The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer

[Red Roo]

The hardest part realism-wise is how any would be invader would be able to gain an effective foothold to invade the US.

One thing I believe needs to have a bigger effect in the game is logistics. Taking this into consideration, invading the USA would require a staging point; a land border for a conventional invasion and a large naval base for an effective amphibious invasion. Mexico and Canada are the only neighboring countries on the continent, and I doubt the USA would sit idle as a foreign power either invaded one of these countries (Thanks, Monroe), or started transporting a large amount of it's military arsenal, munitions, personnel etc to it's borders. The most significant Naval bases I can think of on either side of the country are US bases (Guantanamo and Pearl Harbor). To take these you would already have to be at war with the US.

Either way, they have to contend with the USN before invading the country.

This leaves the only major power being able to effectively consider invading the USA the UK, and I don't believe they would have the capacity to achieve a decisive victory in the US mainland before the tide turns against them.

 

[griffor]

You're right. It is a game after all. I mean things like world conquest with Albania maybe shouldn't be possible but those are extreme.

well i think we all know that if we had a longer timeframe someone would be able to do it i'm sure

 

[dav77-b]

If the axis has naval supremacy in the atlantic and the pacific, an invasion will be possible.

People argue about logistics, but D-Day was possible too. And Iam sure some caribean Islands have ports.

USA militia? Germany had militia defending the last days too. Didnt change stuff.

The Axis invading both West and East Coast the same time? Hard time for the USA.

An Invasion obviously needs the defeat of the UK, China and SU befor and all the organistion to occupy their land. And some navy. So probably 1950 earliest.

On the other hand people argue that Sovjet Union alone can beat the entire Axis. And UK can beat the entire Axis alone. And USA can beat the entire Axis alone. Also Greece is steonger than Italy and Czechia can beat Germany. The royal navy is immortal anyway. And they only won with luck against France , so France is able to beat Italy and Germany actually too. And with china being to big for japan, it is only logical that japanese people speak chinese today. From this perspective Axis has ofc 0 chance to do anything but to loose.

 

[Super-Soviet]

There is a 'was sealion possible' thread in which no one could find a good reason for sealion to have worked

On AH.com, the largest alternate history website on the internet, discussing sealion is seen as so worthless and futile the topic itself is banned.

However, in game, it should be possible of course.

 

[henzington]

It was stated for example that Italy is slightly buffed in the game to make the game more entertaining. In the game, it wouldn't be very interesting if the Axis didn't have a reasonable chance of winning.

 

[77Hawk77]

If germany used all the resources they used on building those 700 VII submarines and 808 pre war He-111 on making surface ships, and italy got naval victories, there would be no reason you couldn't invade England.
You have a finite amount of resources, and if you focus your industry to invade England you could, it's not that it's impossible or was impossible to invade England, it was a choice that they would invade the soviet union first, also they thought England would just surrender after France and being submarined and bombed.

 

[Swinds]

Please see the is Sealion possible thread, may people put their thoughts on the tread.

IMHO Basically as things stood in late August 1940 invasion was a slight possible but success was very very unlikely. For all those who disagree please go read the tread, pros and cons are talked about.

 

[Hagen67483]

Real life WW2? It was impossible to conquer the USA with "normal" troops in my opinion.

HOI? I have seen way more "impossible" things happen than a succesfull Invasion of the USA. Hey I have seen Finnland taking Moskow without any help. (I know AI was off).

It was stated for example that Italy is slightly buffed in the game to make the game more entertaining. In the game, it wouldn't be very interesting if the Axis didn't have a reasonable chance of winning.

Maybe the definition of winning for the axis should not be "conquer earth" but instead "conquer europe, asia and North Afrika and defend it until the fear of nuclear annihilation ends WWII"

 

[Jazumir]

Real life WW2? It was impossible to conquer the USA with "normal" troops in my opinion.

HOI? I have seen way more "impossible" things happen than a succesfull Invasion of the USA. Hey I have seen Finnland taking Moskow without any help. (I know AI was off).

Maybe the definition of winning for the axis should not be "conquer earth" but instead "conquer europe, asia and North Afrika and defend it until the fear of nuclear annihilation ends WWII"

This. It´s a matter of setting the right scales. If f.e. a certain amount of VPs is needed in order to win, the axis may not have to invade the US. And that´s a better way of balancing it, than nerfing the US into the ground to make an invasion possible, so that the Axis may be able to win through world conquest.

 

[trionwolf]

Real life WW2? It was impossible to conquer the USA with "normal" troops in my opinion.

HOI? I have seen way more "impossible" things happen than a succesfull Invasion of the USA. Hey I have seen Finnland taking Moskow without any help. (I know AI was off).



Maybe the definition of winning for the axis should not be "conquer earth" but instead "conquer europe, asia and North Afrika and defend it until the fear of nuclear annihilation ends WWII"

I agree totally, in HOI 3 i have occupied the British home isles and couldn't knock them out of the war, then i have to go on with the invasion of USA and and basically conquer the world it makes no sense to me.

 

[tommylotto]

Question - how much does knowing how to drive a tractor/shoot a gun help create effective units?
Does driving a tractor help shoot a gun from the tank? No.
Does knowing how to shoot a gun help in knowing how to defend against an artillery barrage? No.
Do any of those things help in knowing how to organize a battalion-size assault on the enemy? No.
How to fly a combat plane? No.
How to use a mortar or artillery gun? No.
How many soldiers in WW2 died of rifle fire, vs everything else?
All it does, is help shorten the training cycle by about 2 weeks for basic infantryman and tank driver, that's it. It matters little how well you shoot - organization trumps quality, everything else being equal. Try shooting after running for a 500m at full sprint when your breathing is jacked up, when you are trembling with fear under artillery barrage, when you don't have time to aim, because the enemy is shooting back! Those "hicks with guns" didn't have targets that fired back.
Sure, they can shoot better - on the range. They would do well in ambushing, but not in a stand-up fight, when the enemy KNOWS they are there.

That is a rather uncharitable comment. All populations had characteristics that made them better or worse soldiers. One of the pluses of the American population of the 30's and 40's was the higher proportion of pre-existing rifle proficiency and even more significant was a pre-existing mechanical proficiency. It is not so much that they knew how to drive a tractor and could thus drive a tank, it was that there was a higher proportion of the population that knew how to keep a model-T or the family tractor running. There were lots of mechanics. That is one of the benefits of having a motorized society and it is not something you can make up for in a few weeks of training. All things being equal, I'd like my population to already know how to shoot a rifle straight and have lots of guys who can keep an engine running.

And that brings you back to the topic. The US military of the 30's was sufficient for the threats at hand. No army to speak of but potent navy to keep the shores secure. I am sure if the threat landscape were different, the make-up of the US military would have been different. If Canada was a hostile country with lots of tanks, the US military would have invested more in armored divisions. German troopships will not just start landing in Veracruz. The threat will develop over months and probably years. Then the US military would organize the "hicks with guns" in order to meet the threat, and when doing so, I'd be glad they already knew how to shoot straight and could fix a tractor.

 

[teamgene]

Well as for game, its a game so should be possible and I am sure will be if the americans are stupid.

Reality....any scenario of invasion of usa requires someone to come up with a way for axis to destroy both atlantic and pacific fleet without losing its own navy in the process. Even major japanese naval victory would leave too few surviving aircraft to really exploit the victory. The army wouldn't matter, though it was no weaker than Britain, France or Germany before the war all had a 100,000 man army without any modern weapons. Any build up to invade would have been met with a military build up by us army/navy.

USA was already working on plans for invasion of europe in 1940, even then military told president it couldn't be done until 1944. Seems the estimate was pretty accurate.

 

[Lumen_de_Lumine]

In game we can fully expect AI USA to crumble like cards ala HOI3; the player would simply be able to sneak troop transports thru the USN which the AI will inevitably have running around like headless chickens. Then we can fully count on the US AI to not garrison the port of Miami, and after seeing players troops land, go on to pile 100 divisions on the Florida panhandle.

After which we can count on the AI to have shoddy logistics and we get away with sneaking another force up to Georgia and cut off the said 100 divisions and crush them completely due to stacking penalties. After which we can consolidate the troops and fully expect the AI to rinse and repeat and send another 100 divs to their doom.

Face it guys, Naval/amphibious AI are impossible to code and UK/US will always disappoint in AI hands.

 

[Secret Master]

There is a 'was sealion possible' thread in which no one could find a good reason for sealion to have worked

Hey, I did my best to come up with a plausible Sea Lion. There's just not enough steel and Allied incompetence and fuel for the Regia Marina and enough firepower in the IJN to Sea Lion and defeat France.

 

[Lamahorse]

The USA will always be the last boss of HoI... Be that as Germany with the whole of Europe under their thumb... or the USSR.

 

[seattle]

"The US should be nearly impossible to conquer"...
Oh Jesus, here we go again. Realism should always be more important than gameplay cause fun is way overrated. A game first and foremost should be realistic. Since when shall people have fun playing games? Sales are also overrated...

HoI4 won't let realism get in the way of gameplay. Axis and Allies will be balanced to be of roughly equal strength. Beating and conquering the US will be perfectly possible in the game. Whoever doesn't like it, can write a book about how infeasible this is.

 

[Axe99]

"The US should be nearly impossible to conquer"...
Oh Jesus, here we go again. Realism should always be more important than gameplay cause fun is way overrated. A game first and foremost should be realistic. Since when shall people have fun playing games? Sales are also overrated...

HoI4 won't let realism get in the way of gameplay. Axis and Allies will be balanced to be of roughly equal strength. Beating and conquering the US will be perfectly possible in the game. Whoever doesn't like it, can write a book about how infeasible this is.

I've got no issue with the game balanced to make Axis and Allied equal strength, but one of the things about HoI4 is that it has more of a sandbox focus, and in a sandbox game, is there a sensible rationale for not having historically plausible starting-off points? I've got no issue with it, I'm just not sure what the reason would be. Of course, in historical mode, for people that don't want a historical set-up, then a balanced approach would be the go .

Personallly, though, I've far preferred WW2 games as the Axis when I was actually given a historical set-up, rather than the 'we know everyone wants to win without working up a sweat' start that Germany gets in HoI2 and 3. Winning as Germany in a historical set-up is far, far more rewarding than I found my rather blaze victories with Germany in HoI. Japan is a bit easy because of the naval AI (so I'm hoping Japan will be a tougher ask in HoI4), and Italy, fortunately, is historically poor enough that in-game is still a good challenge to play as long as you don't take advantage of the AI's silliness.

 

[seattle]

Personallly, though, I've far preferred WW2 games as the Axis when I was actually given a historical set-up, rather than the 'we know everyone wants to win without working up a sweat' start that Germany gets in HoI2 and 3. Winning as Germany in a historical set-up is far, far more rewarding than I found my rather blaze victories with Germany in HoI.

Two problems with that premise:
1. how do you define "nearly impossible"? If you don't really have a chance to beat the US as Germany, then how much fun can you have? Do you play until the game ends and get your satisfaction from a victory on points???
2. with that set-up you proposed, how can you play the Allies? Wouldn't they be a complete cakewalk? You can't have weak Axis, strong Allies and have a challenge with both sides unless you handicap the player regardless of his chosen nation. That would bring us back to difficulty settings which usually handle handicaps.

 

[Beagá]

I can´t play as any nation in any other Pdox game and destroy a big country in one war.

To expect anyone could beat US in one year belongs to Lalaland and I for one hope it´s NOT the path taken for this game.

 

[adam_grif]

Against a competent human player I imagine it will be quite hard, but the AI is historically not very good at repelling invasions intelligently. In HoI3 the convoy system also worked in such a way that it was kind of hard to simulate logistical problems beyond "do I have enough convoys yes/ no". When we're sinking equipment and manpower (I hope we are!) with subs that might go a fair way to helping make sustaining invasions harder when the enemy has both surface and submarine raiders in tact, and I REALLY hope that the US doesn't just ship everyone overseas or something dumb and have washington barely guarded by a weak garrison div after you've obviously been building up for an invasion for months off shore.