yes thus, your fault for stopping bounding it... you cant assume we would do your work for you can you?
-
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.
Eh.
I like Dano now he actually contributes to wars. Desire to do anything against him has dropped to zero since the beginning of AoD.
I like Dano now he actually contributes to wars. Desire to do anything against him has dropped to zero since the beginning of AoD.
What else would? Being good at the game? Ha!
You also would've ended the game in EU3 without Elcyion there to stop you.
Though most of the African alliances strategic woes are because of them simply being bad at AoD and less to do with their position, since Fivoin was just as bad that's the only reason why it becomes a matter of IC. I mean seriously, letting German keep 600 IC when you could've encircled and destroy 100 divisions in Romania? He couldn't recover from that. Not building up a single airfield because your too busy building planes? What sort of parody is this? Its a terrible joke.
Then there's losing a formiddable German BB fleet dicking around in Oz instead of keeping it a fleet in being to deter the inevitable Spanish invasion.
Fivoin could've likely curbstomped African in the beginning if he only built mountaineers and tanks, but instead it was 95% infantry despite picking Blitzkrieg, like wtf? When your invading the Balkans and likely need to fight Africa in Turkey? I think only me and Dano ever really made the correct decisions on how to efficiently use our resources; not that Golle and Jodokus will ever show the decency to admit that Militia have their usage for a MP and IC strapped Russia.
Germany having such ungodly amounts of IC is only a problem because of chronic mistake syndrome. That and the unstable diplomatic situation at the beginning of the game didn't help, I'll never understand why Fasq and Irsh never bothered to reach out to Russia; we spoke often enough on MSN for the idea to have been brought forth, so I was forced to accept the incredibly unfair deal with Fiv until Golle and Jodokus waltzed in.
As far as I am honestly concerned this game is over.
Yea Fasquardon sums it up quite nicely what African situation is. Then again I feel, the reason why we are at this point is that I didn't do my maxium when I took over. We should have never peaced out the first war, it was when the African tide was highest point.
Then again, occupation, land takeover by force and manouvre operations over empty desert are three different things that looks same on the map, but have whole lotta difference when it comes to the strategical situation.
Also ability land opposed beaches and bring forces shore has been demostrated, fair so. Skill to actually exploit such for defeating the enemy yet waits for its own turn
It doesen't help for this remark, how Dano actually has been part of our intial war plans everytime during this game when we have tried to attack germany-america, and always bailed out at the last minute.
But as for them, it doesen't matter. Dano knows and oddman knows, that since oddman-fivoin has always gone for the convidient gangbangs with leaving the enemy no odds, California is safe, and african crusade has only made it more safer since Oddman dears not to do anything when he cannot secure his backs from africa. And it would have worked had you and Irsh remained as african players, and AFAIK there actually were quite detailed plan to annex California with african approval prior my time. But no trust can exist between me and Oddman-fivoin, so such understanding could not born now, and despite African commitment and dedication to help California is as low as Californian commitment to help Africa, The personalities involving have created this cruel mockery of African gurantee over California that prevents Oddman for finshing Dano.
And its sad that its the deception, weaseling, cowardness, convidient gangbanging and perma-mega-alliances that will win this game...when ever did I lost beeing so good at them
While Dano I don't think has been honest in his "Bbbbut if Japan is totally not a threat I'll help you!" (BS, Dan will be forever happy with being fourth place it seems) the above is false revisionist history. You focused entirely on trying to get Oddman on our side the entire time instead of Dano, to the point of offering to Oddman to annex Dano, and only after Oddman stonewalled you for like three weeks straight did you finally reluctantly try to ally Dano, which Dano knows because Oddman told Dano of your offers. All of this despite the mathematical fact that Dano annexing Oddman is better for us because he would have the least net IC from the transaction.
This smacks of woe is me syndrome.
Kongo had a great conversion relative to the small guys and only a small gap relative to Germany and a far superior strategic position at the start. Germany converted with too much IC (and maybe Cata, I never checked), there should have been a logarithmic system of diminishing returns for balance reasons but it isn't in of itself the cause.
Saving Dano also did not in of itself lead to today, and much more to do with your own paranoia and insecurity where you joined with other nations to partition nations. This leads to a chilling effect where no one does anything risky because if you make a mistake 10 different nations will pounce on you, led gloriously in a lopsided war by Kongo. Dano only allied with oddman because you never seriously offered to help him when the incentive was there.
Seriously, how many alliance offers did I send you to help a third country only for you to turn around and demand land or something equally stupid for the privelage? How many hours wasted talking around in circles with you only for you to shift the goal posts again and again? Its just as much your fault.
Your woes in V2 probably just as much had to do with you doing more of the same, picking low hanging fruit and playing to the converter which didn't work that time because now you were playing a game you were bad at and others could play that game better.
Honestly I could easily argue that partitioning China hurt you more than it helped, because of the zero sum nature of the game most of the gains were picked up by Germany. China with 250 base IC which is my eyeball estimate pre-partition would've had to come from somewhere, and since China had lots of coal most likely from Germany.
Breaking "Asia" did nothing, they were never strong and never going to be strong due to the unequal nerfs and you just ended up strengthening Germany each and every time.
Yea Yea Yea, hindsight is 20/20 (for all involved). Diplomatic mistakes were made.
Though choices could have been different, for Africans (even I am stuck in the discourse that those two are one: they might also not have been), for Japan&Mongolia (eliminating and dividing up your common enemy and expecting to remain friends?), but it is important to realise that this counts for everyone.
n.b.: There was a still well-positioned Canada as well, that wasn't really played in early V2 which led to the power vacuum in the west.
As far as I can see in AoD, it's not a done deal for either side. What is California doing by the way, eating out of its nose?
Though choices could have been different, for Africans (even I am stuck in the discourse that those two are one: they might also not have been), for Japan&Mongolia (eliminating and dividing up your common enemy and expecting to remain friends?), but it is important to realise that this counts for everyone.
n.b.: There was a still well-positioned Canada as well, that wasn't really played in early V2 which led to the power vacuum in the west.
As far as I can see in AoD, it's not a done deal for either side. What is California doing by the way, eating out of its nose?
I think it would take a fairly effective backstab, or else a really major tactical blunder, for the Atlantic alliance to lose at this point. Of course neither one is completely impossible. And yes, I do realise that people will look at me the moment 'backstab' is mentioned, but while I'm certainly opportunistic, at the moment I have no opportunity. I suppose that by switching sides I could in principle get Indochina, bits of Russia, and whatever I was bribed with, but then what? And none of that would matter a whit to the warmaking capacity of the western allies.
Not really. My whole point is that Kongo did very well, but not well enough in any of the key areas with respect to the Westerners, so "how far Africa fell" was pretty much inevitable.
Breaking Asia was a very good thing I think, since now Golle and Jodokus aren't between hammer and anvil now. I agree that it would have been nice to break Germany or Catalunia instead, but I tried that, and it didn't work. So I went East instead.
And both Irsh and I did alot of reaching out to Russia in V2 - Juan wasn't interested in being pulled into the clashes of titans.
fasquardon
The Roman Khanate does not have mind-control rays, and even if we did we certainly wouldn't use them for such a purpose, and even if we did we would keep the player around but cause him to make immense tactical blunders so we could demonstrate our brilliance.
Had Africa been more closer to Catalunia+germany combination in terms of IC; or that one could count of Germany figthing catalunia at somepoint; a sound strategy for africa under my leadership would have also been to strike east, and strike north and bind one's time to wait the opportunity...But since the situation was what it was (and still is and remains to be after we are done) only slim change we had was to strike west and strike fast and immediately. Since this is end game, one simply has no luxury for choises in the grand game...
Backstabbing is something, thougth highlined in fame always in the forums, but actually happens really rear occasions in the end. Falador was one of those flipflop players that flipflopped, and such could be considered as backstabing, but then in the same breathstake the ones who trusted falador not to do so were damn fools.
Other than that, backstabbing, when it comes down to really intrigue cunningness, its just KoM and Me who could possibly seen capable of such actions, specially with risks involved that it would need for Fivoin, Oddman and Dano. They are just not that sort of players, so I don't expect them to be able to do so, or even to be willing to do so. Also, since the "plan B" the trust level between me and them is once again all-time low, I doupt I would even accept any offer of such from their side, thinking its a trap to counter move mine
That decission should have been made in Eu3... to Vicky and specially now, the two nations are too connected to even function seperately Not to mention the mga-alliance of Catalunia-germany's existence to force them to be allied regardless. Only if I had now the relative power that africa had in eu3...if only...
Sigh..
1) Could be can easily turn into what should be done, but actually making it happen is actually going to need happen. I won't say anythign of the old Romanian case, it was the same as the Polish case in this current war, a change to encircle germans that sounded so 100 % sure in blayne's plannings, and got dwarfed by long battles, that reduces the attacker's org so that it cannot continue the momentum, and allows the enemy to correct the situation with proper use of reinforcements. The romanian case would have needed soil that was not there, wheather that was not going to come, foolishness from enemy that was not going to be expected, and darefull risking of our tanks with complete disregard of org. and its regain, that we simply could not afford to take.
2) Russian Militia has sofar done nothing for the sake of the alliance, all the defenders of Russia are proper units from Africa. The figthings during Plan B propably gave everyone the idea what russian militia could do. Russia has indeed build what it can build more from its IC and MP, but only when looked from narrow russia-first perspective that assumes that Africans will still defend it regardless... where Russian IC should have been used is indeed in the lesser issues, like Air Ports, that Kongo could not build in europe since lack of european provinces (all my own airports are level 10s thank you, why aren't russians?) and build supply, supply and more supply to supply the africans in russia so that the african IC could be maximesed to building tanks and aircrafts.
3) What difference it makes if the defunct, ill-build (unbrigaded german warbooty), understrength BBs get sunk in Defending Oz or that they get sunk in Mozambique coast? In both cases they get sunk, and cannot conduct sea controll. Their presence would have not prevented Spanish landings, since level IV Battleships in this game simply cannot get into range with Modern Carriers.
... had Irsh build level IV carriers in their place, the entire world migth be different now:happy: Building new african navy for even modest Guerre de course needs year or two, and for proper sea denial a four or five.
4) Fivoin could have never crumbstomped Africa untill he has used three or so years with full war-economy to take advantage of his 670 IC... and only then he would have matched us, and to win equal foe, one needs the skill to do so.
where are the man like these when africa needs them most
Last edited:
Several observations, mostly naval.
1. It is lovely to be referred to as 'half of the mega-alliance,' being the party to beat.
2. If we're ranking, I'd rank Dano #3, nothing less.
3. Even if Ethiopia had built carriers, it would have had to combine its carrier fleet with Japan's in order to counter mine. Even after losing a few carriers, I am at more than 15 of them. Given equal technology and admirals (doubtful, since I have pretty awesome admirals), it boils down to who can bring the most to bear. That would have been me. And if Japan and Eth combined (assuming I would fail to play them off against one another at some point), I would combine with GER, who has quite a few of its own.
4. One of the more painful things that can happen is when a surface fleet catches your carriers when they are in the same sea-zone as transports. Transports seriously mess up your positioning and visibility. One of the more embarrassing things that happened to me was when the Russian destroyer fleet sallied from Reykjavik. It caught my invasion fleet, which was trying to dislodge the militia. This invasion fleet consisted of a carrier fleet, providing naval bombardment, and a transport fleet, carrying the marines. The destroyers managed to close, and while the transports escaped, the destroyers sunk the carriers.
Destroyers. Imagine what BBs can do to an invasion fleet. The only way to avoid it is to lock down all the sea zones adjacent to the fight, and that is just a temporary measure: you can 'retreat' into the sea zone containing the trannies from which the invasion is taking place.
So I have to agree with Blayne that the loss of the booty fleet of Oz was pretty bad.
Also, I laughed out loud at Frosty's remark. It is a pity you dropped out, my friend. But bear witness that so far I have not ever crossed the Med.
1. It is lovely to be referred to as 'half of the mega-alliance,' being the party to beat.
2. If we're ranking, I'd rank Dano #3, nothing less.
3. Even if Ethiopia had built carriers, it would have had to combine its carrier fleet with Japan's in order to counter mine. Even after losing a few carriers, I am at more than 15 of them. Given equal technology and admirals (doubtful, since I have pretty awesome admirals), it boils down to who can bring the most to bear. That would have been me. And if Japan and Eth combined (assuming I would fail to play them off against one another at some point), I would combine with GER, who has quite a few of its own.
4. One of the more painful things that can happen is when a surface fleet catches your carriers when they are in the same sea-zone as transports. Transports seriously mess up your positioning and visibility. One of the more embarrassing things that happened to me was when the Russian destroyer fleet sallied from Reykjavik. It caught my invasion fleet, which was trying to dislodge the militia. This invasion fleet consisted of a carrier fleet, providing naval bombardment, and a transport fleet, carrying the marines. The destroyers managed to close, and while the transports escaped, the destroyers sunk the carriers.
Destroyers. Imagine what BBs can do to an invasion fleet. The only way to avoid it is to lock down all the sea zones adjacent to the fight, and that is just a temporary measure: you can 'retreat' into the sea zone containing the trannies from which the invasion is taking place.
So I have to agree with Blayne that the loss of the booty fleet of Oz was pretty bad.
Also, I laughed out loud at Frosty's remark. It is a pity you dropped out, my friend. But bear witness that so far I have not ever crossed the Med.
I dont know... we had 12 or so IV BBs prior to these wars that Irsh had build...without any brigades (sigh) (then they were sacrificed in way that none would sacrifice carriers)... You have 15 carriers, but the point in Hoi (and this) naval warfare is that You need to be on range when you want to inflict damage to the enemy ships, and the one thats spots the enemy fleet first and from range it can engage and the enemy cannot, usually wins, since when the enemy ranges finaly, its usually lost the org and strength to inflict similar sense of damage to the enemy. Against carrier fleets, its still the same, the one who gets to fire first usually wins, specially if he can do so from greater distances than others.
Also, lot comes down from the Naval Techs, and atleast Ethiopian techs are ahead of its time, despite having no ships to guide with them.
What comes to your examples, they are just "bad playing" ... we cannot assume and base our defences thinking that you would conduct badly organised naval support to your landing fleets, even if you would!
But few points:
1. wheather. If it rains and is dark, carriers cannot fire with their greatest range and thus the key to engage enemy carriers with non carriers is to use wheather and nigth as your advantage. Around Iceland, and north atlantic you can assume that its going to be bad wheater more than good wheater, thus one needs to be carefull when he moves whit his carriers.
2. Also, since everything beguns to be indifferent now, I can reveal, that ALWAYS have heavy cruisers or battlecruisers with your carriers... since if you get caugth whit the wheater, and the enemy engages you and gets into range, your heavy cruisers will most likely also... they can decimate anything short of BB's and even against BBs they give figth long enough for you to escape. Ive sofar seen only carriers with ligth cruisers max, usually with destroyers only.
That is what you ALWAYS do when you do strategical landings and move around huge number of troops, You choose the battleground, not the enemy, or otherwise you migth risk everything. As default, you scout the landing zone and adjunct sea zones to find the enemy fleet, then destroy it, and only then move the invasion troops and transport fleets into the region. Your main fleet should not be on the same seazone at all, but elsewhere to keep sure the enemy is not there either.
Or atleast thats how I would have done it, so I naturally assume that everyone else would do it atleast this well, if not even better.
Also, lot comes down from the Naval Techs, and atleast Ethiopian techs are ahead of its time, despite having no ships to guide with them.
What comes to your examples, they are just "bad playing" ... we cannot assume and base our defences thinking that you would conduct badly organised naval support to your landing fleets, even if you would!
But few points:
1. wheather. If it rains and is dark, carriers cannot fire with their greatest range and thus the key to engage enemy carriers with non carriers is to use wheather and nigth as your advantage. Around Iceland, and north atlantic you can assume that its going to be bad wheater more than good wheater, thus one needs to be carefull when he moves whit his carriers.
2. Also, since everything beguns to be indifferent now, I can reveal, that ALWAYS have heavy cruisers or battlecruisers with your carriers... since if you get caugth whit the wheater, and the enemy engages you and gets into range, your heavy cruisers will most likely also... they can decimate anything short of BB's and even against BBs they give figth long enough for you to escape. Ive sofar seen only carriers with ligth cruisers max, usually with destroyers only.
That is what you ALWAYS do when you do strategical landings and move around huge number of troops, You choose the battleground, not the enemy, or otherwise you migth risk everything. As default, you scout the landing zone and adjunct sea zones to find the enemy fleet, then destroy it, and only then move the invasion troops and transport fleets into the region. Your main fleet should not be on the same seazone at all, but elsewhere to keep sure the enemy is not there either.
Or atleast thats how I would have done it, so I naturally assume that everyone else would do it atleast this well, if not even better.
Last edited:
I admit that I must have been smoking crack when I sent carriers to Iceland; that was a pretty stupid thing to do.
Cruisers with carriers: I did not do so on purpose, since they mess up your visibility. Those lean, mean 3 CV / 3 DD fleets have been able to get the drop on the opponent pretty much always.
When doing strategic landings you can't always force an engagement with the enemy fleet on your terms. You can force the landing location, but you can't force the enemy fleet to fight yours before you've started the landings.
And of course you should not stack the invasion fleet and fighting fleet together; extra indication I was high when I tried to invade Iceland. Then again, you do want shore bombardment, so stacking your old BBs with the invasion force is OK.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure I assumed Russia's destroyers would be of no consequence, that I should be able to sink destroyers anyway. The carriers were for shore bombardment.)
Cruisers with carriers: I did not do so on purpose, since they mess up your visibility. Those lean, mean 3 CV / 3 DD fleets have been able to get the drop on the opponent pretty much always.
When doing strategic landings you can't always force an engagement with the enemy fleet on your terms. You can force the landing location, but you can't force the enemy fleet to fight yours before you've started the landings.
And of course you should not stack the invasion fleet and fighting fleet together; extra indication I was high when I tried to invade Iceland. Then again, you do want shore bombardment, so stacking your old BBs with the invasion force is OK.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure I assumed Russia's destroyers would be of no consequence, that I should be able to sink destroyers anyway. The carriers were for shore bombardment.)
Last edited:
I've been enjoying the new CKII expansions, so if there's another round of this clustershagg I might just give it another go. This time, no silk gloves for heretics vassals!
As for the current situation, how does the military balance look on African soil? Have the Europeans landed enough troops to take the industrial homeland?
I've been enjoying the new CKII expansions, so if there's another round of this clustershagg I might just give it another go. This time, no silk gloves for heretics vassals!
Fun! Here's to hoping you will be the vassal this time around
It's ...rather chaotic at the moment. Also, African terrain is horribad, so little armoured spearheading, alas.
well yea, you mess visibility, but you buy surviability with them... specially when your opponents do not have carriers, you actually don't need to keep the suprise, since really really rarely have the enemy managed to engage you.
What comes to the landing, the idea is sea controll... You seek and destroy, or drive away and deny the enemy entrance, BEFORE you even set up the landing party its orders... sending the invasion out to the blue with just "hoping" it wont be interrupted is huge, huge risk... and specially when you do not have to take that risk, one should always seek the enemy first. If the enemy is on the port of the invaded shore, carriers come good purpose with the port strike, (taken you have the actuall engaging carrier fleet seperated, since that mission kills the carriers org)
shouldn't the question be: "does africans have enough there to defend their industrial homeland?" Against unopposed desert, even one division would be enough...
What comes to the landing, the idea is sea controll... You seek and destroy, or drive away and deny the enemy entrance, BEFORE you even set up the landing party its orders... sending the invasion out to the blue with just "hoping" it wont be interrupted is huge, huge risk... and specially when you do not have to take that risk, one should always seek the enemy first. If the enemy is on the port of the invaded shore, carriers come good purpose with the port strike, (taken you have the actuall engaging carrier fleet seperated, since that mission kills the carriers org)
shouldn't the question be: "does africans have enough there to defend their industrial homeland?" Against unopposed desert, even one division would be enough...
I did not expect to be fighting anything other than carriers, so I never bothered to set up long cruiser-serials. So far I have lost hardly any carriers to surface forces, too.
Agreed on all points. Sadly, though, you can't always find the enemy
.Time will tell, eh?
This is very true. It is not easy to get the combination of circumstances so that you can do a war-winning amount of damage by changing sides, and at the same time not have to worry about future consequences. Sure, if you have, say, a two-vs-two war, and someone switches sides to make it three-vs-one, they can probably win. But now they don't have an ally, there's a solid two-people alliance that just won a war and might want to expand on their gains (and perhaps get some bribes back!) and there's this other nation who is now pissed at you and might want to consider a three-vs-one gangbang just to get their own back. The immense Yngling backstabs of the Great Game relied pretty strongly on China proper being ungarrisoned because Blayne had sent all his troops to Europe, plus of course that we were in the endgame. And even so it didn't work out too well in the end.
And for precisely that reason, nobody trusts us.
That aside, at this point I'm really not in a position to backstab anyone, because there's nothing I can invade that would win the war or even appreciably affect the peace treaty. Indeed. The Khanate is way overstretched. 1vs1 I can handle Punjab, perhaps Punjab+Russia in Russia's current weakened state. What the Roman state chiefly needs at this point is thirty years of peace in which its economic policies can mobilise the Asian people into an industrial miracle. Then we might discuss who is top dog. But of course, by then everyone will have large nuclear arsenals. What Rome is getting, on the other hand, is a grinding attritional campaign through the Romanoi Kush, the aptly-named "Killer of Romans".