'Kriegsplan Orange' - 9 player online AoD campaign (1936 scenario)

[Mr_B0narpte]

I think you hit the nail on the head, the Allies bore the brunt of the Axis advance in World War 2. The UK bled especially heavily in France as the battle was borderline WWI take 2.

The Germans invaded the Soviets but only upto the river line before entrenching, then launching attacks solely against the Allies - bar the 1944 offensive into the Middle East against Soviet Iran and beyond. This gave the Comintern time to build up relatively unimpeded 1940-45.

As nuclear bomb production is so slow, every one counts. But still, there were 5 nuclear attacks between 1945-46.

It showed the difference in tactical nuclear bombing - targeting enemy provinces filled with units - over strategic nuclear bombing - targeting enemy industrial centres.

The war in Europe had so many armies involved that tactical nuclear strikes were also effectively strategic ones too - you'd do so much damage to the enemy army that you'd shift the balance so heavily in your favour, the pay out would not only be immediate but also long term as the cost to the enemy is so large.

Knocking out 70+ Allied divisions (primarily armoured too) in an instant in Bratislava not only halted the Allied advance, but then enabled the Soviets to not just attack themselves, but take virtually all of western Europe in just a few months. It turned the tables dramatically, having a far greater impact then the bombing of Moscow or Tokyo.

If the Allies had bombed a megastack of Comintern units instead then I think the war would've turned out very differently. Although bear in mind the Comintern were trying to avoid stacking too many units in one province for this exact reason.

An additional point is that perhaps the Allies decision to order the radioactive units in Bratislava to fight to the death was a strategic blunder. It achieved little defensively - they still lost western Europe - and they accrued so much dissent. The USA's industrial capacity dropped by nearly 300 IC!

Also, I think authoritarian countries have a reduced revolt risk in national provinces compared to democracies - meaning a strategic nuclear attack on them inherently does less damage. The USSR lost 70 IC from the bombing of Moscow, the USA lost over 300 IC from the bombing of New York. Which to me just shows that tactical nuclear bombing is far more effective for the Allies.

Also I'm not convinced on the nuclear strike on Tokyo. Japan was already being crippled by Allied strategic bombing, yes the entire Japanese army was in Europe, but the conventional strategic bombing campaign was starving the units anyway as Japan's transport capacity collapsed.

Similar again for the one on Chongqing - mainland Asia had already been lost to the Allies at this point, and Chinese forces were not allowed to be used outside the continent, so I don't think it achieved much in addressing the strategic imbalance.

I don't mean to criticise the Allied campaign here, which was tremendous! Just giving my feedback/opinion on why they weren't able to secure final victory over the Communists after bearing the brunt against the Fascists.

 

[stevep]

I think you hit the nail on the head, the Allies bore the brunt of the Axis advance in World War 2. The UK bled especially heavily in France as the battle was borderline WWI take 2.

The Germans invaded the Soviets but only upto the river line before entrenching, then launching attacks solely against the Allies - bar the 1944 offensive into the Middle East against Soviet Iran and beyond. This gave the Comintern time to build up relatively unimpeded 1940-45.

As nuclear bomb production is so slow, every one counts. But still, there were 5 nuclear attacks between 1945-46.

It showed the difference in tactical nuclear bombing - targeting enemy provinces filled with units - over strategic nuclear bombing - targeting enemy industrial centres.

The war in Europe had so many armies involved that tactical nuclear strikes were also effectively strategic ones too - you'd do so much damage to the enemy army that you'd shift the balance so heavily in your favour, the pay out would not only be immediate but also long term as the cost to the enemy is so large.

Knocking out 70+ Allied divisions (primarily armoured too) in an instant in Bratislava not only halted the Allied advance, but then enabled the Soviets to not just attack themselves, but take virtually all of western Europe in just a few months. It turned the tables dramatically, having a far greater impact then the bombing of Moscow or Tokyo.

If the Allies had bombed a megastack of Comintern units instead then I think the war would've turned out very differently. Although bear in mind the Comintern were trying to avoid stacking too many units in one province for this exact reason.

An additional point is that perhaps the Allies decision to order the radioactive units in Bratislava to fight to the death was a strategic blunder. It achieved little defensively - they still lost western Europe - and they accrued so much dissent. The USA's industrial capacity dropped by nearly 300 IC!

Also, I think authoritarian countries have a reduced revolt risk in national provinces compared to democracies - meaning a strategic nuclear attack on them inherently does less damage. The USSR lost 70 IC from the bombing of Moscow, the USA lost over 300 IC from the bombing of New York. Which to me just shows that tactical nuclear bombing is far more effective for the Allies.

Also I'm not convinced on the nuclear strike on Tokyo. Japan was already being crippled by Allied strategic bombing, yes the entire Japanese army was in Europe, but the conventional strategic bombing campaign was starving the units anyway as Japan's transport capacity collapsed.

Similar again for the one on Chongqing - mainland Asia had already been lost to the Allies at this point, and Chinese forces were not allowed to be used outside the continent, so I don't think it achieved much in addressing the strategic imbalance.

I don't mean to criticise the Allied campaign here, which was tremendous! Just giving my feedback/opinion on why they weren't able to secure final victory over the Communists after bearing the brunt against the Fascists.

Boney

Thanks for the explanation. Interesting point that nukes tend to do more damage to democratic rather than autocratic societies in terms of the morale/unrest impact. Also I didn't realise that the production of nukes in game was so slow.

Steve

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Yeah I think nukes take 18 months or so when you achieve the first tech and minimum level of reactor (with you also being given your first nuke when the reactor reaches the required level, which I think is 6 or 7), with the production time gradually reducing as you research additional nuclear technologies and build up the nuclear reactor further.

 

[InfArmMot]

Wow, I read the entire AAR! Although I only play Darkest Hour, I have to say, this read was immense. What a multiplayer campaign! The game really shines here.
I don't play MP games, yet, only SP and as Axis nations, so I hope it's okay to ask a few dumb mp questions:

China: did Japan use strategic bombers against the Chinese industry? And why the northern route where the IJN cannot support the Japanese ground troops?
France: was the reason to push through the Maginot Line, instead of the Low countries, based on airbases in the region? And in addition to that question, why Switzerland was not attacked too, when deciding to push through the Maginot?
Barbarossa: is there a game strategy to flank the Dvina and or Dnieper rivers. Because if not, this is where you will end up, as in this campaign.
Japanese supply lines; the US subs crippled Japans supply lines; beside of building escorts, is there really anything one can do, as Japan, in MP, to counter this threat? I mean, the area involved is massive.

Finally, since I have never played an MP game in Hearts Of Iron before, regardless of side, is player fatigue an issue, or do you agree to only play 5-8 hours per session?

 

[stevep]

Wow, I read the entire AAR! Although I only play Darkest Hour, I have to say, this read was immense. What a multiplayer campaign! The game really shines here.
I don't play MP games, yet, only SP and as Axis nations, so I hope it's okay to ask a few dumb mp questions:

China: did Japan use strategic bombers against the Chinese industry? And why the northern route where the IJN cannot support the Japanese ground troops?
France: was the reason to push through the Maginot Line, instead of the Low countries, based on airbases in the region? And in addition to that question, why Switzerland was not attacked too, when deciding to push through the Maginot?
Barbarossa: is there a game strategy to flank the Dvina and or Dnieper rivers. Because if not, this is where you will end up, as in this campaign.
Japanese supply lines; the US subs crippled Japans supply lines; beside of building escorts, is there really anything one can do, as Japan, in MP, to counter this threat? I mean, the area involved is massive.

Finally, since I have never played an MP game in Hearts Of Iron before, regardless of side, is player fatigue an issue, or do you agree to only play 5-8 hours per session?

IAM

I'll leave it to Boney to answer the other questions but having been lured in as his assistant while he play's Japan in the current game I can answer the last point.

Getting people together is a problem as we have players from central/eastern Europe to the US West coast so the time issue can be an awkward one. Normally playing about 4-6 hours in a session, generally at a very slow speed and with players able to pause when they need to do make some complex decisions or possibly take a break. Sometimes we lose players as the game 'drops' them and we have to save and restart although that's a fairly quick process.

Not been an heavy player of AoD before as being something of a micromanager I would generally get 1-2 games in between version upgrades and hadn't played for 2-3 years due to other commitments but definitely an interesting operation. There's a fair bit of team play of course with - as I'm in the Axis - all 4 of us on a voice discord so we can keep in touch with each other during play.

We're currently 1st Oct 1939 with shall we say some divergence from history but won't say any more to avoid spoiling Boney's new AAR as he reports it. - I think he's the advertiser/propagandist in chief for the group.

Steve

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Wow, I read the entire AAR! Although I only play Darkest Hour, I have to say, this read was immense. What a multiplayer campaign! The game really shines here.

Many thanks for the kind words, much appreciated.

China: did Japan use strategic bombers against the Chinese industry?

Japan used tactical bombers, once they're at 1938 quality they can be devastating in bombing infrastructure, and somewhat decent in the long run in strategic bombing.

And why the northern route where the IJN cannot support the Japanese ground troops?

Mainly because an opportunity arose to potentially take Chongqing. If Japan takes Chongqing, it's won. The single province ends up with around a third of China's war industry. Plus, with the Nanking Massacre events, the benefit to Japan for taking the Chinese capital is unclear due to the benefits it gives China (reduced dissent & supplies) and the USA. This has been somewhat rectified in later updates of the mod we're using.

France: was the reason to push through the Maginot Line, instead of the Low countries, based on airbases in the region? And in addition to that question, why Switzerland was not attacked too, when deciding to push through the Maginot?

It was mainly based on the railway artillery causing such great destruction of the Maginot line, making combat there much easier then expected. Perhaps with hindsight I should have opened up more of an attack in the Low Countries to provide more areas to go on the offensive. My invasion of France was cripplingly costly. In this mod if Switzerland is attacked it gets level 10 forts in every province, so I always avoid it as Germany!

Barbarossa: is there a game strategy to flank the Dvina and or Dnieper rivers. Because if not, this is where you will end up, as in this campaign.

That can be a strategy, in this campaign as the battle for France had been so costly for Germany, the new Germany player decided to only advance upto the river line and create a defensive line of their own there, while finding opportunities to attack in other theatres of war where possible.

Japanese supply lines; the US subs crippled Japans supply lines; beside of building escorts, is there really anything one can do, as Japan, in MP, to counter this threat? I mean, the area involved is massive.

Building destroyers with the ASW brigade, or even just equipping their existing destroyers with ASW brigades might be enough as DDs are devastating against subs in AoD. It's been so hard to balance submarine warfare, but currently it's in favour of ASW, even in the 1939-40 period.

Finally, since I have never played an MP game in Hearts Of Iron before, regardless of side, is player fatigue an issue, or do you agree to only play 5-8 hours per session?

I think Stevep has answered this question very well

 

[InfArmMot]

Thank you for both replies. Very much appreciated. I think there is an interest in the community, to at least watch or read about multiplayer campaigns, however, as Steve points out, the issue of different time zones do play a role, as does the commitment in itself.