The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer

[FOARP]

IRL, it was impossible to conquer the US. To subdue the US would be nearly impossible. Anyone saying otherwise simply doesn't understand how amphibious invasion works, how air superiority and basing works, and where the major population/industrial/resource centers of the US were and are.

This whole partisan tangent is incredibly unimportant to the overall discussion, IMHO.

I basically agree about the difficulties of invading the US. The thing about partisans is mainly interesting simply because it gets to the heart of what, generally speaking, you need to organise a partisan movement - and the answer to that isn't just "guns".

 

[steve213]

honestly the partisans will do things but overall the invasion probably wouldn't last long enough for them to make a real difference. but people where talking about it so.

 

[FrancescoT]

The only semi-realistic situation in which the US surrenders and accepts any sort of occupation at home is if the Axis somehow manages to both develop multiple nuclear weapons and somehow manages to drop them on the US with no possibility of retaliation.

The most semi-realistic situation I can think about for this scenario is the one in "Worldwar series" from Harry Turdledove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series).. someone should really mod The Race in just for the fun of it .

 

[Porkman]

I basically agree about the difficulties of invading the US. The thing about partisans is mainly interesting simply because it gets to the heart of what, generally speaking, you need to organise a partisan movement - and the answer to that isn't just "guns".

Over a year ago, I wrote a proposal for how Partisans and garrisons should be handled by the game.

You can see it here.

Short version was that garrison would be a mission rather than a unit type and that suppressed revolt risk would travel into other unsuppressed provinces. The spread of suppression would be aided by infrastructure while the spread of suppressed revolt risk would be independent of infrastructure. The end result being that revolt risk would tend to accumulate in low infrastructure areas away from population centers.

The US would be a nightmare to garrison since it has so many rural areas and such a huge population.

 

[Zaku]

I will not say that all American will agree with his statement but I think you will all agree that the average American is more patriotic than the average Czech or Belgian.

What example proves that point?

 

[FOARP]

honestly the partisans will do things but overall the invasion probably wouldn't last long enough for them to make a real difference. but people where talking about it so.

Yeah, the whole idea of an invasion is very unlikely. Whatever you think the likelihood of a successful Operation Sealion is, essentially the likelihood of a successful invasion of North America is that squared since it requires, as a first step, a successful Sealion.

 

[hkrommel]

Yeah, the whole idea of an invasion is very unlikely. Whatever you think the likelihood of a successful Operation Sealion is, essentially the likelihood of a successful invasion of North America is that squared since it requires, as a first step, a successful Sealion.

Zero squared is still zero

 

[Wyrm]

I think the US would not be that hard to beat, but to invade them would make it a lot harder to win.

As long as mainland US is not threatened, the US people will not really feel they are at war. They will have a detached commitment and if too many bodybags start showing up, the popular opinion of the war will erode to the point where continuing it will take a massive political toll. (This has happened several times after WWII)

But, as soon as they are attacked directly, the people of the US will most likely unite and patriotism will skyrocket. (look what happened after both Pearl Harbor and 9/11)

Hence, invading US soil will make resistance more fierce.

Beating the US military abroad and weakening their navy will most likely force the US to sue for peace. At least if they want to stay a democratic country.

Possibly could the peoples will to resist be weakened by strategic bombardment, but such a campaign is not something the Axis could gear up for easily considering the distances involved. Not without taking forward bases within spitting-ditance of mainland US

 

[GhostKiller01]

In most of my games as Japan in HOI 3, I kept the USA out of war for as long as possible and usually invaded Mexico as it joined the Allies. Eventually, the USSR would be defeated, the UK would have lost its colonies and Germany AI would just do nothing to invade them, but the UK was simply just the UK, and every nation but the USA would be part of the Axis. I would then invade the USA through Mexico and Canada, sandwiching them and nuking them until I fully invaded them.

Yes, invading the USA is a hassle if you don't have a strong navy, but just landing troops in Mexico and Canada beforehand and just pushing into the US is pretty easy, even if they have a late game army. In my many games, I would sometimes just let the army push without me doing anything, but when I had a strong navy capable of destroying the USA's, I would just land troops in Washington DC a few weeks after the war began, and from there the entire East Coast just fell like a domino effect.

USA invasion = hassle to easy
USA invasion =/= impossible

 

[hkrommel]

Possibly could the peoples will to resist be weakened by strategic bombardment, but such a campaign is not something the Axis could gear up for easily considering the distances involved. Not without taking forward bases within spitting-ditance of mainland US

There really aren't bases within range of the US that would be viable. This is one of the main reasons invasion is impossible. You can either launch planes from aircraft carriers (and risk losing the carriers to land based aircraft and the USN while the CAGs are decimated by superior land-based forces), or try to capture bases nearby. The thing is that by doing so you need to conduct an amphibious invasion within range of US land-based aircraft and the USN (suicide), and even if you manage to capture an airbase, you won't hold it for long before half the US army attacks it, and even if you do manage to hold it you won't be able to supply it, and even if you are able to supply it you won't be able to base enough aircraft there to gain air superiority, let alone conduct strategic bombardment, and even if you do manage to base enough aircraft there the US will bomb the airfield into oblivion. Basically there's no way to capture, secure, garrison, supply, and maintain enough airfields to do anything other than promptly lose all the forces you invested there.

If the US is stupid enough to send the bulk of its forces abroad in a scenario where invasion is a decent possibility, and then get them completely destroyed, then maybe they will sue for peace, but pre-1960s America had a much higher loss tolerance so it would take a lot, and anything short of that would just piss the population off.

 

[Jazumir]

I think the partisan question is the most interesting aspect of the topic, because an invasion seems so outlandish, yet tries to keep a foothold on historic events. But if we simplify the premise to "Say the US got invaded during the first half of the 20th century by anyone with the power to do so with any realistic possibility of success (but let´s stick to humans) - how would the different parts of the USian society react to it? How much of an issue would partisan activity in occupied areas be and who would be the likely colaborateurs, if any?" (For later the premise would have to be extended by defining the ideology and policies of the hypothetical invaders).

Wyrm, i like your point about the severity of the threat having a negative impact on the willingness to give in. It indicates a non-linear relation between occupation progress and "surrender progress" (in contrast to how its modeled in HoI3, say). It might be closer to reality to model it this way, universally, with the change, that surrender progress be substituted with "willingness to negotiate peace". Cause the US would not really ´surrender´ when it sues for peace, when it does not even feel really threatened, yet - just like the french wouldnt try liberate elsass lorraine from german occupation, if they have any prospect of doing so, before going to the table to surrender, but to get better terms (man, what an awkward sentence - i hope it gets across what i intend to say). I am really curious to see the new peace-conference thingie in action... it could usher in a new era in this regard for all paradox home-made franchises, if it´s good.

 

[Ernestas]

Well, it largely depends on which kind of USA we are talking about. In 1939 USA was defenseless. Beat down its navy and that's it. Its army won't bother you for an year and you get free reign to decide that you want to do. In 1940 and especially in 1941 USA built up a strong military which could resist foreign invader and would make an invasion, a multi-million man task.

I personally think that invasion is possible, but from far different angle. In addition, why you insist on conquering entire USA? Do not be another Hitler, come in, divide a country, make Americans oppress Americans. Force them to fight their own via puppet regime and personal greed. The point here is to divide a nation like Korea was, not to occupy it from shore to shore. Most of the industry and population of USA was concentrated and vulnerable from attack from the sea. You do not need to conduct operations in depth and thus partisans are non-factor here. You will simply will not spread out through entire USA, but rather would start working on converting local population to your cause. It would be of course hard and Americans won't think it's possible, but we know the truth. Oh yeah, we eastern Europeans know the trick or two about brutal regimes and how to force nations and people to dance according to government's will.

 

[Secret Master]

In most of my games as Japan in HOI 3, I kept the USA out of war for as long as possible and usually invaded Mexico as it joined the Allies.

It is a huge flaw in HOI3's AI that the US would accept that situation without immediate retaliation. You and I both know that is not realistic or even reasonable in the context of the game.

Moving on to the question of partisans.

More generally, I find that there are two types of "partisans" the Axis should be worried about.

1) Partisans on land.

2) The USN submarine force.

Let's say that the carriers and battleships are wiped out. This will just force the US to double-down on the submarine approach she used against Japan during the war. And whatever else you think of the USN and its performance during the war, Japan's merchant marine was wiped out just trying to keep garrisons supplied in the Pacific and moving resources. How much worse would it be to supply forces in North America? And how would Germany and Italy fare against a submarine campaign?

Maybe the Axis better run a different Pearl Harbor that focuses on sinking the submarines instead. Of course, that leaves the capital ships intact...

 

[Porkman]

Let's say that the carriers and battleships are wiped out. This will just force the US to double-down on the submarine approach she used against Japan during the war. And whatever else you think of the USN and its performance during the war, Japan's merchant marine was wiped out just trying to keep garrisons supplied in the Pacific and moving resources. How much worse would it be to supply forces in North America? And how would Germany and Italy fare against a submarine campaign?

Maybe the Axis better run a different Pearl Harbor that focuses on sinking the submarines instead. Of course, that leaves the capital ships intact...

The Japanese losses to US submarines were due to US decryption a little bit, but mostly criminal negligence on the part of Japan.

They never put officers, material, or even much thought into commerce defence and thus the US sank all of their ships. Their focus on offence and decisive battle made them easy prey.

This was why I was underwhelmed with the Naval tree in the last dev diary because successful sub defense is something countries actually had to put a lot of effort into and the current tech tree just gives out good sub defence for free.

 

[Secret Master]

The Japanese losses to US submarines were due to US decryption a little bit, but mostly criminal negligence on the part of Japan.

They never put officers, material, or even much thought into commerce defence and thus the US sank all of their ships. Their focus on offence and decisive battle made them easy prey.

This was why I was underwhelmed with the Naval tree in the last dev diary because successful sub defense is something countries actually had to put a lot of effort into and the current tech tree just gives out good sub defence for free.

In fairness to the tech tree, Japan's unwillingness/inability to produce more shipping during the beginning of the war and throughout is, in game terms, a player decision that does not factor into doctrines or tech trees. The lack of escorts is also a player decision that does not factor into doctrines or tech trees.

Part of doing well as Japan in HOI4 should be the player making decisions that change the history of criminal negligence regarding commerce shipping.

 

[Beagá]

Basically HoI 4 is a game. You should be able to conquer the US in-game.

.

Don´t agree with this at all. Yes it´s a game, so why shouldn´t I be able to conquer the world as Albania in 2 years?

Notice how flawed that logic is already or need further explanation?

In EU4 I can beat ottomans in 10 years as byzantines. I can´t conquer the world as byzantines in 10 years. If you think HOI "is a game" then you surely must agree that EU 4 is broken because of that reason, am I right?

Why a war with US can´t end in white peace with you keeping conquests elsewhere? Many wars in Paradox games aren´t about conquering "everyone around you" but rather winning the game. The shorter timeframe of HOI kinda demans, IMO, that "map painting" is smaller compared to other Paradox games. The real alternative is expanding the timeline to 1964 for example, not asking HOI to allow you to in 10 years stuff you can´t in any other Pdox game.

 

[Porkman]

In fairness to the tech tree, Japan's unwillingness/inability to produce more shipping during the beginning of the war and throughout is, in game terms, a player decision that does not factor into doctrines or tech trees. The lack of escorts is also a player decision that does not factor into doctrines or tech trees.

Part of doing well as Japan in HOI4 should be the player making decisions that change the history of criminal negligence regarding commerce shipping.

It wasn't a production decision that Japan messed up on. It was a doctrinal one.

Japan did not put staff officers into researching commerce defense. The escorts they did have planned were given lower priority. They never figured out how to adequately run convoys. They had airborne radar but they developed it late and didn't deploy it in numbers. The minesweepers they had were diverted to the combined fleet instead of helping local ports. They had the Magnetic sub detectors but late and they weren't useful.

Not building escorts or more merchant shipping is a production decision.

But everything else about ASW and running convoys is a doctrinal/tech thing and it should appear on the tree. The Allies put in a ton of resources into ASW and they got really good ASW because of it. The Japanese put in next to nothing and they got nothing. It wasn't production, it was that the Allies thought about and dedicated resources and command personnel specificaly to the ASW role and thus got results.

Instead, the Japanese put a ton of research into new weapons systems and planning for an offensive war.

You know what Japan had that no one else did?

Torpedoes that worked in 1941.

Near perfect carrier doctrine and amazing pilots.

The Japanese put naval research into offensive weapons and had results, but their defense suffered. That's a player decision where there should be a cost. Building a balanced navy that's good on offense and defense should be more costly in terms of doctrine research then building a pure offense.

 

[hkrommel]

Well, it largely depends on which kind of USA we are talking about. In 1939 USA was defenseless. Beat down its navy and that's it. Its army won't bother you for an year and you get free reign to decide that you want to do. In 1940 and especially in 1941 USA built up a strong military which could resist foreign invader and would make an invasion, a multi-million man task.

I personally think that invasion is possible, but from far different angle. In addition, why you insist on conquering entire USA? Do not be another Hitler, come in, divide a country, make Americans oppress Americans. Force them to fight their own via puppet regime and personal greed. The point here is to divide a nation like Korea was, not to occupy it from shore to shore. Most of the industry and population of USA was concentrated and vulnerable from attack from the sea. You do not need to conduct operations in depth and thus partisans are non-factor here. You will simply will not spread out through entire USA, but rather would start working on converting local population to your cause. It would be of course hard and Americans won't think it's possible, but we know the truth. Oh yeah, we eastern Europeans know the trick or two about brutal regimes and how to force nations and people to dance according to government's will.

As shown earlier in the thread even in 1936 the US has over 50 divisions it could mobilize quickly if need be, plus coastal defenses and one of the largest navies. Nobody that will plausibly be attacking the US can "beat down its navy" enough to invade except the UK, which doesn't have the amphibious capacity or the army to do anything even if they land successfully. It's impossible. Even if someone destroys the USN the US still has total air superiority as well (and always will over CAGs).

Most of the industry and population of USA was concentrated and vulnerable from attack from the sea.

That is completely false. I have no idea where you get this from. The population was (and is) widely spread out over the entire country with large population centers throughout most of the states. Industry was also widespread throughout several different regions, and possibly the largest concentration of US industry was actually far from the sea, stretching from the interior of Pennsylvania all the way to Chicago and Detroit. I have no idea what image of the US you've concocted but I can assure you it's grossly inaccurate.

Maybe the Axis better run a different Pearl Harbor that focuses on sinking the submarines instead. Of course, that leaves the capital ships intact...

Even then submarines are much cheaper and quicker to build too. The US had a veritable swarm of very effective long-range submarines OTL, and if they opt for a more wolfpack-like doctrine overall and devote the bulk of their capacity to subs I shudder to think of how infested the oceans would be.

Don´t agree with this at all. Yes it´s a game, so why shouldn´t I be able to conquer the world as Albania in 2 years?

Reductio ad absurdum.

The devs already buff the Axis in-game, and have in the past. HoI needs to be balanced for multiplayer purposes. If, like IRL, it's impossible to defeat the US, then why play multiplayer at all?

That's not to say anything should be possible (and I invite you to point to where I've claimed that), but rather that some things are going to be made possible or easier for the sake of gameplay. All games are like this. Every single one.

 

[Opanashc]

As shown earlier in the thread even in 1936 the US has over 50 divisions it could mobilize quickly if need be

How much training and equipment would those 50 divisions have? I doubt, that in 1936, those 50 divisions would have much, beyond WW1 equipment, and training from WW1 - not like US had a system in place between wars to prepare that many reservists.

 

[hkrommel]

How much training and equipment would those 50 divisions have? I doubt, that in 1936, those 50 divisions would have much, beyond WW1 equipment, and training from WW1 - not like US had a system in place between wars to prepare that many reservists.

Actually yes, it did.

Again, the only country actually capable of maybe forcing a landing (before being compromised by the USN, which nobody could completely destroy) is the UK (and it's actually impossible, I'm just entertaining the idea), had about 10 divisions in May 1940 in the BEF, who were transported to a friendly country. How many divisions could they actually land in the US and then maintain? Zero. The whole idea is preposterous, the USN, if sufficiently defeated, will simply switch to attacking supply convoys. The US would have total air superiority, total land superiority, and the British would likely not get off the beach, to say nothing of how they would be supplied if they could.