This and this and so much this. The game runs so much more beautifully in MP
Remodeling Sealion
- Thread starter Faradaux
- 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.
Correct me if I am wrong or outdated, but I believe that supply convoys don´t actually exist (as in replacement equipment convoys), as far as I remember, the replacement equipment is not transported and cannot be interdicted, as it appears to teleport from port to port. What can be interdicted is trade convoys importing resources and convoys transporting actual divisions. This has created situations in which players are landing paratroopers or marines/infantry divisions, taking a port and then changing templates to armor, for which the necessary equipment is never intercepted. This obviously avoids the risk of actually transporting the expensive armored divisions through the English Channel with the Royal Navy waiting to obliterate them. Most MP games I have participated in have rules against this for obvious reasons.
Actually, the USSR had clear intentions to invade Germany eventually, it only got preempted by Germany (if I remember correctly, the Soviets were targeting an invasion for 1942- 1943. I can recommend a very good book that partially covers this called "Stalin´s folly" by Constantin Pleshakov.
Depends on the size of the navy I'd say.
"Meaningful Supplies" for a game with divisional sized units would be hundreds of tonnes every day just to keep a division or two in combat.
If the sea-zone is not completely contested (as in you "own" the port and surrounding terrain) or just heavily contested by air then I'd say that some successful supply would get through at night for example (see Tokyo Express).
Supplies and transports shouldn't pass through areas that have enemy naval superiority (to a certain percentage). It could be a combination of naval intel and superiority required to get stuff through. That would fix a LOT of issues.
There should be a naval option to blockade ports in a sea-zone.
Depending on the strength of the assigned fleet there should be at least a signifigant reduction of supllies.
Depending on the strength of the assigned fleet there should be at least a signifigant reduction of supllies.
So you read one book and decide that army which pwned all europe was too weak for invasion in UK? Wehrmacht was strongest army in the world in 1940. The reason why Hitler did not do that was that he decide to do Barbarossa. He thought that if USSR will fall so fast as it was designed in war plans, UK will capitulate aswell and USA will not join to war.
Yes, the naval ai is abysmal at preventing landings. Yes, it is far more difficult vs a human. You actually have to pay attention to the air war to force a Sealion. The naval system is iirc a 1.5 issue.
Yes, the supply system across water makes it far too easy to maintain supply. Probably a compromise to prevent even worse ai suicide by naval transport. Increase the detection and interception rate of convoys and watch how fast the Axis dies. Maybe 1.4 will fix this issue.
Hypothetically speaking, Sealion was a huge gamble. But what if the BEF didn't escape? What if the Germans were sitting on 400k UK prisoners and the UK was looking at literally no army or Allies other than the Dominions? It was bad enough that they had almost no artillery, tanks or AT after Dunkirk. Would Churchill have survived that debacle, or would a more maleable coalition rose to power in Parliament?
Maybe all it would have taken was a toehold and a blow for honor's sake to allow a political settlement. One of those endlessly debatable what ifs that is impossible to know for sure.
Add Aluminum in Asia
Yes, the supply system across water makes it far too easy to maintain supply. Probably a compromise to prevent even worse ai suicide by naval transport. Increase the detection and interception rate of convoys and watch how fast the Axis dies. Maybe 1.4 will fix this issue.
Hypothetically speaking, Sealion was a huge gamble. But what if the BEF didn't escape? What if the Germans were sitting on 400k UK prisoners and the UK was looking at literally no army or Allies other than the Dominions? It was bad enough that they had almost no artillery, tanks or AT after Dunkirk. Would Churchill have survived that debacle, or would a more maleable coalition rose to power in Parliament?
Maybe all it would have taken was a toehold and a blow for honor's sake to allow a political settlement. One of those endlessly debatable what ifs that is impossible to know for sure.
Add Aluminum in Asia
The Army was not to weak, but the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine had no chance to clear the channel for the Army. Second reason, germany didn´t had the naval capacity to transport 30 or 40 Divisions over the channel and supply them after the landing.
Most of the barges they were going to use to cross the channel would have been sunk by the wash of a destroyer sailing near them.
Yes if the German got ashore in force and were kept supplied and reinforced then they may possibly have taken the uk out of the war but in reality there was no chance of that
Von Manstein for one sets forth a cogent argument that Sea Lion was in fact feasible. I do not see any sources concerning any of the contentions people are setting forth that it was a veritable impossibility.
Last edited:
Well, there you go, you said it yourself. In 1940 Germany might have had the strongest army in Europe, but unless they can march through the bottom of the English Channel that army is as good as an army of poop throwing monkeys to end the war with the UK.
And if you are talking about the possibility of UK making peace with Germany, this was not so far from reality as the events of the May 1940 Cabinet Crisis in the UK suggest. So yes, Reading, it is OP!
Yes, there should be a White Peace event with the UK and this should launch depending on how many divisions the UK AI has left, and whether if Britain chooses Halifax or Churchill as their new prime minister.
Yes, it is realistic to cut off a port that is within range of enemy sea and air cover, even during night-time. Malta was an example of this; supply was achieved only sporadically via "Operation Magic Carpet" (deliveries by submarine) and occasional heavily escorted convoys that engaged in what amounted to a sea battle in the central mediterranean to get supplies through. Even warships - both very considerably faster and more able to evade or fight off pursuit - leaving Germany had to either go up the Norwegian coast and through the Icelandic gap, or make the "Channel Dash", and this was not even from ports that could not be defended/covered by friendly forces.
On the point that "only 3% of shipping was sunk" - the aim is not to sink shipping. The aim is to stop deliveries. This is like the contention that "you can't kill all the enemy soldiers". You don't need to kill all the enemy soldiers - the only thing you actually need to destroy is their will to fight. Killing them is merely very effective as a way to do this. It is incredibly rare for more than 20% of soldiers to be casualties in any battle. That's not dead - it includes all casualties. But still the battle is won. Same with convoys; you don't need to sink the all ships - just dissuade them from completing their journey.
Often, actually, with convoy warfare, the gains of victory are not the 5-6 ships you have sunk in this convoy; it's that fact that the next convoy is delayed in its sailing.
If you're going to make Sealion more realistic (i.e. much more difficult), you also need to address the Battle of the Atlantic. You need to have a proper system of blockading that can cripple a country. U-boats for example are incredibly difficult to use to achieve this at the moment, despite them being in real life probably the best way for Germany to force the UK to actually surrender.
(I also really agree with all the points made so far in this thread about the ability of superior naval forces to blockade ports and stop military (and other) supplies.)
The destruction of convoys/interdiction of trade for war production can be an annoyance, but it is not enough to really force a country to surrender. It needs something else added on top of it.
I really think there should be a 'food' resource somehow introduced to the game, and starvation/revolt/manpower problem events to go alongside it. This makes sense on a number of levels 1.) historically, some war aims were based on acquiring food as a resource (e.g. farmland in Ukraine), 2.) We already have an attrition system which affects combat unit organization, and part of this is the implied representation of food running out (as well as ammunition and other supplies)
(I also really agree with all the points made so far in this thread about the ability of superior naval forces to blockade ports and stop military (and other) supplies.)
The destruction of convoys/interdiction of trade for war production can be an annoyance, but it is not enough to really force a country to surrender. It needs something else added on top of it.
I really think there should be a 'food' resource somehow introduced to the game, and starvation/revolt/manpower problem events to go alongside it. This makes sense on a number of levels 1.) historically, some war aims were based on acquiring food as a resource (e.g. farmland in Ukraine), 2.) We already have an attrition system which affects combat unit organization, and part of this is the implied representation of food running out (as well as ammunition and other supplies)
Last edited:
This massively. Being able to effectively cut supply via naval superiority would be such a massive game changer in terms of the necessity to focus on navy.
How many books have you read on the topic? Doesn't sound like very many.
I think an effective way of implementing this would be to have a large national unity penalty for all Sea Zones surrounding your homeland having enemy naval superiority.
You know what had no chance of success whatsoever? Attacking USSR, but they did it anyway
Actually the opposite is more likely. Alot of things went wrong in reality: delayed start, wrong war goals (Moscow third), no-retreat policy, bad weather and harsh winter etc.
By far the hardest in any case should be in descending order:
- invasion of North America
- SeaLion - invasion of UK
- Barbarossa - invasion of SU
- Naval AI and mechanism
- Ressource and production mechanism
- Land AI and warfare as well as production limitations
- Lack of historic modelling
HOI3 with HPP mod actually made more sense in this regard, but still lacked in historic plausibility. Major showstopper for Germany were:
- The London naval treaties (up to 1938)
- Lack of funding for a huge surface fleet
- Failed decision by esspecially Raeder aiming for a huge standard surface fleet (BBs).
Bottom line: Germany would have to build up its navy at least until 1943, more likely 1945 to be able to contest the RN.
Considering the Allies had half the French fleet, the full RN and several other fleets at its disposal,... such a battle woudl have still went most likely in favor of the UK or left a successfull German navy crippled for the US to mop them up.
There is no way a German fleet woudl have made such a difference before 1945 like in most common SP games.
1. Its the Kriegsmarine only (your first point). Luftwaffe at end of 1940 could bring on the RAF. Drop the losses over England from reality and consider those used durign an invasion.
2. They actually had the naval capacity for a Sealion for transport. Sealion was discarded since they were not able to cover an invasion by sea witht he Kriegsmarine.
In every case it was the Kriegsmarine unable to fullfill the needs such an invasion brings. More so due to additional French ships.