Should an invasion of the US be very difficult to outright impossible in HOI4?

[Mav12]

If one looks at the geographic position of the United States, the nation spans an entire continent, its only land borders leading to hostile desert or tundra unable to support troops prepping for invasion as well as two oceans thousands of km across that separate it from the old world, to large to send a naval invasion across. In order to pull an invasion off you'd need resources of another entire-continent world power (which AFAIK no nation fits baring a united Europe before WW1 when the US military was tiny) as well as a, IMHO, logistics nightmare bigger than what is possible in real life in Hoi4's time frame.

 

[Lord Dakier]

I doubt the US would have much appetite for war in a scenario where it is pitted against the new world order. Assuming that the only members of the Allies left are US, Canada, AUS/NZ and India. Germany winning Barbarossa too. It would be more likely a peace of some kind would be sought.

Alas this is a function non-existent in the game. The whole white peace or total war makes micro-wars in the game stupid. Ethiopia kicking Italy out for example unless I'm mistaken would lead to endless war until Italy lose to the allies, unless Ethiopia somehow take them out?

 

[Riftwalker]

the U.S. is big but it's population is spread out, launching bases would likely have been caribbean port islands captured prior to the main invasion, afterwards the major port cities would be a boon to the invader making the offloading of supplies very easy. this is assuming that the war got to a point where the final destination is the U.S. as it IS the most difficult target, would require a long and lengthy naval war where the U.S. loses.

with most of it's industry on the east coast the first few landings might be the deciding factor.

 

[Lord Dakier]

Depends on the state of the Japanese navy I say. If it managed to not get beaten up so badly a few additional months with a full European superstate buffing it would help give it the edge of the Americans I imagine.

 

[parkerg12]

a game starting in 1936 would never end with the success invasion of the united states. Period. Germany and Japan do not have the oil , the ships, the expertise nor the naval supremacy to carry it out. The only way the United states should ever fall is if somehow Great Britain's navy was in the hands of the Axis and even then it is highly doubtful.

 

[ChaChaLoco]

Well if the AI wasn't awful and diplomacy was a bit more nuanced it would be nigh impossible, as the US would defend its homeland tooth and nail on the ground, and it would to get boots on the ground you would have to beat their navy first (which would be patrolling the Atlantic and Pacific to block you from crossing).

 

[Adrized]

No? That wouldn't make the game any better.

 

[CharlieFox]

From a game perspective the Invasion of the United States should definitely be possible if the Axis won in Eurasia and Africa. It should definitely be challenging but be doable. Invading the US It is the end boss for Axis or an expansionist URSS in Hoi IV

 

[Meglok]

It is physically possible to invade the US given a large enough and powerful enough opponent. The US alone could be worn down.

But...., the poor diplomacy code, the straight jacket of the focus trees, the WT system, and the PP/law system prevent the US from mobilizing in the face of an early war justification against it. This makes it far too easy and laughably implausible to conquer the US. Not to mention the bad naval system makes it easy to game an invasion.

It is one thing to make a game where sandbox play allows "what ifs?" in history. It is another to create a situation where completely implausible and ahistorical events can occur, like Japan conquering the US in 1937. Just reduces the credibility of the entire game.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I doubt the US would have much appetite for war in a scenario where it is pitted against the new world order.

I'd say the opposite. If you make reality of these nightmare scenarios Roosevelt has been bringing up and make the conflict existential the US resolve will grow harder, not weaker.

In short term US can possibly win air/naval war against Axis Eurasia (or land war on home soil and periphery). For example North America and Western Hemisphere produced more aluminium and oil than rest of the world combined. In longer term Axis Eurasia would be a mortal hazard on America's security so it could not be ignored.

Depends on the state of the Japanese navy I say.

Japanese navy was never capable of invading continental US (as pointed out by Inoue Shigeyoshi before the war for example). It pretty much needs intervention of alien space bats for that to change.

 

[ringhloth]

the U.S. is big but it's population is spread out, launching bases would likely have been caribbean port islands captured prior to the main invasion, afterwards the major port cities would be a boon to the invader making the offloading of supplies very easy. this is assuming that the war got to a point where the final destination is the U.S. as it IS the most difficult target, would require a long and lengthy naval war where the U.S. loses.

with most of it's industry on the east coast the first few landings might be the deciding factor.

Large cities on the coast would not be a boon to an attacker, especially one without any sufficient air support. Ultimately, they'd likely be forced to land in Florida to still be able to get some air support, if they were basing invasions in the Caribbean, which would be a long slog through swamps and having your flank be exposed to the Appalachians and any partisans stationed there, in order to get to Washington DC. Not to mention that the US had a very poor rail infrastructure system, so any invasion would need plenty of fuel to push trucks along, and would likely constantly halt as the rail system struggled under the burden of an advancing army large enough to actually capture all of that land and those cities, which isn't really going to be feasible for any of the Axis powers, no matter how any of the campaigns go.

 

[Zulgaines]

This is what mods are for guys, I love the historical aspect as much as anyone else but don't destroy my what-ifs. France and England already do a good enough job of that when they start guaranteeing stuff in 36'.

 

[amalric de g.]

Allways the same story, guys we are talking about HOI IV and that means you have to defeat your enemy, up to the last major power in any alliance, if that means NZ gets major status, you have to conquer NZ, end of the story.

And the game has to allow a total conquest of any opponent, or it´s not playable, if all US ........ cry, no US should not be conquerable, the whole game is without any meaning.

Please don´t mix RL and HOI IV.

 

[Drakridr]

I believe the game gets the 'white peace or the entire country falls' from the Allied policy of Unconditional surrender for the axis powers. Thing is that it should come into effect of a conference between the major powers on each side to decide how they want peace. Historical AI for Allied should always choose unconditional surrender while the Axis powers would probably want peace talks.

 

[Lord Dakier]

I'd say the opposite. If you make reality of these nightmare scenarios Roosevelt has been bringing up and make the conflict existential the US resolve will grow harder, not weaker.

In short term US can possibly win air/naval war against Axis Eurasia (or land war on home soil and periphery). For example North America and Western Hemisphere produced more aluminium and oil than rest of the world combined. In longer term Axis Eurasia would be a mortal hazard on America's security so it could not be ignored.

Japanese navy was never capable of invading continental US (as pointed out by Inoue Shigeyoshi before the war for example). It pretty much needs intervention of alien space bats for that to change.

You kind of missed my point. The US, should it choose to continue the war cannot out produce all of Europe, Asia and Africa. They have no access to the Mediterranean meaning Axis could effectively build a ridiculously large fleet there under safety, before involving any ships captured from Britain that had not fled to the US or allies. The US navy can't be in every theatre at once and if it tried to it's power projection would be limited. They may take out Japan and prevent Axis support, perhaps long enough for development of the nukes. There is however no scenario where the US manages to counter-attack and win the war I could see. Due to the fact I doubt the US would even want to fight at that point.

Japan was incapable of invading the US yes, but their fleet would certainly help the Axis powers in reducing the length it would take to create a fleet large enough to oppose the US. Assuming the Yanks have wiped it off the map, I'd imagine that would be their first priority.

 

[ringhloth]

You kind of missed my point. The US, should it choose to continue the war cannot out produce all of Europe, Asia and Africa. They have no access to the Mediterranean meaning Axis could effectively build a ridiculously large fleet there under safety, before involving any ships captured from Britain that had not fled to the US or allies. The US navy can't be in every theatre at once and if it tried to it's power projection would be limited. They may take out Japan and prevent Axis support, perhaps long enough for development of the nukes. There is however no scenario where the US manages to counter-attack and win the war I could see. Due to the fact I doubt the US would even want to fight at that point.

Japan was incapable of invading the US yes, but their fleet would certainly help the Axis powers in reducing the length it would take to create a fleet large enough to oppose the US. Assuming the Yanks have wiped it off the map, I'd imagine that would be their first priority.

The US does not need to outproduce all of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It needs to outproduce an axis occupied Europe, Africa, and Asia where, aside from a few oil deposits, the axis is probably using more resources to garrison these areas than they get out of them. The US Navy had a massive edge over the Germans, and Germany would not be able to produce a large enough carrier force to, alone, be able to project air power over the US East coast, even if they could outproduce the US in navy.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The US, should it choose to continue the war cannot out produce all of Europe, Asia and Africa.

Why not? As it was US and Canada produced 2/3 of world's aluminium in 1943. US alone produced more steel than Germany, UK, Japan, Italy and USSR combined. Oil I already mentioned. I think they produced more rubber than rest of the world in 1945 too (synthetics). It's no joke that US was incredible industrial and raw material giant in '40s.

In time (during '50s for example) Axis Eurasia would possibly come around and effectively restructure itself around it's New Order, but US could make itself annoying as hell by then.

They have no access to the Mediterranean meaning Axis could effectively build a ridiculously large fleet there under safety,

Gibraltar is not actually as hermetic as HoI series would have you believe. US considered more heavily armed straits around Japan to be forcable if desired. They could also open a front in North Africa and bomb Italy from there. A relatively forlorn place like that would be difficult for Axis to leverage their numerical superiority.

I'm also not sure Italian yards are all that scary. And I don't think Germany would be willing to throw stuff at Mussolini for free, they would want to build a German navy instead.

The US navy can't be in every theatre at once and if it tried to it's power projection would be limited.

Of course not. On the other hand Japanese and Italian/German navies are so distant you can see any combined actions coming miles afar. If Americans keep naval supremacy for years to come (as I consider likely) the continental powers themselves will be spread out. For example, do you choose to make Ireland, Britain, France, North Africa or whatnot well garrisoned and what will you leave weak? What do you do with the Soviet resistance fighters who still de-facto occupy Siberia and blow the rail line every few weeks?

There is however no scenario where the US manages to counter-attack and win the war I could see.

Agreed. I too don't see any kind of guns-a-blazing landing in fortress Europe. They will operate around the periphery and try to leverage superior naval and air power.

Due to the fact I doubt the US would even want to fight at that point.

IMO, they have to. Too much is at risk for them if they don't.

 

[hkrommel]

with most of it's industry on the east coast the first few landings might be the deciding factor.

Lol what? Ever hear of Detroit? Chicago? Pittsburgh? Cleveland?

Agreed. I too don't see any kind of guns-a-blazing landing in fortress Europe. They will operate around the periphery and try to leverage superior naval and air power.

What about nukes?

 

[Zulgaines]

Is a south American invasion of some kind not feasible to create a jumping point or a base of power for air superiority?

Or are you implying America can project its power enough to protect the entirety of the Americas from attacks from literally the rest of the world without a viable point of attack for the aggressor?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

What about nukes?

Nukes will fall once B-29s can reach Berlin. I'm unsure what that will do without continental front.