They could do okay in good weather, and had extremely long range artillery on their ships, but the lack of investment in radar rendered their advantage moot.
I see the Army's research into spaced armour for the tin-cans it calls tanks is going as well as we all expected.
One must admire the audacity of the Germans in asking Japan to join the Axis while at the same time having a military mission in China supplying arms and leadership to the very forces Japan is fighting.The Leader of the Nationalist unit was Alexander von Falkenhausen - a German volunteer - and a Superior Leader at that.
Germany, once again, approached Japan and asked it to join the ‘Axis’.
A phrase best used to describe the IJA's performance in the war thus far.Nobody was impressed.
The guns were long ranged, but the accuracy was awful because the shells were unreliable. No amount of radar is going to fix that. Nor the lack of fuel, awful naval staff and officers, low morale, weird torpedo doctrine, aversion to night fighting, etc etc.They could do okay in good weather, and had extremely long range artillery on their ships, but the lack of investment in radar rendered their advantage moot.
Italy was perhaps a bit railroaded since, y'know, they couldn't just not build a navy. Unlike Germany, they had way too much coastline to fortify, numerous outlying islands and colonies to protect, and like Germany they had to fight the UK if they wanted to get anywhere. The problem Italy had was, having determined the need to build a navy, they built completely the wrong navy including the lack of reliable naval air power/cover to operate against British CAGs, even in a fleet-in-being role (see: Taranto). With of course all of the aforementioned issues as well plus the rather large one of having Il Douche in charge over it all.Fundamentally it's the Tirpitz Issue (the battleship and the Admiral, they both had the same problem) - Italy didn't have the money to build the fleet it required and anything less than that was probably a waste of resources that could have been better used elsewhere.
Italy was perhaps a bit railroaded since, y'know, they couldn't just not build a navy. Unlike Germany, they had way too much coastline to fortify, numerous outlying islands and colonies to protect, and like Germany they had to fight the UK if they wanted to get anywhere. The problem Italy had was, having determined the need to build a navy, they built completely the wrong navy including the lack of reliable naval air power/cover to operate against British CAGs, even in a fleet-in-being role (see: Taranto). With of course all of the aforementioned issues as well plus the rather large one of having Il Douche in charge over it all.
Does anyone know when the Soviets sent Chuikov to China? It would be amusing if he showed up as a Nationalist commander...
Not that I mean to complain, but just once I'd like to see a Japan AAR where the player actually gets deadlocked in China and has to fight the Allies and/or Soviets while trying to hold the Chinese front and slowly push further inland.From what I understand he was sent to China in 1940. This conflict will be over well before then. I hope.
Not that I mean to complain, but just once I'd like to see a Japan AAR where the player actually gets deadlocked in China and has to fight the Allies and/or Soviets while trying to hold the Chinese front and slowly push further inland.
Of course, that would require the game to be made by someone better at balance and realism than Paradox, so...
Absolutely. Realism would require the German player to be obsessed with allocating steel around the economy, deciding whether to use precious tungsten in AP ammo or machine tools and other such things. Which I would love and might actually make me play as Germany, but I am aware this is a minority view point.Agree about balance, but Paradox has to tread very carefully with the reaslism - I think most people who buy these games are much more interested in achieving ahistoric outcomes than they are realism.
I think BICE actually has something like that now with a new strategic resource mechanic they added fairly recently. Of course, then you'd have to play BICE.Absolutely. Realism would require the German player to be obsessed with allocating steel around the economy, deciding whether to use precious tungsten in AP ammo or machine tools and other such things. Which I would love and might actually make me play as Germany, but I am aware this is a minority view point.
I actually really do like the direction Paradox took in TFH, giving Japan the war goal to claim the regions they historically "controlled" (bit of a strong term, that) which leaves China alive and the Japan AI able to go off and bomb an island somewhere. Of course, Paradox then promptly Paradox'd it by not adding a decision or event for China to join the Allies and re-start the war, which while far from historically accurate would be a crude but effective way to simulate the full CBI theater for the Allied majors after '41.As I understand Paradox's thinking in HOI3 the general idea was to have Japan mop up China fairly easily, to allow the AI to focus on the Pacific War (because the AI cannot handle fighting in China and the Pacific, and the Pacific War is more important to most of the player base). So if the AI is supposed to be able to win, a player who doesn't handicap themselves will find it a cakewalk. Even if they do have to use the inferior, foolish, traitors of the IJA.
I'd certainly be up for a HoI3 MP game between veteran members of the AAR boards. I imagine scheduling would be a pain (the optimal time for this would have been a month or so ago, to maximize the benefit from global quarantine and all!), but there's certainly enough regulars on these boards to fill out a roster (with alternates even, potentially) and in fact maybe we have a few too many people since the Allied side can get a tad boring post-Fall of France with only Britain really in the fight as a major.An interesting experiment would be to ‘do a @markkur’ (I still miss him ) and maybe alternate for set periods between playing Japan and the US. The best game of course would be for a bunch of us to play MP, running all the ‘major powers’, including China. Played a game of the old SPI board game Global War like that once, about 40 years ago. It was fantastic fun - done ahistorically. Some really interesting outcomes. My favourite being a massive campaign fought in the middle of the US between me (Japan) and the Germans. I had Allied with the US, the Germans had allied with the UK to invade through Canada. When the US was collapsing, I grabbed all the west coast and fortified along the Rockies. There was a truce with Germany and I built a lot of armour. Eventually duked it out with the Germans in the heartland and ended up winning, as they were still fighting in Russia too.
We could perhaps do something similar if we tried (but probably historical rather than too free range?), though I’ve never played MP in HOI3, so don’t know what it’s like or how good it is. @Wraith11B, any hints? Also, sorry for this hijack @Eurasia, can shift to another thread if you like.