I wish I understood better how the AI prioritises; or perhaps I don't but just want it improved. I see Axis and Allied convoys sailing past each other round the Iberian peninsula, Crazy. Is this a failure of the AI to prioritise from of its options, to do a cost v benefits analysis. For Italy it might be cool to add East and South Africa to its empire, but for Italy its priority is surely to a) defend Italy, b) expand its control of the Mediterranean, c) contribute to Axis fronts in Eastern or Western Europe. Only after these would expansion south into Africa or sending troops to the far east feature among Italy's priorities. The costs of sending any forces to Ethiopia / Eritrea / Somalia from Italy / Libya unless Egypt and Sudan are under Italian control should remove that as a choice.
Naval invasions would not be undertaken unless they have a good chance of success. What capacity does the invader have to move troops, land them and support them once ashore. At present the Allies will make repeated attempts, most doomed to failure. Historically most landings were successful. Dieppe an exception to success was more a raid in force, from which lessons were learned. The Japanese developed purpose designed landing craft I think before anyone else and similar craft were developed by the British and Americans. At Gallipoli in WW1 the British had landing ships, which are rather different and 'whale' boats.
Unless landing into friendly and undisputed territory (e.g. British landings in Norway) then landings at Level 1 should be rare and risky (e.g. German forces attempting to land in Crete in impressed caiques, landings from WW1 type landing vessels as at Gallipoli, the adapted barges that the Germans were assembling ready for an invasion of England in 1940).
The British didn't attempt landings until the US had entered the war. Perhaps the British might attempt some small enterprise requiring limited resources, for example the liberation of Rhodes, but no landings on the continent of Europe without the US. I've posted elsewhere suggestions about level 2 and 3; numbers of divisions and supply.
I've done Seelowe once and was surprised at how easy it was once I got forces ashore. Of course supply wasn't an issue, no being cut off from supplies of ammunition by the Royal Navy reclaiming the channel. The other thing was the naval fight, which would IRL have lasted hours, but dragged on for days, weeks. Land battles in WW2 can last days, weeks, as can air campaigns. Sea battle however would last hours, perhaps a day or so. And interdicted invasion fleets would either press on unaffected, or more probably return to port.
What's the first rule of a naval invasion ?
SURPRISE !
Naval invasions would not be undertaken unless they have a good chance of success. What capacity does the invader have to move troops, land them and support them once ashore. At present the Allies will make repeated attempts, most doomed to failure. Historically most landings were successful. Dieppe an exception to success was more a raid in force, from which lessons were learned. The Japanese developed purpose designed landing craft I think before anyone else and similar craft were developed by the British and Americans. At Gallipoli in WW1 the British had landing ships, which are rather different and 'whale' boats.
Unless landing into friendly and undisputed territory (e.g. British landings in Norway) then landings at Level 1 should be rare and risky (e.g. German forces attempting to land in Crete in impressed caiques, landings from WW1 type landing vessels as at Gallipoli, the adapted barges that the Germans were assembling ready for an invasion of England in 1940).
The British didn't attempt landings until the US had entered the war. Perhaps the British might attempt some small enterprise requiring limited resources, for example the liberation of Rhodes, but no landings on the continent of Europe without the US. I've posted elsewhere suggestions about level 2 and 3; numbers of divisions and supply.
I've done Seelowe once and was surprised at how easy it was once I got forces ashore. Of course supply wasn't an issue, no being cut off from supplies of ammunition by the Royal Navy reclaiming the channel. The other thing was the naval fight, which would IRL have lasted hours, but dragged on for days, weeks. Land battles in WW2 can last days, weeks, as can air campaigns. Sea battle however would last hours, perhaps a day or so. And interdicted invasion fleets would either press on unaffected, or more probably return to port.
What's the first rule of a naval invasion ?
SURPRISE !
