Naval Invasions/blockades/supply better be fixed in HOI IV

[unmerged(46476)]

Everybody knows that invading the UK as Germany in HOI 3 is laughably easy. This is a result of how HOI 3 fails to accurately reflect how supply works in naval invasions.

HOI 3 fails to reflect the fact that (assuming one could land an invasion force on the UK in the first place) the army would have to rely 100% on local naval superiority in order for supply ships to roll in and keep the invasion force fueled, armed, and ready to fight. Of course air supply drops could constitute a portion of that resupply need, but again, such would rely upon air superiority (which they didn't have). Furthermore, their lack of air superiority all but guaranteed that their local naval superiority would be insufficient due to the effectiveness of dive bombers against ships.

Remember how the allies built a floating "Mulberry port" within days of their landing at Normandy that could service a massive influx of troops, supplies, and armor? If Germany had air or naval superiority at that point, that port would have been blown out of the water quicker than you could say Dunkirk, and you could kiss that invasion goodbye.

To point out the very specific game engine flaw that causes this problem in HOI 3, it's this: HOI 3 doesn't model the potential effectiveness of a "hard" blockade. If the German Kriegsmarine had been more powerful than the combined US/British navies, then moving to Omaha beach (and subsequently Cherbourg) to blow up the Mulberry ports and snipe every incoming supply ship would have been completely trivial. Instead, you could stat a MASSIVE navy in a coastal province and, at best, you would only sink a handful of supply ships and fail to adequately affect their supply. Now, you could blow up the port in HOI 3 (which works, although I don't know if the AI was ever programmed to do this), so that's good. But the reality is the transports would never make it to the port unharmed, REGARDLESS of how intact the port itself was.

IMO, coastal provinces (or at least ones with ports) should have their own separate mini "port" province that you could move your navy and airforce into which would effectuate a massively higher blockade effectiveness. If I'm t he Royal Navy and Germany lands in Portsmouth, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be able to literally sit my ships 300 feet off of the docks and blow away anything that games within 16 miles of that place. That was the reality of the situation, and it's (one of) the reasons why Germany never attempted an invasion. I hope that's modeled in HOI IV.

tl,dr; Naval invasions should be nearly impossible without naval/air supremacy for either air supply or naval supply.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm hoping for a convoy rework which will make interdicting supplies easier. The AI does try to stop invasions, but it's too easy to reinforce and re supply armies during invasions.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Actually during the battle of Dunkirk, and even immediately after Dunkirk and the surrender of France, there were plans to airborne invade, capture coastal ports/airfields and invade Britain. This operation actually had a very high success chance looking back in history on this moment. Britain's Army was nearly weaponless after abandoning all of its artillery, anti tank, tanks, and even rifles on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Its not very well documented: but try to find information about Luftwaffe General Student
http://www.historytoday.com/patrick-wilson/dunkirk-victory-or-defeat

Basically the only reason this plan never launched was because of Hitler's admiration of Great Britain and him wanting to emulate Great Britain empire in Europe.

In HOI2 and HOI3 you can actually successfully launch this attack as well if you are prepared to do it, It's not easy but you do manage to capture/destroy most of Britain's army in the French war.

Great Britain also took some very heavy naval losses at Dunkirk. Britain's navy was more concerned about Mediterranean and Asian assets at this time, thinking the army could defend France.

 

[Barvinok]

Carriers should be more open to fire, while they are in an invasion area, too. They can't run away without exposing the other ships to the reaction fleet. I think that the entire invading fleet should get a penalty in performance if attacked during an invasion.

 

[unmerged(46476)]

Carriers should be more open to fire, while they are in an invasion area, too. They can't run away without exposing the other ships to the reaction fleet. I think that the entire invading fleet should get a penalty in performance if attacked during an invasion.

Agreed. If I remember correctly there was a Pacific Island battle where the marines were left on the island without supplies/reinforcement for several days because the fleet that was protecting the landing area had to move into open water to protect itself against an incoming Japanese fleet.

I think that if a naval force wants to maintain its "hard blockade" by sticking close to landing area, they should be penalized for the fact that they have limited their movement capabilities significantly.

 

[FOARP]

Making convoys a visible, on-map unit would go a long way towards acheiving this. Yes, it is ridiculous that you can, for example, invade Japan playing as Nationalist China with no more than a few transports if you're quick enough, evne in TFH. Sneak invasions should not be able to supply themselves in places where they lack air/sea superiority - the supply convoys should get blown straight out of the water.

 

[Mannstien]

Agreed. If I remember correctly there was a Pacific Island battle where the marines were left on the island without supplies/reinforcement for several days because the fleet that was protecting the landing area had to move into open water to protect itself against an incoming Japanese fleet.

I think that if a naval force wants to maintain its "hard blockade" by sticking close to landing area, they should be penalized for the fact that they have limited their movement capabilities significantly.

Guadalcanal, this was done due to the loss of quite a few escort ships of the US Navy after the battle off Savo island.

 

[Timotheus1]

Making convoys a visible, on-map unit would go a long way towards acheiving this. Yes, it is ridiculous that you can, for example, invade Japan playing as Nationalist China with no more than a few transports if you're quick enough, evne in TFH. Sneak invasions should not be able to supply themselves in places where they lack air/sea superiority - the supply convoys should get blown straight out of the water.

A thousand times this.

Also, think of the actual convoy battles you could micromanage as either the Axis or Allies! A whole new game opens up (if the AI is won't be as dumb-dumb as it is in HOI3, that is).

 

[Cybvep]

Making convoys a visible, on-map unit would go a long way towards acheiving this.

I'm not sure about it. Sounds like a great way of adding more micro and reducing the game's performance. You have some convoy lines, what's needed is a realistic way of blocking/reducing convoy traffic and of course, cargo should be lost when convoys are sunk (I heard that technically that's the case in HOI3, but the effect is so ridiculously small that it's totally insignificant). Don't know why you need convoys as on-map units.

 

[FOARP]

Don't know why you need convoys as on-map units.

1) You can see them, and if you can see them, you can destroy them.

2) Otherwise convoys are simply abstracted as being spread out all along the convoy route, meaning that at any one time the maximum number of convoy ships in any sea province is only a tiny fraction of the total number of ships working the route, so you have to spend a long time to destroy all of them. Conversely if they were all concentrated in a single province along the route, then you could destroy the majority of them in a single battle.

 

[unmerged(46476)]

Guadalcanal, this was done due to the loss of quite a few escort ships of the US Navy after the battle off Savo island.

Right, thank you.

But yeah, I'm glad that at least everybody can agree as a starting point that this is a major problem that needs to be fixed.

Either make convoys on-map units or introduce a "hard blockade" that can be implemented - either way the problem would be solved.

Also, related question: 1) how many days could an army last without supplies IRL? I'm talking completely, 100% out of supplies. Would the army simply starve to death/surrender within a week or two? In other words, were WW2 armies capable of foraging (or overrunning another army and taking their supplies) effectively?

question 2) is this the time frame that's measured in HOI3?

The two should completely match up for HOI4. If someone muffs up an invasion and fails to supply a landed army, that army should die (or surrender) exactly as swiftly as it would have in real life. I haven't played HOI3 in a while, but if I remember correctly it feels like armies last longer without supplies than it feels like they should.

 

[Thanik]

The two should completely match up for HOI4. If someone muffs up an invasion and fails to supply a landed army, that army should die (or surrender) exactly as swiftly as it would have in real life. I haven't played HOI3 in a while, but if I remember correctly it feels like armies last longer without supplies than it feels like they should.

I think 30 days is too much too.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Actually during the battle of Dunkirk, and even immediately after Dunkirk and the surrender of France, there were plans to airborne invade, capture coastal ports/airfields and invade Britain. This operation actually had a very high success chance looking back in history on this moment. Britain's Army was nearly weaponless after abandoning all of its artillery, anti tank, tanks, and even rifles on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Not to turn this into a history debate - but there's very little chance 4,000 paratroopers could have successfully invaded Britain and then forced it to surrender. Especially not considering the German Navy had at its immediate disposal in June 1940: 1 CA, 2 CL and 4 DD - hardly a challenge to the Royal Navy regardless of how many ships it has, or plans to have, occupied elsewhere (and anyway, most of its ships were in ports of the British Isles so I don't get that point).

I completely agree with the OP:

tl,dr; Naval invasions should be nearly impossible without naval/air supremacy for either air supply or naval supply.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Not to turn this into a history debate - but there's very little chance 4,000 paratroopers could have successfully invaded Britain and then forced it to surrender. Especially not considering the German Navy had at its immediate disposal in June 1940: 1 CA, 2 CL and 4 DD - hardly a challenge to the Royal Navy regardless of how many ships it has, or plans to have, occupied elsewhere (and anyway, most of its ships were in ports of the British Isles so I don't get that point).

The point isn't that only 4000 paratroopers would land. If you seize 1 airfield you can immediately bring in more troops.

The main point is that Britain effectively had no army during this time immediately during Dunkirk and a few months after it. They left the equivalent of Armor + artillery + other equipment on Dunkirk to field 12 entire divisions of men, nearly there entire standing army at the time! Almost every soldier boarding a ship at Dunkirk was not taking his weapons or gear with him, to make as much room on the boat as possible.

Lets just say theoretically, we dropped Germany's entire paratrooper division on the Britain coast at the port where the men from dunkirk were disembarking. They capture the radar, the coastal naval guns, AA, as well as the nearly airfield(s). Britain doesn't have much armor, artillery, or other equipment to fight them with, it becomes a pure infantry campaign. You only need to bring massive amounts of supplies like they did with D-day, if your planning on fighting a several million man army, with a several million man army. This wouldn't have been a campaign like that, as Britain only had 870,000 at the beginning of WWII, with that number dwindling to about 700,000 by the time Dunkirk was finished, of which nearly 500,000 of them didn't have any equipment, armor, or weapons on them after being evacuated from Dunkirk and other French ports.

You wouldn't need the 4000 paratroopers to capture everything, even just attacking the port the men from dunkirk were landing at, capturing the naval coastal guns and turning them on the british ships would have created massive losses for the British.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I don't get what you're saying - are you implying Germany could have transport significant amount of land units via the air? At the time, and even in the later years, that was not possible for Germany. On top of that, it could not have sent in heavy equipment via the air, that would have to come via sea - this being the English Channel in which the Royal Navy has navy superiority if not supremacy.

 

[keynes2.0]

.

You don't just send divisions through the air without a plan and then figure it out when you land, especially without any specialized equipment and training. Look at how difficult it is for the US air force to put divisions into advanced positions in the present day on short notice. Look at all the elite training and special equipment involved.

Or look at the invasion of Crete by the germans. It was defended by a handful of disorganized men without much equipment yet the german aerial invasion of that was a damn close thing.

If the germans wanted an invasion that was more then an elaborate surrender force they would have needed weeks of preperation and months of building new equipment, during which any imagined opportunity would have vanished.

 

[jrimdzius]

Another solution would be to have a mission for ships: "blockade land province". Basically, this means that your ships aren't just spread throughout the sea zone, but actually blockading the ports / makeshift ports in the targeted province. And very little would get through with any decent-sized naval force.

 

[Alex_brunius]

To point out the very specific game engine flaw that causes this problem in HOI 3, it's this: HOI 3 doesn't model the potential effectiveness of a "hard" blockade.

There is good reason HoI3 doesn't model this, and like so many times before it is called the AI.

If a "hard" blockade can effectively sink every single convoy going towards a port the player in HoI3 would just be able to put a surface fleet outside an remote UK island/port (say hong kong) and wait until all their convoys are gone. Each and every single one of them rushing suicidally towards that port, that is how the AI convoys work in HoI3 right now.

So in order for "hard" blockades to work you need an AI that:
1.) Understands when this is occuring and stops sending convoys
2.) Understand when the blockade has moved away and it is safe to restart sending convoys
3.) Can react to this in an appropriate manner by sending appropriate air and naval assets to deal with the blockade
4.) Sends the reinforcements in an unpredictable way so that this mechanic can't be abused by the player to lure out the AI units.

Now download the HoI3 release demo and take a short look at how close the AI is to achieving any of those things
Not even after 3 years of development and several expansions can it really handle any of them ( except in some but far from all cases number 3 ).


There are also good reason "blockades" of this kind was not so common in reality. Putting a big fleet right outside an enemy port to blockade it is like putting a big fat HERE I AM COME AND SINK ME sign on your most valuable assets. Within hours the airplanes would start to arrive, within a day the nearby submarines, all of them shooting at pretty much stationary targets or at least targets that can reliably be found very quickly. Within a week maximum the enemy fleet would have prepared for a decisive battle sending whatever is left of the now battle weary blockading fleet to the bottom of the sea.
Adding to that there is also the danger of mines, nightly raids by Torpedo boats, divers and coastal guns put there to defend the port.

The potential gain ( a few enemy transport ships before they figure out what you are up to ), was in no way worth the risk of a fleet of high value ships that would take years to replace if possible at all during the war.

In reality it was only really done by the US late in the war when they had a crushing 10:1 superiority over the Japanese that attempted something like this. And even then generally only prior to a major invasion when they would have to risk the fleet anyways.

The Guadalcanal campaign can to some extent be called a "blockade" by USA, but even in this case they controlled both port and airfield themself, so they were in a good position to prevent Japanese reinforcements without much threat from Japanese landbased air. It was still generally accepted as the most fierce naval attrition campaign in the entire war with major ship losses on both sides.

 

[FOARP]

There is good reason HoI3 doesn't model this, and like so many times before it is called the AI.

If a "hard" blockade can effectively sink every single convoy going towards a port the player in HoI3 would just be able to put a surface fleet outside an remote UK island/port (say hong kong) and wait until all their convoys are gone. Each and every single one of them rushing suicidally towards that port, that is how the AI convoys work in HoI3 right now.

So in order for "hard" blockades to work you need an AI that:
1.) Understands when this is occuring and stops sending convoys
2.) Understand when the blockade has moved away and it is safe to restart sending convoys
3.) Can react to this in an appropriate manner by sending appropriate air and naval assets to deal with the blockade

Now download the HoI3 release demo and take a short look at how close the AI is to achieving any of those things
Not even after 3 years of development and several expansions can it really handle any of them ( except in some but far from all cases number 3 ).


There are also good reason "blockades" of this kind was not so common in reality. Putting a big fleet right outside an enemy port to blockade it is like putting a big fat HERE I AM COME AND SINK ME sign on your most valuable assets. Within hours the airplanes would start to arrive, without days the submarines, all of them shooting at pretty much stationary targets. Within weeks the enemy fleet would have prepared for a decisive battle sending whatever is left of the now battle weary blockading fleet to the bottom of the sea.
Adding to that there is also the danger of mines, nightly raids by Torpedo boats, divers and coastal guns put there to defend the port.

In reality it was only really does by the US late in the war when they had a crushing 10:1 superiority over the Japanese that attempted something like this. And even then generally only prior to a major invasion when they would have to risk the fleet anyways.

The Guadalcanal campaign can to some extent be called a "blockade" by USA, but even in this case they controlled both port and airfield themself, so they were in a good position to prevent Japanese reinforcements without much threat from Japanese landbased air.

You're forgetting the (mostly British) blockade of Tunisia in the closing stage of the North African campaign, which was total.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

You don't just send divisions through the air without a plan and then figure it out when you land, especially without any specialized equipment and training. Look at how difficult it is for the US air force to put divisions into advanced positions in the present day on short notice. Look at all the elite training and special equipment involved.

Or look at the invasion of Crete by the germans. It was defended by a handful of disorganized men without much equipment yet the german aerial invasion of that was a damn close thing.

If the germans wanted an invasion that was more then an elaborate surrender force they would have needed weeks of preperation and months of building new equipment, during which any imagined opportunity would have vanished.

The germans already had an elite force of paratroopers, and they had already used them to conquer Norway and parts of Belguim at the beginning of the war.

2nd. You CANNOT use Crete as an "example" of how hard it can be to "parachute" troops in and capture targets. The german paratroopers were "slaughtered" by disorganized men because ENIGMA had been broken. Those "disorganized" men had the exact landing points and targets of the partroopers already known to them... that is hardly disorganized.