Anyone finds Sahara and northern Canada fun?

[CharlieFox]

The problem it's not just that is completely ahistorical to fight in the Sahara, it is also that the battle planner performs horribly when it doesn't have enough units to fill the front. Africa is a gigantic front with low supply so you will have a hard time filling the front. This means you will have to constantly check that the AI has not allowed some of your divisions to be stupidly encircled (Seriously a couple of patches ago battle the planner AI managed to get 2 Modern armor divisions encircled and destroyed in Africa while was focusing on another theatre).

I think that if right now I had to play Italy without NMN I would take Suez Cannal and abandon all Africa (including Ethiopia and Libia)

 

[Dalwin]

It is an issue, whole armies can disintegrate in those environments, I thought that was considered the problem! For whatever reason, giraffes being heartless creatures or whatnot, Italy and Germany used to send mass amounts down there to whither away and die, destroying them as effective opponents. I'd end up sending a handful of colonial troops and cavalry to wipe up the mess and dispose of them properly and those ill-equipped and low supply units would still face ugly penalties traversing those areas. I still recall hearing the death-rattle scraping sound whenever I have to fight the more limited campaigns with the recent patches so I'm pretty sure those areas are still deadly to fight in, what's changed is that Italy and Germany aren't sending half of everything they have to gain materially worthless provinces (the French African possessions produce something like two steel in their entirety).

So since they are now only throwing away 10-20% of their army instead of 50% it is ok then? Less is still more than none and none is what it should be. This is doubly true since half the time when the Axis is coming or going from Africa they are sailing through hostile waters and losing units in transit.

Africa is not worth even half of the units that get sent down there even with the improvements that have come with updates. The AI should have a realistic estimate of what is needed down there. In the case of the Italians, that force should be in place before they join the war. Once at war they should resist the urge to ship units back and forth on a whim.

 

[Kaosium]

So since they are now only throwing away 10-20% of their army instead of 50% it is ok then? Less is still more than none and none is what it should be. This is doubly true since half the time when the Axis is coming or going from Africa they are sailing through hostile waters and losing units in transit.

Africa is not worth even half of the units that get sent down there even with the improvements that have come with updates. The AI should have a realistic estimate of what is needed down there. In the case of the Italians, that force should be in place before they join the war. Once at war they should resist the urge to ship units back and forth on a whim.

I've not noticed it being as high as 10% so far with the most recent patch, that is for sub-Saharan Africa at least. Sometimes fighting in North Africa the front will extend down to the Qattara Depression, but that's not my doing and I rectify it as quickly as I see it and I've not noticed that it has had a material effect on the game so far. I've sent cavalry down to ensure my control of deep desert provinces but lately it has occurred to me that I'd probably get those automatically with capitulation and I'm probably wasting a little equipment just to ensure pretty maps once the war is done.

What I've been seeing lately is a handful of Axis troops taking control of wide swaths of my sub-Saharan African empire as I don't don't garrison it more than it starts with outside about 2-3 divisions in Djibouti with engineers and and level one or two fortifications that almost never see combat. I'll keep a better eye out for it in the future as it has not been a concern lately and perhaps they do have some 10-20% of their army down there and I just have not noticed as the Brits have disposed of them by the time I get around to focusing on that front, the only parts I really care about being in North Africa and Djibouti.

 

[Dalwin]

That is you controlling the Axis, that is not as much of a problem as when you are trying to play someone else and you watch the Axis, especially the Italians, throwing away units who really should be assigned elsewhere.

 

[Krafty]

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

About 16 people on a camel train.

 

[Kaosium]

That is you controlling the Axis, that is not as much of a problem as when you are trying to play someone else and you watch the Axis, especially the Italians, throwing away units who really should be assigned elsewhere.

When I play as the French I want Italy and Germany to make a play for my poorly defended sub-Saharan colonies, in the real war even Djibouti saw limited action in the six weeks France lasted and Equatorial Africa was one of the first colonies De Gaulle appealed to when forming the Free French. What I objected to originally was the absurd amount of assets the Axis would dedicate to it, far surpassing the value of the area (and most importantly) the supply constrictions in those areas which caused on the order of half their army to whither away and die. In recent games I've actually found myself enjoying the desperate little struggles my beleaguered colonial troops engage in down there, from what I've seen caused by a handful of Axis troops who don't turn into empty shells that get popped by the first passing Cavalry, but effective units I have to figure out how to oppose or even send more troops to fight. Lately I've been stiffening my North Africa front with about 3 elite Mountaineers and in a recent game when I was done fighting the Axis down there I noticed two of them had disappeared in the jungle!. Elite mountaineers with all the goodies I could give them were somehow attacked and destroyed by the Axis when I wasn't looking! The Colonials who got little more than an Artillery battalion and some engineers all survived but somehow the Axis forces had killed off two of my buffed up babies.

Mussolini wanted an African empire, Germany wanted their African possessions such as Tanganyika back as well. Them making a limited play for them if they are still as poorly defended as they are at the start is not a problem in my view.

 

[Enriador]

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

That's a wonderful idea. It solves a good chunk of the problem without leaving large areas of the world as grey - if other impassable places like the Amazon rainforest or the Great American Desert wastelands are grey as well, the game's political map mode is going to look like an aberration.

 

[Dalwin]

That's a wonderful idea. It solves a good chunk of the problem without leaving large areas of the world as grey - if other impassable places like the Amazon rainforest or the Great American Desert wastelands are well, the game's political map mode is going to look like an aberration.

Some of the mods manage to make the areas impassable without having territory look grey, so clearly it can be done. Then there are areas where the modders have not made any provinces impassable per se but instead blocked the borders between them. This latter method works particularly well in the Himilayas.

 

[Oddb@ll]

When I play as the French I want Italy and Germany to make a play for my poorly defended sub-Saharan colonies, in the real war even Djibouti saw limited action in the six weeks France lasted and Equatorial Africa was one of the first colonies De Gaulle appealed to when forming the Free French. What I objected to originally was the absurd amount of assets the Axis would dedicate to it, far surpassing the value of the area (and most importantly) the supply constrictions in those areas which caused on the order of half their army to whither away and die. In recent games I've actually found myself enjoying the desperate little struggles my beleaguered colonial troops engage in down there, from what I've seen caused by a handful of Axis troops who don't turn into empty shells that get popped by the first passing Cavalry, but effective units I have to figure out how to oppose or even send more troops to fight. Lately I've been stiffening my North Africa front with about 3 elite Mountaineers and in a recent game when I was done fighting the Axis down there I noticed two of them had disappeared in the jungle!. Elite mountaineers with all the goodies I could give them were somehow attacked and destroyed by the Axis when I wasn't looking! The Colonials who got little more than an Artillery battalion and some engineers all survived but somehow the Axis forces had killed off two of my buffed up babies.

Mussolini wanted an African empire, Germany wanted their African possessions such as Tanganyika back as well. Them making a limited play for them if they are still as poorly defended as they are at the start is not a problem in my view.

You can still have that while making Sahara impassible. It's not mutually exclusive in any way. The old colonies are (mostly) situated along the coasts of Africa, not in the Sahara desert. I'm not against alternate paths of history or the like. If axis wants to invade the Sudan or Uganda though, let it be in a somewhat relistic fashion.

That in my world would be either a) moving via Egypt and downward through areas with infrastructure or b) naval invading some port (like Djibouti) and spreading out from there. This way is more realistic, fun and takes supplies and logistics into consideration.

 

[Kaosium]

You can still have that while making Sahara impassible. It's not mutually exclusive in any way. The old colonies are (mostly) situated along the coasts of Africa, not in the Sahara desert. I'm not against alternate paths of history or the like. If axis wants to invade the Sudan or Uganda though, let it be in a somewhat relistic fashion.

That in my world would be either a) moving via Egypt and downward through areas with infrastructure or b) naval invading some port (like Djibouti) and spreading out from there. This way is more realistic, fun and takes supplies and logistics into consideration.

That's the way any rational attacker would do it and the game punishes the AI severely when it's irrational about this. I think the problem is more the AI not realizing just what it risks for so little gain was (and may still be but I just haven't noticed it) the problem and supplies and logistics were definitely something that it should have taken into consideration but failed to. Fixing that latter problem (if feasible) is a better solution than just drawing a line and pretending no one can pass like it was a seventies era wargame ala 'Rise and Decline of the Third Reich.'

 

[billcorr]

like it was a seventies era wargame ala 'Rise and Decline of the Third Reich.'

...which is sitting on a shelf 2 meters from where I am typing this sentence.

 

[Kaosium]

...which is sitting on a shelf 2 meters from where I am typing this sentence.

Sadly I sold almost all my old games, over a hundred total, when I made a move circa 1999. I still have Frederick the Great (which at one point was considered valuable for whatever reason) still sitting in a bookcase about two meters from me, but outside a couple of stragglers I didn't find when I compiled my list like an old SPI game "The Twilight War" which survived the purge all my old games are with someone else or have been trashed long ago. *sniff*

 

[Fulmen]

Then there are areas where the modders have not made any provinces impassable per se but instead blocked the borders between them. This latter method works particularly well in the Himilayas.

Problem with this is that for some reason it crashes the game if you hover your cursor over these areas with a fleet selected.

I had already done considerable work in my mod by drawing a line around the entire Sahara carefully mimicing the HoI3 impassable territory, only to find out that players would often crash while using navies close to Africa. Burma, Indochina and the rest of the Himalays that NML doesn't cover were ready as well. Sadly almost everything had to go for playability's sake.

Having them in the Himalayas is OK though as they're so far away from the sea that the chances of people hovering over them with fleets selected are very small. It will still crash you though, you can try it in NML.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

For large swaths of impassable terrain like the Sahara, you can use the "lake with desert texture" trick. In vanilla, you can see it appearing as a bug where the Dead Sea is a desert with lake texture.

 

[rust95]

For large swaths of impassable terrain like the Sahara, you can use the "lake with desert texture" trick. In vanilla, you can see it appearing as a bug where the Dead Sea is a desert with lake texture.

The debate here has descended into a needless debate as to whether units marching across the middle of the Sahara Desert is an issue at all

 

[Fulmen]

For large swaths of impassable terrain like the Sahara, you can use the "lake with desert texture" trick. In vanilla, you can see it appearing as a bug where the Dead Sea is a desert with lake texture.

Still messes up frontlines though.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Still messes up frontlines though.

I thought front lines only graphically cover lakes without actually stationing defenders?

 

[Fulmen]

I thought front lines only graphically cover lakes without actually stationing defenders?

That's correct, but it might confuse the battleplan AI. Or maybe it still works fine, I don't know.

 

[grandad1982]

That's correct, but it might confuse the battleplan AI. Or maybe it still works fine, I don't know.

I seem to recall it splits your lines in annoying ways. Queue division shuffle....

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

About 16 people on a camel train.

Just to make it clear, when Lecler crossed the Sahara in December-January '42-43 (doing some fighting in the process) he had with him: 2 big motorized recon companies with 500 men total, a motorized battalion of 700, 3 camel corps companies (one motorized) with 200 men each, plus supporting units. Basically, rec + log + mot + cav/mot regiment in-game terms. Italian defense in Sahara consisted of desert forts and outposts bolstered by mobile auto saharianos. Aviation was important even in the small numbers in which it was used.

Saharan warfare could be represented in HoI scale. To do that there would need to be, at least, a mechanic to enforce small units and representation of warfare about points (airfields, forts, oases) and lines (desert trails) as opposed to fronts. And of course, a special AI to both recognize and function in that situation.

It's major expansion all to itself grade material. It's a major effort to represent something that was minor detail in the war. The Sahara was crossed in force once, with precondition of victory in Libya. It's something Paradox should seriously consider never implementing, and instead just block the terrain.