Amphibious Assaults

[Enigma_Nova]

Woohoo! I invoked Solver!
/me feels the power

[Bill3000]

The marines (heck, almost all of the modern infantry units) in Civ3 had a horrible attack rating compared to the defenders' defense.

[gdijedi7]

The Marines in Civ3 were just bogus. The non-armored units were just too weak. I think it has imporved in Civ4, but has not been fixed.

I don't know what to think about this, but I like the idea of a TOW Infantry that has +100% attack against armor. It should be just attack, or maybe defense too, if they are in a city or wooded area. Anti-Tank infanty demolish tanks, as long as they have decent cover, or suprise. If the tanks catch them in the open and unprepared, they should die.

I'm wondering if maybe Marines should get a bonus when amphibiously assaulting a beach (instead of just nullifying the penalty). That is what they are trained for, and that is what they excell at.

It would help if the navy could bombard units too. That was standard procedure for most Amphib Assaults in WWII.

[sabrewolf]

gdijedi: even though they may be trained for amphibious assaults, there is no way they are STRONGER when coming from sea. i mean... you have no cover except the dark of the night and the sound of the waves, they can get wet and their guns may fail. they can't take along too much armour. and they alway go uphill (beaches tend to be lower than the land behind ). meanwhile defenders are fortified.

when attacking from land, you can also fortify, come from the forests, carry better armour and bring along plenty of artillery, etc, etc, etc.

the only thing i would change is give other units slightly more penalties. maybe 33% or even 40%. 25% is a bit little...

[Solver]

A 33% penalty would be overkill, IMO. Currently, you can take an extra turn to move across a river, but can risk the -25% penalty and attack from the other side. With 33%, you'd always have to move first.

[Enigma_Nova]

If only there were zones of control, Rivers might become tactically important.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
A 33% penalty would be overkill, IMO. Currently, you can take an extra turn to move across a river, but can risk the -25% penalty and attack from the other side. With 33%, you'd always have to move first.

Isn't it a 50% penalty?

[Thoth]

Kuciwalker: no it is indeed 25%.

Amphibious is my 2nd favourite artillery promotion.

I had great fun plinking workers amphibiously against Monte in my last game as the English. I spotted a group of 4 unescorted workers on an ajacent peninsula, loaded a couple of axes into a galley and a few turns later had a couple of new wokers inbound. I could have bagged another couple, but I only had the one galley.

[Solver]

I think there are two penalties. 25% when crossing river, and 50% for amphibious assault (attacking from a transport ship).

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, that's very interesting. I thought attacks across rivers counted as amphibious assaults.

[Solver]

Well, I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that this is the case in retail version. Like 90% sure.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
And then we invent the internet and Propaganda-flamed hate spews uncontrollably all over the place once again.
GG.

Al Gore invented the internet, not "us." We should not take the credit for all of the Propaganda-flamed hate that he has so generously brought us.

Ironically enough, a lot of the soldiers on the so-called Nazi side of Normandy were conscripted Poles and Russians, since the German army was stretched so thin by 1944, and so many Germans had been killed after three years on the Eastern Front. The German units fought very hard against the invasion, but many more of these conscripts who were posted there had no morale and were unwilling to die for the Nazis, thus they surrenedered or fled almost immediately.

Back on topic: Uhh.... Marines SuXX04z, but I like the Navy SEAL units.

[Last Conformist]

The **** manual doesn't appear to say anything about attacking across rivers, except that Amphibious negates the penalty.