

And every small local port does not count for purposes of modern military.

If the problem is that the AI doesn't have enough transports to move its stack of doom to another continent, how is it possible to say that transports weren't causing the AI's problems?

Well, the Stacks of Doom needed to be got rid of, didn't they? AI should not have had them neither on land or on sea. If there are no SoDs any more because of the unit number / hex restriction, why cut out the transports?

The biggest AI problem with transports is that it require forethought to use optimally. You have to pre-build enough transports before a war. And then you have to move the transports to the right place at the right time to be there just when your army gets there ready to board.

The same problem should appear with creating a combined arms force as well, shouldn't it? AI still needs to make enough catapults and crossbows and other types of units and move them to the right place to have a good army. And he still needs naval battle units to protect it's landing operation, anyway. He has to make them and move them to the right place quite like the transports.

 

[Kriku]

I think that the transports were cut out because of the 1 unit per hex rule. You would have to have as many transports as land units which is not good. Lifting the restriction to a somewhat larger limit (2-6 for instance) would allow transports and be more realistic.

 

[TheGreatAnthony]

Also, as mentioned in another thread, you would have to load each unit one at a time from each port, which would take too long when you're at war. Even with two close ports, it would take a while for a reasonable army to embark.

 

[Kriku]

Yes, I just figured it out in my previous post If the 1 unit per hex rule cannot be modded to 5 units per hex rule or something similar, then we really cannot have transports. But the points about ports and landing sites are still valid.

 

[sensual benny]

The scale of the game depends on the map size, doesn't it?

The scale also means the timeline. Especially in the early game, turns can be what? Centuries? Decades? I can´t imagine Napolean being stalled by Nelson for 30 years because he couldn´t get any boats together.