The capture of Suez

[geogus]

Hi guys.

As an Italy fan boy, Im sure will play the pizza eaters as soon as I put my hands in HOI IV.

One thing that annoys me is how the AI does not have ahistorcial events for italian goals in the war.

Starting the war, Italy has two very clear objetive. Take Malta to protect itself and capture Suex Chanel, so it breaks Britsh empire at half and can conect with italian east Africa.

I often fulfill those objectives but the game does not give then the relevance it should have. Both objectives should trigger important events. (Suez most)

If Suez is under Italian hands, resources from India have to go all the way around Africa to reach the UK, so it would raise the efficience of sub attacks and raise fuel expensees to keep the route going.
Besides, it would make Spain join the Axis or being invaded by Germany more likely, since that the capute of Gilbraltar would lock the allies out of the Mediterranan sea, protecting all italian and balkans shore as well half spanish shore.

I think Devs should consider the effects of the capture of Suez would have in ahistorical events and put it into the game.

 

[geogus]

Besides, as long Axis holds Gilbratar and Suez operation Torch would be uselles, because even if Marroco and Lybia are under allied control they would not be able to send ships to invade italy

 

[stopdancing!]

In HOI3, Axis holding Suez forces the allies to re-route convoys, thus rendering them more susceptible to attack. It also offers a strategic bonus (modifier) to the holder. Apart from that (which is a pretty adequate modelling) what do you propose? A malus for the allies on top of their loss of strategic modifier, coupled with a strategic bonus (modifier) for Axis submarines?

 

[208]

In HOI3, Axis holding Suez forces the allies to re-route convoys, thus rendering them more susceptible to attack.

Actually, having convoys going through the Mediterranean makes them a lot easier to attack for the Axis (or at least for the Italians) compared to convoys going around the Cape of Good Hope. It's a (relatively minor) flaw in HoI3 that the UK can't voluntarily reroute their shipping around Africa to put it out of reach of the Italians, as they did historically. (A nice feature for HoI4 would be designating "no-go" zones for convoy routing.)

 

[PeterCorless]

Actually, having convoys going through the Mediterranean makes them a lot easier to attack for the Axis (or at least for the Italians) compared to convoys going around the Cape of Good Hope. It's a (relatively minor) flaw in HoI3 that the UK can't voluntarily reroute their shipping around Africa to put it out of reach of the Italians, as they did historically. (A nice feature for HoI4 would be designating "no-go" zones for convoy routing.)

Definitely would make sense to be able to designate "longer, safer" routes when desired, and "faster, more dangerous" routes when supplies might be urgently needed, as this is a) historically what happened and b) gives the player some strategic management choices.

 

[Grindipo]

designating "no-go" zones for convoy routing

This would be awesome !

 

[Smitzer]

It's a (relatively minor) flaw in HoI3 that the UK can't voluntarily reroute their shipping around Africa to put it out of reach of the Italians, as they did historically.

If choices like this will be in HOI4 it would actually deal with a long-standing supply flow problem HOI games have. Or atleast remove the useless micro-mangement associated with it.

 

[juv95hrn]

Actually it was kind of an advantage to lose Gibraltar as the UK in HOI3 because your convoys could not be devastated as much in the Med. But Malta actually hold a significant strategic effect in a long war. It provides the Allies with an "unsinkable air carrier" ie. a level 10 airbase to conduct strategic air warfare and convoy attacks from. In the long run it provides air cover for an invasion around Tripoli and Siciliy. I would say it holds an historical importance as well as Gibraltar and Suez.

But here are some aspects that did *not* work well in HOI3.

No volontary rerouting of the idiotic automatic convoy routes, as has already been mentioned.

When UK ships got caught in the small Gibraltar sea zone after the land province turned to axis control ships would get stuck there permanently. The effect should be they cant sail through, not leave the zone.

Allied ships in the sea zone south of Suez/Sinai would stop the crossing of the Suez Canal. This water obstacle is hardly wide enough to be considered a strait but rather a large river (you will differentiate between minor and major ones right? ;-) )

All in all these strategic chokepoints worked reasonably well in TFH 4.02. I would say the general function for naval evacuations should be redone to allow operations in these waters to proceed more smoothly (no more fighting until all org is gone before retreat to waiting ships is possible, no more retreat to interior land provinces automatically when ships are available.) If not defending Gibraltar can prove to be a very costly endavour due to imo broken game features.

Oh, and obviously closing the Mediterranean should be Italy's highest strategic objective even if the possibilities should be slim in a historical context due to lack of available Leadership to research decent units I suppose.

 

[geogus]

In HOI3, Axis holding Suez forces the allies to re-route convoys, thus rendering them more susceptible to attack. It also offers a strategic bonus (modifier) to the holder. Apart from that (which is a pretty adequate modelling) what do you propose? A malus for the allies on top of their loss of strategic modifier, coupled with a strategic bonus (modifier) for Axis submarines?

Im actually a darkest hour player, never player HOI III.

Iknow they are diferent games, but I think they are similar enough for me to post in this forum.

What annoys me is not game bonus mechanics, its the game not reconizing goals that alter the total outcome of the war and create situations that accordingly

HOI III and DH ( and CK and EUIV) are no meant as historical , but alternate hostorical games. U pick an real to history starting point and makes a new history playing the game, as for sure things wont go the same as real life.

So I miss, in special when playing the axis or commitern going all the way trhough western Europe, is that when u reach important goals that not happened in real life the game dosent show events showing how important those goals are.

Caputing Malta, capturing Suez and anexing Iraq (which is the point of getting Suez) should be very importat and launch important ahistorical events.

For instance, if Italy goes very well (which is common as a human player) and annex iraq early, maybe Germany wouldnt go for Baku and Stallingrad battle would never happen, since the oil trouble would solved or at least mitigated.

So if Italy annex Iraq, Axis nations could get an Event "receiving oil from middle east", that would boost oil production aand change Germany goals a lot, but defend Iraq and Suez would be of pivotal importance for Germany (who would send some defensive divisions).

Besides, germany wouldnt be forced to go after the caucasus so badly and could concetrate in captruing mosckw, with its panzer divisions.

 

[Klausewitz]

All in all these strategic chokepoints worked reasonably well in TFH 4.02. I would say the general function for naval evacuations should be redone to allow operations in these waters to proceed more smoothly (no more fighting until all org is gone before retreat to waiting ships is possible, no more retreat to interior land provinces automatically when ships are available.) If not defending Gibraltar can prove to be a very costly endavour due to imo broken game features.

i can already taste the indignation:
"And then i did Sealion!
I had conquered the SouthEast of Britain and my troops were beat in (X).
And then they retreated to the troopships !!111!!11
Which were of course sunk.
*continuing rant about how HoI4 and PI suck, how thats not realistic, etc*"

 

[juv95hrn]

Caputing Malta, capturing Suez and anexing Iraq (which is the point of getting Suez) should be very importat and launch important ahistorical events.

Capturing Suez is obviously about closing the Mediterranean to hostile naval powers. You seem to be under the misconception that Iraq was an oil producing nation during the time of WWII? I can agree it should be easier than average to instigate a coup in Iraq for the Axis but other than that the area is mostly irrelevant.

 

[juv95hrn]

i can already taste the indignation:
"And then i did Sealion!
I had conquered the SouthEast of Britain and my troops were beat in (X).
And then they retreated to the troopships !!111!!11
Which were of course sunk.
*continuing rant about how HoI4 and PI suck, how thats not realistic, etc*"

I am arguing you should be able to choose your retreat route as in land combat which is not the case of naval evacuations in HOI 3.

 

[Sky_WKing]

Capturing Suez is obviously about closing the Mediterranean to hostile naval powers. You seem to be under the misconception that Iraq was an oil producing nation during the time of WWII? I can agree it should be easier than average to instigate a coup in Iraq for the Axis but other than that the area is mostly irrelevant.

I once thought the Middle East wasn't a big deal too. But someone on this forum showed me some statistics (couldn't find it) which confirms that Middle East produced more oil than Romania and Dutch East Indies during WWII. The Allies wouldn't really lose that much oil if Middle East was captured (since US produced more oil than ROTW combined and the number is not even close), but it could be a very valuable asset for the oil-hungry axis.

 

[Mannstien]

They could do the provinces adjacent to the Suez a bit better when attempting to cross it, I always hated that it was treated like a river crossing, seems like it would be a lot more difficult than a river crossing.

 

[Shiro_Ishii]

Control/Blocking of Suez, Kiel, Dardanelles, Panama Canal...

Slightly tangential issue:

Controlling only one side of some of the naval choke points should not be sufficient to open them up for the passage of friendly naval units.

Suez (205m wide)
Kiel (214m wide)
Dardanelles (1.2km wide at its thinnest point)
Panama Canal (33.5m wide)

At these distances field artillery, tanks and even machineguns and mortars could be used to interdict traffic. Solid control of both banks would be required before friendly ships could reliably pass. Ideally, controlling one side of these waterways would block passage of any naval units from any country.

Related: It should be possible to destroy or seriously block the man-made canals.

Those waterways that use locks (Kiel, Panama) could be permanently (in game terms) destroyed by air, ground or scorched earth attacks. Suez has no locks but can be easily blocked with sunken ships and could be destroyed permanently if enough explosives or earth moving equipment were available.

The Dardanelles, Kattegat and Gibralter are presumably too deep and/or wide to destroy. The current "one-sided" control system is appropriate here although some sort of "running the gauntlet" option would be nice - especially for trapped fleets.

Also, shouldn't the St. Lawrence Seaway be set up as blockable?

 

[varsovie]

Also, shouldn't the St. Lawrence Seaway be set up as blockable?

No since you wouldn't be able to simulate German subs dropping spies in Canada anymore. :ninja:

I think HOI way of treating some channel/straits like dardanelles, bosphorus, "english chanel - should be IMHO", kattergate, strait of malacca (and lot other pacific straits), is totally bunked.
It shouldn't "block" the channel but put the fleet under artillery fire (same as if bombarded by plane) of relative efficiency (depend of no. of adjacent provinces and ground force present).
Also give a bonus to the fleet combat value (or positioning and spotting) for allied fleets stationed in it so active denial of use can be possible.
In history lots of fleet passed through those channel even if they were under control of the enemy. Few of them were so heavily netted and mined than fleets couldn't pass and long range artillery while damaging still isn't that accurate when shooting at relatively small moving targets. (sea mine not well modeled by HOI).
That make natural channels more like a good placed "mountain" chokepoints instead of an artificial gate.

Man-made canals should still be blockable IMHO, even having the option to "destroy it" and force the other side to spend some time to repair it.

 

[Dan1109]

No since you wouldn't be able to simulate German subs dropping spies in Canada anymore. :ninja:

I think HOI way of treating some channel/straits like dardanelles, bosphorus, "english chanel - should be IMHO", kattergate, strait of malacca (and lot other pacific straits), is totally bunked.
It shouldn't "block" the channel but put the fleet under artillery fire (same as if bombarded by plane) of relative efficiency (depend of no. of adjacent provinces and ground force present).
Also give a bonus to the fleet combat value (or positioning and spotting) for allied fleets stationed in it so active denial of use can be possible.
In history lots of fleet passed through those channel even if they were under control of the enemy. Few of them were so heavily netted and mined than fleets couldn't pass and long range artillery while damaging still isn't that accurate when shooting at relatively small moving targets. (sea mine not well modeled by HOI).
That make natural channels more like a good placed "mountain" chokepoints instead of an artificial gate.

Man-made canals should still be blockable IMHO, even having the option to "destroy it" and force the other side to spend some time to repair it.

I believe the English Channel is being widened in the new map, to create an entirely new dynamic. Its narrowest point is the Straight of Dover, 31km, which may/should very well deserve a 2nd sea zone - or have only 1 seazone precisely there which would nearly always be contested. Temporary retreat of naval forces after an engagement should open it up temporarily. The Straight of Gibraltar however is only 13km apart, and being so narrow, made blockading quite easy.

Nevertheless, I think the AI should defend it(as would a human). If no navy there, it should be passable IMO, but at cost - yes, some shorebombardment mechanic, could sink a single UBoat easily if trying to break through and detected (ala Das Boot), but a major fleet should just sail through, and take some damage, requiring the human and AI to engage at sea, rather than sitting at home in port, waiting for the next opportune engagement.

 

[Shiro_Ishii]

In history lots of fleet passed through those channel even if they were under control of the enemy. ...(sea mine not well modeled by HOI).

I don't think the Dardanelles has been successfully forced in modern times. I know that the Royal Navy attempted this prior to the WW1 Gallipoli landings and failed against weak and poorly supplied opposition. They landed troops largely because they couldn't destroy or get past the Turkish forts any other way.

No major surface units attempted to force the Gibraltar passage and submarines succeeded only part of the time and with great difficulty. Malacca and the English Channel are too wide to be affected by anything but the largest anti-shipping guns.

Because this is a strategic (or Grand Operational?) level game, I would not go as far as Varsovie or Dan1109 in complicating the strait blocking mechanic.

I would, however, strongly support a robust mining model for straits and coastal sea tiles. One approach that might work is to allow a mining "structure" to be built/deployed in these tiles. The effectiveness of the mined area would depend on the "structures" level and the relative technologies of the builder and the naval units that enter the area. The mined area would also degrade with time unless regular resources were supplied to it.

This same approach could also be used to represent Sboots, Eboots and PT boat deployments...

 

[Dan1109]

Well, I dont propose any change to Gibraltar until I see how Naval AI works. But yeah, after doing a history check, I guess no surface ship ever attempted to make the run ~20/60 subs that attempted either didnt make it or were sunk trying. Therefore I would like subs allowed to pass, and run the risk of detection. German subs in the Med could give the help that the Italians need (or hey, you can spam the naval deployment to Split)...and they needed all they could get. Besides the Split exploit, these doesnt seem anything to prevent Italy from folding like a soiled set of underpants. Not to mention the AI lets their entire army rush off to help Germany during Barbarrossa, leaving N African and Sicilian reinforcements non existant.

 

[Big Nev]

Well, I dont propose any change to Gibraltar until I see how Naval AI works. But yeah, after doing a history check, I guess no surface ship ever attempted to make the run ~20/60 subs that attempted either didnt make it or were sunk trying. Therefore I would like subs allowed to pass, and run the risk of detection. German subs in the Med could give the help that the Italians need (or hey, you can spam the naval deployment to Split)...and they needed all they could get. Besides the Split exploit, these doesnt seem anything to prevent Italy from folding like a soiled set of underpants. Not to mention the AI lets their entire army rush off to help Germany during Barbarrossa, leaving N African and Sicilian reinforcements non existant.

Just before the Battle of Britain, Churchill granted the entire Italian navy free passage through the straight if they wanted to take-on the Home Fleet.

They didn't take-up the offer.

Another "straight" that needs to be fixed is the little strip of water which separates Singapore & Malaya.

This is only a few hundred metres wide and had a causeway (demolished) from 1933 (IIRC). It was, therefore not passable at all and no ship more than a few tens of feet long would be able to turn round. So... Heavy stuff simply can't enter & light stuff would get obliterated by land artillery.