In my last game the AI seemed to send naval invasions bypassing areas where I had naval superiority. How is this? Maybe I was mistaken but it's very infuriating lol
- 2
Does the AI send naval invasions without even having naval supremacy?
- Thread starter PancuterM
- Start date
-
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 don't know but you can start an invasion and then wait until the prep times has completed and then quickly obtain supremacy to start the invasion. I like to let them start the invation and then decimate their convoys.
I rechecked and can't find any reliable sources on this.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
How are you supposed to defend against allied naval invasions as a huge county that controls a huge amount of land then? In my last game as the USSR I invaded all of Europe in 1945 only for the Allies to send like 10 different naval invasions everywhere and then I rage quit
- 2
- 1
- 1
Wow...
So basically the entire [not so good] mechanics (doubled down in LaR to also include some minimal intel, otherwise supremacy "won't count") is there to annoy the human player alone?
I would disagree.
Naval invasions are too strong at the moment. AI can't deal with them. And players can cheese the AI. And I'm not talking about baiting AI. Just a regular decent defense of port will lead to AI trying to invade the port and few adjacent provinces. If you have a good defense, that's 5-10 AI divisions destroyed for free, and you're not really doing anything but guarding ports.
In the previous system, naval invasions were rarer, but at least they usually happened at a point when they should logically happen, like when the country in question was sufficiently weakened. Now we have dozens of D-Days in 1942 and AI is pinging troops back and forth all the time to cover all of them.
Not to mention that the new supply system is essentially favouring naval invasions. Once AI takes a port, they will usually have fully supply in that immediate area, which often might not be the case for the defender, leading to defender actually fighting at a disadvantage, supply wise, and thus losing even more and is almost never able to remove the invaders.
- 4
- 3
The above answer is right. It's one of the few areas the ai cheats in. I really hate naval supremacy myself, especially as a player only mechanic. If I want my fleet to navally invade somewhere where I am "less powerful" it should let me.
- 4
I always wonder this when I see Britain start up naval invasions against me 2 days after Ive surprise attacked them by joining the Axis. Do they just have a million naval invasion plans ready for every contingency?
But nope, I guess they just cheat lol
- 2
Make one army, give it half strength infantry, set it on defense only ports, right click all around. Super cheap and easy.
- 1
I'm not sure what you mean with "previous system", but I surely was baiting the endless AI naval invasions before NSB. I think it started with man the guns.
And I'm not sure it is historically correct to change things: Naval invasions were strong, they were well supplied, and were pretty hard to push back, after a port was fully taken of course. The beach landing / port taking was obviously a bloodbath for the invaders.
And this threat of invasion leads to the need for huge armies defending the ports, which is historically correct: Italy for example had an insane amount of troops defending its extremely long coast line.
- 1
- 1
No, I'm not kidding.
At least the most important coastal sea zones and/or most likely invasion routes should be covered by subs on convoy raiding and maybe some NAV as a bonus.
- 1
Previous system meaning when AI didn't perform so many naval invasions. I'm not sure when it happened but I do know that it didn't happen nearly as often back in the day.
I'm not sure talking about historical helps your argument at all. Overlord preparation took months and months, required almost total control of sea and air to be even prepared. At the moment, Allies are performing not one, but several operations that involve five times the amount of troops compared to historical Overlord, in 1942, in very short time window.
There was a reason why Allied command rejected proposals for a major invasion before Overlord. Only after Wehrmacht was sufficiently weakened and Allies established air and sea dominance, and had time to tap into their massive manpower industrial advantage was the operation likely to succeed.
That is historical, and that is what game should strive to emulate.
- 1
This is especially sad if true since the devs always insist the AI plays by the same rules as the player.
@Arheo sorry for the ping but can you confirm if the AI does cheat when it comes to naval invasions?
I really wish this was a game option that we could control. Because I really dislike not being able to launch a risky invasion because of a made up arbitrary rule.
IMO it'd be better if the AI performed less but better naval invasions, especially against targets in mainland Europe. Instead of sending tons of small invasions that can easily be killed off, they should send a few big ones, with lots of divisions and air support.
- 2
Not to my knowledge. As with player invasions, if the invasion sets off before supremacy is acquired, it can sometimes get through.
- 9
- 2
The problem with this is that invasion fleets can't really be intercepted and sunk in HOI4. Sea Lion without naval supremacy should be a blood-bath for the Germans -- you know, all your division should be drowned in the channel if there are lots of Royal Navy ships there. Given that transports and landing craft aren't units on the map, player naval invasions are OP as it stands.
- 1
I was super annoyed playing as the UK that Germany was able to naval invade Congo after I finished off the Italians in Africa.
Turns out, you can prevent this by putting 8-width garrison units in all ports in West Africa.
I used the "area defense" order, only selecting ports.
You might need to do a little better as Germany though...
- 1