...and you were the two thousandth comment.congratz for 100 pagesthis is really, really massive already. keep it.
-
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.
I have my own theory about the location of the Raj troops. In most of my Germany games I eventually invade India through Iran and at one point I'm in the same boat as you are - is this all of it? Once I get close to Burma and the fog of war slowly dissipates, the answer is revealed: the Raj forces are on the border with the Japanese and are either pushing into Siam or they're just Sitzkrieging it.
I had the same idea, but I am almost sure that this is not the reason.
In this game, Finland is not allied to Germany. Nevertheless, the Finnish don't garrison the border with Germany at all. But wherever the Soviets had a common border, even for a few days, I saw 10s of Finnish units strategically redeployed there. As soon as Germany captured the province, the Finnish removed their troops.
Due to the decision to totally capture France, the event giving bases in Indochina to the Japanese never happened. Subsequently, the event aligning Siam with Japan never happened neither. Now, one could say that this explanation goes your way, as Siam and Finland were both historically enemies to respectively the Raj and the Soviet Union. But what is interesting is that the Soviet Union didn't garrison its border with Finland in this game. Apparently, a country at peace will garrison its frontier with an "historical" enemy, but not one at war with one at peace. And Siam is at peace.
Last edited:
No worries, it was a very thoughtful input, and I don't expect readers to remember everything which happened since the beginning of this AAR
IIRC Finland's AI has a garrison modifier of -1 with GER, aka they are preprogrammed to never garrison the border with GER. Whereas with SOV...
It's possible the Raj has ~60 divisions in redeployment queue just waiting to appear inside the pocket? They don't garrison the border with Tibet iirc and the Yunnan border with China is too short to keep many divs.
Thank you for the explanation.
I don't see why the Raj would garrison its border with Yunnan, as long as this one is not occupied by Japan, as they are supposed to be on the same side eventually.
I know that units being strategically transferred bounce back to their province of departure if the province of arrival is captured meanwhile, but I don't remember having ever experienced the case when the path between the 2 provinces is cut. Arrival to the intended destination, or bouncing back to the province of departure?
I was a few weeks ago, in game, but I am not anymore. The strategy to blocking the enemy on provinces with very low infra (destroyed) prevents it from recovering its organization as fast as the Axis do. When enough units recover enough org to attack, this 1st group do it but not with all the units available (these other units -the second group- are still recovering). The 1st group is eventually defeated, then the 2nd group which has now recovered attacks, and is eventually defeated as well. Etc.
Also, the Axis units are usually fairly well entrenched and Germany has total air superiority, which helps.
As a side note, the Soviet offensive with the Offensive cheat made me really sweat. At that time, Axis units were not entrenched, the Soviets attacked with very strong forces. Hour after hour, I was checking every fight, and I could see Axis units losing quickly their organization. That's not something that a reader could really experience.
I guess the logic is that if Yunnan joins the Allies, then Raj troops can quickly move from the border into Yunnan if they need to help defend, or, alternatively, can quickly launch a defense if Yunnan falls to the Japanese.
This would be logic. I don't really know how to read an AI file
, so I can't say more.
Last time that Moscow was surrounded, the capital moved to Gorki. Now, if Moscow fell, I think that I will just have to wait for the Bitter Peace event.
We are not here yet
I'm afraid to think what madness has conspired in Slutsk. a million armed men, cut off from food and supplies, forced to fend for themselves...
in the long term, will you switch to covering the Khorsan-Central Asian front as part of the eastern front, or will you keep covering ground action there as part of the campaign in South Asia?
in the long term, will you switch to covering the Khorsan-Central Asian front as part of the eastern front, or will you keep covering ground action there as part of the campaign in South Asia?
You have no idea how many times I wanted to write in the AAR that the Luftwaffe was airdropping knifes and forks in the pocket, to accelerate its destruction, and how many times I had to restrain myself
. Also, I was very surprised that nobody ever asked me why I allowed this pocket to exist when the 71 divisions were obviously at 0% Org.Regarding your second question, I will keep it as it is now. This will avoid larger screenshots of the Eastern front. Right now, I can fit 3 days by update but if I extend the area covered, it will be 2 only, for no real additional benefit. Also, I think that this part belongs more to the Iran-India sector. Now, if the Axis will start to push Northbound from Iran, then I will probably move this part to the Russian front.
...You should feel bad and repent for your wicked thoughts =PYou have no idea how many times I wanted to write in the AAR that the Luftwaffe was airdropping knifes and forks in the pocket, to accelerate its destruction, and how many times I had to restrain myself
Realistically speaking, they should have steadily surrendered or simply tried to break out in groups. This is where I prefer EoD's version of out-of-supply -- they still gain ORG (slowly) but desertion runs up, giving them one last chance to mount a breakout.
Huh. Okay, I'll bite. Why did you let the pocket remain? Is there an event that triggers if units are destroyed?