One of the funny things is that the players seem to regard 1942 as the end of the world. Seriously, the game ends in Jan 1946. That's 4 years...
-
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.
90 days + 90 days + offensive support weapons (90 days) + 2 levels of mountain equipment ~200 days that's 1.3 years in the future...and that assumes we throw 1 leadership at it the entire time....Ok not a full two years, but at some point the army is going to switch priority, and at 180 days(?) or so for each mountain division that is going to take 2 years to get a proper corps filled at a fair industry cost.
The point with specialists is, don't bother with them unless you are going to tech them up, because your recruiting them for a specific task 'generally better in mountainous terrain' doesn't cut it when the same time/tech/industry is better off spent just building/teching your general infantry; it will get you the same level of 'generally better', but everywhere instead.
Of course they do! martime ordinance, sea attack roll both are needed to make the CAG good, Martime attack ordinace gives greater bonus to the NAV, than CAG, but hte sea attack roll adds +5 making the CAGs overall in the long terms slightly better. The way I'd see the CAGs is to share ground and sea rolls which will make them 2.5 + (0.75-0.5) - [current difference], better off per level of techs. Whatever that works out at.
I think it will make them comparable come '43 - '44 levels.
In fact I do think NAV investment is worthwhile. Like heavy bombers, all you really need to do is tech the relivant bombs on each and get air cover from elsewhere. Our fighters are good for that. The downer is not having build MB/HB to keep practical high(ish) to allow for future production. For a proper PDP about 6 NAV would be needed to keep it all good. But we have CAGs as well, so we aren't in massive requirement.
You are a funny guy. We have an almost non-existent practical in twin-engine aircraft production and yet you think that investment in them is worthwhile, while the base build time for MTNs is 150 days and we have 20 infantry practical... Anyway, it all depends on the arguments you make in the gameplay thread, so I won't debate it further here. I will leave that for the players 
.
.
To be clear, Guanxi is at war with China and is a Japanese ally? I'd have to load up my version of hoi3 to be sure, but I'd be a bit worried about the ICs sitting on that front line. Guanxi has a much higher density of ICs then China proper. You've made some very good progress in China but I'm perplexed at why the nationalists don't seem to have that many divisions??
Very unfortunate to see the communists still in action, their divisions are good. I guess you no longer have the supply slack to launch an offensive at commie china?
Keep the updates coming
Was reading through the gameplay thread and I found a link for holy death.
Very unfortunate to see the communists still in action, their divisions are good. I guess you no longer have the supply slack to launch an offensive at commie china?
Keep the updates coming
Was reading through the gameplay thread and I found a link for holy death.
Yes, the Guangxi Clique has been our ally since 1939. You are right when you say that the ROC's reconquests can be quite dangerous for us, because they increase their income significantly. The nationalists and their warlord allies lost many divisions in the Wuhan Pocket (that was in August-December 1940), but unfortunately, we were still bogged down in the western mountains and the Chinese have largely rebuilt their army since then. Generally speaking, the enemy relies on the local concentration of force - we do not have a large reserve and cannot shift many divisions from one area to an another one without losing ground somewhere, so every time we make progress in one place, the Chinese respond by making the counter-attack somewhere else. By reconquering provinces they also steal some of our supplies and disrupt our supply network by demolishing infrastructure, which buys them time. In central and western China terrain is bad almost everywhere, so movement is slow and casualties are high.
I suspect than more than half of the entire Chinese Army (including warlords) is composed of militias, which greatly reduce the supply problems and the IC requirements for reinforcements. The AI also get various bonuses, which help them a lot and prevent us from conquering the world quickly
. All this means that the enemy can easily cover the entire frontline and attack with infantry in places where we are weak. The AI is actually quite good at conducting WWI-style warfare and this is how the war in China looks like now, so...All attempts at assaulting the communist mountain fortresses have been unsuccessful so far. Even if they face supply problems, a combination of forts, rivers and mountain is extremely hard to break.
Last edited:
I strongly suggest building strategic bombers. They can take out forts, the supply of Chinese units...
The capital Yan'an is fort hell, so engineers are much more useful than mountain units, there is no mountain in Yan'an, none, no, its a city
City + river + fort = use lots of engineers, overwhelming force with a bit of air support form Peking.
Lets compare a mnt with a div, a mnt has 0.25 and 0.5 more tough/def than inf, also has less penalties and more boni in mountain, but costs the double in IC and LS, lets see what do I want? units with a marginal advantage in mountain or double the number of infantry where I can attach art/eng to, for me the inf is a clear winner.
You are a funny guy. We have an almost non-existent practical in twin-engine aircraft production and yet you think that investment in them is worthwhile, while the base build time for MTNs is 150 days and we have 20 infantry practical... Anyway, it all depends on the arguments you make in the gameplay thread, so I won't debate it further here. I will leave that for the players
Only in the bombs...since they aid the CAGs as well, and that's all a NAV really differs from a TAC in bombs, you don't need all the rest of the gubbinz if you've already won the air battles really.
Not really sure on the Commies, the best bet to me is to try and fold the nationalists, get the encirclement and be pushing up to Xibei before calling in the airpower. Mao will have produced as much Millita as he can of, and will have sat there building forts and factories for quite a while now, so I'm not sure what kind of attack even with ENG would be that successful.
It's a shame in HPP that the commies don't fight the Japs a bit harder than they do, since in RL the communists did the bulk of the fighting, still thank god it's 'balenced' in HPP and with your additions. Not played the SU with them yet, but when I do I'll let you know how I got my arse and chair handed to me!
It's the Army's choice. However, specialists are not meant to be cheap and should not be cost-effective everywhere. That's why they are fielded in small numbers IRL. Nominal ICdays cost is actually not that high for MTNs and keep in mind that in supply-constrained areas you might not be able to afford double the number of divs, especially when you consider the fact that INF+ART divs consume more supplies (and ENGs consume fuel). However, I can be fine with either of your decisions, but ATM it's 50:50 in the IJA... The IJN can only give advice here.
Some historians say that communists actually did little during the first years of war, when their assistance was needed the most. The nationalists and the communists sometimes felt more threatened by each other than by the Japanese
.
I'd like to reply to your post in the gameplay thread here.
I would like to point out that we don't have perfect memories and therefore can't remember every single tech that is being researched.
I clearly had forgotten! but I only talked about panama to get to the US fleet and your discussion with the Admirals had apparently slipped my mind. Did you veto any invasion in the Americas?
I've played HPP lots of times, but MB's have never had my love as they are too expensive.
In general when I state something its not to distort the truth, rather its my interpretation and estimates, I'm a bit unsure what the problem is, if I say "MB's are not worth it" its clearly my estimate.
I would like to point out that we don't have perfect memories and therefore can't remember every single tech that is being researched.
I clearly had forgotten! but I only talked about panama to get to the US fleet and your discussion with the Admirals had apparently slipped my mind. Did you veto any invasion in the Americas?
I've played HPP lots of times, but MB's have never had my love as they are too expensive.
In general when I state something its not to distort the truth, rather its my interpretation and estimates, I'm a bit unsure what the problem is, if I say "MB's are not worth it" its clearly my estimate.
I post links to SCs of tech screens from time to time... Perfect memory is not required, but if you state sth, then it's good to back it up by facts. If you say that sth is useless or worthless, then please say WHY do you that's the case, because otherwise the argument itself is worthless in my book. BTW LB techs have been a part of the research plans since 1936.
I didn't veto the invasion of Panama/the USA, but unless we want to invade Mexico or do sth similar, then Panama is outside of our reach. This was mentioned several times.
I didn't veto the invasion of Panama/the USA, but unless we want to invade Mexico or do sth similar, then Panama is outside of our reach. This was mentioned several times.
There is also the naval range tech, but as I seldom bother with it when playing Japan I can't remember if its enough to bring Panama within range for invasion.
I really don't see how we can come to an agreement in the IJA. I see little of strategic reason to convince me that mountaineers aren't feasible beyond repeated words about not being cheap and I see little to no evidence that our current efforts in China will suffice to destroy the Chinese who hold most of our forces there. I don't share optimism of others in this case. Without real change the situation will most likely remain static for a very long time and it's something we can't afford. That's why I am advocating so much for mountain divisions and air support lately. Even without industry and supplies it'll take longer time for the Chinese to break, if they'd break at all...
Obviously, if there is no agreement, then General Tojo will determine the outcome.
HD, it is this stalemate which has lead to my suggestion to transfer what the navy can spare to assist the army. As much as I would like to, I can't change the naval build neccessities. We really need more ships, simply to replace our losses and to have something up to date to fight the USN second spring.
We are on the same page here, I assure you, Baltasar. My argument is with Surt. And - to some degree - with Yamamoto.
They're not too expensive, but they are expensive. For Germany or France and to some degree Italy (but you've got to choose Tanks/Navy/Air any two, with Italy IMO) they are worth it because high soft attack means you can combat bomb the trinary divisions for good damage and focus LB on any armour.
The UK is better with a Strategic and Fighter wing. Japan if it does take bombers is better with heavy simply because of range, although NAV and 'Island Carriers' strategy favours medium aircraft. If your willing to, the US also makes great use of TAC in Europe, but then the superpowers can afford it in HPP.
--------------------------------------------
I don't think we should bother with Panama it would be nice if we take it, but other than a cheeky gain I doubt it will hugely impact results and Mexico would just be too far. Ironically Mountain troops would be perfect there!
--------------------------------------------
I said why in that 'key points' post, that our heavy fighters have more range and soft attack along with more up-to-date doctrine compared to ground attack CAS.
I've got a feeling that we'd have much better chances to end the war with the US if could take Panama Channel. Although not very important in HPP terms, it'd be a huge blow story wise and it'd more or less ensure that the US can not attack us for a long while in the Pacific.
IMO Panama is important... if you can hold it (we cannot). With the Canal secured, the US Navy would be restricted to the East Coast, which means that we could roam free in the Pacific and we would know with 100% certainty that the US Navy could only come to the Pacific through the southern part of South America. We could establish a blockade and it would take a long time for the US AI to regain momentum, if they would be able to achieve this at all.