Norway and Germany are on the same continent, but they are seperated and neither is landlocked. So I don't understand why trade wouldn't require convoys.
-
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.
Norway and Germany are on the same continent, but they are seperated and neither is landlocked. So I don't understand why trade wouldn't require convoys.
Of course nations losing many convoys will also suffer serious political consequences this time - regardless of their stockpiles.
I assume when your convoy for the day gets half destroyed you still have to pay the money in full for the resources?
So will there be convoy from USA to UK and Russia? I mean UK and Russia receives aid from USA through convoys interceptable, not startrek transporting...
I believe that is the way it works. The country getting the resources has the challenge to ship them back.
.png){kind=avatar}
Would you make restrictions for the general stockpile capacity? There are important aspects in real life. You can not store as much oil as you wish, and if you will try to, then you should pay for silos which are not very cheap. If OPEC reduces export for example it reduces production activity but it does not pump 10 mln barrels to silos every day and it is just one aspect.
Hopefully Norway will have all their 1000 convoy ships
Which btw was the 4.th biggest shipping navy in the world at the time
Which btw was the 4.th biggest shipping navy in the world at the time
The buyer ships the goods, so neutrals cannot deliver goods to a non-neutral only the other way round. We did this because we felt it would be ruthlessly exploited by you lot.
New Exploit! Neutral Italy helps the Axis U-boats defeat the Soviets!!
0. Choose ITA
1. Stay Neutral after Vichy, maybe DOW ENG as a free agent
2. Make a really generous trade deal with SOV so they won't cancel.
3. Watch the GER u-boats from Norway and Yugoslavia decimate the SOV convoys.
4. Let SOV collapse
5. Join the Axis post-bitter peace.
So, would it work?
Jonathan Fisher
New Exploit! Neutral Italy helps the Axis U-boats defeat the Soviets!!
0. Choose ITA
1. Stay Neutral after Vichy, maybe DOW ENG as a free agent
2. Make a really generous trade deal with SOV so they won't cancel.
3. Watch the GER u-boats from Norway and Yugoslavia decimate the SOV convoys.
4. Let SOV collapse
5. Join the Axis post-bitter peace.
So, would it work?
Jonathan Fisher
That's a good question. Now you've pointed out that kind of loophole, I'm sure some beta-testers will give it a go
This looks great. This means I'll be forced to develop and deploy the Kriegsmarine at some point. Excellent.
On question, however. Iceland had some significance during World War II, especially due to it's strategic location when it came to transport.
It would only seem natural that you could order convoys leaving the US bound for England to take the longer but safer route across the North Atlantic, drop by in Iceland and then keep going to England. My grandfather would have starved to death if it hadn't been for this.
My grandfather aside, this is strategically important, will it be an option?
On question, however. Iceland had some significance during World War II, especially due to it's strategic location when it came to transport.
It would only seem natural that you could order convoys leaving the US bound for England to take the longer but safer route across the North Atlantic, drop by in Iceland and then keep going to England. My grandfather would have starved to death if it hadn't been for this.
My grandfather aside, this is strategically important, will it be an option?
New Exploit! Neutral Italy helps the Axis U-boats defeat the Soviets!!
0. Choose ITA
1. Stay Neutral after Vichy, maybe DOW ENG as a free agent
2. Make a really generous trade deal with SOV so they won't cancel.
3. Watch the GER u-boats from Norway and Yugoslavia decimate the SOV convoys.
4. Let SOV collapse
5. Join the Axis post-bitter peace.
So, would it work?
Jonathan Fisher
Potentially. But some issues and some AI fixes that PI can implement to stop it. First, USSR would only need to trade for supplies, so trading is limited. Second, the USSR AI hopefully sees the problem with getting supplies back and cancels the trade agreement. Losing 20 [out of 20 convoys] won't destroy national unity. But losing 20 convoys every month will slowly reduce it. All USSR needs to do is stop building convoys (and run out) or stop the trade (which it doesn't need)
New Exploit! Neutral Italy helps the Axis U-boats defeat the Soviets!!
0. Choose ITA
1. Stay Neutral after Vichy, maybe DOW ENG as a free agent
2. Make a really generous trade deal with SOV so they won't cancel.
3. Watch the GER u-boats from Norway and Yugoslavia decimate the SOV convoys.
4. Let SOV collapse
5. Join the Axis post-bitter peace.
So, would it work?
Jonathan Fisher
Except point 3 has a possible caveat that will break your loophole, Moscow and Rome are on the same continent
so from the sounds of it you won't need the convoys maybe?And point 2 also has a caveat. If you (as ITA) instigates the trade deal, wouldn't YOU be considered the buyer and need to use your neutral-convoys?
And point 2 also has a caveat. If you (as ITA) instigates the trade deal, wouldn't YOU be considered the buyer and need to use your neutral-convoys?
Bingo
OK, so here the *real* response goes...
Firstly, for most of this response, other than citing what I will from the original Dev Diary, I'm using Jane's Naval History of World War II. Its more than adequate I feel for covering every aspect of the naval side of the war, and if the Devs have not yet read it, I would suggest that they do so.
1. Please allow me to say firstly that this game looks amazing. I'm loving it, the map, the convoy system, everything. I feel like it addresses much of the shortcomings of HOI2, and even bringing some great new ideas into the game that I feel are just great.
2. This (in conjunction with several other players on this forum who have already stated their trepidation) however, is something that I feel is still needing some refinement. I understand the need to balance gameplay with historical realism. I understand that no everything can make it into the game.
3. The problem as I see it is the fact that the system is pretty much entirely focused on the European Theater of Operations (ETO). The convoy system, the wolfpacks, the submarines, the concept that one unit of subs is equal to approximately 3-6 individuals... its a bit off for my read of what happened. True: wolfpacks are the standard guage for the Germans, and the UK wasn't really interested in the submarine (aside from their use in supporting the battlefleet), and the USSR didn't even bother with much of a fleet at all until after the war. The French... well, duh, and the Italians, while contributing their extensive submarine fleet to the Germans; they were the only other major power to lose more boats than the Americans did, and were much more effective in the Mediterranean.
4. However, neither the Americans nor the Japanese were into the wolfpack, and the submarine war in the Pacific was quite different. Not only was the submarine war different, but the entire convoy system was handled quite differently. That is the focus of my response.
A. American and Japanese submarines were built much larger than their German counterparts... they had extended areas over which to patrol, their training designated that the primary targets were the elements of the other's battle fleet, and centralized command was never considered due to the massive amount of radio traffic (something that helped the British and Americans defeat the Germans). They operated independently, although assigned to squadrons centered around a tender (usually called a SUBRON, for SUBmarine squadRON). This raised the question in my mind of the naval ship tech that the US starts with in 1936, although, the S-, R-, and Si- (S improved) classes were of longer range than their German counterparts. Japan does start with these boats available. The American improvements from lessons of the German boats captured or sunk in their waters were incorporated in the new GATO-class (sometimes called the TAMBOR-class), initially ordered in 1940, with initial fleet units coming online before DEC 1941. The follow-on class, the BALAO, also included improvements needed from the operational proceedures. (BARRACUDA-class is designated class name in the game, but that's something that is so small a nitpick that I could overlook it)
B. Japanese Naval Planning never took into account the fact that it faced a similar situation as the British did, nor did the Americans take into that fact in their Plan Orange. The Japanese did not feel like the Americans would join the allies in recovering colonial possessions, nor would they attempt to recover the 'financial liabilities' of Guam and the Philippines.
C. Japanese merchant building was reduced pre-war to leave yards free to pursue naval contracts; they also deemed that repart and salvage would be sufficient to maintain their imports and exports. Not to mention that their naval resources consumed the slips for their own repairs and refits, while damaged merchants were simply allowed to founder. The Japanese refused to appropriate their ships into convoys: it was a 'defensive' tact, not 'offensive,' and their offensive drive would obviate the need for convoys. They also failed to produce dedicated escorts in any great numbers, again, the defensive nature was subornned in favor of offense. Convoys, when necessary, were usually operational, such as the reinforcements of Guadalcanal, but the convoy as discussed here was not implemented until late 1944, and by then, that just gave American submarines ample targets during their patrols.
Because of the above reasons, I would the following questions: Because of estimated AI programming, how is the 'offensive doctrine' of the Japanese going to play out in the convoy war of the Pacific? What about US production of submarines or their employment? Obviously, as a human player, its going to be necessary to construct subs in order to choke the Japanese, but how quickly will the AI learn?
Firstly, for most of this response, other than citing what I will from the original Dev Diary, I'm using Jane's Naval History of World War II. Its more than adequate I feel for covering every aspect of the naval side of the war, and if the Devs have not yet read it, I would suggest that they do so.
1. Please allow me to say firstly that this game looks amazing. I'm loving it, the map, the convoy system, everything. I feel like it addresses much of the shortcomings of HOI2, and even bringing some great new ideas into the game that I feel are just great.
2. This (in conjunction with several other players on this forum who have already stated their trepidation) however, is something that I feel is still needing some refinement. I understand the need to balance gameplay with historical realism. I understand that no everything can make it into the game.
3. The problem as I see it is the fact that the system is pretty much entirely focused on the European Theater of Operations (ETO). The convoy system, the wolfpacks, the submarines, the concept that one unit of subs is equal to approximately 3-6 individuals... its a bit off for my read of what happened. True: wolfpacks are the standard guage for the Germans, and the UK wasn't really interested in the submarine (aside from their use in supporting the battlefleet), and the USSR didn't even bother with much of a fleet at all until after the war. The French... well, duh, and the Italians, while contributing their extensive submarine fleet to the Germans; they were the only other major power to lose more boats than the Americans did, and were much more effective in the Mediterranean.
4. However, neither the Americans nor the Japanese were into the wolfpack, and the submarine war in the Pacific was quite different. Not only was the submarine war different, but the entire convoy system was handled quite differently. That is the focus of my response.
A. American and Japanese submarines were built much larger than their German counterparts... they had extended areas over which to patrol, their training designated that the primary targets were the elements of the other's battle fleet, and centralized command was never considered due to the massive amount of radio traffic (something that helped the British and Americans defeat the Germans). They operated independently, although assigned to squadrons centered around a tender (usually called a SUBRON, for SUBmarine squadRON). This raised the question in my mind of the naval ship tech that the US starts with in 1936, although, the S-, R-, and Si- (S improved) classes were of longer range than their German counterparts. Japan does start with these boats available. The American improvements from lessons of the German boats captured or sunk in their waters were incorporated in the new GATO-class (sometimes called the TAMBOR-class), initially ordered in 1940, with initial fleet units coming online before DEC 1941. The follow-on class, the BALAO, also included improvements needed from the operational proceedures. (BARRACUDA-class is designated class name in the game, but that's something that is so small a nitpick that I could overlook it)
B. Japanese Naval Planning never took into account the fact that it faced a similar situation as the British did, nor did the Americans take into that fact in their Plan Orange. The Japanese did not feel like the Americans would join the allies in recovering colonial possessions, nor would they attempt to recover the 'financial liabilities' of Guam and the Philippines.
C. Japanese merchant building was reduced pre-war to leave yards free to pursue naval contracts; they also deemed that repart and salvage would be sufficient to maintain their imports and exports. Not to mention that their naval resources consumed the slips for their own repairs and refits, while damaged merchants were simply allowed to founder. The Japanese refused to appropriate their ships into convoys: it was a 'defensive' tact, not 'offensive,' and their offensive drive would obviate the need for convoys. They also failed to produce dedicated escorts in any great numbers, again, the defensive nature was subornned in favor of offense. Convoys, when necessary, were usually operational, such as the reinforcements of Guadalcanal, but the convoy as discussed here was not implemented until late 1944, and by then, that just gave American submarines ample targets during their patrols.
Because of the above reasons, I would the following questions: Because of estimated AI programming, how is the 'offensive doctrine' of the Japanese going to play out in the convoy war of the Pacific? What about US production of submarines or their employment? Obviously, as a human player, its going to be necessary to construct subs in order to choke the Japanese, but how quickly will the AI learn?
People have mentioned in this thread that Norway, Sweden and Germany could be able to trade without convoys since they are in the same continent. Personally, I hope that this is not the case. The significance of the port of Narvik was exactly that this was this only port, that far north, that didn't freeze in wintertime. Therefore, it was the only way to transport iron, from the mines in north Sweden to Germany. Iron, that was extremely important to German industry. If Sweden and Germany can trade overland freely, then the significance of Narvik will be removed and with it, the strategic significance of controlling Norway.
Even if point 2 and 3 would work, i seriously doubt the SU has enough convoys for this. IIRC they have about 50 convoys at the start in HoI2 and normally dont build any. I am also pretty sure, the AI in HoI3 will only build convoys if some type of "naval invasion"-AI is loaded. I also think, convoy losses have to be in some relation to a countrys IC, it is pretty unrealistic to have the UK and Haiti shatter at the same convoy lossesNew Exploit! Neutral Italy helps the Axis U-boats defeat the Soviets!!
0. Choose ITA
1. Stay Neutral after Vichy, maybe DOW ENG as a free agent
2. Make a really generous trade deal with SOV so they won't cancel.
3. Watch the GER u-boats from Norway and Yugoslavia decimate the SOV convoys.
4. Let SOV collapse
5. Join the Axis post-bitter peace.
So, would it work?
Jonathan Fisher