blue emu said:
AHA! So that's how you take Malta. Build lots of subs... I never would have guessed...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
AHA! So that's how you take Malta. Build lots of subs... I never would have guessed...
Exactly... in this screen-shot:khumak said:
... the mighty German Invasion Fleet (one Transport carrying one Infantry Division, no escorts or Shore Bombardment) lands a detachment to accept the surrender of the starving British Malta defenders.
Some german burocrat should start thinking how a monument to the submarines should look like...
And where did you get those nice unit graphics? I bet this has been asked a millon times....
But to stay on topic...I would say that buffy was like beverly hills 90210 with vampires
And where did you get those nice unit graphics? I bet this has been asked a millon times....
But to stay on topic...I would say that buffy was like beverly hills 90210 with vampires
Nice!
By the way I'm using this sub aproach in my current Germany game with great success. (nothing compared to wha you have done but its only December 39... I'm getting like 10-20, sometimes more sinkings per week)
Some one should see how this works on Japan.
By the way I'm using this sub aproach in my current Germany game with great success. (nothing compared to wha you have done but its only December 39... I'm getting like 10-20, sometimes more sinkings per week)
Some one should see how this works on Japan.
Well... I didn't QUITE make it before the first snow-fall...
116 days from DoW to satisfying the BP conditions.
Now I'll release Nationalist Spain, counting on the BP celebration to clear the Dissent.
Franco seems to be a bit confused about who actually won the SCW, but that's OK.
116 days from DoW to satisfying the BP conditions.
Now I'll release Nationalist Spain, counting on the BP celebration to clear the Dissent.
Franco seems to be a bit confused about who actually won the SCW, but that's OK.
Last edited:
Blue Emu - are you using the +10% land unit speed minister or the +20% ORG minister for your Chief of Staff?
The +10% Land Unit Speed Minister. I was 400 friggin' points over my TC limit by the time I arrived in Sverdlovsk.War Emblem said:
Nasty movement penalty...
Re: the above screen-shot: Franco seems to have forgotten that I won the Spanish Civil War... I annexed them both.
Can't quite remember where I got them... I turn 50, and instantly fall prey to senility.Pablius said:
Someone here on the Forum will recognize them.
I picked them because they don't have the symbol-which-must-not-be-named.
Last edited:
Thank Christ that's over... my SE was down to about 55%. The peace deal just knocked 750 points off my TC load... I'm back in the green!
Great...now on to sealion ...Have you decide on the numbers for your surface fleet yet?...if the RN has lost most of its screen ships it would be another indirect benefit from the sub strategy...
...Have you decide on the numbers for your surface fleet yet?...if the RN has lost most of its screen ships it would be another indirect benefit from the sub strategy...
what kind of production have you been investing in besides your 4 Bismarck class BB? What is the size of your army/airforce now?
Britain has lost 111 ships so far... 5 CV, 5 CA, 1 CVL, 26 CL, 39 DD, 9 SS and 26 TP. That's 11 Caps and 65 screens, so it might indeed have unbalanced their fleet composition. Almost all of the losses are to my Aircraft... but the Air attacks on ASW forces was an integral part of the U-Boat strategy. My U-Boats have only sunk 7 ships... 5 Subs and 2 Transports.Pablius said:Great...now on to sealion
As for my fleet... I have four serials of BB-4 building, two serials of CVL-4, two serials of CA-4, two serials of CL-4, and three serials of DD-4. Only the first set of DDs has been launched yet... plus my starting forces... so I have 3 CA-4, 3 CL-4 and 3 DD-4 in the water plus all those builds on the way. Plus my older ships, of course.
My U-Boat losses have been increasing somewhat... I have now lost a total of eight U-Boats in combat, plus four to a game bug. I have 81 U-Boats left.
Navy and Naval Production is detailed above. Add a dozen Transports to that list.Bullfrog said:
Army: 168 Infantry, 28 Motorized, 16 Armor, 1 Cavalry, 3 Mountaineers, 3 Paratroops, 5 HQ, 46 Garrisons. Building more Paratroops and some Marines.
Airforce: 22 Interceptors, 9 CAS, 12 TAC, 11 NAV. Building one serial of INT, one of NAV, and three Troop Transports in parallel (not a serial).
Last edited:
Mmm, Sarah Michelle Geller in butter...War Emblem said:
I recall Buffy parties where people would take a drink whenever her brastrap showed - Maybe we should have emu parties where everyone drinks whenever a convoy gets clobbered!
You are on VH? You still make it look easy, though I am looking forward to see how you take on the US. All those new targets will sure get those emu parties jump started...
blue emu said:
So USSR is now out of war.Congratulations.
By my opinion after Bitter Peace comes to light drowback of rigid Naval doctrine system in HOI.
Natural step(considering power of units)will be building strong Carrier fleet of Kriegsmarine.Which will be of course crippled by Doctrines aimed for submarine and BB use, and not carrier warfare,and anable to catch Anmerican eficiency in carrier warfare..
Further insisting on BBs is questionable,I dont know how they will opose Americans.Remember that now Germany(yours)is ultimate superpower,and natural step is controling the seas.
Allso submarines are now useles for any further agressive atempt to control seas.
So it comes that stupid Germans,after securing continent, will never be capable to build Naval force eficient as US Navy.
Is this correctly represented in game,what is your opinion?
You do know your fans ... well it's "Scytth and Kristoff" Icons ... I use them myself ... and love them: http://www.hoi2icon.prv.pl/blue emu said:
Grishnak said:
Me too, these are beautifully done. Bravo to the creators of these. They have really nice production screen models (photos) as well.
...
noobermenschen said:
Well hes whacked over 1100 convoys so far right, WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD IF WE HAD A DRINK EACH TIME HE SANK ONE!!
Two questions occur to me.
You had two wolf packs in each sea zone, each comprising of three sub foltilas. Why not three packs of two foltilas. They would be even harder to find, be less liely to miss a convoy passing through.
Secondly, you put wolfpacks on the North American coast to damage the trade efficiency with the US and Canda, but you did not put anything North of Norway to limit any trade between the UK and USSR, do you think this would be a worthwhile thing to do?
(just in my next game I plan trying the 300 sub fleet and have no intention of loading the game as the UK to get extra information on how many convoys and trading partners etc)
Ha-ha... no... since this was intended as an experiment that would be reproducible by the majority of players, I abandoned my usual custom difficulty settings and played it on Normal. If I decide to do something similar in the AAR section, I will use either VH or my custom VH setting.noobermenschen said:
My standard plan for Barbarossa is a four-step procedure, which almost always works out.liebgot said:
Phase 1 is a pair of inward double-envelopments, West of the line of the Dneiper and Daugava Rivers... forming one pocket in the Southern Baltic States, and one around the Pripyat marshes.
Phase 2 is a pair of outward single-envelopments, just beyond the Dneiper and Daugava, trapping the Russians against the sea in the Northern Baltic States and in the area between the Romanian border and the Don River Basin.
Phase 3 is another pair of inward double-envelopments, one in the forests between Leningrad and Moscow (the Old Muscovy area), and one around Gomel. By the time it ends, the Russians usually have only a thin screen of Divisions left in the North and Center... and only a few scattered forces left in the South.
Phase 4 is when I stop trying for encirclements... in the North I just push the Russians back over the Moskva River, and in the South just sweep the dazed survivors aside and head straight for the Victory centers.
The plan is based on the mobility of the German forces, and on the relative immobility of the mass of Russian Infantry. I use this advantage of mobility to gain a local superiority of force, which I use to "zig-zag" my mobile forces forward, cutting off a new pocket with each "zig-zag". My Infantry only fights against encircled opponents, for the most part, thus improving their combat odds and reducing casualties. Also, by holding back my Infantry I refrain from driving the Russian forces "out of the bag" before the mobile forces can surround them... and it also keeps my Infantry ORG high, because they get frequent rests while waiting for the mobile forces to complete the encirclement.
Basically correct. Carrier forces would certainly be best, if my Doctrines and research teams could support them. They can't. My Navy will be no match for that of the Americans. No argument there.liebgot said:
I expect to get one more year of use out of my Submarines... and then they will start dying like flies in 1942, as ASW Doctrines and Airpower render them basically useless and turn them from "Sea Wolves" into "Steel Coffins". Since they are doomed anyway, I have no worries about expending them in Operation Sealion.
That's a more difficult question.liebgot said:
In real life, in the inter-war period, the Americans, British and Japanese all had a chance to build several Carriers and experiment with them enough to develop Doctrines for their use. In fact, given the constraints of the London and Washington Naval Treaties, they were almost forced to develop Carriers and their corresponding Doctrines... that or scrap the vessels entirely, since they exceeded the allowed limits on gross tonnage.
Also, the Americans, British and Japanese were used to thinking in terms of open ocean and wide spaces... the Pacific for the Americans and Japanese... the whole world for the British. The Germans were used to planning in terms of confined bodies of water, closely hemmed in by land on all sides... like the Baltic, the North Sea and the Med.
In the traditional German Naval theaters, Land Based Air was all they really needed... and it was the only form of Naval Aviation that they were familiar with, or had any practical experience with. Germany was years ahead of the Allies in many fields... but if they were to enter the Carrier race, they would have had to start from a position at least twelve years behind the Allies and Japanese. From a standpoint of realism, it's hard to picture Germany building a bunch of modern, efficient Carriers as their first step into that field.
It would be more realistic if you had to have a CV-I finished and in the water before you were allowed to construct CV-IIs, and a CV-II finished and in the water before you were allowed to construct CV-IIIs, and so on.
... unless your intelligence operations were focusing on the developments of the navy that had ruled the oceans uncontested for the past four centuries and the naval development of the strongest industrial nation of the current century, in which case it would be more natural to copy their designs.blue emu said:
liebgot said:
I recommend James S. Corum's The Luftwaffe Creating the Operational Air War 1918-1940 . As you understand it is not about the navy, but he touches upon the subject in his book. In short he describes the navy as rather hostile towards air power in general, seeing it mostly as a scouting device, or as a land based supplement for littoral warfare.
He really does not see the role for the German carriers when looking at German naval doctrine and attitude of leading Marine Commanders. So the DD part seems to picture this rather well. Then of course, it isn't scripted in German culture to have a certain doctrinal mindset, or any other culture either for that part. But the doctrines are (in DD) meant to mirror national differences, and as one can't do that with the actual units I find it necessary to do it with the doctrines.
... but copying their designs, even in detail, does not give you the tactics and doctrines, still less the operational experience.Wobbler said:
When some American B-29 Superforts made an emergency landing in Russia after bombing Japan, the Russians seized them and took them apart... then built their own Strategic Bombers that were absolutely identical to the B-29s... even to the location of the rivets!
The Russians remained inferior to the USA in Strategic Bombing, B-29 Superfort-clones or not... and I'm sure you will agree that actually having samples of the opponent's equipment in your hands gives you much better info than any Spy could deliver.
It's a trade-off... the smaller the Wolfpacks, the harder they are to spot and the more ground they can cover... but the easier they are to destroy when spotted (the 4-hour minimum combat plays a role here) and the more Leaders they require, reducing the effect of your few skilled Sea Wolves and Spotters and watering-down your limited pool of Skill and Traits.Mahrabal said:
I chose 3-flotilla Wolfpacks partly because that seemed like a fairly historical scale... I looked up some famous Convoy battles on the Internet, and quite a few of them involved U-Boats from three different flotillas. You could easily make the Wolfpacks smaller or larger... more experimenting is needed. Not many players seem to use Subs, so there isn't a lot of data already collected for us.
It would likely have been worthwhile... at least in the Baltic. They would have been rather exposed in the North Sea. The main reason that I didn't is that I forgot Russia existed :wacko: not a mistake that Hitler would likely have made...Mahrabal said:
- Status