Anyone finds Sahara and northern Canada fun?

[Pyramid_Head]

I know there is a No Man's Land mod but talking about vanilla game, anyone finds dealing with central Africa warfare fun? Same goes for Northern Canada and 0-infratructure provinces with forests.
Having armies and fronts there, maneuvering and planning in this places. Do people really enjoy it?

 

[amalric de g.]

A simple No.

 

[Dalwin]

@podcat apparently, since at one time in the past he actually said that he likes that the Sahara is an active front.

I know of no one other than he who shares that opinion and I think that even he is beginning to come around.

 

[Lord of Beer]

Nope. I can't play the game without NML.

If you use the battleplanner/frontlines and want to take Northern Africa, your troops will inevitably go through the Sahara desert and burn up a ton of equipment. In addition clearing out defeated troops tile by tile is really tedious.

It also makes combat in Australia, SE Asia more straightforward and realistic.

I really hope Paradox can integrate the functionality into the core game. Having to fill up a MP lobby, and then rehost the game just for the mod is annoying, and inevitably you lose a few players (sometimes 30%).

 

[Tarkilth]

I mean, occasionally it can be fun in a sadistic kind of way to see tons of equipment and men die and be lost to the sands of Sahara when you get the AI to attack you from/through it but it's not exactly... sensible. That said, it doesn't usually bother me much. It's there, it's open land sort of so there's no reason you would be prevented from trying to go that way as far as laws of physics go, but rather correctly, it shouldn't be a terribly good idea which the 0 infrastructure sort of does so honestly I never give it that much thought when I play...

I've ltierally never thought of anything in Canada as a front. It's only ever bene active when I took control of the US as Canada for that one achievement, and then the northern forests again was not a thing so...

 

[Bryartuck]

I finally got fed up with it and installed NML. It's the only mod I've ever installed on a Paradox game.

 

[CV10]

ATM, one of my biggest hopes is that they incorporate the NML mod. There's a reason that the war was fought on the coast, and that it's the battle of El Alamein and not the battle of the Quetta depression. Using the mod itself is fine, but there are a lot of other mods not compatible with it, and I hate playing without NML.

 

[ringhloth]

I don't like NML. It doesn't actually fix the AI's issue with supply, just puts a band-aid over it. It's fine as a mod, but I'm perfectly okay with developer resources being directed towards actually fixing issues with the AI, instead of kicking the supply bucket to a less prominent position. I mean, HoI3 had no-go zones, but you still saw so much AI stupidity with supplying forces. How many games were stalled when Germany decided to commit too many troops to Norway, and then "solve" the problem by committing even more troops?

 

[Axe99]

There's definitely important work to be done (in a few other areas as well - large offensives over the Himalayas, for example) but I'm hoping for something a bit more nuanced than No Man's Land in the long run. That said, it (and similar mods) are a better option than the vanilla approach in the short run, the Sahara just causes the AI so much pain.

 

[Dalwin]

I've ltierally never thought of anything in Canada as a front. It's only ever bene active when I took control of the US as Canada for that one achievement, and then the northern forests again was not a thing so...

The only time I ever see Northern Canada as a "front" is when the human player invades Alaska as Japan. Even then it is a stretch to call it a front since your primary opposition is the slow movement rate through the terrain. Getting one unit, ideally a mountaineer, advanced one province so that everyone else can take a train, is pretty typical for such a campaign.

In addition to all the other points about these nearly impassible areas, I would also like to see the game system change such that strategic relocation was not allowed into or through areas that did not have a certain minimum infrastructure, probably 2 or 3.

 

[Bryartuck]

I'm hoping for something a bit more nuanced than No Man's Land in the long run.

I certainly agree, and I'm sure that is Podcat's take on it as well. In the meantime, we make do with what we have.

 

[hkrommel]

@podcat apparently, since at one time in the past he actually said that he likes that the Sahara is an active front.

I know of no one other than he who shares that opinion and I think that even he is beginning to come around.

I mean who hasn't heard of the infamous battle of Sand Dune #2903? Turning point of the war, that one.

 

[grandad1982]

No its not fun.

I see people want an ai solution to supply rather than NML but how does that work with battle plans for your own armies? I simply don't see them fixing enough things at once to make these areas fun/realistic.

Please note I'm not saying they shouldn't improve how the ai handles attrition.

 

[billcorr]

Permit but punish the unprepared.

@podcat apparently, since at one time in the past he actually said that he likes that the Sahara is an active front.

I know of no one other than he who shares that opinion and I think that even he is beginning to come around.

I share Podcat's opinion.

• Permit players to consider doing the impossible.
• Punish ill-prepared players for attempting the impossible (ill prepared = not having medical, engineer, logistics, maintenance, recon support companies or the like. The forum readers might think of other ways to prepare for the Great Sahara Crossing a la the Chadian motorized units in 1987 or Musa I of Mali leading 60,000 soldiers, slaves, artisans, and others across the Sahara in the year 1324. )
• Program the 'puters to avoid these areas.

In addition to all the other points about these nearly impassible areas, I would also like to see the game system change such that strategic relocation was not allowed into or through areas that did not have a certain minimum infrastructure, probably 2 or 3.

Right. That makes sense. Not allowing strategic relocation in level 1 or 2 infrastructure areas reflects a lack of railroads or a navigable river system.

No rails, no riverboats, no relocation (of the strategic type).

 

[Dalwin]

It is not about punishing ill-prepared players. If it was only players stumbling into the Sahara no one would be complaining. It is the excessively wasteful nature of the AI when it encounters such areas that is a concern. There are also some strategic historical elements. El Alemein really was effectively a chokepoint since no one was going to drive a significant force through the Qattara Depression. If you study the campaigns on places like New Guinea it was only along the outer coast, no one passed through the middle. If there had been a hostile border through the roughest parts of the Himalayas there still would have been no major campaigns there etc.

Letting these areas be treated just like any others is a worse case of fantasy level abstraction than is the skimpy supply system.

No Mans Land is not a perfect solution, but it is a very acceptable interim solution, especially considering that a better solution may never come along.

 

[Fulmen]

Nope, can't play with some form of NML. The Sahara and the Himalayas are the biggest offenders.

I wish the infrastructure map looked and worked similar to HoI3, in that 0 infrastructure areas were impassable.

 

[Oddb@ll]

No, not fun at all. And I don't agree with the "permit but punish" line of thinking. No battles were fought in the middle of the desert and it really shouldn't be possible at all imo, transporting divisions through the scorching desert is totally unrealistic. The AI can't handle it and I as a player can't see the fun in slugging through the desert in a tedious manner.

 

[billcorr]

The AI can't handle it

It is the excessively wasteful nature of the AI when it encounters such areas that is a concern.

I don't like NML. It doesn't actually fix the AI's issue with supply, just puts a band-aid over it. It's fine as a mod, but I'm perfectly okay with developer resources being directed towards actually fixing issues with the AI, instead of kicking the supply bucket to a less prominent position.

A common theme in this thread and others regarding austere areas is that the AI cannot understand the repercussions of the attrition of such areas. This leads to flankings and maneuvers that do not sit well with players.

For players, a number of restrictions have been suggestion short of an outright incorporation of an Official No-man's land. Here's one more consideration:

Add a national spirit called "Can-do spirit." Certain criteria would have to fulfilled, then the nation would be awarded with a "Can do spirit." That (along with other criteria) would allow units from that nation to enter and traverse hostile environments at a cost.

Alternatively, bestow certain generals with the leadership trait of "can do."

 

[GeorgieBest]

A common theme in this thread and others regarding austere areas is that the AI cannot understand the repercussions of the attrition of such areas. This leads to flankings and maneuvers that do not sit well with players.

For players, a number of restrictions have been suggestion short of an outright incorporation of an Official No-man's land. Here's one more consideration:

Add a national spirit called "Can-do spirit." Certain criteria would have to fulfilled, then the nation would be awarded with a "Can do spirit." That (along with other criteria) would allow units from that nation to enter and traverse hostile environments at a cost.

Alternatively, bestow certain generals with the leadership trait of "can do."

The idea of large combat divisions marching through the Sahara desert is stupid in every context for me. It should never happen.

 

[billcorr]

The idea of large combat divisions marching through the Sahara desert is stupid in every context for me. It should never happen.

What should be the upper limit of the size of a unit traversing the Sahara?