A great update. I'm not familiar enough with HoI to say whether your carrier task force composition is ideal in game terms, but both the US and Japanese navies tended towards groups of four carriers.
-
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.
The Soviets won't be replaced by monarchists -- HOI3 doesn't emulate that (unlike SMEP IN HOI2)
Another update, another feast for the senses.
Also, thanks for the lesson on naval positioning. As someone said in an earlier post, Paradox should pay you to write a manual.
Also, thanks for the lesson on naval positioning. As someone said in an earlier post, Paradox should pay you to write a manual.
Figured i might drop in again and say hi. Very interesting stuff and i could probably point out everything that is good with this AAR, but then i would be pointing out almost everything. You probably got very good grades in school i would imagine. 
So I got curious about Carrier Task Force composition after your comment and found a whole range a different (sometimes contradictory) information. For example, the 5th Fleet established a Fast Carrier Task Force which at it's peak included 18 CVs (!!) not to mention 8 BBs. In game terms, that would literally be a non-starter after all the stacking/command/positioning penalties were applied. Task Force 38, though (which I think is more analogous to the CTFs I'm creating in the last update) had carriers numbering between 2-4 depending on the mission at hand. Interesting to note they almost always mixed in CVEs (which aren't modeled in HOI) or CVLs. The article I read mentioned that "Task Force 58 alone commanded more firepower than any navy in history" (which sounds a bit exaggerated but still cool!). The naval war in the Pacific was truly epic...I'd love it if that aspect of the game got enhanced in future updates or DLCs.
This photo shows a rather breath-taking view of Task Force 38:
which was comprised of USS Wasp (CV-18), five other Essex class carriers, four light carriers, at least three battleships, plus several cruisers and destroyers. That formation would be seriously lousy in game terms.
Since I've never done it before (utterly annihilate the Soviets) I'll be curious to see what happens.
Somehow I'm trying to figure out a way to implement scratch and sniff updates...although I'm pretty sure I'll fail there.
I'm vastly under-employed right now though...so please feel free to hire me lol...anyone....no really.
Thank you PoulernFigured i might drop in again and say hi. Very interesting stuff and i could probably point out everything that is good with this AAR, but then i would be pointing out almost everything. You probably got very good grades in school i would imagine.
I hate to break your illusion, but honestly I was kind of a mediocre student...something like a high C / low B average (i'm unsure how that translates into European grading system). Although to be fair, in my main field of study in college (architecture) they graded on a Pass/No Pass system which doesn't get factored into your GPA. I was best with history/art/languages and miserable with science/math. I think I was too busy chasing girls and drinking beer in college to get too worried about it.EDIT: By the way, I'm trying to keep the Table of Contents on the 2nd post updated with my current estimated timing for updates. I may sneak in a few visual teasers there as well.
Last edited:
Though I rarely get the time to read much AARs anymore, I happened to stumble on this and realize I must make time to read it from the start. Impressive.
TF 38 and TF 58 were the Fast Carrier Task Force, which changed designation depending on whether it was under the command of Third Fleet or Fifth Fleet for a particular campaign.
For operations, each TF was broken into sections such as 38.1, 38.2, 38.3 and so on. These smaller units are equivalent in composition to the fleets in your earlier post.
Examples are the OOBs for TF 38 at Leyte Gulf and TF 58 at Okinawa
P.S. Looking forward to your next update
Looks like I've been pre-empted by kezardinjnr. The following was written before I read his post; if I had seen his I wouldn't have felt the need to write this one.
Well, yes - and no. The USN went over to the Task Force concept fairly early (a parallel to the US Army's Combat Command concept). So Pacific Fleet could contain several Fleets and each Fleet could have many Task Forces. As the war went on and ship numbers multiplied, Task Forces were subdivided. So TF 38 (under Halsey or 58 under Spruance) was subdivided into TF 38.1, .2, etc. Most of these operational units were build around 3-5 carriers. One of the many advantages of aircraft carriers is that they can be dispersed (making them harder to find and limiting losses if they are) but still deal out a combined strike. So the TF subdivision kept the operational units at a manageable size and kept all of the members under the common AA umbrella.
At the Battle of Leyte Gulf TF 38 (then under Marc Mitscher) was comprised of 16 carriers (8 CV, 8 CVL), 6 battleships, 15 cruisers and 58 destroyers. They were divided up as:
TF 38.1 (Admiral John S McCain, father of the Arizona senator)
3 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
6 CA and CL
16 DD
TF 38.2
1 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
3 CL
16 DD
TF 38.3
2 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
4 CL
17 DD
TF 38.4
2 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
2 CA
11 DD
So this conforms pretty closely to a standard size of a 4-carrier task force. Each of the subunits (38.3 for example) could operate independently, in pairs or in an operation calling for massed strikes by all carriers.
CVE's were not combined with fleet carriers, they were too slow (15-21 knots) to keep up with 27+ knot fleet operations. They were used for subhunting, shore support and aircraft transport and were incredibly useful. On at least one occasion their aircraft engaged in a fleet operation (Leyte Gulf against the Japanese battle line) but the escort carriers weren't suited for it - didn't carry big armor-piercing bombs for one example.
The CVL's were converted from light cruiser hulls. A lot of navies did this or at least made the attempt to do so; the US was unique in having a good, big standardized cruiser hull and engineering plant and in having a large number building at the same time. Converting the unfinished hulls was not difficult and replacing the 'lost' Cleveland class light cruisers with more of the same design was painless. The Independence CVLs were fast (30+ knots even with the hangar deck attached) and quick to build, and were long enough to operate front-line aircraft (unlike the CVEs who used some older aircraft). They just couldn't handle very many of them - 45 versus 85-100 for an Essex class carrier. The most important aspect was speed of construction - after every pre-war carrier but Enterprise was sunk or damaged, the US needed some kind of carrier NOW. Scarily, if they had wanted to the US could have converted many more - the Baltimore class heavy cruiser used an almost identical hull and engineering plant and there were plenty of Clevelands building. But they had enough big Essex carriers coming, and coming soon enough, not to have to do that. (As a side note, the Wichita was basically a light cruiser type hull (Brooklyn class) with heavy cruiser armament, so we can see that American cruiser designs were highly interchangeable).
By late-war the Enterprise was also unable to operate large numbers of heavier, newer aircraft and so specialized in night-flyers.
Well, yes - and no. The USN went over to the Task Force concept fairly early (a parallel to the US Army's Combat Command concept). So Pacific Fleet could contain several Fleets and each Fleet could have many Task Forces. As the war went on and ship numbers multiplied, Task Forces were subdivided. So TF 38 (under Halsey or 58 under Spruance) was subdivided into TF 38.1, .2, etc. Most of these operational units were build around 3-5 carriers. One of the many advantages of aircraft carriers is that they can be dispersed (making them harder to find and limiting losses if they are) but still deal out a combined strike. So the TF subdivision kept the operational units at a manageable size and kept all of the members under the common AA umbrella.
At the Battle of Leyte Gulf TF 38 (then under Marc Mitscher) was comprised of 16 carriers (8 CV, 8 CVL), 6 battleships, 15 cruisers and 58 destroyers. They were divided up as:
TF 38.1 (Admiral John S McCain, father of the Arizona senator)
3 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
6 CA and CL
16 DD
TF 38.2
1 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
3 CL
16 DD
TF 38.3
2 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
4 CL
17 DD
TF 38.4
2 CV
2 CVL
2 BB
2 CA
11 DD
So this conforms pretty closely to a standard size of a 4-carrier task force. Each of the subunits (38.3 for example) could operate independently, in pairs or in an operation calling for massed strikes by all carriers.
CVE's were not combined with fleet carriers, they were too slow (15-21 knots) to keep up with 27+ knot fleet operations. They were used for subhunting, shore support and aircraft transport and were incredibly useful. On at least one occasion their aircraft engaged in a fleet operation (Leyte Gulf against the Japanese battle line) but the escort carriers weren't suited for it - didn't carry big armor-piercing bombs for one example.
The CVL's were converted from light cruiser hulls. A lot of navies did this or at least made the attempt to do so; the US was unique in having a good, big standardized cruiser hull and engineering plant and in having a large number building at the same time. Converting the unfinished hulls was not difficult and replacing the 'lost' Cleveland class light cruisers with more of the same design was painless. The Independence CVLs were fast (30+ knots even with the hangar deck attached) and quick to build, and were long enough to operate front-line aircraft (unlike the CVEs who used some older aircraft). They just couldn't handle very many of them - 45 versus 85-100 for an Essex class carrier. The most important aspect was speed of construction - after every pre-war carrier but Enterprise was sunk or damaged, the US needed some kind of carrier NOW. Scarily, if they had wanted to the US could have converted many more - the Baltimore class heavy cruiser used an almost identical hull and engineering plant and there were plenty of Clevelands building. But they had enough big Essex carriers coming, and coming soon enough, not to have to do that. (As a side note, the Wichita was basically a light cruiser type hull (Brooklyn class) with heavy cruiser armament, so we can see that American cruiser designs were highly interchangeable).
By late-war the Enterprise was also unable to operate large numbers of heavier, newer aircraft and so specialized in night-flyers.
A very informative post, Director
And just noticed that the smaller formations within a Task Force were called Task Groups.
And just noticed that the smaller formations within a Task Force were called Task Groups.
@ CptEasy: hey I'm glad to have you here! Judging by your prolific Carnage series, it's no wonder you don't have much time but I'm glad you found this and hope to keep you returning for more.
@ kezardinjnr and Director:
wow! Both of you bring a bonanza of information that I totally welcome here. This is exactly why I love this forum: sharing space with knowledgeable people sharing common interests. I'll take that over the wiki any day.
A big part of my motivation in creating this AAR is to educate myself about the game and the era in which it is set. I may be giving some the illusion that I'm some sort of expert on HOI3 game mechanics (which I'm not...you can turn to Misterbean for that) or a World War 2 history buff (which I strive to be but know there's ALWAYS more to learn). Thanks to both of you for helping me learn the history I crave to know. If either of you can aim me at resources or books I can read to learn more about WW2 Pacific naval history, I'd love to hear about them.
10 years ago (or so), I had the privilege of teaching computer graphics at a local college and made an amazing discovery: that I learned more by teaching than I ever learned as a student. It's this philosophy I bring to this AAR. I'm really teaching myself here and, perhaps, turning on a few light bulbs in others as a happy side-effect. An example is the frontage analysis I did earlier in the AAR. blue emu did an outstanding job in his Mech Rush post on the main HOI3 subsection that helped me begin to visualize the mechanics in play surrounding frontage, unit width, stacking penalties etc. But I'm stubbornly visual in the way I need to absorb information....thus the frontage diagram. It's my way of solidifying the principles in my head.
So to all: feel free to share! This gets me pumped up to churn out more content and dive into more updates with relish.
@ kezardinjnr and Director:
wow! Both of you bring a bonanza of information that I totally welcome here. This is exactly why I love this forum: sharing space with knowledgeable people sharing common interests. I'll take that over the wiki any day.
A big part of my motivation in creating this AAR is to educate myself about the game and the era in which it is set. I may be giving some the illusion that I'm some sort of expert on HOI3 game mechanics (which I'm not...you can turn to Misterbean for that) or a World War 2 history buff (which I strive to be but know there's ALWAYS more to learn). Thanks to both of you for helping me learn the history I crave to know. If either of you can aim me at resources or books I can read to learn more about WW2 Pacific naval history, I'd love to hear about them.
10 years ago (or so), I had the privilege of teaching computer graphics at a local college and made an amazing discovery: that I learned more by teaching than I ever learned as a student. It's this philosophy I bring to this AAR. I'm really teaching myself here and, perhaps, turning on a few light bulbs in others as a happy side-effect. An example is the frontage analysis I did earlier in the AAR. blue emu did an outstanding job in his Mech Rush post on the main HOI3 subsection that helped me begin to visualize the mechanics in play surrounding frontage, unit width, stacking penalties etc. But I'm stubbornly visual in the way I need to absorb information....thus the frontage diagram. It's my way of solidifying the principles in my head.
So to all: feel free to share! This gets me pumped up to churn out more content and dive into more updates with relish.
OK, here's a few good sources right off the top of my head:
*** 'The Two Ocean War' by Samuel Eliot Morrison. A condensed version of the official history of the USN in WWII. Has some issues but is generally solid. It is USA-centric because those were the sources he had to draw on. Covers less-well-known actions (Komandorski Islands, shore bombardment and landings in Italy) as well as the US part of the Murmansk convoys and the Pacific war.
*** 'The United States Navy in World War II', compiled and edited by SE Smith. From an Amazon review: "In assembling the book, Smith excerpted whole chapters from some of the best books written about the navy's exploits during the Second World War. All of the collected chapters, written by one-hundred authors, were taken from books that told the navy's history through the simple telling of a story. There is no dry analysis of tactics here. You will see the intensity and drama unfolding aboard the ships at Pearl Harbor as the Japanese attacked . . . or watch from the bow of the destroyer Borie's as she rammed a Nazi U-boat in the middle of the Atlantic . . . or stand on the flight deck of the Guadalcanal as she chases down U-505 . . . or feel the Lexington as she started to list in the Coral Sea . . . and on and on it goes. Everything is here. The Aaron Ward. The Argus. The Bunker Hill. The Indianapolis. PT 109. And of course, the Enterprise and the Yorktown.
And some of the best writers are present and accounted for. Walter Lord. John Toland. Edward Beach. Ernie Pyle. Winston Churchill. Ernest Hemingway. And then there is Chief Gunner's Mate Harold Clements. Seaman First Class James Fahey. And Lieutenant (jg) Stanley Vraciu. Each chapter is organized consecutively and follows the history of the war from beginning to end. The book opens with Toland's "Pearl Harbor Attack" and ends with "Unconditional Surrender" by William Halsey."
I read 'US Navy' so much while I was in high school that I wore out a copy... I had it checked out continuously for about three years running.
*** 'Japanese Destroyer Captain' by Tameichi Hara. Very hard on the upper brass on his side but terrific 'you are there' feel. Hara managed to be at many of the major battles and participated in the Tokyo Express.
*** 'A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy' by Paul S Dull. Drawn from original IJN sources (written and by interview) and comprehensive to the point of overload.
*** 'On Seas Contested' by Vincent P O'Hara. A thorough look at the ships, equipment, support infrastructure, tactics and strategic doctrines of the major powers (France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the United States and the USSR. VERY interesting as it deals with what the navies THOUGHT they were doing as well as what the outcomes were.
And of course the 'Bibles':
*** 'Battleship and Battlecruiser' by Siegfried Breyer. Plans of every single dreadnought battleship and battlecruiser, built or planned, plus a bonus section on the transition from battleship to semi-dreadnought to dreadnought.
*** 'Jane's Fighting Ships'. I prefer the 1939, other people prefer the 1945 as it incorporates war losses.
Those should get you started.
*** 'The Two Ocean War' by Samuel Eliot Morrison. A condensed version of the official history of the USN in WWII. Has some issues but is generally solid. It is USA-centric because those were the sources he had to draw on. Covers less-well-known actions (Komandorski Islands, shore bombardment and landings in Italy) as well as the US part of the Murmansk convoys and the Pacific war.
*** 'The United States Navy in World War II', compiled and edited by SE Smith. From an Amazon review: "In assembling the book, Smith excerpted whole chapters from some of the best books written about the navy's exploits during the Second World War. All of the collected chapters, written by one-hundred authors, were taken from books that told the navy's history through the simple telling of a story. There is no dry analysis of tactics here. You will see the intensity and drama unfolding aboard the ships at Pearl Harbor as the Japanese attacked . . . or watch from the bow of the destroyer Borie's as she rammed a Nazi U-boat in the middle of the Atlantic . . . or stand on the flight deck of the Guadalcanal as she chases down U-505 . . . or feel the Lexington as she started to list in the Coral Sea . . . and on and on it goes. Everything is here. The Aaron Ward. The Argus. The Bunker Hill. The Indianapolis. PT 109. And of course, the Enterprise and the Yorktown.
And some of the best writers are present and accounted for. Walter Lord. John Toland. Edward Beach. Ernie Pyle. Winston Churchill. Ernest Hemingway. And then there is Chief Gunner's Mate Harold Clements. Seaman First Class James Fahey. And Lieutenant (jg) Stanley Vraciu. Each chapter is organized consecutively and follows the history of the war from beginning to end. The book opens with Toland's "Pearl Harbor Attack" and ends with "Unconditional Surrender" by William Halsey."
I read 'US Navy' so much while I was in high school that I wore out a copy... I had it checked out continuously for about three years running.
*** 'Japanese Destroyer Captain' by Tameichi Hara. Very hard on the upper brass on his side but terrific 'you are there' feel. Hara managed to be at many of the major battles and participated in the Tokyo Express.
*** 'A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy' by Paul S Dull. Drawn from original IJN sources (written and by interview) and comprehensive to the point of overload.
*** 'On Seas Contested' by Vincent P O'Hara. A thorough look at the ships, equipment, support infrastructure, tactics and strategic doctrines of the major powers (France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the United States and the USSR. VERY interesting as it deals with what the navies THOUGHT they were doing as well as what the outcomes were.
And of course the 'Bibles':
*** 'Battleship and Battlecruiser' by Siegfried Breyer. Plans of every single dreadnought battleship and battlecruiser, built or planned, plus a bonus section on the transition from battleship to semi-dreadnought to dreadnought.
*** 'Jane's Fighting Ships'. I prefer the 1939, other people prefer the 1945 as it incorporates war losses.
Those should get you started.
The list Director has is superb! I can highly recommend 'On Seas Contested' and 'The Two Ocean War' (unless you have the time to read all 20+ volumes). I'll add a few more sources to his list.
Rohwer and Monakov, Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet. Best book on the Soviet era navy I've read in English.
Sondhaus, Navies in Modern World History and Fleets of Europe. Great overviews of naval history, period. I've used the former in my Modern Naval History course with great results; the latter is also excellent.
Keegan, Price of Admiralty. Has two World War II battles -- a convoy battle (HX229 and SC122) and Midway.
Jordan, Warships after Washington. Interwar period navies, mostly. On my shelf but I haven't cracked it yet.
Grant, Battle at Sea. One of my favorite books, has lots of great battle diagrams (that are almost as good as yours). Covers from antiquity to the present day.
If you want more stuff, especially on the Russians, I have loads more.
Rohwer and Monakov, Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet. Best book on the Soviet era navy I've read in English.
Sondhaus, Navies in Modern World History and Fleets of Europe. Great overviews of naval history, period. I've used the former in my Modern Naval History course with great results; the latter is also excellent.
Keegan, Price of Admiralty. Has two World War II battles -- a convoy battle (HX229 and SC122) and Midway.
Jordan, Warships after Washington. Interwar period navies, mostly. On my shelf but I haven't cracked it yet.
Grant, Battle at Sea. One of my favorite books, has lots of great battle diagrams (that are almost as good as yours
). Covers from antiquity to the present day.If you want more stuff, especially on the Russians, I have loads more.
Thanks a lot for the recommendations. From your list, this one really popped out at me...I've already ordered it off Amazon and I'm excited to get it and start reading.
And this one interests me too. You know me well...I'm always a sucker for diagrams. I added it to my wish list and with a birthday coming, I'm hopeful I'll get that one soon too.
Your wish is about to be answered! Things wouldn't be complete without a look at the Army Air Corps. I'm making a big push tonight and hope to have an update by tomorrow.
Beautiful update. Inspirational.
However, when I build my CTF's I go 4xCV + 5xCL. I aim for just one extra screen to account for battle losses. Then I try to have reserve screens nearby to replace losses as they occur.
This keeps the initial positioning penalty to the bare minimum. However, yours will have superior air attack and defense stats. Not sure which is the best road.
However, when I build my CTF's I go 4xCV + 5xCL. I aim for just one extra screen to account for battle losses. Then I try to have reserve screens nearby to replace losses as they occur.
This keeps the initial positioning penalty to the bare minimum. However, yours will have superior air attack and defense stats. Not sure which is the best road.
Wings for Victory!
We can fill the sky with our aircraft!
RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Ever-improving practicals, increasing combat experience and a continued heavy investment in leadership towards research is really beginning to pay off now. In June of 1942 alone, we complete six useful research goals. Most of these air aircraft oriented which will improve the combat capabilities of air units, not the least of which will be the large CAG force currently in production. Also important is the completion of Basing Advance which improves the supply capacity of our ports. That will become particularly important when we commit large scale forces overseas. Once 1943 arrives, we'll be begin to transfer some of our leadership away from research and towards Officer training. We'll want to be very sure that by the time the invasion of continental Europe occurs that we have a minimum of a 120% officer ratio.
GIBRALTAR:
Given the passiveness of the British AI, we take it upon ourselves to ensure the security of Gibraltar, a key strategic position controlling access to the Mediterranean. Its loss would doom the (ridiculously) large British garrison on Malta. One infantry division (plus the existing British garrison brigade) at should suffice. Gibraltar is heavily fortified, and the Italian Navy has been largely de-fanged, but taking chances and leaving it weakly defended only invites trouble.
THE ARMY AIRCORPS:
One of the key assets we'll use in the fight for occupied Europe will be air power. America can produce vast quantities of equipment and air units offer many advantages well suited to our constraints. Among these advantages are:
• excellent ratio of destructive capability to manpower usage
• ability to reach deep into German territory and strike at their Industrial Capacity thereby lowering their production capability and simultaneously hurting their National Unity
• provide a combat multiplier and protective umbrella for ground (and naval) units.
As much as possible, we'll base our aircraft in airfields in the UK to reduce our supply burden. The chart above describes which assets and how many of them we're currently on track to produce by early 1943. One weakness we can already identify is a relative lack of interceptor air cover. That will likely be necessary to increase in order to offset the strong German Luftwaffe.
We'll also take the opportunity during this lull to review the game mechanics associated with air combat. There are many factors to consider in air combat and the chart above attempts to summarize the most important facets. There are several schools of thought regarding how many air units to include in air wings. From a purely number crunching perspective, and when the stacking penalty is taken into consideration, there is a "sweet-spot" of air wings comprised of 5 units. In the stacking penalty charts above, the red bars represent raw numbers of aircraft (directly derived from the numner of air units...100 aircraft per unit) while the green bars represent the number of effective aircraft resulting after applying the atacking penalty. However, actual gameplay experience says that air wings comprised of 3 units, especially pure fighter/interceptor units, can perform very effectively and allow one to create more operational units (versus having 5 units in a fighter/interceptor wing). We'll employ a hybrid approach and create interceptor wings comprised of 3 units, and bomber wings comprised of 5 units.
MEANWHILE IN NORWAY:
In what feels like a never-ending struggle to liberate the remainder of Norway, excruciatingly slow progress is being made to destroy the Germans clustered around Trondheim. We lost the race to prevent the Germans from re-establishing their supply connection. Simulataneously, the Norwegians simply don't have the supply reserves to properly keep us fed and equipped. All the same, progress is being made and perhaps by Sepetember we'll finally be able to claim complete victory. At least we're gaining valuable combat experience.
SITUATION REPORT IN RUSSIA:
After about a month of fighting in the German invasion of the remainder of the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht is realizing significant gains including the capture of 2 Victory Point locations and the destruction of 100 Russian brigades (a full third of their ground force strength at the outset of hostilities). It's unknown how many Russian units are in production to replace these losses, but in all liklihood, those untis will be inferior quality militia and won't match well against the mechanized forces employed by the Germans. Whether or not those same mechanized forces will become increasingly burdensome as the Germans cross deeper and deeper into low infracture, rugged terrain remains to be seen. Looking purely at numbers alone, the Russians seem to be (oddly) improving their Navy. No wonder they're losing.
We can fill the sky with our aircraft!
RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Ever-improving practicals, increasing combat experience and a continued heavy investment in leadership towards research is really beginning to pay off now. In June of 1942 alone, we complete six useful research goals. Most of these air aircraft oriented which will improve the combat capabilities of air units, not the least of which will be the large CAG force currently in production. Also important is the completion of Basing Advance which improves the supply capacity of our ports. That will become particularly important when we commit large scale forces overseas. Once 1943 arrives, we'll be begin to transfer some of our leadership away from research and towards Officer training. We'll want to be very sure that by the time the invasion of continental Europe occurs that we have a minimum of a 120% officer ratio.
GIBRALTAR:
Given the passiveness of the British AI, we take it upon ourselves to ensure the security of Gibraltar, a key strategic position controlling access to the Mediterranean. Its loss would doom the (ridiculously) large British garrison on Malta. One infantry division (plus the existing British garrison brigade) at should suffice. Gibraltar is heavily fortified, and the Italian Navy has been largely de-fanged, but taking chances and leaving it weakly defended only invites trouble.
THE ARMY AIRCORPS:
One of the key assets we'll use in the fight for occupied Europe will be air power. America can produce vast quantities of equipment and air units offer many advantages well suited to our constraints. Among these advantages are:
• excellent ratio of destructive capability to manpower usage
• ability to reach deep into German territory and strike at their Industrial Capacity thereby lowering their production capability and simultaneously hurting their National Unity
• provide a combat multiplier and protective umbrella for ground (and naval) units.
As much as possible, we'll base our aircraft in airfields in the UK to reduce our supply burden. The chart above describes which assets and how many of them we're currently on track to produce by early 1943. One weakness we can already identify is a relative lack of interceptor air cover. That will likely be necessary to increase in order to offset the strong German Luftwaffe.
We'll also take the opportunity during this lull to review the game mechanics associated with air combat. There are many factors to consider in air combat and the chart above attempts to summarize the most important facets. There are several schools of thought regarding how many air units to include in air wings. From a purely number crunching perspective, and when the stacking penalty is taken into consideration, there is a "sweet-spot" of air wings comprised of 5 units. In the stacking penalty charts above, the red bars represent raw numbers of aircraft (directly derived from the numner of air units...100 aircraft per unit) while the green bars represent the number of effective aircraft resulting after applying the atacking penalty. However, actual gameplay experience says that air wings comprised of 3 units, especially pure fighter/interceptor units, can perform very effectively and allow one to create more operational units (versus having 5 units in a fighter/interceptor wing). We'll employ a hybrid approach and create interceptor wings comprised of 3 units, and bomber wings comprised of 5 units.
MEANWHILE IN NORWAY:
In what feels like a never-ending struggle to liberate the remainder of Norway, excruciatingly slow progress is being made to destroy the Germans clustered around Trondheim. We lost the race to prevent the Germans from re-establishing their supply connection. Simulataneously, the Norwegians simply don't have the supply reserves to properly keep us fed and equipped. All the same, progress is being made and perhaps by Sepetember we'll finally be able to claim complete victory. At least we're gaining valuable combat experience.
SITUATION REPORT IN RUSSIA:
After about a month of fighting in the German invasion of the remainder of the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht is realizing significant gains including the capture of 2 Victory Point locations and the destruction of 100 Russian brigades (a full third of their ground force strength at the outset of hostilities). It's unknown how many Russian units are in production to replace these losses, but in all liklihood, those untis will be inferior quality militia and won't match well against the mechanized forces employed by the Germans. Whether or not those same mechanized forces will become increasingly burdensome as the Germans cross deeper and deeper into low infracture, rugged terrain remains to be seen. Looking purely at numbers alone, the Russians seem to be (oddly) improving their Navy. No wonder they're losing.
Great job as usual. Building a large air corp is good choice. Offer a lot of kick for your manpower. After Norway you may want to leave the Norwegian army to defend from and further incursions from Finland, just because with the time already lost and tough terrain it will take too long and those corps can be used elsewhere. You can always comeback to later if you really want to but their are countries to be liberated first.
Also I really liked the completed research section hope to see it again.
Also I really liked the completed research section hope to see it again.
As always, wonderful update. Not surprised at the quick advance of the Germans; after all, you crafted those divisions! In any event, I've found the AI to be very good at overrunning beaten divisions when given a highly mobile force. I once on a lark made an entire Panzer Army Group as Germany (that's right - 125 armored divisions, and I only used frontline armor + TD + AC for the "feel") and that absolutely smashed the AI Soviets. It didn't help them that they were still dicking around in Finland when I broke the MR-Pact, but even so, I utterly annihilated the 75-100 divisions that were on or near the shared border. I mean, after a week there was nothing but open ground. Easiest Barbarossa ever.
As far as the Norway situation, I'm not surprised, though I wonder why you liberated the Norwegian government before driving the Germans out, which would have allowed you to use your supply. Even in the RP-context it could have been justified as "we must drive the invading Germans out before we can safely restore the civil government". As noted, you do get the plus of combat experience as the campaign drags on, and there doesn't seem to be any real danger of a reversal, just the necessary slog to push the Germans out.
As far as the Norway situation, I'm not surprised, though I wonder why you liberated the Norwegian government before driving the Germans out, which would have allowed you to use your supply. Even in the RP-context it could have been justified as "we must drive the invading Germans out before we can safely restore the civil government". As noted, you do get the plus of combat experience as the campaign drags on, and there doesn't seem to be any real danger of a reversal, just the necessary slog to push the Germans out.
I'm not sure that Norway ever went GiE. He landed at Bergen before the Germans got there, and both Narvik and the Southwest portion of the country seem untouched. I seem to recall Norway having pretty high national unity and being a pain to kill off, but not entirely sure on that.
Truly great AAR. Finally had to comment after lurking for a while