We could have the marines ignore Kuala Lumpur and instead move north, trying to link up with their fellow marines up there. We need to restore supply deliveries.
-
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.
We could also move our transport wing from China to Borneo and supply the marines by air...
We could, assuming every little bit helps. We could as well ferry another corps of regular infantry over there from Borneo. By the look of things Borneo should be no problem at all even without those five divisions. Gonna skim through the report tomorrow in detail and see what fleets we can reasonably assemble.
I don't think so, I find it rather terrible:Cybvep said:
- While Spain had gained some ground in North Africa with the fall of the French State (Vichy?) the British are on their way to Madrid and it's very likely that Spain will fall within 2 to 3 months. Top.
- With the fall of Spain the France will be ripe for the taking (or "liberation") by the Allies, opening another front for the Axis and forcing them to divert forces from their main theatre in the East to support West, it'll most likely impact their manpower and reserve capabilities to an extent they won't be able to sustain their war for long. This will also end any hope for Axis presence in North Africa and taking control of Egypt and the Suez Canal, allowing Royal Navy to go through that gateway to India and Pacific unopposed and fast.
- With the defeat of the Germany we can expect reaction from the U.S.R.R. to take control of North Korea which is still not ready for the Soviet offensive and probably won't be until we defeat the Chinese. We can also expect naval invasions from the British and USA.
You assume that they had the capability to transport troops that were stationed in NA safely back to Spain in the first place. I think that it was not the case.
This is unrelated to the NA campaign. The Spanish front was opened when Spain joined the Axis, it's sth completely different. Also, I think that the chance of capturing Suez by the Axis was very slim even when they were on the offensive. The back-and-forth warfare that took place in Africa was all we could have hoped for, really.
Again, not really related to the African campaign. However, if/when Germany falls, then we will be in trouble, yes.
Here is some food for thought:
1. The Axis loses in Africa by the end of 1941.
2. The Allies advance in Spain in 1942 just as they did in our AAR.
3. The Allies invade Italy in 1942 and defeat it by the end of 1942.
That would mean that Germany would be fighting on FOUR fronts, i.e. in Spain/France, in Italy, in Russia and in Denmark.
I'll assume you mean the British. It makes Franco's situation even more hopeless if the British were able to claim so much ground so soon. It depends on how many forces both sides have, but with the United Kingdom being major power and Spains being relatively exposed to naval invasions I think they have enough men to at least reach Madrid.Cybvep said:
Actions taken on one side of the world can have effects on the another. For example: if Japan would hunt down convoys with supplies and equipment coming to Egypt via the North Atlantic Ocean and (if I recall correctly) Archangielsk it could impact situation in both theatres. Maybe to a point it'd be impossible to defend Egypt and Suez Canal, making India much easier to be taken by the Japanese. Weakening material help for the Eastern Front would also have its consequences.Cybvep said:
In our timeline Spain begun to conquer the reminder of Vichy and could, with some fortune, support the Italy for dominion over North Africa. With the British forces already in Spain it won't be possible and French territories will be exposed.
Not directly, but indirectly? There are actions and their consequences.Cybvep said:
No, I meant the Spanish. They wouldn't really be able to transport their troops stationed overseas back to Spain safely.
Um... What? Firstly, we are not in the Axis. Secondly, if we were in the Axis, why should we move our subs to the North Atlantic Ocean while we need any support we can get in the Pacific? Thirdly, I have not seen a single convoy route going to Arkhangelsk in HOI3. This port is always unused unless you create a convoy route manually AFAIK.
Sure, but that can be said about pretty much everything.
Did the administration have the time to send a submarine along the USSR ports in the Pacific? It'd be interesting to see what they have out there.
Could you also tell me which SS units we still have? we seem to lose them slowly, only 6 seem to remain...
Could you also tell me which SS units we still have? we seem to lose them slowly, only 6 seem to remain...
Last edited:
Questions like that belong in the gameplay thread, but no, there was no time to check the Pacific ports (it was a low priority, as we don't plan to go to war against the USSR soon). We have subs with numbers 2, 3, 4, 4 (there are two subs with the same number for some reason), 5 and 6.
Sorry, I forgot to add "in real life" after I wrote "In our timeline". It's sometimes hard to see the difference when we discuss such things (and that's not sarcasm).Cybvep said:
I agree, but that's why I like Hearts of Iron III - it offers great deal of planning on strategic level, not only on tactical with some simplified options (like Total War series, which are great tactical games, but not as great strategical games). We have to take many details into account in order to be able to foresee situation and said situation changes constantly. That's why I think situation in Spain and North Africa is of great strategic value to the Axis and, indirectly, to us.Cybvep said:
First, I would just like to thank you for this AAR. It´s much better to see a AAR with difficulties than one that goes smooth.
Second, have you considered how the (quite substantial) bonus that you give nations that are at war with Japan will affect game balance? Since Germany won´t get the bonus, won´t it be crushed by the allies? It will be even worse for Germany if Russia DoW Japan- they will become a monster. Have you considered beefing up Germany if both USSR and the allies are at war with Japan?
Hi Zid, good to see a Carnage Group player in this thread 
.
Yes, I considered it. In fact, Germany has been receiving some bonuses for quite a while - I won't say exactly what kind of bonuses they get, because I like to keep the players in the dark, but I wanted to prevent any real possibility of Germany collapsing in 1941-1942, as it would destroy the game.
Also, the bonuses are not constant, they are dynamic (and I made some AI changes, too). For example, I prevent China from building an insane number of divisions (not that they don't have many, but I'm talking about 1000+ brigades here or sth like that) because that would cause their supply network to collapse and the AI doesn't know that.
It is fully intended to make the Allies powerful in late-game because I want Japan to struggle for survival. The players should be worried about the future of their nation, which will be described in the epilogue. That also means that EVERYTHING is important, even if the in-game consequences are not immediate.
EDIT: BTW the gameplay thread has ~53k views and the comment thread has ~20k views.
.Yes, I considered it. In fact, Germany has been receiving some bonuses for quite a while - I won't say exactly what kind of bonuses they get, because I like to keep the players in the dark, but I wanted to prevent any real possibility of Germany collapsing in 1941-1942, as it would destroy the game.
Also, the bonuses are not constant, they are dynamic (and I made some AI changes, too). For example, I prevent China from building an insane number of divisions (not that they don't have many, but I'm talking about 1000+ brigades here or sth like that) because that would cause their supply network to collapse and the AI doesn't know that.
It is fully intended to make the Allies powerful in late-game because I want Japan to struggle for survival. The players should be worried about the future of their nation, which will be described in the epilogue. That also means that EVERYTHING is important, even if the in-game consequences are not immediate.
EDIT: BTW the gameplay thread has ~53k views and the comment thread has ~20k views
.
Last edited:
No. The force suggested is what will be needed to keep Borneo. After all, there is a port on the west coast of Borneo that we don't have garrisoned that is in British hands with good enough infrastructure for allied armies to move into Malaya from Indonesia.
Futhermore, Malaya has yet to capitulate.
Futhermore, until other areas are taken, Borneo is a prime target for an Allied invaison.
Very bad idea, to move troops from Borneo under the number requested for the defense. Plus I don't particularly want garrisons there until all of Borneo is subdued, and even then we need mobile troops there and on Malaya to deal with rebels, and the fact that these are prime counter invaison areas. The Phillipines isn't. Thus why it doesn't need such forces in number.
I disagree. We can move out of Borneo quickly if we need to. Lost ground can be recovered, lost men can not. Having in mind that we need to strike quick and hard the enemy, we can evacuate Borneo temporarily if we need to.
You did not formulate the plan. Do not tweak carefully worked out deployments, otherwise we end up with issues like around Kuala Lumpur where only half the requested divisions were landed and so the time table didn't progress correctly.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Remember those last 4 divisions that should have already been deployed on the peninsular are somewhere in the South Pacific (I don't know exactly where Cybvep has them) and should be enough to land on the Malayan Peninsular as was originally intended. We do not need to sacrifice additional troops from Borneo when effectively the troops that should be en route are still en route!
What 4 divs? All divs that are in the South Pacific are either on Borneo or in the Malaya and it's a sizeable force, given the circumstances (18 infantry brigades and 15 marine brigades - that's about 14 divs in total). Everything else is in China, which remains our priority. The reason really needs to be good in order to transfer units from China to other places, especially that the Army keeps asking for more troops and that the situation in China is dynamic. We also have no troops in reserve. NONE.
Anyway, marines have always been attacking first, acting as vanguard and I use extra transports in order to minimise the chance for significant losses. However, I NEVER use all of our transports because that would be too risky and would increase our stacking penalty too much. Also, some TPs are needed to transport units between Japan and China.
Don't assume that all your plans will work flawlessly, because that's never the case (especially in this AAR), even if you did 10151 test games. It is possible that many of our future operations will fail, because our enemies are now more numerous and more powerful. Also, there is a difference between the request and the execution. You can request 200 divs for the conquest of India, but in itself this means nothing. Moreover, some modifications are always made, based on the in-game situation, e.g. sometimes I use different DDs for our fleets (but with the same or similar stats, esp. speed), because other DDs are 4000 km away and it would be pointless to delay the fleet reorganisation just because of that.
If sth else failed, e.g. if our troops ran out of supplies, then you could be complaining that I didn't warn you about the logistical issues and that infantry should have been transported in batches. If the RN brought several divs to Singapore, then you could say that their transport group should have been intercepted. If fewer CAGs were used as air support, then you could claim that it was responsible for the failure of the operation. If I waited longer before starting the second phase, then you could complain about unnecessary delays. In short, there will always be sth to complain about. I'm sure that some things could have been conducted in a better way, but we have to live with whatever results we get.
ATM I'm wondering whether it was prudent to land to the east of Kuala Lumpur instead of conquering the port province to the west of the city or whether the northern strike was necessary at all. However, in hindsight it's easy to find flaws in the plan or in the execution, so the number of what-ifs will be staggering by the end of the AAR.
Anyway, marines have always been attacking first, acting as vanguard and I use extra transports in order to minimise the chance for significant losses. However, I NEVER use all of our transports because that would be too risky and would increase our stacking penalty too much. Also, some TPs are needed to transport units between Japan and China.
Don't assume that all your plans will work flawlessly, because that's never the case (especially in this AAR), even if you did 10151 test games. It is possible that many of our future operations will fail, because our enemies are now more numerous and more powerful. Also, there is a difference between the request and the execution. You can request 200 divs for the conquest of India, but in itself this means nothing. Moreover, some modifications are always made, based on the in-game situation, e.g. sometimes I use different DDs for our fleets (but with the same or similar stats, esp. speed), because other DDs are 4000 km away and it would be pointless to delay the fleet reorganisation just because of that.
If sth else failed, e.g. if our troops ran out of supplies, then you could be complaining that I didn't warn you about the logistical issues and that infantry should have been transported in batches. If the RN brought several divs to Singapore, then you could say that their transport group should have been intercepted. If fewer CAGs were used as air support, then you could claim that it was responsible for the failure of the operation. If I waited longer before starting the second phase, then you could complain about unnecessary delays. In short, there will always be sth to complain about. I'm sure that some things could have been conducted in a better way, but we have to live with whatever results we get.
ATM I'm wondering whether it was prudent to land to the east of Kuala Lumpur instead of conquering the port province to the west of the city or whether the northern strike was necessary at all. However, in hindsight it's easy to find flaws in the plan or in the execution, so the number of what-ifs will be staggering by the end of the AAR.
Last edited:
The ones sat on Borneo (since that's where you tell me they are) since they were never transfered to the Malay Peninsular with the Marrines. 6 Divisions for Borneo, 9 for Malaya as per the operation plan. It specifically noted we could wait until assets were ready.
What I complain about is when there have been specific quantative instructions made and not carried out. You don't see me complaining about initive being taken to encircle Kula Lumper, or returning from the Aleutians, or even getting overruled on tech strategy. But I do not like it when I have made mention of something specifically and it appears to get ignored.
--------------------------
Going to the western port means crossing Singapore, as well as leaving us near Rangoon another major Allied base. Hence why its a bad idea to land there. The Northern port is designed to open up a supply route to Malaya given the western port is 'out of service' effectively to us. For an attack that only lands in the North it gives good time for the Malayans to form up and conduct a fighting retreat to Singapore which when coupled with the British makes it harder to take the port and leaves it more likely that the British can reinforce the area. Spliting the peninsular prevents that and allows you to deal with two seperate Malayan division groups and close down Singapore quicker in general.
That is/was the rationale.
You can look at the map in the report to see how many troops we have in the area - 15 marine brigades and 18 infantry brigades + various support brigades. That's all that we could send without transferring troops from China, which I deemed unwise, considering our situation there. Also, both Borneo and the Malayan Peninsula (excluding Singapore) are low-infra and low-port environments, so sending even more divs wouldn't necessarily be better (keep in mind that we have 4 HFTR in the area, too). The plan estimated that we would be able to attack in November and be done with the whole operation by the end of the year, although the timetable was flexible. Marines had to be rescued first, though, and this took longer than anticipated. I figured that the delay after Kiska was bad enough and waiting even longer could be disastrous. Marines acted as a vanguard and they had some additional transports, because after the Aleutian Campaign part of our doctrine is to use extra transports for invasions. Infantry would follow after Kuala Lumpur and ports were secured. You know very well that we use AI control, so it was not MY initiative to encircle Kuala Lumpur, although considering the circumstances, I think that it isn't the worst possible idea (keep in mind that they tried to take Kuala Lumpur first, but failed, because the enemy had many divs there). It was stated that naval engagements were permitted as long as the conditions were favourable and we operated under air cover. Despite that, I ordered the fleet to withdraw after the first engagement, but the RN surprised our fleets with a second task force, which combined its strength with the first one.
In regard to the port - the northern port is a 1-lvl one and there are no ports near Kuala Lumpur besides the western one. It would be very hard to supply all our troops through a 1-lvl port - in fact, if the marines from the south link up with the forces in the north, I doubt that the northern port will be enough.
Anyway, I think that we should focus on future operations, not the past ones. There are many problems that we have to deal with and judging by the heated debate in the gameplay thread, finding a proper solution will be hard.
In regard to the port - the northern port is a 1-lvl one and there are no ports near Kuala Lumpur besides the western one. It would be very hard to supply all our troops through a 1-lvl port - in fact, if the marines from the south link up with the forces in the north, I doubt that the northern port will be enough.
Anyway, I think that we should focus on future operations, not the past ones. There are many problems that we have to deal with and judging by the heated debate in the gameplay thread, finding a proper solution will be hard
.
Last edited:
[OOC: Given we have a spy network in the US, when would we know when the Americans are actually conducting a nuclear program? As far as I have RP'd I've particularly ignored this point, but since Holy Death brings it up with an off comment...
As you might imagine even though I've ignored the threat of nuclear weapons directly, I've still been cunning enough to put in place mitigating strategies such as pushing out a defence perimeter to prevent the allies having range of the home islands and by developing fighters/suggesting jet programs. If we hold our position to the epilogue that should count for something there...hence you might appreciate how my game strategy fits with the RP to give 'the best the Japanese could have ever got' historically; a stalemate.
Finally, before I forget. Much of my RP has been the same as my namesake (with some differences), yet I'm due to die in a plane crash in early '43, which is exactly the same point when everything historically began to unravel for the Japanese due to a lack of clear guidance and cautious strategy.
Unlike history, I don't think I'll be inclined to die (again), but it would have been interesting in another life to have watched this AAR continue if all of a sudden I had dropped out at this critical stage.]
As you might imagine even though I've ignored the threat of nuclear weapons directly, I've still been cunning enough to put in place mitigating strategies such as pushing out a defence perimeter to prevent the allies having range of the home islands and by developing fighters/suggesting jet programs. If we hold our position to the epilogue that should count for something there...hence you might appreciate how my game strategy fits with the RP to give 'the best the Japanese could have ever got' historically; a stalemate.
Finally, before I forget. Much of my RP has been the same as my namesake (with some differences), yet I'm due to die in a plane crash in early '43, which is exactly the same point when everything historically began to unravel for the Japanese due to a lack of clear guidance and cautious strategy.
Unlike history, I don't think I'll be inclined to die (again), but it would have been interesting in another life to have watched this AAR continue if all of a sudden I had dropped out at this critical stage.]