Littoral Landings - When to do?

[Richard Lee]

May I please request help from the fanatici? The query relates to my on-going 'Solo DBA'. I am trying to write something to decide whether or not the non-player general (NPG) controlled by 'Solo DBA' decides to do a littoral landing if their army has littoral terrain. The trouble is that I am not particularly good at using littoral landings to good effect. I don't usually do them when I play, because I find that dividing my army is likely to lead to disaster.

What factors would make you inclined to chance a littoral landing? What factors would make you avoid doing one?

At the moment I have worked out that it is probably better to do them if you are the attacker, because then the defender has to deploy before they know that you are reserving elements for a littoral landing. I also think that an enemy camp too close to the waterway's edge is a tempting target but enemy troops in a reserve line are a deterrent.

Is there anything else? I would really appreciate any input.

Thank you in anticipation.

[The Last Conformist]

A few factors that would increase the chance me doing a landing:

i) Enemy predominantly slow (foot, nellies, knights).
ii) My own army has a fair lot of fast troops, to rapidly put pressure on the enemy from two directions.
iii) My army has no unresponsive troops (El, Art, Hd, WWg).
iv) I'm unlikely to win a frontal slog.

[David Kuijt]

What factors would make you inclined to chance a littoral landing? What factors would make you avoid doing one?

At the moment I have worked out that it is probably better to do them if you are the attacker, because then the defender has to deploy before they know that you are reserving elements for a littoral landing. I also think that an enemy camp too close to the waterway's edge is a tempting target but enemy troops in a reserve line are a deterrent.


If both players are Littoral, the attacker should NEVER do one if 2+ defending elements are on the boats.

I'm not sure how you can make them work well in solitaire play, because a large part of their impact is psychological.

I almost always do one, attacking or defending, because they virtually guarantee me psychological dominance through the whole game.

[Richard Lee]

Thank you, Andreas and David. That gives me something to think about.

[Barron of Ideas]

If both players are Littoral, the attacker should NEVER do one if 2+ defending elements are on the boats.

I'm not sure how you can make them work well in solitaire play, because a large part of their impact is psychological.

I almost always do one, attacking or defending, because they virtually guarantee me psychological dominance through the whole game.

I doubt David needs to make a littoral landing to gain psychological dominance.

As it is almost impossible for a solo wargamer to "surprise" his opponent, I recommend almost never making a landing. What you do is to give the opponent an opportunity to crush the landing element with whatever part of his 12 stand army he feels will do the job and hold off the non-landing part with the rest of his army.

It is possible there is a risk of losing your camp to the landing forces, but recapture of the camp is highly likely if care is taken, as the enemy gets no combat benefit (the plus two) from occupying an enemy camp. If you have not already lost two stands you do not lose the game if the camp changes hands, unless, of course, you have put one of your valuable twelve units in the camp (and so given up the camp follower leaving the camp ungarrisoned if you need to move that garrison element.)

You may detect a disinclation on my part to put a part of my army into my camp or BUA. If you want to reduce your field army to 11 stands, leave the "garrison" unit near the camp so it can counter attack or interfere with the enemy attempt to capture the camp. A shooter element (bow, warwagon, artillery) may be the best choice for this task. (Depending on what element you expect the enemy to occupy your camp with.) Bow for example are a four against mounted, but only a two against foot. On the other hand, artillery are a four shooting anything.

Note that if the enemy in your camp loses combat by one pip (say 6 to 5) it is destroyed as it can't safely retreat from combat when in a camp. One of your units in your camp has the same problem, at least the camp follower doesn't count against your losses.

Did I mention the retreat into the waterway problem with the landing? Your landing units may be able to make double or even more moves, if you get enough PIPs, (Ps, LH, sometimes warband if there is a defender in the right place) otherwise the landing force sits often with its back to the waterway and no place to retreat. if the side of the landing forces are adjacent to the waterway, there may be in theory some safe place to retreat, but the attacker may have some way to make that expectation go away (example, multiple Ps moves on the first turn.)

If you have a good army, why do you want to put a significant part of it out of command radius and demand high PIP rolls even if it isn't out of command to move both parts of your army effectively. Friends don't let friends make littoral landings, unless of course your name is David.

[Scott Russell]

If both players are Littoral, the attacker should NEVER do one if 2+ defending elements are on the boats.


Could you expand on this David? I am very bad at littoral landings. Almost every time I have tried one it has been a disaster. My instinct in these circumstances would be to take elements with an inbuilt superiority to those "on the boats" and try to ambush them with an adjacent landing, especially if they numbered less than four. I am quite prepared to accept that this is a mistake, but why?
Scott

[The Last Conformist]

You can't try and ambush them when they land after you.

[Scott Russell]

Ah yes, the light dawns. But presumably for the same reason.
Scott

[The Last Conformist]

Surely the defending elements "on the boats" will land first?
No, why would you think that? The attacker always takes the first turn, so their landing party lands first.

[Richard Lee]

Excellent discussion with excellent points.

@Baron, I am not trying to make the non-payer general (NPG) do littoral landings often. I had intended to ignore the possibility because I share some of your views on them. However, when play-testing yesterday (defending with New Kingdom Egyptians against Syro-Canaanites) I found that I ignored the possibility of the NPG doing a littoral landing because 'Solo DBA' did not contain any method for the NPG to reserve troops for a littoral landing. When playing against humans I would have to consider the possability of an enemy littoral landing when deploying as defender.

[Scott Russell]

No, why would you think that? The attacker always takes the first turn, so their landing party lands first.

Quick off the mark! That actually occurred to me about 30 seconds after hitting "send". Hence the rapid edit.
Scott

[David Kuijt]

Although the attacking party chooses its elements last (with, in theory, the ability to fine-tune the content of its landing party to gain advantage over the defending landing party), this turns out to not be much of an advantage. As Andreas points out, the attacker has to place his elements first. If the defender is totally overmatched he need not place his own elements anywhere near danger. But he won't be overmatched because almost every army has at least a few elements that can fight vaguely even with the foe. For example, suppose I am defending with NKE and I put Bd/Ps/Bw in the landing party. There is no attacking landing party that can deal with that triad quickly. By the clever use of placement I can certainly get a rear-shot or shot-with-no-recoil on my placement bound, with a good chance of killing an element of almost any landing party. And any placement of merit will further mess up the enemy landing party by ZOC, sucking up two pips per enemy element for several turns while the attacking landing party desperately attempts to deal with the threat before being thrown back into the sea.

The major worry about an attacking landing party is that splitting your army will allow the defenders to defeat you in detail; the major advantages are that it can throw your enemy in disorder and suck his pips. In the case of a defender making a littoral landing against you attacking littoral landing, the pip-suck is reversed in spades. Further, it is rarely to the disadvantage of the defender -- if the attacker ends up choosing not to make a littoral landing, the defender is allowed to choose a position of advantage. The only time I might not choose to make a littoral landing as a defender is if the attacker had the waterway on his back edge. And even then, I'd probably make a littoral landing, giving the attacker the choice of losing his camp or putting his forces in disarray right at the start.

[Jeff Franz]

Always always use the landing force. Using it does not mean that it needs to be placed on the opposite side of the board. It could be used to bring your slower troops further on the board the first turn. Think of all the very cool possibilities! Artillery pushed into the rear of an enemy formation could be lots of fun. What about the Ps sneak attack from the edge of a water way?

Jeff

[Rich Gause]

It is very risky to deploy a landing force if you are the defender and the attacker has the waterway to his rear. He deploys after you decide what is landing so he can deploy to kill it. You then have the choice to bring the landing force on and get it killed or leaving them out of play. Otherwise it is always great to do something devious with a landing force.

[Paul A. Hannah]

You then have the choice to bring the landing force on...or leaving them out of play.I know it's not mandatory to land elements in the boats, but has anyone ever NOT landed elements that had been reserved for a littoral landing? Just curious. If so, what was your rationale?

Hey, maybe you just forgot. (Grins.)

[David Kuijt]

I know it's not mandatory to land elements in the boats, but has anyone ever NOT landed elements that had been reserved for a littoral landing? Just curious. If so, what was your rationale?

Hey, maybe you just forgot. (Grins.)

I've seen a player forget. Hey, I've even seen a player who played his whole game with 10 elements, and he didn't even have a littoral landing party as an excuse. Not naming any names... (Ron...)

I've also seen a player who was forced to not-land. On a 24" board, it is possible for the attacker with the waterway on his back edge to make it impossible for the defender to land his littoral landing. Not easy, but possible.

But I've never seen anyone deliberately choose to not-land.

[The Last Conformist]

I've seen a player forget. Hey, I've even seen a player who played his whole game with 10 elements, and he didn't even have a littoral landing party as an excuse. Not naming any names... (Ron...)
I once forgot to put the 2x7Hd on the field with Khitan-Liao. It was afterwards suggested this meant that my victory didn't count.

[Doug]

Always always use the landing force.

Effective landing forces. Bw are extremely useful - very often getting at least one or two rear end shots. I have won games by making a landing and shooting down a general without my opponent being able to do anything.

Fast General, so he can get up and reduce the PIP drain.

Opponent having slow troops that will find it difficult to respond.

I also consider whether the rest of my army can be in a position to pin the opponent such that the landing and my other troops can be hammer and anvil. Faster troops are better. A Littoral landing in conjunction with some LH can be very effective.

Do I need to? In other words, am I confident of a win without the landing.

Would the troops used for the landing be more useful elsewhere?

And it's not necessary to land 4 troop elements.

[RonG]

It makes it more challenging with 10 elements.:rotfl How many games was that?:2up

[Paul A. Hannah]

...it is possible for the attacker with the waterway on his back edge to make it impossible for the defender to land his littoral landing. Not easy, but possible.
Here's an overview of the starting deployments in a game last night between my I/44a Neo-Babylonians (defending, below & in BUA) vs. Andy Hooper's I/53 Saitic Egyptians.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/Paul_A_Hannah/Babylonians/BabylonianBUA001.jpg

Obviously, I was seriously worried (paranoid?) about an Egyptian invasion in my rear. I didn't totally deny Andy space to land, but he took one look at my "Festung Babylonia" and opted to keep all 12 elements on terra firma.

[Tony Aguilar]

Nice looking WW, Paul.

[Martin Smith]

Here's an overview of the starting deployments in a game last night between my I/44a Neo-Babylonians (defending, below & in BUA) vs. Andy Hooper's I/53 Saitic Egyptians.
Obviously, I was seriously worried (paranoid?) about an Egyptian invasion in my rear. I didn't totally deny Andy space to land, but he took one look at my "Festung Babylonia" and opted to keep all 12 elements on terra firma.
Just a thought - if the Neo-Babylonians were defending vs a 'littoral' opponent, what was the rationale for laying a waterway as part of the terrain?.... Or was it pre-set terrain, or a campaign game?
M
ps -nice terrain.

[John Meunier]

Here's an overview of the starting deployments in a game last night between my I/44a Neo-Babylonians (defending, below & in BUA) vs. Andy Hooper's I/53 Saitic Egyptians.


Obviously, I was seriously worried (paranoid?) about an Egyptian invasion in my rear. I didn't totally deny Andy space to land, but he took one look at my "Festung Babylonia" and opted to keep all 12 elements on terra firma.

Who won the battle, Paul?

[Paul A. Hannah]

Who won the battle, Paul?
The Neo-Babs, in a wild finish. (Details and pics in this thread (http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=1957).)

If the Neo-Babylonians were defending vs a 'littoral' opponent, what was the rationale for laying a waterway as part of the terrain?
Honestly? Just wasn't thinking. I recall saying to Andy, after laying the Waterway, "Oh yeah, you've probably got a Littoral army."

But, it's not entirely out of character for me. Sometimes, I intentionally lay a Waterway against a Littoral opponent, and then place my Camp, beachside, baiting my opponent to go for it.

[arnopov]

Obviously, I was seriously worried (paranoid?) about an Egyptian invasion in my rear. I didn't totally deny Andy space to land, but he took one look at my "Festung Babylonia" and opted to keep all 12 elements on terra firma.

How could you deploy in the 300 of both side edges ?

Arnopov

[Paul A. Hannah]

How could you deploy in the 300 of both side edges?Flat out wrong. Can't be done. My bad.

[JamesLDIII]

Personally, I would be really happy if the defender set up like that. It would take lots of pips to get organized while my forces drive overland.

[Bob. (and his dog)]

You can deploy one element withing 300p of side
". It cannot deploy any element within 300 paces of a battlefield side edge unless in a BUA or camp."