• 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.
Give Germany another 20 or so divisions to start with, and that wouldn't be a problem. Abusing flaws in the game mechanics just ruins an until now exciting game.

If you open 1941 scenario, which I guess has at least some real life OOB, then you will see that in Brest Germans had a WHOLE ARMY. In the Netherlands and Belgium ANOTHER ARMY and ONE MORE ARMY in reserve. Grand total more than 50 regular divisions. EACH province in front of Dover has TWO divisions next to each other.

Do you think British player could hit and run Brest or provinces in Lowlands if player kept real life formations in the places? What German player done was a gamey approach which players use against AI - leaving minimal forces. If he used RL tactics you would not suffered.

Now if you lack of forces and crocodiles are in water then you don't leave any forces in provinces adjacent to water, especially when you are sleeping (busy elsewhere). Japanese used this tactics many times due to the USA naval superiority.
 
Russians are doing pretty well all things considered, but that pressure is intense. Good move from the Captain to engage the RN in my opinion assuming this was intentional, the Brits are daring to invade everywhere at once. Even if you lose, it can't get any worse from the Axis naval perspective. Might as well roll the dice even if the odds aren't in your favor. I think the Allies are playing very well, but the Axis strategy is sound and still looks like it will win in the end. Continue to put pressure on the Soviets, ignore the British bee stings for now. Keep those panzers moving east. Persia was a good move as well. Of course the Americans will eventually make life miserable for Japan, but while there is time, Japan is wise to increase the pressure wherever they can. The Americans can't drive out the Japanese everywhere on the first day. Axis control of Persia is either a distraction for Allied troops needed badly elsewhere, or if ignored too long, a valuable new front against the Russians and what remains of the British Empire at their weakpoints.

Hoping the British invade in force someplace the Axis can't ignore!
 
If you open 1941 scenario, which I guess has at least some real life OOB, then you will see that in Brest Germans had a WHOLE ARMY. In the Netherlands and Belgium ANOTHER ARMY and ONE MORE ARMY in reserve. Grand total more than 50 regular divisions. EACH province in front of Dover has TWO divisions next to each other.

Do you think British player could hit and run Brest or provinces in Lowlands if player kept real life formations in the places? What German player done was a gamey approach which players use against AI - leaving minimal forces. If he used RL tactics you would not suffered.

Now if you lack of forces and crocodiles are in water then you don't leave any forces in provinces adjacent to water, especially when you are sleeping (busy elsewhere). Japanese used this tactics many times due to the USA naval superiority.

The 41 Scenario isn't that close to the historical OOB and besides, you're arguing that the British would be able to land and retreat without any difficulties in any reagion, whether there are sheer cliffs or ports available or not. Again, they're abusing the shortcomings of the game instead of beating the opponent by their own abilities.
The German player probably didn't have that many forces left in place anyway, considering that ALL countries controlled by humans are not acting historically, eg Russia invading other countries than the Baltics and Finland.
 
The 41 Scenario isn't that close to the historical OOB and besides, you're arguing that the British would be able to land and retreat without any difficulties in any reagion, whether there are sheer cliffs or ports available or not. Again, they're abusing the shortcomings of the game instead of beating the opponent by their own abilities.
The German player probably didn't have that many forces left in place anyway, considering that ALL countries controlled by humans are not acting historically, eg Russia invading other countries than the Baltics and Finland.


No, I am arguing that Brit player is abusing shortcomings of German reckless defences and can not blame him for that. Tell me how many divisions Brit player lost to Japan? How many he could loose if he was as reckless as German player?

I am arguing that this tactis is gamey against AI but nothing serious against seasoned MP player. I wrote at least to tactics which could counter such raids. We will see that German player will come up with.
 
I agree that the German player should have been more careful, but that doesn't change the fact that these invasions were gamey. At least let GER have an additional player so skill is more important that micromanagement and chance.

Well, the German player is faced with a choice: To either leave heavy defenses or not in the West. The advantage of defenses is that there will be troops to meet a possible Allied attack, whereas the advantage of not leaving defenses is to deliver a harder punch in the East. When the German player chose to run most of the army east in hopes of a quick victory over the USSR the West Wall got exposed to landings. It's a valid strategy to follow, and if the USSR falls it has been proved to be a good one. But imo it would be idiotic of the UK player to not take this opportunity to exploit the weaknesses of the German strategy.

You're probably right that Germany could do with another human player though. A proper defensive army, even under AI control, would be better though (for defense - the East front developments will show if thinning out the West was the right thing to do).

Thanks to everyone participating for another exciting update btw!
 
No, I am arguing that Brit player is abusing shortcomings of German reckless defences and can not blame him for that. Tell me how many divisions Brit player lost to Japan? How many he could loose if he was as reckless as German player?

I am arguing that this tactis is gamey against AI but nothing serious against seasoned MP player. I wrote at least to tactics which could counter such raids. We will see that German player will come up with.

Why would you argue that the Ger player would "abuse" shortcomings of a UK AI? The UK themselves were not in a position to start an invasion of their own historically by that day, but the UK player is. And he abuses the system, which actually ruins the AAR experience for me. MP or not, nobody forces players to act gamey. This should be about abilities, not about surprising him somewhere halfway down to Berlin while not having engaged any of his forces.
 
Just sneaked into this great AAR to throw in a few comments:

(1) I think the Soviet player(s) made some critical mistakes with their OOB and strategic setup.

I am amazed by the lack of defence-in-depth. I am by no means an expert player, since I have only played two MP games in HoI3 (one Hungary, one SU - but that was with ICE mod where the Germans hit even harder), and the first thing I realized when I was attacked is that I shouldn't stack all troops on the front line. And that you should always leave an initial buffer against the axis to have room for maneuver. Looking at the screenshots, the SU has done neither of that and payed for it.

I think it should have been clear that there is no way of stopping an initial German advance with so many units at the eastern front. Instead with delaying the German spearheads with forward defenders that disengage after the initial skirmishes, the SU would have been able to delay the advance and steadily pull back in good order. Once the Germans overstretch their supply lines (and with so many panzer divisions that WILL happen!) and the initial shock bonus runs out, the SU could have stalled the war and waited for the English counterattacks in France. Granted, that strategy requires the SU to give up territory - and in my game, I ended up all the way back in Moscow until I was able to stabilize the front line, but better lose territory than the war.


(2) The Germans (and Italians) absolutely deserve the defeat in Spain and the losses in France.

Were the British attack gamey? Maybe a little bit. But looking at the number of defenders in France, I can only say the Axis deserved that. Germany can't really expect that leaving a handful of GAR units on the ports and a few divisions in the rear should stop an English (let alone US) invasion. I mean, from the number of counters I see on the screens, I have usually three to four times as many units on defence duty in France when playing against the AI...

I agree that coastal defence IS difficult, but honestly, GER or ITA could have spared a few brigades to at least cover the (most important) beaches to delay (or even hold) any English assault. I don't know the ENG unit composition, but if those are really quick MOT units, they should suffer when attacking a defended beach. Even 2 MIL brigades with a single AT brigade can do a fantastic job to delay or even hold an invasion attempt.


(3) Is there any house rule against RADAR stations?

Because neither the Axis, nor the allies seem to have RADAR intel. And thats usually one of the first things I get, whatever country I play. For the investment of 1-2 techs and some IC you receie long-range, fool-proof INTEL, and with high level decryption you can even spot the exace unit types. Germany has all his panzer divisions on the northern flank? Better move your AT there. Lots of English ships maneuvering through the med-sea? Better prepary for an invasion...
 
Why would you argue that the Ger player would "abuse" shortcomings of a UK AI? The UK themselves were not in a position to start an invasion of their own historically by that day, but the UK player is. And he abuses the system, which actually ruins the AAR experience for me. MP or not, nobody forces players to act gamey. This should be about abilities, not about surprising him somewhere halfway down to Berlin while not having engaged any of his forces.

Out of all "gamey" tactics (i could list them) in this game Brits' raids were least gamey and it was more German player's failure than anything else. The real and probably game breaking tactics was Japan's attack on the Allies without declaring war against the USA. The rest seasoned MP players can handle.

IRL Brits were busy in NA and Asia and lost lots of equipment in France even then Germans kept three armies in France. Why? None of this happened in this game so why German player is even less careful than in IRL? Why he should not be punished?
 
Let's just agree to disagree.

Good show! This argument has run it's course.

I'll jump the "where is the radar" bandwagon myself.

Radar has to be one of the most useful investments in the game, and it would go a long way to dispel some of the surprises that has happened during the game.

I have reread the first post but I see no houserule regarding RADAR?
 
I think the gamey part isn't that there are so many invasions or that they are only raids, but how a player can withdraw the invasion forces so quickly and hit another area especialy with MOT or AMR divisions. Invasions were logistical nightmares. Maybe a rule requiring units to stay for "X" amount of time?
 
Applying a combat cooldown after landing troops (except by moving the TPs in a [conquered] harbor [maybe level 2+ to prevent mulberry abuse]) would mitigate the invasion problem more or less.
And it would also simulate that naval landings became much better organized during the later war.
 
Let's just agree to disagree.

Agree :)


Applying a combat cooldown after landing troops (except by moving the TPs in a [conquered] harbor [maybe level 2+ to prevent mulberry abuse]) would mitigate the invasion problem more or less.
And it would also simulate that naval landings became much better organized during the later war.

I have proposed applying the attack delay to just landed units like it is done with paras in the main forum a while ago. I also suggested less supplies to be delivered with landing troops like with paras too.

I do not agree though with a restriction of attacking only a harbour. The Allies did not attack Cherbourg for almost three weeks after the invasion.
 
Last edited:
No, but not every piece of land was equally well-suited for amphibious landings as Normandy was. I once proposed a system of various "levels" of beachheads, which would be shown in red/yellow/green (bad/average/good for naval landings) in the Naval Map Mode. Invasions of yellow and red land would take much longer than green land. Also, a new pop-up should be implemented, which would inform the player that the enemy is invading even if the invasion is unopposed.

And yes, both paratroopers and troops invading by sea should have lower stockpiles. In the first case it can be modded, in the second case it cannot, because there is only one common stockpile value for all land units (exc paratroopers), so you cannot make amphibious invasions harder logistically-wise without affecting the land combat.

Actually, I think that I was discussing the same issue with you in the other thread, lol. Unfortunately, the devs seem indifferent towards making amphibious invasions harder.
 
We are playing our mod with 15 days of supply, and in fact it works perfectly.
Less strain on supply system, but if problems with supplies, you run out of them twice faster.

Also in our MP games we have agreed to keep LVL5 radar as maximum, LVL10 gives too much of perfectly reliable information.

I agree with cybvep, going back to HOI2 would make things better. Or implement simple - landings on plains okay, on mountains - really hard. Forests between both.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, one could increase supply consumption of all units by 100% and decrease the supply pool to 15 days. The supply strain should be similar, but units would run out of supplies faster.

However, CptEasy and other players from this AAR don't like modding too much, I'm afraid. They prefer HRs for some bizarre reason.
 
There is a ridiculous amount of criticism for by far the best, most realistic, and most balanced MP AAR I've read. If you want realism, read a history book. There's bound to be some unrealistic moves. Blame Paradox, not this game.