• 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.
IMO the Axis has an edge here. Yes, the British continue to harass the Axis, but the Soviets are getting pummelled. They lost several divs, including some armoured divs, and are being pushed back despite bad weather. Now they will have to worry about the Caucasus, too. The Allies need the USA now or they will lose the game.
 
Again those gamey attacks ... Really, I thought you were trying not to capitalize on shortcomings of the game...
 
While, I agree those attacks are gamey. So is JAP getting that big without a USA intervention. USSR can't stand against a fully human Axis. The mere fact that its winter and GER would only have gotten stronger with its War Economy had they delayed longer. (Although it does seem the GER drained a little to much from France. Considering the Supply problems he will be having, it may be best to redeploy a few div back west.)

As Cybveb said the Allies need the USA. GER can lose all of France and still win with a defeated USSR. This looks unlikely however, 15% neutrality is huge when you consider all the events have fired (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the only mistake the Allies have made this game seems to be they conducted no threat increase on GER. Unfortunately it may lead tp their demise.

Maybe a House Rule that allows JAP to attack only Allies or USSR? A DoW against both would trigger USA entry. Forcing the Axis strategy to be, either focus on USSR and have a weaker JAP without its conquests or a JAP that can focus on rolling up GB. I think if JAP had focused on the Middle East and not worried about the USSR invasion, then he would have taken the Suez through Iraq. Another option would be to allow JAP to drag out the Nat Cha war but unable to fight a major with out a USA entry.

Can we get the JAP player to comment on his decision to puppet China? Whether the influx of AI div and lose of IC and Leadership (which maybe why GB seems to have better docs) was worth it?


Nice to see the JAP player in Persia, although the delay in starting the operation negates most of the benefits. Why didn't it happen with Barsbossa start? The Germans will be at Stalingrad and Moscow before they even enter USSR (at the pace they are going). Considering the House rules of "Bitter Peace" unless they can pull divisions from the GER front it willn't matter. If they're going for the Suez than they better move fast cause once the USA enters the war all of Japans Empire is a front line and those troops will just get cut off.
 
Last edited:
IMO the Axis has an edge here. Yes, the British continue to harass the Axis, but the Soviets are getting pummelled. They lost several divs, including some armoured divs, and are being pushed back despite bad weather. Now they will have to worry about the Caucasus, too. The Allies need the USA now or they will lose the game.

Not if the Allies take Denmark and invade Berlin with 30 divisions. With Spain landing experience it should not be difficult ;)


Again those gamey attacks ... Really, I thought you were trying not to capitalize on shortcomings of the game...

I disagree. It is not like German player was not warned about further possible raids and the attack on Denmark after the Brest attack ;)

German player should have learned that lonely garrisons without any reserves around are very vulnerable.

I would say that it is gamey against AI but German player is not AI. CptEasy advised that German player now has learned his mistake. Losing the KM was also not good idea. This could be dealt with easily by changing garrisoning tactics.
 
I would say that it is gamey against AI but German player is not AI. CptEasy advised that German player now has learned his mistake. Losing the KM was also not good idea. This could be dealt with easily by changing garrisoning tactics.
The point is that these landings make little sense, they are possible only because of the game's poor amphibious invasion system and are clearly meant to overload the German player, who cannot micromanage everything alone.
 
The point is that these landings make little sense, they are possible only because of the game's poor amphibious invasion system and are clearly meant to overload the German player, who cannot micromanage everything alone.

I disagree, Cybvep. Call these small scale landing operations, operational practice for a much large amphibious invasion. Yes, the games invasion system make them easy to pull off, but a different Axis deployment scheme will severely hamper the effectiveness of these invasions. The main point, at least in mine in my MP game, was to destroy Axis divisions, not to overload the Axis player. Once the Axis players stopped garrisoning their coast line like they were playing the AI, these opportunities dried up, unless the British player wants to make a substantial invasion.
 
The point is that these landings make little sense, they are possible only because of the game's poor amphibious invasion system and are clearly meant to overload the German player, who cannot micromanage everything alone.

The invasion system is not unknown to German player. He also plays an MP game not for the first time. So he should know better his limitations and prepare defences accordingly. From my point of view the problem was poor defensive preparations or basically the absence of them. The player also has AI at his disposal which can handle simple defensive tasks.

Everybody blames Polish decision to keep an army at the border for its quick defeat but nobody blames Germans for using overwhelming force and blitzkrieg tactics ;)



I agree with, Ugly Guy.
 
Yes, I agree that was responsibility of Germany to organize defense.
Also, border is too big for static defense and some mobile reserves should be kept deeper on continent.
Or contract few more Italians to do that. Else, be ready to pay price for empty defense line.
I also miss events in 1943 for Atlantic wall. They used local labor mostly, so no much of IC cost.

In our game I made 5 heavy armor divisions which were great in France plains.
 
Just make a rule that landings are only possible in ports, that'd suffice already. At least it'd enable the defender to take notice about such landings without being caught with his units surrounded and the Brits halfway down to Paris already. It's just totally unrealistic.
 
Just make a rule that landings are only possible in ports, that'd suffice already. At least it'd enable the defender to take notice about such landings without being caught with his units surrounded and the Brits halfway down to Paris already. It's just totally unrealistic.

Announcing "Britts landing in Normandy" over TS before disembarking your troops would be fair enough, and avoid sneak invasions.
 
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.
 
Just make a rule that landings are only possible in ports, that'd suffice already. At least it'd enable the defender to take notice about such landings without being caught with his units surrounded and the Brits halfway down to Paris already. It's just totally unrealistic.

I have wrote one advice in the 131 post and gave some crucial numbers in the 206 post.

If you know that waters are crocodile infested would you stand or, even worse, sleep by the water?

If you afraid to miss landing Brits to be half way down to Paris then leave your troops half way to Paris ;)
 
I totally agree with Ugly, Plastic and Cyb, the defense of GER is lacking and he gets what he deserves for not having a mobile defense inland to support the perimeter troops in case of attack. Having them picked off and killed by small invasions without a flexible response...
Only tells us one thing: ENG just go for a real second front - Axis has the West undermanned!

An all out attack on France from Spain+ a supporting landing in France and Axis will be on the defense and really short of tanks to stop the allied armor.
ENG has the perfect launching base in Spain with the Pyrenees (which the Axis screwed up to defend) to fall back to.
But chances are - if ENG has to finally fall back the mission objectice will be met and GER will have had to pull troops from the russian front.

(A real shortcoming of the HoI 3 series is that ENG Can't fully use all the Commonwealth troops under "Royal Command" or things would stand even worse for Axis riht now.)

I still don't see the Axis winning (at all) - tactical victories in Russia don't matter that much and JAP will be in deep DoDo wen USA joins - I dont see these troops gettinng out of Iran etc. in time to defend JAP's main area of defense.

------------------------------------
Concernin the gamey landings I agree with Baltasar, Cyb et all
You really need to come up with a houserule somewhat restricting the landing madness. (Allowing evacuating troops only through ports would be my proposal)
-------------------------------------
Concerning overload on GER - having 2 players on Russia but only one for GER can hardly be justified. Esp. with these insta-invasions going on.
 
Concerning overload on GER - having 2 players on Russia but only one for GER can hardly be justified. Esp. with these insta-invasions going on.
Exactly. Germany regularly fights on two fronts and Germany's performance is important from the gameplay perspective. GER certainly deserves two players.
 
Nice discussion regarding the West Wall (or lack thereof).

My initial strategy was to keep a limited defence in France, to obtain quicker victories in the East. I still wanted to hold as many ports as possible. For this, I had two mobile forces + the port garrisons. As seen in the posts (Zid might come with more details?) this system was not enough to keep the nasty enemies out. I was simply overwhelmed by the invasions, quickly destroying the garrisons before I could react. I had basically overestimated how long these troops would be able to hold the line. Part of the blaim also falls on the Luftwaffe, repeatedly failing in keeping the skies clear of enemy planes.

After firing the responsible officer, allocating more troops and implementing new doctrines, this situation improved. But it was an expensive lesson, teaching the German High Command that also the enemy was skilled in the Art of Mobile Warfare.

For the discussion on whether these invasions were gamey, I think it depends on what type of game you are want to play. As HoI is a RTS (albeit at a slow pace), player time is sometimes a limiting factor. Two human players on Germany would have increased performance significantly. I most certainly felt the difficulty ramping up with 2 players on the USSR and Zid's aggressive play in the West, with my PUMCF (Pop-up message closing frequency) steadily increasing. But being overwhelmed is part of the MP game experience. We should not forget that the Axis also has the chance to use this fact, against both UK and USSR. So it is not in itself a game problem (although we might implement some changes to specifically limit the possibilities of naval invasions in the future).

That being said, it is of course more impressing to beat a 2-person GER than a single person :)
 
If you afraid to miss landing Brits to be half way down to Paris then leave your troops half way to Paris ;)

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.
 
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.

I would agree with only being able to retreat via a port after an amphibious invasion. I would also agree with Germany being the first nation to get a coop player. That being said, the issue here isn't a flaw in game mechanics. IRL, Germany knew it couldn't prevent an invasion. It's strategy was to have enough reserve forces to defeat an allied invasion before it became too strong. The German player in game has to do the same. If the German player thinks his victory is going to be by preventing a port capture to slowly starve out an invasion, he is simply playing it wrong. Let the allies have a port or two, and use all the forces that you would spend garrisoning every port on the Atlantic in a couple strong mobile reserves. Strong mobile reserve (possible because of the 20 divisions you AREN'T wasting garrisoning some level 5 port) + (At least partial) Luftwaffe control of the skies = Failed Allied invasion (at least until the US has joined in force, but by then we are talking a whole different ball game).