Sorry... I've been distracted lately by Knights of Honor (another title offered under the Paradox logo). I'll get back into my "Underwater Blitzkreig" game soon.noobermenschen said:
-
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.
- Status
I have a question for blue emu or anyone trying this convoy raiding approach. With whatever success you've had with hunting convoys, could you really cut off UK supplies to africa and india? It's not as if they are fighting alone there. I seriously doubt it is possible with the french, belgian, south african and bhutan (one of the uk puppet) sharing the same continent with them in africa and india.
In my game, every single British Division in India (and those in Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong and Crete) all starved to death and evaporated... and the garrison of Malta was down to zero ORG and 7% Strength, and would have evaporated if I had just waited another week.Neckkit said:
The British units in the Middle East were being supplied from Iraq, and those in Africa were supplied by France or Belgium.
(Whisper: Horray! He is back from Knights of Honour! (I hope!))
edit:spelling
edit:spelling
Last edited:
In my game it's Dez 40 and I just loaded as Britain to see how their troops are supplied.
There is just one convoy left, from Hong Kong to Plymoth, all others are down because they just have about 100 convoys and 29 escorts left. They just build one serial run of 117 convoys (at 5/117 atm). So they can never compensate their losses, the rest is a lot of fighters and interceptors + radar and tanks.
I took Spain + Gibraltar and finally the Italians took Suez. The remaining forces in africa are supplied by the last bits of the Daresalam stack. The idian troops (very few) are supported by Pukawhatever.. some tiny nation in the Himalaya i think.
I've about 60 subs and lost 12 subs. Most losses (3x complete 3unit stacks) i suffered because of this (embarked) thing. This really sucks. The boats just sit there and wait to be killed....
There is just one convoy left, from Hong Kong to Plymoth, all others are down because they just have about 100 convoys and 29 escorts left. They just build one serial run of 117 convoys (at 5/117 atm). So they can never compensate their losses, the rest is a lot of fighters and interceptors + radar and tanks.
I took Spain + Gibraltar and finally the Italians took Suez. The remaining forces in africa are supplied by the last bits of the Daresalam stack. The idian troops (very few) are supported by Pukawhatever.. some tiny nation in the Himalaya i think.
I've about 60 subs and lost 12 subs. Most losses (3x complete 3unit stacks) i suffered because of this (embarked) thing. This really sucks. The boats just sit there and wait to be killed....
What I find really strange is that anyone would consider any strategy against an AI....not just Paradox any use at all. To put it bluntly computer AI's at best are weak and at worst....laughable. To be able to outwit the computer on any setting is (shrugs) well easy. :rofl:
Soundoff said:
perhaps you missed the point? wether computer AIs are weak or laughable is not really the issue. If it is, then you could just concentrate on MP games only. Just take the AI as a given and play around and experiment with the rest. Still very rewarding in most people's eyes.
or perhaps it is me that missed the point..
Oh but it is...and at last something to get my teeth into. Unless the thread has some validity on how to wage a successful war then really its of little value at all. Now given that the computer AI is so easy to beat..in any mode...I find it strange that so many e-mails have been generated in 'how to beat the British via production of submarines'.....now providing you are not playing against a human opponent..its rather like saying how can France end up on the losing side or even be invaded...provided its playing against the computer AI
Soundoff said:
As the thread title says, Blue Emu has been trying to find out if submarines are worthless (as claimed by numerous people playing DD). And as can be seen, submarines are not worthless even against human players, much less AI. So the thread contains valuable information - not to mention that it has created a lot of discussion and promoted general happiness amongst gamers.
Now where in the heck has Blue Emu ever said that against Human Players u-boart are valuable and worth while creating... Please direct me to the thread. And if you cant...I still contend.. that any discussion of tactics against the computer AI is worthless for other than Annoraks....LOL Mick
Soundoff said:
I don't really want to look for it but I'm sure I've read it. Most likely it's in this thread somewhere - if you haven't read all pages I suggest you take look.
The point was that British player can't be sure if Germany is going to employ numerous subs against Britain so Britain must prepare for it as it will be too late to react when convoys are sinking daily. Those preparations (convoy builds, escort builds, ASW fleet build etc.) cost a lot of ICs which in itself makes it effective strategy against Britain. And if Britain neglects those builds, all British troops outside Home Islands will be out of supply (due to lack of supply convoys) making it easy for Japan and Italy to pick up those colonies.
Soundoff said:
Soundoff said:
Soundoff said:
Only one 'N', I'm afraid...Soundoff said:
I'm not sure whether your questions are intended seriously, or whether you are just trolling the thread... but I will answer them seriously.the Wiki said:
Your question breaks down into two parts... "Why would anyone bother with Single-Player mode instead of Multi-Player", and "Why bother to plan your moves against the AI".
In answer to the first question : "Why would anyone bother with Single-Player mode instead of Multi-Player", there are several reasons... which must collectively be regarded as valid, since past Paradox surveys have indicated that at least 85%-90% of their customer-base plays ONLY in Single-Player mode, not in Multi-Player mode.
First, many players don't have a schedule that can easily be adjusted to allow regular play at specific times... they play the game for a few hours here or there, at irregular or unpredictable intervals.
Second, some players... especially those sharing a domestic Lan-Net or those with older computer set-ups... simply don't have the router equipment to support reliable Multi-Player games.
Third, not all players like to treat computer-games as a competitive sport... in fact, I would guess that the players that do so form a rather small (but stridently vocal) minority. Many players instead treat games like HOI-2/Doomsday as passtimes, or puzzle-games... where the object is just to better your past performances, or to find an entirely new way to "solve the puzzle".
Fourth... and here I am playing amateur psychologist... I suspect that some players are a bit put-off by the childish and egotistical behavior that is so distressingly common on the Internet. The computer opponent (for all its other faults) is at least modest and unassuming... for instance, it rarely tries to inflate its own ego by repeatedly sneering at the SP-player and loudly trumpetting its own chosen style of play. This can be an important consideration for those players with delicate sensibilities...
The list could go on... but there are at least four reasons why people bother to play this game in Single-Player mode.
In answer to the second question : "Why bother to plan your moves against the AI", there are again several answers that I could give.
The most straightforward answer is that planning is something that people automatically tend to do when playing games... especially in puzzle-games.
If you read through the list of threads in this Forum, you will notice right away that the two most common categories of threads are technical questions such as "How do I (Paradrop/Nuke/SR/whatever)", and strategical questions such as "How should I (compose my Navy/invade Russia/launch Sealion/etc)".
Since all or nearly all of the technical questions were already answered long ago in other threads, if we accept your oft-repeated claim that strategy is totally pointless against the AI-opponent and that only a Geek or Nerd would show any interest in something so trivial and useless... then we have to conclude that not only this thread, but the Forum as a whole is worthless and a complete waste of server-space.
Not all of us would agree with this rather extreme point of view... the fact that the thread has already collected 452 replies and 23,276 views in the past 3 weeks would seem to indicate that it serves some sort of useful function... or perhaps it just indicates that Paradox games are highly popular among Geeks, Nerds and Anoraks.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
roflz blue totaly pwned u soundoff
In all seriousness, Blue gave a very good response. Many people find this thread interesting becuase it gives a different path to accomplish the same goals, regardless of whether its MP or SP. You can only overrun England in April 1940 so many times before its gets boring, and trying new strategies is about the only thing that makes replaying the game worthwhile. The end goals pretty much don't change, only how you get there.
To be fair, yes, overrunning England is the most cost effective way of shutting down the UK. That doesn't mean other strategies are neither valid nor intresting.
And while the effects on a MP game have only be conjectured in this thread, and have yet to be actually tried, I think we can say based on just how GOOD it was at destroyed the British merchant marine it would have at least some viability in a MP game, where overruning the Home Isles is NOT an option.
In all seriousness, Blue gave a very good response. Many people find this thread interesting becuase it gives a different path to accomplish the same goals, regardless of whether its MP or SP. You can only overrun England in April 1940 so many times before its gets boring, and trying new strategies is about the only thing that makes replaying the game worthwhile. The end goals pretty much don't change, only how you get there.
To be fair, yes, overrunning England is the most cost effective way of shutting down the UK. That doesn't mean other strategies are neither valid nor intresting.
And while the effects on a MP game have only be conjectured in this thread, and have yet to be actually tried, I think we can say based on just how GOOD it was at destroyed the British merchant marine it would have at least some viability in a MP game, where overruning the Home Isles is NOT an option.
I'd say that we can't say that based on his results that a sub strategy has viability. The AI was unable to use the assets that it already had effectively and the diversion of industry suggested by some work to counter the Kriegsmarine may not be proportionate (ie. even if the UK were Germany's only opponent, the UK might spend a lesser portion of their IC on ASW than Germany spent upon subs). It needs testing.
For the MP player, Blue Emu did something interesting and which some ideas might spring from, but his tests do little to support the statement that a sub strategy is viable in MP.
If anybody's up for a test of our own, I'm interested in covering either side. The previous poster to make such an announcement never responded to PM, but I will. Let me know your timezone and availability, and we'll work something out.
For the MP player, Blue Emu did something interesting and which some ideas might spring from, but his tests do little to support the statement that a sub strategy is viable in MP.
If anybody's up for a test of our own, I'm interested in covering either side. The previous poster to make such an announcement never responded to PM, but I will. Let me know your timezone and availability, and we'll work something out.
Agreed... and if anyone takes you up on your MP offer, please report the results in this thread. I would be interested in hearing about them.Brasidas said:
In particular... playing a pair of games, with each player taking the German side once and the UK side once, would provide an excellent test, since it would more-or-less cancel out any difference in player skill-level. If the British won both times, that would cast serious doubt on the viability of the strategy in MP games.
To be realistic, though... if the HOI-2 system is a reasonably accurate simulation, then between equally-matched opponents the Germans ought to lose the Battle of the Atlantic in the long run... whether they build Submarines, or Carriers, or Battleships... or nothing at all.
The question that needs to be tested is whether the diversion of production into Submarines... 60 to 90 Submarine flotillas cost the IC-days equivalent to the cost of two or three Bismarcks... can cause the UK enough headaches, distraction and loss to pay for itself, without crippling the all-important Russian campaign.
I see two [or three] goals in an sub-campaign.
a) force the UK to spend IC on rebuilding convoys and escorts and produce more ASW vessels than normal =>less IC for other things
b) supply problems for the UK troops outside the mainland
[c) the UK can't transport all its colony recources to the mainland so there are huge stockpiles that you or your allies can capture]
a) Is the UK spending more IC than you do for subs. If yes, than you're the winner of this little game.
b) this is where i see a problem. Since Italy and Japan are the ones that REALLY benefit from weakened UK troops in Africa and Asia, your success is tied to the behavior of those two. If they don't use their chance, you gained not much from this strategy.
[c) see b]
So in an MP game without human ITA or/and JAP this tactic might fail even if the UK-Player can't neutralize the subs.
I hope i made my point clear, that i think a german sub-strategy isn't GER vs UK but more like UK vs GER/ITA/JAP.
a) force the UK to spend IC on rebuilding convoys and escorts and produce more ASW vessels than normal =>less IC for other things
b) supply problems for the UK troops outside the mainland
[c) the UK can't transport all its colony recources to the mainland so there are huge stockpiles that you or your allies can capture]
a) Is the UK spending more IC than you do for subs. If yes, than you're the winner of this little game.
b) this is where i see a problem. Since Italy and Japan are the ones that REALLY benefit from weakened UK troops in Africa and Asia, your success is tied to the behavior of those two. If they don't use their chance, you gained not much from this strategy.
[c) see b]
So in an MP game without human ITA or/and JAP this tactic might fail even if the UK-Player can't neutralize the subs.
I hope i made my point clear, that i think a german sub-strategy isn't GER vs UK but more like UK vs GER/ITA/JAP.
In fact, since the ICs spent on Subs are not being spent on preparations for Barbarossa, it's more like UK/USSR vs GER/ITA/JAP...Miggel said:
The USSR will gain at least a little profit from any German focus on U-Boats... but only as much as they would have gained had the Germans built two or three Bismarcks instead, since that's all the ICs that are being invested.
- Status