That's an impressive german military you'll have to face up ; 1388 brigades... mhmmm, that's roughly 350-400 divisions ! I wouldn't be in your shoes.
Right now, the "Jerries" are going to be busy for a while but as soon as the USSR surrenders...
How do you see the follow-up ? Landing in Europe ? Where ? When ?
After what I've seen in Norway, I confess I'm a bit worried about an invasion on the main continent. Good luck !
I'm reluctant to reveal all of my plans for 1943 just yet, although it's worth mentioning that I'm working on the next update which will answer at least some of your questions. The deeper the Germans gets into the hinterlands of Russia the more advantage I'll gain. It's something of a race now to assemble a complete invasion force and deliver it to Europe faster than the Germans can defeat the Soviets. I have only the vaguest idea how many divisions Germany has committed eastwards but at the rate they're going, they won't need too many. Pretty soon we'll see how well my mobile units perform, I'll consider that a better measure of the effectiveness of the US Army (Norway notwithstanding).
Also what are your thoughts about invading Italy? I think it might be a good choice sometime in 43. If you could get Italy to surrender it would be much easier than chasing them down from North Africa to Iraq. Also the mountains could act as a buffer slowing down Wehrmacht reinforcements and they would perform poorly in that terrain, especially if you bring mountain troops, but they might have some of their own of course.
I'll give you the same vague answer I gave
Nicegil above. I like keeping some mystery surrounding these things. Afterall, speculation about the OTL Overlord lasted years and it's kind of more fun to maintain the drama. You might be able to piece together one of my next steps from the teaser posted in the Table of Contents. Hey I'm just glad you're interested enough to ask!
And speaking of poor terrain do you have any engineer's attached to Marine divisions? I highly recommend you do, I just found this combo out in we the people, and I think they work great together. The terrain bonuses stack well, the engines can negate a few levels of coastal defense, help movement speed and help dig in against counter attacks. Plus they share the the special forces doctrine.
Hell as the USA you can get ALL the secret techs + A-bomb and still have everything up-to-date or better in techs and doctrines. Same for Germany, though you have to be a little conservative in the beginning. The real question is how he is arranging the techs, since you can reliably keep 80-90 going at start and once and by the time I get to performing Overlord I can have just about every tech I will possibly use be in queue (130+ or some other stupidly large number) and I will be able to stay current.
As far as MAE+ENG: I usually don't do it, instead I'll make some support divisions of 3xINF/1xENG or even 2xINF/2xENG and include them in an assault on a fortified province, especially a coastal one. The only time I will really consider using MAR/ENG together is as Japan or Nat. China, since I'm expecting to go through a lot of rivers, bad terrain, and even swampy conditions in SE Asia.
I'm sure you're both right about what can be accomplished regarding research and the US, although remember I inherited the AI's work in December 1941. It's fair to say that I'd be much farther ahead research-wise if I had started from scratch in 1936. Right now, just as
Lord Curlyton implied, I'm trying to arrange my research to coincide with my invasion plans. I'm feeling my way through it as I go which is a lot different than my very choreographed research efforts when I play countries with which I'm much more familiar. Pretty soon I'm going to need to start shifting leadership away from research and into officer generation and that will slow down research somewhat, but I'm sure I'll still be able to afford some research extras. I'll give the radar guided bombs and other extras strong consideration
PvtPrivate.
As far as augmenting Marine divisions, I'll be adding engineers when I'm invading strong points with coastal fortifications but I'm less inclined to leave them attached after they've safely secured the landing zone because of the extra supply demand created by engineers (remember they add a fuel demand as well). I'm pretty sure that supply is going to be my single greatest limiter. I'm taking a generally lean support brigade approach in this game. My Norway experience is a good example of how supply starved troops can be severely crippled.
Nice update as usual. I had something I wanted to ask you though concerning the attack efficiency and stacking penalty for planes. In my early times of playing HOI3, i was following the scheme used by ThePrussianPrince on his youtube game, which happen to be yours today too, aka 3TAC or CAS + 1 or 2 MR. But i also read later that mixing fighters or Int with bombers not only reduced their efficiency, but also increased the stacking penalty. In a general case, asking a plane to do a mission it's not build for drasticaly reduces its efficiency (like INT doing ground attack). Does this rule apply for all kinds of air organisation, or is it only for pure stacks (ex 3 INT on GA) and not applied to mixed stacks (ex 3 TAC + 2 MR)?
And also i'd say that the number of CVs in a fleet doesn't really matter. Proof is that the AI Doomstacks perform incredibly well, with 6 or 7 CVs launching 12 to 14 planes and still having the horrible 120% efficiency on Ground attack or Naval attack.
I think
Marsz did a pretty good job of answering your question
Warkry777, but I'll take a crack here. In Norway, I had complete air superiority, and was able to send unescorted groups of TAC (in stacks of 3) with great effect. That's ideal, minimizing the stacking penalty and maximizing the effectiveness of the bombers. In continental Europe I won't have complete air superiority as evidenced by some of my most recent strategic bombing attacks against Paris. Even with escorts, I nearly lost a few units. I definitely don't want to send CAS or TAC without FTR cover when I know the Luftwaffe INTs can ambush me. I'm going to count on research and leadership modifiers to help offset the stackingpenalties. Pairing FTRs with TAC and STR is also about maximizing range while INTs paired with CAS acknowledges that CAS have poor range but still need some kind of escort. Stacking penalties for CAGs (when performing naval missions) follow different rules which may explain why the doomstacks you mentioned perform well, but in my experience, as a human player and not an AI player, the difficulty modifiers (maluses) make those huge stacks a waste.
I'm sure that other players will be able to give more comprehensive answers, but my understanding is thus:
Firstly, there's a question of stacking penalties. If you have a stack of 3 bomber wings and 2 fighter wings, you will suffer stacking penalties of about 40% in air-to-air combat. However, the bombers won't be making huge contributions in any aerial battles, since they're, well, bombers. They're deadweight. That means if the enemy attacks you with just 2 fighters of his own, he will outperform you pretty drastically, due to the fact that his 2-fighter wing only has a stacking penalty of 20%. Stacking penalty is the same for all aircraft (except for carrier air groups on CAG duty, they take a much lower penalty), but having mixed bomber/fighter wings ensures that, in aerial combat, you're going to have deadweight. I think the same applies to ground combat as well. MR can attack ground, sure, but stacking penalties in ground attacks exist as well, and the anti-ground performance of those MR wings isn't gonna cancel out the extra penalty they apply to the other bombers.
Additionally, fighters on intercept or air superiority missions gain a 20% efficiency boost, which fighters on "escort" missions don't receive.
My general strategy is to just run air superiorty or intercept missions over the front with stacks of 3-5 fighter wings, and rely on the interference caused by that to tie up the enemy's air force. If I can, I'll put a 5-stack on air superiority duty over major enemy airfields, though that can backfire.
Really good reminders about the Air Superiority and Interception bonuses
Marsz, those are compounded by the Territorial Pride modifier the Luftwaffe will receive. All the more reason to protect my bombers with FTR/INT escorts. When I'm playing Germany, I have a strong preference towards stacks of 3 INTs and I tend to rip the Allies apart with that. My theory is that I'd rather have more individual stacks that might be a little weaker rather than fewer/stronger stacks. It's more flexible and nimble. As the US, I'm uncomfortable with trying to rely on roving batches of pure FTRs or INTs to protect unescorted bombers. The only way I could see that working is to gain air superiority first which I'm less confident I can achieve.
I concur with your evaluation: Norway may be a useful sideline, but it
is a sideline, rapidly becoming either a quagmire or a dead end. You need to get moving - somewhere, and soon. I'd suggest North Africa, Denmark or southern Italy as places where you can train your troops while (hopefully) limiting their exposure to defeat.
Building a massive air force is a good way to create a force-multiplier. In the 'real' war the US built more planes than all other combatants combined, so, 'blacken the sky with bombers' and use your 'flying artillery' to limit combat losses wherever possible. If you are going to wage a war of materiel, pick a target the enemy
will attack and then bleed them white - over and over if you can. It worked for Belisarius, and it will work for you.
Haha, I have to confess I needed to look up Belisarius to remind me that he was a Byzantine era general. I sure hope I don't suffer his (mythical) fate: having his eyes put out and living the end of his days as a begger! I may not be able to match the aircraft production of the Americans in the OTL (which was insanely huge), but the strategy you're referring to, picking spots where I can confidently achieve local superiority, is exactly what I intend to do and in this way I can wear down the Luftwaffe. I'm allocating a lot more effort to CAGs. That will become the single largest component in my "air force" because of their incredible mobility.
Rob, your Poland AAR became a perfect model to me!
But here you rise a standard so high... God, it's unachievable )))
I'm really glad you enjoy it
Iwo Jima! My particular approach is a graphical one (as I'm sure you know) but the beauty of AARLand is the wide range of approaches people use to create AARs. For example, I think Avidian and Cybvep have created some very enganging interactive AARs that no single AAR writer can hope to equal. I'm also awed by people who write better than I do and create real stories. I'm awful at that so I rely on my strengths. But I'm honored by your compliment and like knowing I can inspire people to create their own AARs in their own ways. I hope it's never unachievable to express yourself in whatever way or with whatever strengths you have to contribute. I'll need to have a look at what you've been making.
