Defending the coastline as Germany

[Cybvep]

It's leadership intensive, too. Each of those brigades cost 100 officers...


Beaga is partially right, though. Thanks to collaboration government, partisan activity is really not a big deal in any country that goes GiE or that is continuing resistance because you haven't forced a surrender.

However...

I will say that if the AI made use (or better use) of UR, then this wouldn't be a problem. While many players complain about how gamey UR uprisings are, I will say that the threat of such uprisings would force players to build and use a lot more suppression units. URs are easily rooted out by units with suppression, so if you had to wallpaper Eastern Europe to prevent the enemy from using URs, that would seriously drain IC, manpower, and leadership.

But as far as I can tell, the AI doesn't even use URs, or uses them so infrequently that it makes no difference. Which is too bad; it's a nice mechanic for these kinds of things.

We are not talking about partisans, but coastal defence. There are many ports in France and Benelux and some people seem to be proposing to guard them with regular infantry, sometimes even more than one division per port O_O. Even if we guard only some of them with multiple divs, that would require sth like... (at least) 30 infantry divisions to cover all ports from Bordeaux to Amsterdam? That's 6 full corps that could be used in Russia. I think that it's a waste, because 90% of the time those troops will NOT be fighting in France, but just standing there and consuming supplies. However, even if we ignore wasted ICdays (which is not that important for Germany in Vanilla from 1941 on), those divs will still "take" their share of MP and LP and one will have to build more infantry (=more used MP and LP) for Russia, anyway. That will either lower the officer ratio or decrease the number of researched techs, none of which is good. If we ran into MP issues, these divs will have to be moved to the East or disbanded, anyway.

Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if on higher difficulty levels even 30 infantry divs weren't enough to contain the Allies in the West. In case of a major invasion involving armoured divs a mobile reserve would still be needed... so what's the point of guarding every port with regular infantry, anyway?

[Thanik]

Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if on higher difficulty levels even 30 infantry divs weren't enough to contain the Allies in the West. In case of a major invasion involving armoured divs a mobile reserve would still be needed... so what's the point of guarding every port with regular infantry, anyway?

I quit my first game on VH as Germany when allies destroy about 15 INF+ART divs, and to contain (not destroy) them i sacrfice 1/3 of my armour force from East!
70% bonus enemy armor vs your infantry is huge. Even they can win with your mountain infantry in mountain

[Beagá]

We are not talking about partisans, but coastal defence.

Sure we aren´t, but things are linked. Let´s analyze the parts.

1- As we all know, garrisoning need due to partisan activity is way too small. Part of the problem is that the higher IC/ more opressive ocupations aren´t worth it. Why they aren´t worth it? Because due to the total mobilization Germany ahistorically gets, with IC builds IC will never be a problem, while the extra leadership and manpower is totally worth it.

2- Therefore, many more troops are produced AND free to be sent to Barbarossa than historically was possible (a minor question is that the Afrika Korps isn´t represented, which means even more troops free. As we all know the loss of North Africa would not only be a big prestige and morale hit for Italy but it would also let them open to invasion. Germany did help due to strategic reasons, after all - reasons which aren´t represented in the game. Also, for several reasons the North african theather is FUBAR, one being the silly UK invasions, but that´s for another thread)

3- SU is then beaten relatively easily (due to many factors, one being the absurdly potent bonuses of Destiny and another the fact you can DOW much before the winter), and thus before US DOWs, it´s totally possible to have the Wehrmacht fully prepared for an invasion or even worse, invade the UK. Before the US is in the war, garrisoning France is easy, some 4 or 5 divisons will be enough to fight back the derpy Den Helder invasion or other breakthroughs, should a garrison division fail.

I don´t want to be forced to play in higher difficulties to have a challenge, I want the BS fixed. Through it will probably mean that some options will have to be enabled depending on Germany being AI or human. If Germany is too nerfed then when it´s AI it won´t give a decent challenge.

[Cybvep]

1- As we all know, garrisoning need due to partisan activity is way too small. Part of the problem is that the higher IC/ more opressive ocupations aren´t worth it. Why they aren´t worth it? Because due to the total mobilization Germany ahistorically gets, with IC builds IC will never be a problem, while the extra leadership and manpower is totally worth it.

It's not just laws - it's the fact that many nations have lower MP than they historically had and it's far too easy to "run out of MP". Buildtimes are also probably too low and IC requirements for supplies and reinforcements not high enough during wartime, which means that it's super-easy to burn most of one's MP quickly. IC should be concern throughout the whole game, but due to peculiar IC/MP balance it isn't.

[Beagá]

Yep, and I´d like to add another two factors.

4- Unlike HOI 2, building IC gives practical, which means that increasing IC by building was never so easy. While in HOI 2, due to IC always costing 5 IC and always taking the same amount of time, the decision between building IC and squeezing IC of conquered countries was actually much more critical. In other words, IC was more "precious".

Does the AI build IC too? Yes, it does. However, due to min-maxing, the human player can do that in a way too optimized, thus giving yet another handicap to the AI.

5- Due to the way transport capacity worked in HOI 2, you were always forced to put garrisons in Yugoslavia, Greece etc, because even if there was no uprising, the raise in TC was a pain in the ass and totally capable of stalling advances. In HOI 3 the effect of partisan activity is negligible, again in no small part due to the fact that you can use collaboration government in SU (WTF?) and thus never need to care about supply issues, something that obviously was a huge factor in the defeat of Germany in the East Front.

It´s funny but althrough HOI 3 is more modern and has more realistic options, due to bad AI and balancing problems, from a gameplay point of view HOI 2 is still superior in many aspects. I´d say that reworking occupation policies (specially regarding the SU - collaboration government simply shouldn´t be an option, or if it is it should have negative consequences instead of being a no-brainer) and removing practical from IC building would be decent first steps.

[Kovax]

Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if on higher difficulty levels even 30 infantry divs weren't enough to contain the Allies in the West. In case of a major invasion involving armoured divs a mobile reserve would still be needed... so what's the point of guarding every port with regular infantry, anyway?

If you use GAR instead, that's only 10 INF divisions worth of Leadership, and if you spam MIL, the dent in your Leadership pool is only equivalent to a bit over 3 INF divisions. A 20-10 mix of mostly GAR (or even MIL) divisions and a few INF or MOT (for the mobility) should only put half the drain on your efforts in the East as it would if you garrisoned with all INF, and offer about 90% of the benefits.

The weird thing about Partisan activities, Revolt Risk, and occupation laws is that it's either all suppressable or not at all suppressable, depending on situation and which expansion and which patch you play. Sadly, it's NEVER the blend of suppressable and unsuppressable RR that would reflect reality and give some benefit to garrisoning conquered territory under virtually all circumstances, yet without making such garrisoning "infallable".

[Jazumir]

[...] I´d say that reworking occupation policies (specially regarding the SU - collaboration government simply shouldn´t be an option, or if it is it should have negative consequences instead of being a no-brainer) and removing practical from IC building would be decent first steps.

It shouldnt be an option after enacting the german decision for barbarossa.

[Charles Reeps]

regarding the SU - collaboration government simply shouldn´t be an option, or if it is it should have negative consequences instead of being a no-brainer) and removing practical from IC building would be decent first steps.

If you don't like collaboration government as an option for Germany there is an easy fix: don't use it.

[Beagá]

Thanks for your productive answer. It´s exactly the kind of attitude the game needs to be improved.

[Charles Reeps]

Thanks for your productive answer. It´s exactly the kind of attitude the game needs to be improved.

Asking for a feature to be added to the game that forces your opinion on others is exactly the kind of thing we don't need. Why does it bother you that other people play ahistorical? HOI3 is very much a "what if..." game, and your suggestion removes a part of that. The fix for your imagined problem is simple: if you don't like an option...don't use it.

[RickR]

Don't build any garrisons or militia, it is a total waste.
Instead, just keep 2 panzer korps in paris and as soon as there is an AI landing, strategic deploy all of your panzers near the area where the breakout is occurring.
Next, Cut off the invasion force at the port so they are no longer being supplied and can't retreat onto a ship. Let them spread out in land, wipe them out as they come. Rinse and repeat

This is definitely the cheapest in manpower/materials but there is some risk involved should the Allies managed to get a bridgehead and hold it...it they do then it's 'Game Over' as most of your manpower is in the East. Of course, this method will work against the AI but I wouldn't try it against a real person. I normally do both: I have a mobile Quick Reaction Force (QRF) consisting of MOT/SP (whatever you favor) and I man the big ports with 2 brigades of GAR plus some coastal forts. I like coastal forts because they once they are purchased there is no reoccuring costs. I think the man thing is to find the balance that you can play with and enjoy. - Rick

[Jazumir]

Asking for a feature to be added to the game that forces your opinion on others is exactly the kind of thing we don't need. Why does it bother you that other people play ahistorical? HOI3 is very much a "what if..." game, and your suggestion removes a part of that. The fix for your imagined problem is simple: if you don't like an option...don't use it.

´Drang nach Osten´ (IIRC) + collaboration government in the soviet union shouldnt really be an option, as it´s not plausible. Either the soldiers ´know what they are fighting for´ (´Lebensraum´), or you ´liberate´ the eastern european people from bolchevism. Either should be an option - but not both at the same time.

[Beagá]

Asking for a feature to be added to the game that forces your opinion on others is exactly the kind of thing we don't need. Why does it bother you that other people play ahistorical? HOI3 is very much a "what if..." game, and your suggestion removes a part of that. The fix for your imagined problem is simple: if you don't like an option...don't use it.

Why? You are afraid you won´t be able to beat the AI if the blatatly ahistorical option is removed? Also, if your approach to options is asking players to not use the optimal choice and use the crap ones, instead of fixing the balance so that, well, the other choices become interesting or useful, then I suggest you don´t be a game designer. You wouldn´t be very succesful.

And my whole point, in case you actually bothered to read what I´ve posted, was to make the other options useful, by changing the way IC is produced and other factors. In HOI 2 being oppressive did give a decent trade off, in this one it simply doesn´t. Through having the option of collaborative governments everywhere shouldn´t be removed (except maybe for the SU), the factors of why the player can beat SU so easily must all be analyzed.

[Cybvep]

I agree with the above posters - "don't like it, don't use it" thinking doesn't really fit wargames, where the whole point is to offer many strategic options and if only one of them is clearly superior to other ones, then the choice becomes meaningless. The proper course of action is to make other options more attractive or make the dominant option less OP, not to tell the players to pick the worst options in the name of challenge.

[Charles Reeps]

´Drang nach Osten´ (IIRC) + collaboration government in the soviet union shouldnt really be an option, as it´s not plausible. Either the soldiers ´know what they are fighting for´ (´Lebensraum´), or you ´liberate´ the eastern european people from bolchevism. Either should be an option - but not both at the same time.

This is something that makes sense and I agree with it.

[magitsu]

Destiny decision should be removed, if it does not mess the balance in surprising ways. I've seen AI Germany take SU with MP (other bonuses are also very substantial) from that decision alone after having only 1 month worth of MP reserves.

[Secret Master]

´Drang nach Osten´ (IIRC) + collaboration government in the soviet union shouldnt really be an option, as it´s not plausible. Either the soldiers ´know what they are fighting for´ (´Lebensraum´), or you ´liberate´ the eastern european people from bolchevism. Either should be an option - but not both at the same time.

Too bad there's not even an option to "liberate" the various people in the Soviet Union. Sure, I suppose you could liberate the Baltic states after conquering the Soviets with Drang nach Osten, but there's not really a way in the mechanics right now to create a bunch of pro-German clients from the carcass of the Soviet Union. Not even something like Japan's event driven formation of Menguko.

I've often wondered why totalitarian systems are allowed to run collaboration governments, actually.

[Cybvep]

´Drang nach Osten´ (IIRC) + collaboration government in the soviet union shouldnt really be an option, as it´s not plausible. Either the soldiers ´know what they are fighting for´ (´Lebensraum´), or you ´liberate´ the eastern european people from bolchevism. Either should be an option - but not both at the same time.

This could be a part of sth greater - the connection between war goals and occupation policies...

I've often wondered why totalitarian systems are allowed to run collaboration governments, actually.

Denmark? Norway? China (although this one had both collaboration gov and total exploitation, so it's a special case)?

[Secret Master]

I prefer to think of Scandinavia as more of a puppet arrangement. Closer to Vichy, really. But maybe you're right. It's the incompatibility of war goals with occupation policy that is the source of strangeness.

[delra]

I've often wondered why totalitarian systems are allowed to run collaboration governments, actually.

Allo Allo? :-)