The devil is in the details (bombing campaign)

[Neal Mac]

Well, it is too early in the game for it, but once you can create this elite Marine template, you can hold just about any beach with 8-10 of these and regular marines.
These guys stormed all over, taking Panama Canal, Kuwait , Pearl Harbor, LA and SD and always holding.

177% attack bonus on shore fighting!

I also have a 20w version which is just half of everything in battalions.

Add in some elite army divisions with AA battalions as well.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Well, it is too early in the game for it, but once you can create this elite Marine template, you can hold just about any beach with 8-10 of these and regular marines.
These guys stormed all over, taking Panama Canal, Kuwait , Pearl Harbor, LA and SD and always holding.

177% attack bonus on shore fighting!

I also have a 20w version which is just half of everything in battalions.

Add in some elite army divisions with AA battalions as well.

View attachment 583824

OMG this is hardcore as f***. I was not able to get those sickass looking vehicles. Do you need any DLC?

 

[Neal Mac]

OMG this is hardcore as f***. I was not able to get those sickass looking vehicles. Do you need any DLC?

I have all the DLC. But I would guess they came in MTG. Amtracs and Amphib tanks are a great addition. I see so many people adding non amphib like artillery battalions to their marines, and I am yelling "NO!!!!" you take away their amphib bonuses.

 

[Neal Mac]

Yeah, they came in MTG.

Hi everyone! Another wednesday means its diary time! Today we will be talking about some quite big balance changes to tech as well as some new... watery toys

Amphibious Armored Vehicles
With Man the Guns we are adding two new classes of vehicles. Amphibious Tractors (AMTRACs) and Amphibious Tanks. AMTRACs were built in large quantities and used both in the Pacific by US Marines with good success as well as in Europe during major river crossings such as the Allied crossing of the Rhine. An AMTRAC is a amphibious tracked vehicle that offers soldiers protection, and depending on model, firepower when conducting landings.

For heavier armor and firepower, amphibious tanks were developed. The allies used quite a lot of the Duplex Drive Shermans during D-Day. The idea was that the tanks would swim to the beach, then drive on to assault the German fortifications. The Sherman DD itself had some design problems, as it was designed for only 30cm high waves… which aren't exactly rare at sea. Many of them were also unloaded from their landing ships much too far out and sunk in the waves. Some beaches had good results, but for example Omaha beach was a disaster where most of them were lost. The Germans also planned for tanks for Operation Sealion, but experimented with snorkels and driving along the bottom instead. These were instead used during Barbarossa. The Japanese went more in the direction of attachable “flotation parts” with the Ka-Mi and Ka-chi tanks, making them look like tiny little warships. They never got the same large scale testings as the American tanks, but to me at least, seem to have been a more reasonable technical solution.

These things combined means that you can design divisions to punch through heavily defended landing sites. Quite useful late game! These divisions are also great for when the enemy has fortified across a large river. On the flip side they are quite expensive to make, less fuel efficient and a little slower for what you get so you should have some plan for them before investing. Amphibious vehicle battalions also use your special forces limit, just like marines.

 

[Simon_9732495]

With the "Man the Guns" DLC you Infantry research tree looks like this:

See the "Basic Amtrac" and the "Improved Amtrac"

And the Armor research tree looks like this: (This is the generic tree take from Bhutan, without any country specific Tank images)

See the "Basic Amphibious Tank" and the "Improved Amphibious Tank".

 

[Simon_9732495]

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Somehow i feel happy that it takes a lot of effort to design these new vehicles for the DLC. But at the same time i feel cheated that they are not in the original game.

In any case, still got to appreciate Paradox's passion in creating such a detailed WW2 simulation.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

@TheMeInTeam

Okay, really so happy that your micromanagement tips help a lot! Finally, I am able to prevail in my struggle against China. Now approaching the capital Chongqing. Need a lot of patience and grit though! I feel like I am playing chess.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

As for the battle-of-ports campaign, I am able to finally push out of Xiamen with a sizeable force. Now preparing to launch another landing in Guangzhou further south, where I lost it.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Somehow i feel happy that it takes a lot of effort to design these new vehicles for the DLC. But at the same time i feel cheated that they are not in the original game.

In any case, still got to appreciate Paradox's passion in creating such a detailed WW2 simulation.

You can see it that way:
How many hours have you played the game? Is there any other spare time activity that is that cheap in $/hour?

For me it was like that:
I purchased the game without DLCs. After some weeks and many played hours it was obvious I liked the game and played it a lot, I thought it's ok to "invest" 10Cent per hour played. So from then on every 100 hours, I bought content for 10$.
Like that, I saw the DLCs as a chance to give some appreciation to the Devs. (And I even got new content as Bonus.)

But again: That't just me and other people will have a very different opinion on DLCs, I just wanted to share a thought.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

You can see it that way:
How many hours have you played the game? Is there any other spare time activity that is that cheap in $/hour?

For me it was like that:
I purchased the game without DLCs. After some weeks and many played hours it was obvious I liked the game and played it a lot, I thought it's ok to "invest" 10Cent per hour played. So from then on every 100 hours, I bought content for 10$.
Like that, I saw the DLCs as a chance to give some appreciation to the Devs. (And I even got new content as Bonus.)

But again: That't just me and other people will have a very different opinion on DLCs, I just wanted to share a thougt.

I am probably not a hardcore consumer, so I don't spend money for every new feature (just because I like a game). I just played a lot (at least 1000) on the vanilla to kill my boredom. Probably will get some good DLCs like Waking the Tiger, but need to have the money first.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Okay, doing well.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Holding onto the Chongqing salient is especially rough. The airfield nearby is especially critical for providing strong CAS. Without it, the enemy panzer division nearby would have broken through the three cavalry and that single "sickle"divisions, taking the only land route to Chongqing. This would have cut off two infantry divisions in both Chongqing and its nearby airfield. Luckily, my other front just ended and I managed to create a couple of "free" reserves to reinforce the area. You can see them approaching from the right -- about one sickle division, one fist division, one marine division, three castle divisions and three "normal" infantry divisions.

Moment like this really makes you appreciate how HOI4 can force you to think out of box in dire situation.

 

[Neal Mac]

You can see it that way:
How many hours have you played the game? Is there any other spare time activity that is that cheap in $/hour?

For me it was like that:
I purchased the game without DLCs. After some weeks and many played hours it was obvious I liked the game and played it a lot, I thought it's ok to "invest" 10Cent per hour played. So from then on every 100 hours, I bought content for 10$.
Like that, I saw the DLCs as a chance to give some appreciation to the Devs. (And I even got new content as Bonus.)

But again: That't just me and other people will have a very different opinion on DLCs, I just wanted to share a thought.

I totally agree. Us wargamers are a different lot. Most of us will play this game for years. This isn't a play 120 hours and be done with the game. I am totally happy to pay for DLC that adds great content at this point. My generation was the first to be able to play 6x war games on the computer. My first game was "Sink the Bismark". I have no doubt if computer gaming didn't come along I would be playing this game tabletop.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

I totally agree. Us wargamers are a different lot. Most of us will play this game for years. This isn't a play 120 hours and be done with the game. I am totally happy to pay for DLC that adds great content at this point. My generation was the first to be able to play 6x war games on the computer. My first game was "Sink the Bismark". I have no doubt if computer gaming didn't come along I would be playing this game tabletop.

I think the latest DLC (even the older ones like TFV and DOD) are fine additions to this game, worth the money. Just that the vanilla -- I feel that I still have not mastered the basic mechanics yet. So I will only sink money into new features that I will absolutely use -- not underused due to lack of time* or some other reason.

*My daily schedule is perhaps a bit wonky, so hard to take the time to explore new features slowly. And also I spent so many hours on this game, and I still feel like I am a amateur... more like a cheater who "cheat" to win campaign. I tend to skip steps and play the game straight away without trying to understand each mechanic. Reason why I still bomb infrastructure when most people here (I assume) think it is crazy. But I am learning backwards and slowly improving my skills -- every mistake I made help me understand the mechanics better.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

The Greater East Asian Empire!

I have found that spreading your navy as wide as possible is helpful in reducing the Allied naval power per sea region. Especially once US joins the war, it is hard to offset their numerical advantage. However, it is useful to get good patrol force. For example, I used 2 CV + 2 BB/HC + 6 CA + 6DD based on the recommended screening ratio. Make sure you set it on medium/low patrol mode because you don't want it to run into strong US carrier force.

View attachment 584462


For example, in this sea region, I barely got a numerical advantage. Luckily, the AI is stupid enough not to deploy more ships in critical regions (where the invasion is likely to take place). So luck is quite important in winning.

View attachment 584463

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Well, it is too early in the game for it, but once you can create this elite Marine template, you can hold just about any beach with 8-10 of these and regular marines.
These guys stormed all over, taking Panama Canal, Kuwait , Pearl Harbor, LA and SD and always holding.

177% attack bonus on shore fighting!

I also have a 20w version which is just half of everything in battalions.

Add in some elite army divisions with AA battalions as well.

View attachment 583824

Regarding this, I have found that a fully researched marine technology will increase your breakthrough rate by reducing the terrain penalty from 30% to 20%. And this is a HUGE difference. In my current campaign, I was unable to conquer Ireland with 16 marine divisions even though they have only two divisions guarding the capital port. But once I upgraded from level 1 to level 3 for marine technology, I could do it with ease!

 

[SophieX]

Regarding this, I have found that a fully researched marine technology will increase your breakthrough rate by reducing the terrain penalty from 30% to 20%. And this is a HUGE difference. In my current campaign, I was unable to conquer Ireland with 16 marine divisions even though they have only two divisions guarding the capital port. But once I upgraded from level 1 to level 3 for marine technology, I could do it with ease!

I didn't found anything in the game files, that "increase your breakthrough rate by reducing the terrain penalty".

Marine-tech 1 gives you a sub-unit which has + 50% amphibious attack ( reducing the amphibious-combat -malus )
Marine-tech 2 gives you +5 ORG and + 5% softattack
Marine-tech 3 gives you +5 ORG

The last two tech-levels are "nice" but not essential, imho.

So I think, that in the last battle, there were still other factors responsible for your success.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

@SophieX

Okay, since I was the one that make such an audacious claim, the burden of proof is in me. You're right, Marine technology is not essential (at least the level 2 and level 3). It is the max Engineering company that gives you the -20% naval penalty (not marine). My fault due to pressure of time yesterday that caused me to make such mistake.

However, it does provide a little benefit (Compare second picture with third) especially at this late game where it is better to get both researched for a navy-focused nation.



1939 Engineer company, Marines 1

Out of three tries: I only succeed in breaking through once.

1945 Engineer company, Marines 3

Out of three tries: I succeed all three times

1945 Engineer company, Marines 1
Out of three tries: I succeed two out of three times.

1939 Engineer company, Marines III
Out of three tries: I only succeed in breaking through once.

Edit: I used instant research cheat to do the testing.

 

[Eisscrat]

The real problem is that your divisions are green as frick. Why the hell u dont train them? Every rank gave 25% better stats. U waste sooo much effectivnes sending green guys to their death. Train your troops first then beging with techs.