-
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 haven't played Britain, isn't there also a penalty for losing Gibraltar, Suez canal or both? I seem to remember something like that in an earlier version. The loss of either would have been a huge blow to British morale.
I wonder if they regret it now? We don't see Japan's player progress all that much, but is it possible to invade by sea from the mainland of India?
That's because they don't play to a point when every bit of morale matters. On the other hand - past certain point the outcome is decided. I wish that in TFH Comintern won't be just a pushover waiting for the Allies to arrive, but question is if it's possible for the Soviet Union to build up a strong pro-Soviet block pre Barbarossa.
The UK never defends Asia for long in the Carnage games. Sometimes the UK player sends air/naval units and maybe even some token land forces in order to slow the Japanese down, but in almost all cases India is undefended and Japan captures it easily, while the UK is 100% focused on Europe.
It is known.
BTW I wouldn't worry about the Soviets being too weak in TFH. Judging by this game, they need a hit from the nerf-bat. Anyway, I think that the group shouldn't add many new HRs (except the obvious ones and some modding, e.g. maximum % of shareable IC by Lend-Lease and maximum stacking penalty should probably be changed for balance) before checking TFH first.
It is known.
BTW I wouldn't worry about the Soviets being too weak in TFH. Judging by this game, they need a hit from the nerf-bat. Anyway, I think that the group shouldn't add many new HRs (except the obvious ones and some modding, e.g. maximum % of shareable IC by Lend-Lease and maximum stacking penalty should probably be changed for balance) before checking TFH first.
Last edited:
That's not what I was asking for.
I am not so certain, but that depends on a lot of things so there is much to consider. If Germany plays it smart way they can get Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Xibei San Ma, Persia, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland. However, Soviet Union and Allies might conter-act and get some nations into its own block.
Would be fun to see some actual intelligence and diplomacy being used instead of sheer force of arms. Opening up more fronts than just the Eastern Front would force the Soviets to keep more troops at Caucasus and Siberia. The Allies in particular would get a hard time, because even a nation such as Afghanistan (and/or Persia) would easily beat them out of India if they won't do a thing. On the plus side United Kingdom might get lend-lease from USA and U.S.S.R. could finally act like a separated faction, not Allies+. It's just the question of tweaking war goals well enough.
Still, to use diplomacy and intelligence effectively one must know how stuff works.
Last edited:
Most of the fronts can be held by pure infantry armies with 2x Inf divisions. Romania, Bulgaria and Finland usually are adressed by the Soviets. The Soviet capacity to wage war that early in the game at next to no negative inpact for them is something which might have to be adressed in other games. May be triple the malus for such wars so US support comes in that much later?
Germany is pretty good country in the previous expansions for sure!
Soviet leadership points in this game is just c***. Which is a little bit funny considering that the one thing that they DID do right in WW2 was their rugged, reliable, and effective weapons (not counting their airplanes or warships, in a sense of being world class)
In TFH tech-rushing was weakened quite a bit though which seems like a good thing (makes other areas for leadership more useful)
Soviet leadership points in this game is just c***. Which is a little bit funny considering that the one thing that they DID do right in WW2 was their rugged, reliable, and effective weapons (not counting their airplanes or warships, in a sense of being world class)
In TFH tech-rushing was weakened quite a bit though which seems like a good thing (makes other areas for leadership more useful)
Well they lost a bunch of natural resources in 3.06, so the sustainable base IC for USSR is now closer to 300, instead of 400.
The new Armour/Piercing mechanics mean that USSR can't rely on a strong T-34 spam anymore. If Germany researches its Panzers ahead of time, they will have the upper hand. Same goes for Heavy Armour.
USSR will not get 'Total Economic Mobilisation' and 'Service by Requirement' when fighting minors, but the Great Patriotic War now gives them 3500 manpower.
The new Leader Tactics stuff means that competent generals are a lot more valuable now. Soviets will be at a disadvantage in every single battle.
Lastly, the new invasion mechanics mean that Germany will get an early warning whenever the Flying Circus tries to land somewhere.
The group should mod some files for the next game, in my opinion. The unit_upgrades.txt file needs some work, cavalry should not upgrade to heavy armour and militia should not upgrade to mechanized.
These countries would be totally useless, especially considering the fact that they would most likely be controlled by the AI. LP is too precious in order to be wasted on influencing unimportant minors. Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Seriously?
How about restricting upgrades to one-step-at-a-time? If you want to upgrade militia to mechanised infantry, you should first upgrade it to infantry and only then upgrade it to mechanised infantry.
Anyway, this is not a discussion for this thread, I think.
This means less men elsewhere and not optimal performance. Italy could use a hand against the British Empire too, meaning fighting for the Suez Canal would be much more troublesome for the Allies and USA could help them by giving them lend-lease to build up more land troops to defend their holdings where necessary. I am all for more combat in Africa and Asia.
Who said there must be a war at all? Romania, Bulgaria and Finland are democraties. It's very possible to get them into your faction just by winning an election and/or with a successful coup, then influencing them to join your faction. Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey are more problematic for Soviet Union, but doable and Axis would support and influence them much easier due to ideological similarity.
Did you even try it? Unopposed Afghanistan can clam India on its own and/or be threat to Soviet's industrial base in Siberia. Persia can crush Iraq, gain access to oil and support attack against Suez Canal or into Caucascus. I am seeing what these countries can do in my game and since most of them already share the Axis ideology it wouldn't be all that hard to get them into the Axis. Increase the threat on U.S.S.R. and United Kingdom and support your party until neutrality has been lowered, then influence and they'll join easily. More minors fighting for you means more distraction for the enemy and less manpower you waste and you always can lend-lease them in case you can't use your own IC in full. Even if minors won't be formidable fighting force you can position Japan/Italy wherever you wish to bolster the attack if needed.
Last edited:
<rotfl> How long do you think it would take the SU or the UK to deal with Persia or Saudi Arabia? These countries will have terrible techs, low MP, no real airforce and be AI-controlled. And why the Axis needs Afghanistan if Japan already conquers India quickly and easily in Carnage games (it would take much longer for the AI to do it by land with its token forces and give the UK far too much time to react)? I think that you base your comments on pure theory and what-would-be-cool thinking. The only minors that can be useful are the ones which are located in Europe or are controlled by a human player from the beginning. Human-controlled Spain, Romania or Canada - sure, they can do sth, but I would never waste any LP on Saudi Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan etc. in MP.
BTW IIRC, in some Carnage games the UK conquered Saudi Arabia in order to get a LP bonus from a strategic effect. It would be absolutely hilarious if the Axis spent LPs on getting Saudi Arabia in the Axis and ended up helping the UK indirectly
.
Last edited:
Spare me your personal arguments.
Both Comintern and Allies ignore fronts located in places other than Europe and Africa, so even Afghanistan would be capable of claiming the whole of India, meaning Japan can spend its time to do something better, like prepare for Barbarossa by cleaning up british presence in India (capturing ports?) and opening another front: threatening Caucasus from the south. Italy can focus on keeping Suez Canal under control so it'd limit United Kingdom's capabilities. In this game each declaration of war means faster joining of the USA, with Persia and/or Afghanistan you don't speed up USA's joining the Allies AND as effect aren't limited to storming the Fortress Suez, like they are now, to help out Germany against the U.S.S.R. More than that, industrial base of the Soviet Union - if moved - lies closer from there and you can take Baku, Stalingrad, etc. It'd be much harder for the Soviets to fend off the invasion from multiple directions and it'd also be harder to keep the rest of the Axis forces out of the war by simply closing off the Mediterranean Sea.
Waste is a waste only when it's a waste. It doesn't really matter how good technology you have when you can't sustain any larger offensives and thus make benefit out of it. We see V1 being used only because that's where Germany can put its IC into use due to lack of manpower in FtM. Being able to funnel IC into minors is just another plus side when you can't use it all yourself (and could also be useful as they need each division they can get their hands on). Yes, Persia and Afghanistan are realtively weak minors, but there is strategical situation to consider, ways to get advantage out of them - this game is showing how dire is Germany's need for any available division and more strategical options. Look at this that way: are persian and afghanistan divisions worth more or less for the Axis now? How valuable is access through Persia? These aren't questions easy to answer, they heavily depend on the situation of any faction in the war.
Besides, that's Carnage's group business what and how they'll be playing. I'll keep looking at their AARs regardless because this is nice to see a MP in action where unexpected (humans are creative and adaptive after all) can happen.
Both Comintern and Allies ignore fronts located in places other than Europe and Africa, so even Afghanistan would be capable of claiming the whole of India, meaning Japan can spend its time to do something better, like prepare for Barbarossa by cleaning up british presence in India (capturing ports?) and opening another front: threatening Caucasus from the south. Italy can focus on keeping Suez Canal under control so it'd limit United Kingdom's capabilities. In this game each declaration of war means faster joining of the USA, with Persia and/or Afghanistan you don't speed up USA's joining the Allies AND as effect aren't limited to storming the Fortress Suez, like they are now, to help out Germany against the U.S.S.R. More than that, industrial base of the Soviet Union - if moved - lies closer from there and you can take Baku, Stalingrad, etc. It'd be much harder for the Soviets to fend off the invasion from multiple directions and it'd also be harder to keep the rest of the Axis forces out of the war by simply closing off the Mediterranean Sea.
Waste is a waste only when it's a waste. It doesn't really matter how good technology you have when you can't sustain any larger offensives and thus make benefit out of it. We see V1 being used only because that's where Germany can put its IC into use due to lack of manpower in FtM. Being able to funnel IC into minors is just another plus side when you can't use it all yourself (and could also be useful as they need each division they can get their hands on). Yes, Persia and Afghanistan are realtively weak minors, but there is strategical situation to consider, ways to get advantage out of them - this game is showing how dire is Germany's need for any available division and more strategical options. Look at this that way: are persian and afghanistan divisions worth more or less for the Axis now? How valuable is access through Persia? These aren't questions easy to answer, they heavily depend on the situation of any faction in the war.
Besides, that's Carnage's group business what and how they'll be playing. I'll keep looking at their AARs regardless because this is nice to see a MP in action where unexpected (humans are creative and adaptive after all) can happen.
Last edited:
I must agree with Cypvep here. Any amount of leadership spent on minors can be countered with a single infantry corps. They may be well positioned to threaten India and Central Asia, but they will always lack the divisions to do that.
How about Imperial Japanese Army manning the border? I fail to see how Japan taking over empty India for a half of the game is more useful than influencing Persia, shipping some units (I saw port there) and creating another front. The only disadvantage might be logistic capability of Persia to supply enough units, but then again you might consider giving it some IC to be able to sustain invasion forces. Actually, I'll need to look into it myself just to remind myself how it works in detail.
Argument that forces of minors can be easily countered is rather pointless for two reasons: either such fronts won't be manned (and there will be no ressistance, meaning anyone can come in and take over) or they will be manned, tying units that could be used elsewhere (Suez Canal, Gibraltar, etc.). You can always keep small "expeditionary forces" to be sure minor(s) won't be destroyed by "the Flying Circus" and ensuring that you'll push enemy out (by taking out his puppets, his ports) where necessary while preparing for invasion all the same. The last important thing: the more fronts you open, the higher chance for the enemy to make a fatal mistake.
Argument that forces of minors can be easily countered is rather pointless for two reasons: either such fronts won't be manned (and there will be no ressistance, meaning anyone can come in and take over) or they will be manned, tying units that could be used elsewhere (Suez Canal, Gibraltar, etc.). You can always keep small "expeditionary forces" to be sure minor(s) won't be destroyed by "the Flying Circus" and ensuring that you'll push enemy out (by taking out his puppets, his ports) where necessary while preparing for invasion all the same. The last important thing: the more fronts you open, the higher chance for the enemy to make a fatal mistake.
Last edited:
With no MP Germany is ALWAYS better off using their LP to research better techs, that's the only way to keep the SOVs at bay until something changes.
At this point [Germany with no MP] it's rather (too) late to influence minors. What I am talking about is pre-Barbarossa period. Post-Barbarossa, with everyone already in factions, you can research whatever you want and with minors you have more options about what to do with your IC when you can't use it yourself. What you're pointing out - waiting for something to change - is interference of other Axis majors, that's what they are trying to do now: gain access to U.S.S.R. to help out Germany. This is what I am talking about the whole time... Opening another front.
Last edited:
@Holy.Death Japan had no problems with taking India in Carnage games. Seriously, if there is one thing the Japanese don't lack after they conquer China, it's MP. Infantry is cheap IC-wise, it's the navy and the airforce that's the problem. Japanese MP is worth sth when it's employed against the UK, the USA or the SU - otherwise, they are just a nuisance, because the war will be won in Europe and the Allied players can easily ignore Asia.
It's a pity that you forgot about the supply system's quirks when you station units in Allied territory and with terrible supply techs of the minors and abysmal infrastructure, well... Also, we are talking about human players here - they are not blind. The SU may have 0 troops near Afghanistan for 95% of the game, but when Afghanistan is about to join the Axis, they will simply transfer one infantry corps to the region (sth which they can live without) and *poof*, all invested LPs are wasted, because the SU will have 0 problems with dealing with Afghanistan. And with Afghanistan's pitiful MP pool, they wouldn't be able to create a big army even if they had 1000 IC.
It's a pity that you forgot about the supply system's quirks when you station units in Allied territory and with terrible supply techs of the minors and abysmal infrastructure, well... Also, we are talking about human players here - they are not blind. The SU may have 0 troops near Afghanistan for 95% of the game, but when Afghanistan is about to join the Axis, they will simply transfer one infantry corps to the region (sth which they can live without) and *poof*, all invested LPs are wasted, because the SU will have 0 problems with dealing with Afghanistan. And with Afghanistan's pitiful MP pool, they wouldn't be able to create a big army even if they had 1000 IC.
It doesn't mean you can't help Germans in their fight directly or indirectly.
Caucasian infrastructure is formidable enough to support many units (of course - everything depends on composition of units, possible opposition, etc.). The only real question are supply capabilities of minors to supply you. Still, if you make progress you can try to capture russian ports at the Black Sea to support army yourself. As for being supplied by the ally itself: "Note that your allies will get from your stockpile equal to the supplies your troops consume. As of 1.4 patch, these supplies are teleported directly from your main supply center to the allies". You'll have to count on infrastructure, but I've seen AI building it when it had IC available. Question is how to predict where it'll build infrastructure.
Is wasted if you count on Afghanistan/minor to do everything on his own. You'll still be able to access Soviet Union from that direction and forcing Soviets to transfer more units elsewhere is advantage for Germany, because it'll face less units on the Eastern Front. Imagine a few small light tank/motorized divisions emerging from Persian/Afghanistan border. Infantry won't be able to pierce their armor, they'll race fast, creating problem... It's just an example. I am not saying it's a remedy for all their ills, it's another strategic possibility, something to consider next time they play.
Or can you show me how Japan in helping out Germany so far in this particular game? They can't, because of Fortress Suez and they don't want to attack neutrals to not speed up joining of the USA into war. They limited their strategical possibilities that way, counting on Germany to win on its own, and now they are fighting for survival.
Last edited:
I think that the med issue should be played in a "all in "style early in z game.
Not closing the med will have dire consequences for the axis.
A good strategy for Gibraltar is that Italy moves some of its naval assets to Germany before the war starts.
As soon as France falls German troops should continue to Gibraltar via spain,once they reach it and have air units nearby Italy will declare war on UK and launch a combined attack on the rock.
Once Gibraltar is taken suez will be easier. The best timing is after the fall of france, the uk should be shaken up.
The aim should be to seal the med before spring of 41 then ita should handle the coastline while ger will pull of its all of the troops to attack the Soviets.
Not closing the med will have dire consequences for the axis.
A good strategy for Gibraltar is that Italy moves some of its naval assets to Germany before the war starts.
As soon as France falls German troops should continue to Gibraltar via spain,once they reach it and have air units nearby Italy will declare war on UK and launch a combined attack on the rock.
Once Gibraltar is taken suez will be easier. The best timing is after the fall of france, the uk should be shaken up.
The aim should be to seal the med before spring of 41 then ita should handle the coastline while ger will pull of its all of the troops to attack the Soviets.