• 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.
Kurt_Steiner said:
In the sense that those planes bring shadows of 1916 :D It's as if Ball and Voss were back from their graves... But it's 1936, so, nothing else to say ;) We'll wait for the Emil and the Spit.

I fear the Spit won't make an appearance if he sucessfully occupied Britain...
 
trekaddict (1) - :D

trekaddict (2) - Why thank you! That's sure to get everyone in the right spirit.

ShadowWarrior - Excellent. Well don't you worry -- there will be both good Germans to root for and bad Germans to root against. Even good and bad Allies, for that matter.

Kurt_Steiner - Ah, yes, yes, I understand. Unfortunately, it's an unavoidable consequence of the 4 year time difference. A whole lot changed between '36 and '40 -- in some senses more even than between 1918 and 1936. I know you're eager for the Bf-109s... They're coming, they're coming. Some have already been produced, but it will be awhile yet before they replace the Luftwaffe's current stable of fighters.

trekaddict (3!) - A fair observation. Time will tell!
 
Ahhh how I love watching the good old like dogfights of the biplanes. The Ar68 is probably my most favorite out of all of them, with the Czech Avia B-534 coming in second.

One thing I did notice, sorry to sound like a nitpicker, but here you said:
"most recently crash-landing his fourth after being rammed by a British Hart Fighter over Calais."

Actually the Hawker Hart (which is what I'm thinking you're trying to mean) is a day-light bomber not a fighter. The Hawker Fury would've been more appropiate or just changing the identification around.
 
Slaughts - I'm glad you enjoy it! Clever eye, but that passage was referring not to a "Hart fighter" but a "Hart Fighter". Hawker Aircraft Limited produced a variant on the Hawker Hart known as the Hart Fighter which was used as a two-seat fighter. I realize that was perhaps somewhat confusing though. If I catch something like that in the future, I'll try to append an explanatory note after the update. Keep nitpicking though :D ! It's readers like you that keep me sharp...
 
TheHyphenated1 said:
Slaughts - I'm glad you enjoy it! Clever eye, but that passage was referring not to a "Hart fighter" but a "Hart Fighter". Hawker Aircraft Limited produced a variant on the Hawker Hart known as the Hart Fighter which was used as a two-seat fighter. I realize that was perhaps somewhat confusing though. If I catch something like that in the future, I'll try to append an explanatory note after the update. Keep nitpicking though :D ! It's readers like you that keep me sharp...


Well I was only aware that the other use they had for the Hart was a training craft, so thats why it threw me off.
 
Slaughts - Fair enough :) .



III:VII should be out in the next several days. I'm waiting for email response on a research detail and also need to do some sleuthing in the game files to get the exact sequence of certain events right.

During the slight lull, would anyone care to "put it on the line" and make predictions about how (and even if) Loewengrube is going to take place and whether it will be successful?

Something tells me dublish is quite eager to tell you how he thinks things will turn out. And that he'll have some interesting facts to support it with ;) .



~
 
Hmm I'll give it a shot of you don't mind. It's too early for Paras I think, as TP planes take awfully long to build and use a lot of IC.

So I think its either a landing by Marines or regular Heer Infantry somewhere in the channel where both distance from occu... liberated France are the shortest and where the danger from the RN is minimal. It would be due to be carried out either immediately or in early 1937. Sucess... well, if you can sneak 12 or so Divisions past the RN it should go fine.
 
TheHyphenated1 said:
Something tells me dublish is quite eager to tell you how he thinks things will turn out. And that he'll have some interesting facts to support it with ;) .
I don't work well under pressure. :( ;)

Considering the British lost more than 10% of their projected fighter force to Gruppe II's attack, I'd say you have the air war won. In the general strategy meeting a few updates ago, Canaris claimed a meer 5 divisions defending Britain- based on AI garrison priorities, I'd expect a single division guarding whatever landing site you pick, so you have the land war won as well.

You'll embark from Ghent, Cherbourg or some other large port with a single sea province between you and Britain, and the deciding factor will probably be the location of the RN's Home Fleet (or Med Fleet, Reserve Fleet, East Asia Squadron, or whatever else they have defending the islands). No word on that piece of intelligence, and it changes at the whim of the AI in any case, so I'm not making any prediction there.

The Kriegsmarine expects 5 'minelayers' to be converted in the next 5 months, and 20 more in 1937. Raeder wants 10 more before he crosses the Channel, so I predict an early 1937 operation, probably in February. If we assume those are actually transports (maybe too much of a leap, but I don't know what else a minelayer would be in game terms), I think trekaddict's estimate of 12 invading divisions is spot on. Alternatively, the minelayers could be sent to the sea provinces on either side of the invasion corridor, so the Heer divisions involved might come in multiple waves.

I'm also thinking about the last paragraph of the Germaniawerft update. Financially attractive solutions for restoring the Kriegsmarine are few and far between, so I think Schacht has come up with a radical proposal. How cheap are CVs compared to BBs?
 
dublish said:
How cheap are CVs compared to BBs?
Assuming Germany hasn't researched better CVs it isn't even worth making the comparison...but I will anyway.

CV-0 (Great War Carrier IIRC Germany starts with this) is 5 IC for 547 days or 2735 IC-days PLUS 380 IC-days for the CAG is 3115 IC-days
BB-III (Bismarck) is 10 IC for 730 days or 7300 IC-days (plus any attachments)

If Germany has completed research on CV-1 then it is 5 IC for 650 days or 3250 IC-days PLUS 475 IC-dyas for the CAG or 3725 IC-days

So you could (roughly) build 2 Carriers for every Battleship...
 
Apart from the fact that in SKIF BBIII is König-class IIRC and BBIV Bismarck you are correct.
 
xtfoster said:
Assuming Germany hasn't researched better CVs it isn't even worth making the comparison...but I will anyway.

CV-0 (Great War Carrier IIRC Germany starts with this) is 5 IC for 547 days or 2735 IC-days PLUS 380 IC-days for the CAG is 3115 IC-days
BB-III (Bismarck) is 10 IC for 730 days or 7300 IC-days (plus any attachments)

If Germany has completed research on CV-1 then it is 5 IC for 650 days or 3250 IC-days PLUS 475 IC-dyas for the CAG or 3725 IC-days

So you could (roughly) build 2 Carriers for every Battleship...
I'm pretty sure Bismarck is BB-IV, but you definitely hit on the point I was looking for. I think we'll definitely see a stronger push for carriers coming from Germany, especially if the Luftwaffe plays a significant role in driving the RN away from the landing zones. And, as Schacht has concluded, finances are a big issue.

EDIT: Emu'd. :(
 
Just ducking in to clarify something that dublish brought up.

The minelayers are considered (by me) smaller than the scale represented in HoI2, so they are not literally represented by the engine. If Johann just so happens to be lurking the Weltkriegschaft thread (we can all dream, right?) this is something to be included in HoI3...

But I digress. The minelayers, though not represented by the engine, nonetheless have the potential to have significant impact. See the discussion after III:I regarding the HMS Eagle attack to see more on my thinking here. More will become clear in time.

Keep the speculation coming! Goodness, if the game weren't already finished I could have used some of those stats in the decision-making process... ;)
 
TheHyphenated1 said:
Keep the speculation coming! Goodness, if the game weren't already finished I could have used some of those stats in the decision-making process... ;)
The lack of minelayers in the game makes me wonder exactly what you're spending all your ICs on. If you're busy making more aircraft and transports, great- it's not even July yet, and I wasn't really looking forward to waiting 7 months or more for the next big military operation.

Your last comment makes me a little sad. I guess I was reading too much into Schacht's thoughts about rebuilding a cheaper, though no less effective, Kriegsmarine. I guess all the tech research would have been a huge undertaking though...
 
He is probably building convoy escorts and transports, with a bit of imagination they could be subsituted for small vessels like Minelayers or frigates.
 
trekaddict said:
Apart from the fact that in SKIF BBIII is König-class IIRC and BBIV Bismarck you are correct.
Well, yes and no...
I should have used numbers instead of Roman numerals...

Bismarck is the 4th model, but since you start from 0 (as in CV-0) it is the BB-3
 
trekaddict (1) - You are correct. While the Reich (under Student's and Brauer's direction) is building up its nascent paratrooper program, don't expect to see a division-sized unit for some time. 1937 or immediately? A bold stroke that would be indeed.

dublish (1) - Keen analysis. I might point out as a clarification that when Schacht uses the word "financially" he is referring to Reichsmarks, which are to be distinguished from IC. Therefore a financially attractive solution might still take up a lot of IC.

xtfoster (1) - Hi there! Not sure if you're a reader or just dropping in, but good to have you along :) . Compelling stuff in favor of CVs.

trekaddict (2) - Yes.

dublish (2) - As far as a carrier push, you are correct in thinking that that question will be decided by how things play out operationally over the coming year or two.

dublish (3) - As Hitler alluded to in III:III, more infantry divisions are being formed. Along with further transports, this is the main thrust of current production. And I assure you the next 7 months will be anything but idle ;) . Stay tuned!

trekaddict (3) - Transports, but no escort production at present.

xtfoster (2) - Ah, thanks for clarifying.
 
TheHyphenated1 said:
xtfoster (1) - Hi there! Not sure if you're a reader or just dropping in, but good to have you along :) . Compelling stuff in favor of CVs.
I've been reading for a while, but haven't posted before.

Even given the the stats I would still build Battleships (or better yet, Cruisergs*) as Germany.

1) You can start the Bismarck class immediately instead of having to research at least 3 levels of carriers to have parity with England

2) While the German Naval doctrines aren't the best for Gun-line naval operations, they are better for them than for Carriers.
 
Hi All,

Regrettably I've been quite sick over the past eleven days, which has slowed me considerably. Update is still in the works.

Thanks for your patience one and all.
 
xtfoster said:
I've been reading for a while, but haven't posted before.

Even given the the stats I would still build Battleships (or better yet, Cruisergs*) as Germany.

1) You can start the Bismarck class immediately instead of having to research at least 3 levels of carriers to have parity with England

2) While the German Naval doctrines aren't the best for Gun-line naval operations, they are better for them than for Carriers.
Cruizergs are out of the question. No self-respecting great naval power would ever contest the seas without capital ships, and Germany is nothing if not self-respecting.

Either that, or TheHyphenated1 doesn't seem to go for exploits like that. I've been told to avoid meta-reasoning though. ;)