Just a simple question, in Hoi2 or AoD, how do your land troops can capture enemy ships at ports? Is it random and nothing can be done to assure a good loot? Can it happen with airplanes in air bases too? Just curious, thank you!
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
Airplanes cannot be captured. In fact the AI always is able to move them away though they might lose considerable strength in the process. Ships are only likely to be captured when their org is very low and then mostly small vessels. But even this happens on very rare occations only.
Should be a better system for stuff like this. Be Awesome to demand ships in peace offers, like in ww1 and 2 come to think of it.
Not just that! The Germans used loads of captured equipment from enemy armies. You should be able to demand on-establishment scales of equipment from the enemy if you force him to disarm, though not all of it probably. But I think this should let you establish new divisions costing some IC and full manpower, off of a victory. (If I made you sign a surrender and that tank division was at full strength when they quit, I want that tank division, losers. Keep your stupid 1936 inf div equipment, and maybe you could practice with it and learn how to fight.)
Though an enemy could refuse and trash everything rather than hand it over, like the High Seas Fleet.
mr lazarus, first let me clarify that i never ever ever argue online about the little things, especially about WW2, a topic which i have read over 20 books about, and a ton of historic novels like Stalingrad and Moscow 1941 by antony beevor.
BUT... as far as germans using captured equipment, do you mean from annexed countries or from ones they were fighting? for example, when they annexed chzecoslovakia (i mispelled) they managed to acquire a large amount of small arms from the country and equipped their units with them. also Rommel is known to have used a captured british tank as a command tank so to speak, with the only difference that they used a german engine for ease to fix. hell, 95% of his equipment was british by the time of the second battle of El Alamein. but say, when fighting russia, the germans captured literally almost as many tanks as they used in their offensive in russia, but they didnt refit them or use the captured equipment unless they were in a serious pinch. why its been argued over a lot, but it seems that hitler (GROFAZ!? LOL!) declared that these untermensh could simply not have better tanks and artillery than germany (ps, they did XD), so thats maybe the reason why they didnt just paint the tanks grey, put a big swastika in there and sent them to battle.
anyway, sorry for deviating off topic XD
BUT... as far as germans using captured equipment, do you mean from annexed countries or from ones they were fighting? for example, when they annexed chzecoslovakia (i mispelled) they managed to acquire a large amount of small arms from the country and equipped their units with them. also Rommel is known to have used a captured british tank as a command tank so to speak, with the only difference that they used a german engine for ease to fix. hell, 95% of his equipment was british by the time of the second battle of El Alamein. but say, when fighting russia, the germans captured literally almost as many tanks as they used in their offensive in russia, but they didnt refit them or use the captured equipment unless they were in a serious pinch. why its been argued over a lot, but it seems that hitler (GROFAZ!? LOL!) declared that these untermensh could simply not have better tanks and artillery than germany (ps, they did XD), so thats maybe the reason why they didnt just paint the tanks grey, put a big swastika in there and sent them to battle.
anyway, sorry for deviating off topic XD
But of course I mean from both, because Germany historically used both. (The idea of capturing something from a division you overrun and capture is pleasing to me, though difficult to implement, I think. You could also grab their undestroyed supplies and fuel as well.)
Many divisions on the so-called Atlantic Wall were employing Yugoslav and French weapons and thus greatly complicated maintenance and logistics requirements for them. The benefit is of course that you can arm men that otherwise you could not, or could only do so with reduced scales of equipment. This is of course what happened with Germany attacking Russia, in which panzer divisions were "created" by halving the on-establishment scale of panzers. (I recall this point in "The German Generals Talk".) Correct me if I am wrong, but that was also the case with the covering divisions on the Ardennes, was it not? (Very low scale of equipment, practically a half-power infantry division, right?)
And, I think, didn't the Germans end up giving a bunch of this spoils to their allies to get THEIR armies equipped?
History is frickin' sweet, is it not? Endless details to correct and squabble over.
You're wrong, the germans extensively used captured T-34. Entire battalions of tanks were equipped exclusively with captured T-34. The Germans even considered to switch to the T-34 and to scrap the home-designed models completely, but they were unable to manufacture the engine of the T-34.
I recall reading that the Germans found the KV-1 and the t-34 ominous in terms of the potentialities of Soviet industry. Such well-designed equipment, in sufficient numbers, could be used to deadly effect by even very incompetent armies.
Wasn't there an ambush where five KV-1s killed dozens of German tanks in a trapped column?