+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: This Is Stupid

  1. #1
    General Zardnaar's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III
    Victoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,441

    This Is Stupid

    Kinda a DH newb but I have played alot of HoI2 and a little bit of AoD. Anyway stuff in DH takes alot longer to build in alot of cases. This results in smaller armies thanwhat one is used to in HoI2. THis however also hurts the AI alot.

    Maries seem a little pointless. It seems every game I play Germany does not have enough divisions to secure every beach in France. THis makes a D-day in 42/43 very easy. Once you break through is is stupidly easy to rampage through Germany. The few German units seem to likedefending the neitherlands regions and Cologne area. THe South is usually wide open. I used a single motorised infantry division to drive right though, annex Slovakia and Hungary as the USA. A similar thing happend in a british game. By 1943 I was pushing deep into the Ukraine.

    In the pacific its even funnier. As the British the Japanese never attacked the Raj and barely got indonesia. In my USA game a single 1931 marine unit captured Truk, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and most of the pacific. The Japanese invaded the phillipines with a singe inf divisiosn that was actually from Manchukuo. I built some more marines but they were not really needed although the AI had a hard on for recapturing Saipan.


    The AI has always been bad in HoT2 and varients but at least in the original game and in AoD you actually need units. DH has less micromanagement I suppose but has other issues such as stupidly long build times for fleets. You won't be building replacements anytiome soon if you lose a CV or something. 6-12 modern CVs more or less wins you the game anyway.

  2. #2
    Major Legions of Rome's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIRome GoldSemper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    500k club

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    521
    While I agree unit build times are way too long (thankfully they are easy to mod) and the game could do with giving the ai some garrison divisons that can't be moved. However I have seen Japan go wild sometimes (this includes annexing Austraila, NZ, Canada and the Raj) so how the Japanese do overall is quite different in each game.

  3. #3
    Yeah I think the problem with the HoI series depiction of amphibious invasions is that troops are unloaded and can fight instantly, with just a 50% org hit. IRL it took weeks to shift the troops across the English channel. There should probably be a mechanism to lock troops and ships in place for a few days during loading and unloading, just like it locks troops which have pulled out of an attack.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Legions of Rome View Post
    While I agree unit build times are way too long ..
    Remember the game name - Total Realism Project

    Ships take a long time to build - big ships take a VERY long time to build - and actually only a handful of countries in the 30s/40s could build the bigger warships anyway.

    The UK were buliding 5 modern battleships at the start of WW2 - the KGVs - there were plans for another class of battleships to follow them - the Lion class - two were started. However it was soon decided to suspend all work - on the grounds that they did not expect to be able to complete them before the war ended.

    The construction of capital units often took more than 5 years - even "refits" could last 2/3 years.

    All the big navies knew that replacing the capital ships took years - and were therefore very protective of these units. Capital Squadrons/Task Forces were often under strict instructions to avoid any risk of loss or damage. Even when combat look possible one or both sides would often withdraw rather than risk loss.

    Long build times are correct for a game called "Total Realism"

    (and dont get me started on how long it actually took to increase shipyard capacity!!)

  5. #5
    yeah a notice sometimes the UK are able to raid territories in Yugoslavia and stuff and take over the whole country because all the units are elsewhere-- or to far away to respond in time

    well i would guess the new patch would fix this if motorized units will get much faster

  6. #6
    Major Legions of Rome's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIRome GoldSemper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    500k club

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffordhud View Post
    Remember the game name - Total Realism Project

    Ships take a long time to build - big ships take a VERY long time to build - and actually only a handful of countries in the 30s/40s could build the bigger warships anyway.

    The UK were buliding 5 modern battleships at the start of WW2 - the KGVs - there were plans for another class of battleships to follow them - the Lion class - two were started. However it was soon decided to suspend all work - on the grounds that they did not expect to be able to complete them before the war ended.

    The construction of capital units often took more than 5 years - even "refits" could last 2/3 years.

    All the big navies knew that replacing the capital ships took years - and were therefore very protective of these units. Capital Squadrons/Task Forces were often under strict instructions to avoid any risk of loss or damage. Even when combat look possible one or both sides would often withdraw rather than risk loss.

    Long build times are correct for a game called "Total Realism"

    (and dont get me started on how long it actually took to increase shipyard capacity!!)
    Since when is the game called Total Realisim? Also I was refering too Land units although ship units build times could be shortened a bit so that building ships is actually a viable thing to do.

  7. #7
    General Zardnaar's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III
    Victoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,441
    As for total realism the Americans spammed out Essex class carriers and the Germans could raise an infantry division in 6 weeks. German BC irl took less than 2 years to build. Liong build times can be used I suppose but they're not compensated for by large increases in IC (Americans would need 600-900 OC)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffordhud View Post
    Remember the game name - Total Realism Project
    TRP and DH are two different things.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Legions of Rome View Post
    Since when is the game called Total Realisim? Also I was refering too Land units although ship units build times could be shortened a bit so that building ships is actually a viable thing to do.
    Apologies - I was under the impression that DH was a TRP variant.

    As for ship build times - in the real world it took a very long time (even in wartime) to build large warships - something that is still true today.
    Examples - The Scharnhorst was laid down in June 1935, launched Oct 1936 but not completed until Jan 1939 - a 40 month build time - 1200 days. The US Essex class carriers took less time - only 20 months for the lead ship USS Essex - the slightly larger second batch known as the "long hulled" versions took 24 months - 720 days.
    Interestingly it took even longer to produce the large calibre naval guns than it took to build the ships - the guns had to be ordered before the rest of the ship.

    Clearly smaller warships took less time - the US Fletcher Class destroyers could be produced in 12 months - they built 175 of these!

  10. #10
    The times build times are too damn long, so I modded them down to HoI 2 levels
    "Hmm... a Tsar, raised by the will of the people? Sounds legit." -- KotoR45

    Need ministers for a mod project or just because?


  11. #11
    General Zardnaar's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III
    Victoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,441
    As I said if you are gonna go with historical construction times you may as well use historical IC level (50% boost for all nations?) or events that grant you free divsions (+12 carriers in 44?). The build time in DH also includes the sea trial times it seems. The main difference is that the AI struggles to build much of anything it seems and you launch D-Day with 60-80 odd divisions instead of 150-200.

  12. #12
    Did you actually ment that allies launched D-Day with 150-200 divisions?
    You can fight against stupidity but you cannot win.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Zardnaar View Post
    As I said if you are gonna go with historical construction times you may as well use historical IC level (50% boost for all nations?) or events that grant you free divsions (+12 carriers in 44?). The build time in DH also includes the sea trial times it seems. The main difference is that the AI struggles to build much of anything it seems and you launch D-Day with 60-80 odd divisions instead of 150-200.
    Interesting

    A couple of questions:

    Why do you need to increase IC levels by 50% if you use "historical" build times?

    I personally think that the allied build levels (IC) are too low compared to the axis - and have argued for a revision before. If you say that the German IC is the baseline then the UK IC level should be on a par with it in 1940, and above it in 1941. German output increased in 1942 1943 and 1944 however the allied IC - Russia in mid 41, US at the start of 42, (and continuing growth from the UK) grew at a much faster rate.
    From a game perspective both the Italian and Japanese IC is too high - perhaps 50% too high.
    So back to your point I think it is not so much a 50% increase of ICs that is needed but a rebalancing of Allied/Axis capability

    As for "free units" - not sure why - please explain. Even with current IC levels (and build times) it is not difficult for the US to match the "real world" carrier fleet used in the pacific

    An interesting dimension is the size of the manpower pool for the different nations - I am not sure how "real" they are. I frequently see very large manpower numbers for both Italy and Japan - is this correct? I have never had the impression that the flower of Italian manhood were queuing up to join their comrades on the Eastern front.

    I regularly see both UK and German economies running very short of men from 1943 onwards - this feels about right - the German army started "shrinking" by the end of 1941 when monthly losses exceeded replacements. In late 1944 21st Army group was disbanding units to enable other formations to come up to strength. A similar situation was impacting US forces in the ETO in 1944/45.

    Anyway it will be interesting to see what 1.03 brings

  14. #14
    Did you actually ment that allies launched D-Day with 150-200 divisions?


    They landed 5 pluis a couple of Airborne
    This force grew to about 30(?) by the end of the year - including the units that landed in the South, and the Free French
    These numbers are from memory - ie I have not checked them

  15. #15
    Sergeant Firesaw's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: Chronicles
    Hearts of Iron IIIIron CrossVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided500k club
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aschaffenburg / Bavaria
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffordhud View Post

    An interesting dimension is the size of the manpower pool for the different nations - I am not sure how "real" they are. I frequently see very large manpower numbers for both Italy and Japan - is this correct? I have never had the impression that the flower of Italian manhood were queuing up to join their comrades on the Eastern front.
    The Japanese manpower pool is roughly correct. If it would be subject to change, I would get it bigger not smaller. You should have in mind when thinking about this, that Japan had more inhabitants than Germany. You're right about Italy: From my "feel" they have too much manpower, though they start at a high conscription level, so that could make up for this.

  16. #16
    Major airpirate's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneMagickaSemper FiSengokuSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: Warband
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and SwordCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, but not over the rainbow.
    Posts
    695
    Which is perfectly realistic. Ever heard of Midway? The reason it was considered the "turning point" in the Pacific war was that the United States took out 4 (possibly higher, I forget the number) Japanese Carriers. If CV's could be easily replaced, Japan could have easily recovered from Midway.

    Also, I would direct all of you to this dev diary to explain why DH build times are so long:

    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ction-and-more
    Last edited by airpirate; 21-08-2012 at 17:39.
    "You can make an omelet without breaking any eggs; it's just a really bad omelet"
    ~ Stephen Colbert

  17. #17
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourHearts of Iron IIIIron Cross

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volgograd, Russia
    Posts
    265
    i think one of the main problems is that there are no differences between units from different countries, whereas IRL, there was a huge difference in both tactics and equipment. that's the one place where Iron Cross actually was better; you could make your divisions different from others.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by airpirate View Post
    Which is perfectly realistic. Ever heard of Midway? The reason it was considered the "turning point" in the Pacific war was that the United States took out 4 (possibly higher, I forget the number) Japanese Carriers. If CV's could be easily replaced, Japan could have easily recovered from Midway.

    Also, I would direct all of you to this dev diary to explain why DH build times are so long:

    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ction-and-more
    Yes it was 4.
    Japanese industry was able to replace the ships - but it took years. However they were never able to produce properly trained airmen to allow the Japanese fleet to stand a chance against the expanding US Pacific Fleet. Indeed the 2 year gap between the large fleet actions at Midway and the Philippine Sea shows how long it took before the IJN felt strong enough to risk action (and they were wrong!

    It is also worth comparing the size of the fleets at Midway (where the IJN was clearly the stronger force) to the Philippine Sea (where the IJN fleet was half the size of the US fleet - and that overstates the IJN strength as the 400 carrier planes they had scrapped together were poorly trained and were massacred by better trained USN pilots flying much improved planes)

    DH needs to reflect this differential in potential. In 1941 the Japanese fleet consisted of excellent units manned by experienced professionals. However there was no strategic depth - the IJN senior commanders predicted that they should manage to retain the initiative for 6 months, they understood that in the long term they would be doomed.

    Even if the IJN had "won" at Midway the tipping point in the Paciifc would not have been delayed for long


    Thanks for the link to the dev diary - all sensible stuff

  19. #19
    Colonel
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourSengoku500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In the bleak, frozen midwest of the USA
    Posts
    1,063
    The leaders and doctrines is how DH tries to show country differences. The Japanese start out with veritable godlike admirals that give them a HUGE advantage in any naval engagement. If they can cause enough ship losses to the US early on while preserving their own fleet they can do well in the war. The AI eventually screws up with the US though and sends out new ships piecemeal as they are produced so you can eventually sink nearly the entire US fleet. I've managed that a couple times as Japan.

  20. #20
    Major vcgetdown's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron IIIIron Cross
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Texas,United States
    Posts
    672
    I know that there is a bug/ai flaw that causes them to not defend their beaches properly. Supposedly fixed in 1.3, I don't believe it's a lack of divisions causing that.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts