How does one do this? In my current game (Battle of France start) the entire British army is motorised so supply was a right pain because it all had to come from Alex. I got by on supplies captured from Italy (I often took provinces with 4-500 supplies and fuel for some reason, no idea what ITA AI was doing) but would have liked to have used the ports that I captured. Is it a case of setting convoys to manual and making them yourself?Originally Posted by Big Nev
France falls anyhow! doesn't matter if i send in 10-15 divisions. I know the UK is still too weak
in 1940 to challenge the Axis except on the fringes. I weigh my attacks to hit and when they do
to hit to win...and that with AI theatres!
Yes, you need to set-up manual convoys. As Japan, my supply route was hideously long but I just kept creating a new one every time I took a port and deleted the previous one. Eventually using a single transport plane air bridge to help out with supplies for the battle for Casablanca. It didn't reach, but was close enough.
But, as I said, you need to be in control of the Med’. The Italians have quite a few subs so you’ll need quite a few DDs and some CVs to protect the DDs from the Italian air force. Their surface fleet didn’t present a problem. From memory, they should have two good battle ships of the Littorio class & two good BCs (Conti De Cavour?) and not much else worth worrying about. They don’t have RADAR so should be easy pickings in a gun battle and, to quote a famous Italian admiral “Their aircraft will damage our ships. Ours will not damage theirs.”
If you can keep the momentum going on land, you will capture more supplies than you can use and, as the UK, it should get easier for you as your supply lines get shorter as you head West.
Strangely, I didn’t have a single motorised infantry unit in North Africa.
“You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you.”
"It is a sin to carry a weapon in to battle & not use it."
Miyamoto Musashi
But building infrastructure makes perfect sense on your own cores. As the Soviets, I build some infra-pipes to support offensives against the Germans, Turkey, and Japan (if applicable). I won't build infrastructure when conducting an offensive into enemy territory because it takes too long (if it takes 3 years to do Barbarossa, then I've failed anyway), but it is perfectly good in areas with low infrastructure where nationalism and partisans won't be an issue.
All Hail Him,
The Secret Master
Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.
Which is 1 place. USSR as USSR. You need years in advance and a predictable enemy...so singleplayer only.
So, there are times when the Soviets don't need better logistics against Germany in MP? Or better logistics going into Manchuria and Korea against Japan? Or better logistics for the first part of an invasion against the Soviets in Vladivostok by Japan? And how many MP games use house rules that forbid early ahistorical wars, like Germany annexing Poland in 1936 to break decision chains?
I mean, if a country in MP wants to jump the gun on the war or be ahistorical, you can just cut infrastructure construction the moment the war starts and roll from there. It's not too expensive; it's just time consuming to build. And now that infrastructure in 3.06 takes far less damage from logistical strikes, upgraded infrastructure means more throughput the moment they stop running logistic strikes.
Obviously, it's a waste in North Africa. And in Western Europe. And in Scandinavia. And Burma. But to pretend that it has no application is kind of silly if you ask me.
All Hail Him,
The Secret Master
Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.
We can go back and forth with unique situations to counter each other but the bottom line is...its always going to be russia yada yada yada. Singular scenario....talented multiplayer, or braindead singleplayer it just doesn't matter. Where infra can succeed, an airbridge strategy always succeeds.
In the 1940 start that I did the entire British Army is motorisedBut, as I said, you need to be in control of the Med’. The Italians have quite a few subs so you’ll need quite a few DDs and some CVs to protect the DDs from the Italian air force. Their surface fleet didn’t present a problem. From memory, they should have two good battle ships of the Littorio class & two good BCs (Conti De Cavour?) and not much else worth worrying about. They don’t have RADAR so should be easy pickings in a gun battle and, to quote a famous Italian admiral “Their aircraft will damage our ships. Ours will not damage theirs.”
If you can keep the momentum going on land, you will capture more supplies than you can use and, as the UK, it should get easier for you as your supply lines get shorter as you head West.
Strangely, I didn’t have a single motorised infantry unit in North Africa.. Also started with 2 battleships with radar and 2 carriers in the Med, so those Italian capital ships didn't last very long.
I was building air transports for supply, but I won the operation months before it was finished. With that number of mobile troops you just don't stop. ITA has a defensive position, drive around it with LARM, encircle with MOT, park a battleship squadron off the coast and get unbelievably one sided battles. They landed German expeditionary forces in Tripoli while it was under siege. My escort carrier sank all their transports single handed. Didn't have much fun supplying them
Escort carriers do have their uses don't they?
But sadly, there are a few technological marvels that would make a difference to beleaguered outposts that simply aren’t represented in the game.
The Italian submarine freighters, for example, would have been quite useful to get some supplies through to NA.
They wouldn’t last long under the watchful gaze of Ark Royal while in port, but they’d unload at night and be gone before dawn.
Similarly, on the Allies side, there’s the Apollo class minelayer. What?
They were designed to lay mines in enemy controlled waters and could sustain 40kts! Even the fastest Italian destroyers couldn’t get anywhere near them. They were disguised to look like Vichy destroyers, so Axis aircraft didn’t bother them much either. They were used to supply Malta mostly and, surprise surprise, Tobruk. One of them never laid a mine in her whole career.
But, aparently, they aren't strateigic. So they'll never get put in to the game. Supplying Tobruk at night would have a strateigic effect though wouldn't it?
HA! I can only dream.
“You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you.”
"It is a sin to carry a weapon in to battle & not use it."
Miyamoto Musashi
The both sides vs an AI can generally do the NA campaign with a single corps of some of your best units with best leaders. If your the Axis, pushing west, while holding the mountainous Cyrina area with some other troops and going for a quick take of Tunis and simmilar in my opinion works better than going east first. This is because if you can get to the Straits you've bagged yourself a ton of ports, generally defensible terrain and you generally skip the 'hard fight' for the easy one. Thus when you turn back to take Suez, 9/10ths of the work has already been done if the British send a Exp.force to bolster the region.
From the other side, depends. Either go for early war/pre-war placement of troops in Eygpt and just cherry pick along the coast. Or you can go in marrines style knocking out ports and OOSing the axis there.
In general you don't need any new infrastructure in NA, although for flavour if I'm Italy I tend to update the coast road. Indeed in non-gamey games, I always plough about ~20% of production IC into constructions, it's my 'IC nerf' rather than just a straight out black hole.
----------------------------------------------
Didn't subs perform particularly badly in the Med because of how shallow it was and easy to sonar, scout over and depth charge?The Italian submarine freighters, for example, would have been quite useful to get some supplies through to NA.
Yes, they did, when they were attacking. But sonar is only any good if you’ve got an idea where the sub is, or it’s stupid enough to get close. Spotting from the air? Also true but you can’t scout the whole of the Med’ so, you’d still want some idea where they are or a specific place you don’t want them to be.
Obviously, if there’s a battle fleet parked right outside of Tobruk, you’re not going to get through. But such a fleet would make an easy target for a massed air & submarine hit & run attack if it was known to be there all the time. Especially at night, when you want to sneak past. The admiral would soon learn to keep his fleet on the move.
From the sub’ freighter’s viewpoint. Move to a jump-off point & sit on the bottom until nightfall. Sneak in, offload, sneak out and run for cover of your own airforce.
But, IRL, these things were used for shipping “rares” like mercury, tungsten & rubber from Japanese held territories and supplying plans & drawings to Japan.
“You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you.”
"It is a sin to carry a weapon in to battle & not use it."
Miyamoto Musashi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
