I have no problems with possibility of US signing unfavourable peace treaty in BiB's AAR. One should consider its strategic position: no allies remain, very powerful Germany which might cause a lot of mess. I don't understand complaining people - so you think that the game may be realistic only if it always end with US decisive victory?
-
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.
I can understand those who thought that the US should have fought on, since no other nation could project itself forcefully upon US soil it could still have fought for a long time.
But this US is isolationist and more importantly the peace doesn't cost it anythig in industry, it can re-arm heavily without being disturbed and start messing again in '45 if it wanted to, with the Bomb. Unless of course Germany gets one too and the cold war is a fact.
Still, if you look at this AAR it is a series of small things going better for the Axis that leads to a big result.
-Quick peace in China saves army for later use against SU preventing siberian divisions to rescue Moscow.
-Successful 'Pearl Harbor' in Guam allows for victory at 'Midway' by Pearl Harbor allowing control of the islands. Also protects the seas and allows army to move upon India, scaring the UK where it feels it can be hurt and making it opt out of the war.
-Lack of a 'carrier island' in the UK and a 'free army' in the SU basically removes US ability to project itself in Europe, while invasion of Panama makes it difficult to reinforce the Pacific by navy.
I get more and more interested in the diplomacy options, and how they seem to have made the AI able to some quite good evaluations of what is an acceptable deal.
But this US is isolationist and more importantly the peace doesn't cost it anythig in industry, it can re-arm heavily without being disturbed and start messing again in '45 if it wanted to, with the Bomb. Unless of course Germany gets one too and the cold war is a fact.
Still, if you look at this AAR it is a series of small things going better for the Axis that leads to a big result.
-Quick peace in China saves army for later use against SU preventing siberian divisions to rescue Moscow.
-Successful 'Pearl Harbor' in Guam allows for victory at 'Midway' by Pearl Harbor allowing control of the islands. Also protects the seas and allows army to move upon India, scaring the UK where it feels it can be hurt and making it opt out of the war.
-Lack of a 'carrier island' in the UK and a 'free army' in the SU basically removes US ability to project itself in Europe, while invasion of Panama makes it difficult to reinforce the Pacific by navy.
I get more and more interested in the diplomacy options, and how they seem to have made the AI able to some quite good evaluations of what is an acceptable deal.
The thought of the vast amounts of supply units needed to fuel your offensive against Panama and LA makes me cringe. Having to ship your oil halfway across the world causes some hamstringing of your forces. Panama was 8,000 miles from the nearest Japanese port. Sending an invasion fleet from Japan (what the hell, let's say Hawaii) would take about 120 days if you took a straightline course (or 80 from Hawaii). Your supply officers should be on the verge of revolt right about now.
You attacked on 4 December 1940; the war ended at the end of 1943. The Army generals historically, on the other hand, started war on 7 December 1941; but the Japanese war machine ran out of oil around the third quarter of 1944. So not only do you bomb California regularly and invade Panama, your oil reserves last at least three months longer than the Empire's did historically while you're trotting the globe.
The big deal about the US losing is that its industrial capacity is ten times that of Japan. Even on a peacetime economy, the US spent $40.6 billion on defense during 1941. During that same time Japan was on a total war economy, and it spent $18.1 billion.
I'd rather not talk about the stupidity of the AI to put the PacFleet in Guam, when historically it was based in San Diego at the world's second-largest naval base.
So the AAR is finished.... BiB, omedetou. Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
If the Axis were to win, that's the way it would have to be done. I am a bit disappointed at the reletive ease. I have beaten every WWII grand strategy computer game in similar fashion and hoped for a different level of challenge (not to belittle your skill
).
During nonwar years, the AI seems to be rather inept. Britain under motivated in general and possibly undergunned; SU easily taken out. human v. human looks to be fun.
Oh, and BiB, you let a capable opponent develop air, and your pretty ships will be well armored reefs.
Sake all 'round. Kampai.
( BTW. When do I lose 'recruit' status ... )
If the Axis were to win, that's the way it would have to be done. I am a bit disappointed at the reletive ease. I have beaten every WWII grand strategy computer game in similar fashion and hoped for a different level of challenge (not to belittle your skill
). During nonwar years, the AI seems to be rather inept. Britain under motivated in general and possibly undergunned; SU easily taken out. human v. human looks to be fun.
Oh, and BiB, you let a capable opponent develop air, and your pretty ships will be well armored reefs.
Sake all 'round. Kampai.
( BTW. When do I lose 'recruit' status ...
)
I think what people are concerned with is that the allies don't appear to be putting up an adequate fight. I for one will wait to pass judgment until I have the game (I think paradox will be more open to criticism once we actually have played HOI
) The problem, if there even is one, that might, perhaps, maybe, be happening is that the game moves to quickly. That battles, troop movement, and province conquering might happen to fast (not inaccurately just to quickly). The speed of the war seems not to give the allies time to overwhelm the Axis with numbers like IRL. But that is inherent to the engine. One big battle (there I go assuming again) decides the fate of an entire province and just moving into a province means your army can defend every bit of it in lump force (You probably can't hold half of Stalingrad but than maybe you don't have to fully retreat out of a province when you lose, who knows?). But than I am going into territory I know nothing about and am judging how the game works based on a handful of ARRs which is exactly what I set out not to do I wish this game was out now!
Last edited:
AFAIK, in real life the USA were stupid enough to station the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour.
Originally posted by AOW
( BTW. When do I lose 'recruit' status ...
I've no idea, Private.
Originally posted by Tambourmajor
You should post this phrase in 20pt. bold letters and sticky it on top of the AAR section
EDIT: BTW, great AAR! Although I'm a little disappointed you didn't actually invade L.A. ...
Firebombing it is not good enough?
Norfolk, Virginia, home of the Atlantic Fleet and the Norfolk News Shipyard.
A hell of a lot better than Guam. Pearl was defended by Army divisions, naval & Army air units, and massive 15" coastal defense guns.
Which didn't help them when a large part of the fleet was damaged or whiped out by Japanese bombers...
But then, you're right. I wondered, too, what the US AI wanted to accomplish with stationing its navy in Guam.
Maybe prepare for a counter attack?
I'll say it again, this is not exatly like history ...
The US somehow managed to get the oil it needed but when I do it in the game with another nation it's bad? I managed to get Japan in a position, resource wise where I could. Are u saying that should be impossible? Should the Japanese oil reserves be what they were historically no matter how the Japanese empire evolved during the first years of the game?
Oh, I see, the US starts with the biggest industrial capacity, therefore it should be unable to lose.
And didn't the US put an awful lot of boats to be shot down at Pearl Harbour? The idiots
The US somehow managed to get the oil it needed but when I do it in the game with another nation it's bad? I managed to get Japan in a position, resource wise where I could. Are u saying that should be impossible? Should the Japanese oil reserves be what they were historically no matter how the Japanese empire evolved during the first years of the game?
Oh, I see, the US starts with the biggest industrial capacity, therefore it should be unable to lose.
And didn't the US put an awful lot of boats to be shot down at Pearl Harbour? The idiots
Which was fighting the Germans.
Anyway, it is impossible then for the US to build such a base in Guam then?
U are so deterministic, so not open to anything but what happened historically despite what happened before in the game. Why do u want to play this game actually? Play as the US, station a fleet in Pearl Harbour and wait for the Japanese to bomb it on 7 dec '41 and end it by dropping the bombs on their historic dates?
Originally posted by Tambourmajor
Maybe prepare for a counter attack?
No, that'd be utterly absurd and preposturous!
Nevertheless, my point remains not that it's impossible- just that you don't mention what seem to be requisites for your operations. Perhaps I should make that more clear. Rather, it's "I invaded Panama and bombed California." Getting there is half the fun.
Japan is not the best country to judge whether or not the game's "too easy" (which I believe, is the underlying worry of most posters here even if they do not say so ) Let's wait till we get a complete Italian or even a true minor (Finland maybe?) AAR before anyone jumps the gun...then again, I believe MP will probably be where HOI truly shines, if the code is stable that is. That doesn't mean that the single player game won't be enjoyable, but I don't really expect much of a "challange" playing as Germany, USSR or USA.
) Let's wait till we get a complete Italian or even a true minor (Finland maybe?) AAR before anyone jumps the gun...then again, I believe MP will probably be where HOI truly shines, if the code is stable that is. That doesn't mean that the single player game won't be enjoyable, but I don't really expect much of a "challange" playing as Germany, USSR or USA.
Originally posted by BiB
Writing AARs about setting up a zillion convoys is boooooring
BiB, could you think about giving us one that starts in 1939. I for one would like to see how more historical start pans out.
Originally posted by BiB
Writing AARs about setting up a zillion convoys is boooooring
Not sure if this has been revealed yet, but can you let the AI setup convoys for you? (and if you can, is it still better to manually form them, as was the case with sending out merchants to CoTs in EU?)