Yeah, he is a nice fellow 
. Now you can see how the discussion between updates can look like if more than two players are active.
. Now you can see how the discussion between updates can look like if more than two players are active.-
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.
I don't know whether you will like the next update, but it will sure as hell be very interesting . I will post it later today.
. I will post it later today.
The suspense is killing me, quickly tell, did the USA or the Soviets jump us
Edit: the Soviets ...
Edit: the Soviets ...
Last edited:
One of the pictures wasn't working properly. It shows the current production queue and techs that are currently being researched.
We researched things like First Aid, Capital Ship Crew Training, Batteline Cruiser Doctrine, Carrier Task Force Doctrine, CAS Pilot Training, Battlecruiser Engine and Combat Medicine. All this was started some time ago.
It hasn't been that long. It's still 1939.
We researched things like First Aid, Capital Ship Crew Training, Batteline Cruiser Doctrine, Carrier Task Force Doctrine, CAS Pilot Training, Battlecruiser Engine and Combat Medicine. All this was started some time ago.
It hasn't been that long. It's still 1939.
Last edited:
Wait a second... December 39, no war in Europe? What happened? Can you include a report in Europe as well? I know it can start late, but it's very late already.
I didn't say anything because not much happened. The Germans took the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia joined the Allies and that's it.
They might not feel they're ready yet.
Just a quick comment, since Japanese naval AA was mentioned. The IJN developed the concept of dual-purpose guns that could be used against ships and aircraft. Japanese destroyers, while lacking ASW capabilities, were the most advanced at the time, and every other navy copied Japan's ideas. The same trend of technical superiority carries over to Japanese carriers and battleships prior to 1936. So, for the competing admirals, it should be remembered that historically, even though Japan's overall naval doctrine was to use small ships based in its Pacific island holdings to harass the USN and use its battleships to destroy the USN, Japan was very much aware of how dangerous aircraft were to large ships. Afterall, the world's first purpose-built carrier was Japanese...
Just a quick comment, since Japanese naval AA was mentioned. The IJN developed the concept of dual-purpose guns that could be used against ships and aircraft. Japanese destroyers, while lacking ASW capabilities, were the most advanced at the time, and every other navy copied Japan's ideas. The same trend of technical superiority carries over to Japanese carriers and battleships prior to 1936. So, for the competing admirals, it should be remembered that historically, even though Japan's overall naval doctrine was to use small ships based in its Pacific island holdings to harass the USN and use its battleships to destroy the USN, Japan was very much aware of how dangerous aircraft were to large ships. Afterall, the world's first purpose-built carrier was Japanese...
Ironically, Japan was plagued by shortage of destroyers during the war IRL . However, we are not repeating history. After all, war with China was started in 1939 and Guangxi is our ally. Also, our admirals focus on cruisers.
Yeah, the Germans may not feel that they are ready.
. However, we are not repeating history. After all, war with China was started in 1939 and Guangxi is our ally. Also, our admirals focus on cruisers.Yeah, the Germans may not feel that they are ready.
Ironically, Japan was plagued by shortage of destroyers during the war IRL
Actually, the problem wasn't so much a shortage of destroyers but a complete lack of anti-sub weapons mounted on those ships. Historically Japan grossly underestimated the impact subs would have on its merchant marine. However, while you guys are trying to not repeat history, it's worth noting that both the carrier and battleship proponents of the IJN shouldn't ignore how powerful aircraft can be against ships, because your historical counterparts were well aware of what aircraft can do to ships. The historical battleship proponents wanted to use carriers to provide air support to the capital ships in the European model rather than have carriers become the main offensive arm of the fleet.
Yeah, but keep in mind that IRL Japan used destroyers for missions like Tokyo Express, too. That wasted tons of fuel and many naval assets. Also, post-1942 Japan the Allies were clearly superior in the air, which allowed them to bomb transports and warships even more effectively.
This is rather surprising. I would have assumed that all powers would have learned from WWI that subs were a great danger to civilian and careless military vessels alike.
During WW1 Japan didn't encounter the German subs. While Japan certainly heard about them from the Entente, they didn't witness first-hand how destructive submarines could be. If you read up on the fate of Japan's ships, a good chunk of their destroyers (indeed, the entire Kamikaze class is one example) were sunk by submarines, and several of their bigger ships were lost from submarine torpedo hits because Japan either didn't have enough destroyers or didn't have the submarine detection capability to spot the American subs. It wasn't until 1943 that Japan realized its mistake, which resulted in a huge increase in its destroyer forces when compared to other ship types.
Japan military doctrine was outdated in general. They failed to recognise the submarine threat, even though they were very vulnerable to submarine attacks. They failed to utilise their submarines properly, even though they could potentially threaten the Allied convoys (although their subs destroyed some capital ships in 1942). They still believed in battleships in 1944 and their super-heavy battleship were supposed to be used in a decisive engagement involving battleships, which never came. They didn't realise that war with the USA was unwinnable and the surprise attack was probably the worst thing they could have done, because it gave the USA a perfect reason for a total war. They also underestimated the Chinese and disregarded the sheer size of China (the Germans made the same mistake in regard to the SU).
Exciting update with the border war all of a sudden erupting unexpectadly. The Sino campaign appears to be going well apart from the success of your 'ally' Guangxi clique.
Do you know if Khalkhin Gol is a limited action via event or a full blown war?
Do you know if Khalkhin Gol is a limited action via event or a full blown war?
The decision chain leading to WWII has broken down due to the Czech membership of the allies.
Now some alternative decisions will be made, among them could be a German DoW on the Czech, triggering the war with the allies, which then again either will either prompt Germany or Poland to attack the other, circumventing the Rippentrop pact which then means the Soviets have an increased chance to attack Germany.