Naval landings

[Ragatokk]

I think requireing naval landings to have naval supperiority is a rather bad mechanic.
It should rather be when you don't there is a rather large chance your convoys will be spoted and shot down...

 

[Denkt]

No it is good that you need naval superiority as it stop alot of crazy stuff.

 

[Ragatokk]

Allot of crazy stuff happened during the war, this just makes it un-realistic.

 

[Denkt]

But who would be so crazy to order a large naval invasion without controlling the seas.

 

[Ragatokk]

Germany did, they invaded denmark and norway...

 

[LordOfWar16]

Germany did, they invaded denmark and norway...

the great naval invasion of denmark. Everyone knows about it. And the mighty norwegian navy making the british royal navy looking like a toy colleciton.

 

[Sweed Raver]

Germany did, they invaded denmark and norway...

I think this could be easily modeled using the width of the straits. The Channel was purposely made more than one province thick, and I think that is to be able to utilize the following rules:

1. If you control a land area bordering the sea province, you will be able to perform a naval invasion in any other land province bordering the same sea province.
2. If you control a port, you can do a naval invasion in any province as long as you have naval supremacy along the path.

These two are combined with a logical OR statement. Skagerrak is only one province wide, same with Lille-/Storebælt and Öresund. Furthermore, there was even a bridge crossing Lillebælt since 1935.

Edit: As you can see in the picture at Wikipedia, the narrow width of the strait does not allow for a large navy to operate, thus making access between the island and the peninsula pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Mannstien]

I don't see anyone pulling off a Torch operation unless the US and UK move a lot of there fleets into the sea zones the transports will pass through one of the other reasons I'd like to attach a fleet to an invasion force besides not wanting my troop ships to be sunk when I'm transferring them from say Britain to the India. I understand why it's required for now but if I attach a large enough Escort fleet to a troop transport convoy this should theoretically provide me with temporary superiority as it passes through each zone.

 

[MANkoto]

I think requireing naval landings to have naval supperiority is a rather bad mechanic.
It should rather be when you don't there is a rather large chance your convoys will be spoted and shot down...

Honestly, I'm with you. When Germany invaded Norway, they sure didn't have dominance over the north sea. Unless anybody wants to say the Kriegsmarine had the RN cowering in their ports.

 

[Mannstien]

Honestly, I'm with you. When Germany invaded Norway, they sure didn't have dominance over the north sea. Unless anybody wants to say the Kriegsmarine had the RN cowering in their ports.

I am thinking that possibly the German National Focus for Weserübung in the tree maybe adds some sort of temporary bonus to boost the ability for the transports to get to Norway undetected or how much Navel supremacy is required. Just a guess.

 

[Sweed Raver]

I don't see anyone pulling off a Torch operation unless the US and UK move a lot of there fleets into the sea zones the transports will pass through one of the other reasons I'd like to attach a fleet to an invasion force besides not wanting my troop ships to be sunk when I'm transferring them from say Britain to the India. I understand why it's required for now but if I attach a large enough Escort fleet to a troop transport convoy this should theoretically provide me with temporary superiority as it passes through each zone.

Additionally, the current system does not account for supply along the way to the enemy shores. If you were to bring hundreds of escorts, then they would either have to spread out in order to allow resupply along the way, or go in a grouped formation in order to defend the transports. It's not as if they're growing cattle and producing artillery ammunition aboard those ships, and thus, no prolonged naval warfare would be in your favor.

Honestly, I'm with you. When Germany invaded Norway, they sure didn't have dominance over the north sea. Unless anybody wants to say the Kriegsmarine had the RN cowering in their ports.

I think the main reason the war against Norway went so well was because of the United Kingdom being unprepared, and thus not having its navy located in the area to intercept German transports. While the belts are more narrow than the Thames, Skagerrak and the Channel are pretty similar in size. Yet I don't see you being able to cross over to Dover from Calais.

This is tied to a more serious problem with Hearts of Iron, and that is that the diplomatic DOW against Denmark happened after troops had already crossed the border. The German ambassador told the Danish foreign minister that the German troops had moved in on Jutland in order to (paraphrasing) "protect against a British intervention". The DOW mechanic in Hearts of Iron kind of removes the element of surprise, and thus one of the strengths of being an aggressor.

 

[Secret Master]

Honestly, I'm with you. When Germany invaded Norway, they sure didn't have dominance over the north sea. Unless anybody wants to say the Kriegsmarine had the RN cowering in their ports.

If the RN is not actively patrolling and controlling the sea around Norway, then the threshold for naval supremacy is pretty low.

The British were preparing to get more assets in the area, but Germany beat them to the punch.

 

[CharlieFox]

I think having naval landings require naval superiority in the area is good for gameplay. First it prevents players from sneaking a panzer army into England while the British Navy is busy elsewhere (for instance attacking your surface fleet that you are sacrificing as bait). With this mechanic you will need to actually beat the Royal Navy to invade England or at the very least keep them away from the channel a significant time.

Second, it protects the AI/new players from launching suicide invasions. In my last Hoi III game as UK, Italy tried several times to take Malta with unescorted transports which was not a very good strategy when you consider I had the British Mediterranean based in the island. Think of the naval superiority mechanic as Italian high command saying "I am sorry Duce we are not going to launch a suicide invasion of Malta with the whole mediterranean fleet active in the area, go home you are drunk"

 

[Sic Domine]

the Naval LANDING part is not the problem. The part is supplying the units afterwards. As a wargame between German and British officers after the war has shown, the Germans would've had no problem landing on the island, they would just sooner or later run out of supplies. And until then they are working against the clock.

 

[gamedude]

Germany did, they invaded denmark and norway...

Now here is something to think about, while Britain had one of the biggest navy in the world they also had one of the biggest are to patrol/defend. Their navy weren't concentrated compared to Germany which had most of their navy close to port(except U-boats).

Here is something else, would you place your best battleships far from home (as Britain) in the baltic sea/north sea close to enemy Naval bombers or even Germany surface raiders.

 

[ringhloth]

There were a lot of gamey things you could do in HoI3 because it was so easy to do naval landings. Navies were often superfluous because you could pretty easily beat the UK or Japan without anything but transports. Air transports if you're feeling timid.

 

[R1ob7]

Yea it prevents crazy things from happening like the US from sending over troops to invade Japan without taking any territory in the pacific oh wait... but yea the Germans did have that kind of naval superiority when they invaded Norwsy because the Royal Navy wasn't there if they were they would of stoped it. When they say naval superiority they don't mean over thier fleet they mean assests in the area no assests it means you can invade.

 

[Gort11]

Yeah, I think we do need to be careful when calling to make navies less important than they were in previous games. In Darkest Hour it's perfectly good strategy to drop a single paratrooper division on an unguarded province and then rush thirty unguarded transports across. It's not without risk, but I think it's more strategically interesting to have to worry about building a proper navy if you want to do large naval invasions.