Why are Amphibious Assaults so easy?

[Bridger]

I'm just curious as to why there is no penalty for an amphibious assault (aside from the no retreating one)? Historicly (as i understand it), amphibous assaults are a nightmare logistically. You need to create a beachhead (which, in itself, is difficult if the coast is fortified), then you need to keep the sea lanes open to the troops for supplies/reinforcements, and then extend your small beachhead to an actual large territory.

None of these difficulties is represented in A&A though. It's like amphibious assaults are just land assaults that you can't retreat from. Why don't the defenders get any kind of advantage? Or attackers get any disadvantage? I expected europe/pacific to address this problem (especially pacific, where there are so many amphib landings), but it did not.

My suggestion would be that infantry defending an amphib assault get to defend at 3 or something along those lines? Perhaps that is a bit drastic. Maybe defenders get one *free hit on them, so the first hit the attackers make doesn't cause any casualties (perhaps simulating fortifications along the coast?).

I'm not really sure what the solution is, but it just seems so odd to have the kind of opening move you see often by briton (india to kwang). That kind of operation would require a huge logistical chain from india to kwang right through the heart of the japanise fleet.

Maybe if a sea lane, recently used for an amphibious assault (I.E., if it was assaulted last turn) is then taken by the enemy, the assaulters automatically take 2 casualties (due to lack of reinforcements/supplies?). Even something that simple would help strategicly i think.

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Bridger:
I'm just curious as to why there is no penalty for an amphibious assault (aside from the no retreating one)? First, the game's logistics rules are so highly abstracted that there are NO supply rules at all. Anywhere.

Second, the game's combat system is so abstracted there are no terrain (or tactical) bonuses or penalties. There is just Offense, and Defense. Defending a beach already gives you double the combat power (defend at 2, attack at 1) assuming infantry only. You could make a similar argument for defending mountains, or jungle. It's all the same in the game.

Third, there IS a massive IPC penalty for amphib assaults not present for land attacks. Figure: to invade you need transports. It costs 8 IPCs per transport. Each transport can only carry 2 Inf (To keep it simple lets assume an infantry only attack). Thats 7 IPCs per attack factor, (8 + 3 + 3) / 2. On the other hand it costs the defender only 1.5 IPCs per defense factor.

The calculations are similar for carrier aircraft vs. Land-based defenders, battleships (1 shot per 24 IPCs!) and armor vs defending infantry.

On a per-combat factor basis, amphibious assaults are costly and this cost represents the logistical problems and difficulties.

mac

[Bridger]

hmm, i had forgot the IPC penalty, i guess that does represent the logistical difficulties fairly accurately.