UK badly needs a stronger start

[Amatiel]

As it stands, due to the shortage of guns and artillery that a competitive UK will have if he is actively trying to win the air war as he should be, the UK is forced into choosing between defending the British isles OR the overseas colonies like Egypt and Singapore, not both. Even with competent commonwealth players, the UK still needs to provide the bulk of the divisions.

A day one Operation sea lion is possible due to the way naval/air superiority works for naval invasions. Once the Germans take a port, its all over. Conversely, if the UK defends the homeland to prevent a day one sea lion, Egypt will definitely fall.

So either fix the way naval invasions work.

OR

Give the UK more guns, artillery and support equipment at the start of the game so the UK can properly garrison key areas.

 

[Temudhun Khan]

Or turn Egypt into a puppet state.

 

[everburn]

As it stands, due to the shortage of guns and artillery that a competitive UK will have if he is actively trying to win the air war as he should be, the UK is forced into choosing between defending the British isles OR the overseas colonies like Egypt and Singapore, not both. Even with competent commonwealth players, the UK still needs to provide the bulk of the divisions.

A day one Operation sea lion is possible due to the way naval/air superiority works for naval invasions. Once the Germans take a port, its all over. Conversely, if the UK defends the homeland to prevent a day one sea lion, Egypt will definitely fall.

So either fix the way naval invasions work.

OR

Give the UK more guns, artillery and support equipment at the start of the game so the UK can properly garrison key areas.

Just to know, in 39, how you have spent/assigned/used your MIC/NIC?

 

[Sanny]

I've had no problem playing the UK and keeping hold of Egypt and more importantly, the Suez? If you sink the bulk of the German Navy early on and then have it patrol around the North Sea and the Channel, the Germans will have a hard time trying to Naval Invade.

It's realistic anyway, you should see how unprepared the UK was for war, it's ridiculous. Some historians reckon the BEF in 1914 was more prepared for war than the UK in 1939.

 

[Amatiel]

Bear in mind im talking about a MP game with competent players.

 

[dave1233]

Bear in mind im talking about a MP game with competent players.

Then you should be getting massively buffed by the usa and can go full mil factories from the start. If you justify on Italy, you should be able to declare on them before Germany is finished with France which will make Africa a lot more of a competition so long as the Allied minors are solid players. The Raj should probably be able to guard Singapore for you and the garrison doesn't normally need to be that large because if Japan joins normally the US can join and reinforce it although that does depend on your ruleset.

 

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

Is the UK overly weak? Yes it is. That doesnt mean with some skill, you cant make up for it though. The 2 most important pieces of equipment for the UK are guns and fighters. Start the game off with 11 on basic equipment and 3 on support. Every military factory after this goes on fighters. Always build straight military, you dont have time to build civilian. The UKs job is to play defense and spam fighters, thats it.

Build 22 width infantry only templates, get extensive conscription, and put 4 guys on each port in the UK and 2 guys in each province adjacent to a port, that is the only way to stop sealion. Any less than that, and its guaranteed game over against a good Germany. Let your Commonwealth take the front in Africa (im assuming youre using no man's land, as vanilla Africa is just garbage). Dont even bother using your fleet to patrol the channel, its pointless. Instead take your fleet to the Med and use it for shore bombardment, dont get it stuck there however. When Japan enters the war, take your fleet and use it to defend Australia and the east coast of Raj. They are so easy to naval invade and take that a good Japan will have a port in both those countries and be well on its way to capitulating them in the first week Japan is in the war.

There you have it. The guide to playing UK.

 

[mursolini]

UK, in 1940 was only having air superiority over British Isles and some parts of Africa.

For most part of 1939-1940 Axis ruled skies over Europe and Mediterranean. That is, including French air forces, that were very substantial.

 

[Dalwin]

Bear in mind im talking about a MP game with competent players.

That was assumed on my part. Your comments would have made no sense in a SP context.

It seems to me that defense of the Home Isles is top priority. The day one Seelowe threat quickly disperses and allows you to then reinforce other areas.

I think that depending on the number of players in your group you must either rely on your allies to defend places like Egypt or you must use Indian and Malaysian manpower to construct your defenses.

Historically, both on land and in the air, Britain started off on the back foot. They were at a disadvantage and were forced to be defensive for quite a while. They also lost some of their key overseas possessions. I think it is a sign of good balance that the game portrays this. It would be bad balance if Britain could jump straight into air superiority while also holding all their colonies.

The Axis needs to do well early on and eventually the overall industrial balance should overcome their gains. One of the flaws in the design, is that unlike earlier versions, HOI4 allows a conqueror to gain 100% utility from occupied factories and resources. This allows Germany to become much stronger industrially than they should. This imbalance is made even worse if nothing prevents them from simply absorbing all of Europe including Hungary/Rumania etc. If every speck of land from Lisbon to Minsk (excluding only Italy) is painted grey, no amount of strategic bombing will be enough to weaken them sufficiently.

 

[Dan1109]

I haven't checked, but in SP I seriously doubt the USA is giving any remote historic amounts of lend lease to the UK. UK should not be able to do it alone, they need USA's arsenal of democracy.

 

[Katsuki126]

Some historians reckon the BEF in 1914 was more prepared for war than the UK in 1939.

Ouch, that is really an awful statement for the Brits, because the WWI BEF was already in a terrible state, the Somme didn't turn into a bloody disaster by itself...

 

[Zwirbaum]

I haven't checked, but in SP I seriously doubt the USA is giving any remote historic amounts of lend lease to the UK. UK should not be able to do it alone, they need USA's arsenal of democracy.

In SP I usually don't see problem holding French ground with British divisions and launching counter-attack... So in SP you really don't need that USA lend-lease.

 

[Opanashc]

Ouch, that is really an awful statement for the Brits, because the WWI BEF was already in a terrible state, the Somme didn't turn into a bloody disaster by itself...

Don't confuse 1914 and 1916. In 1914, BEF was a lot more prepared for war, man for man, than in 1916.

 

[sterrius]

For me UK is ok right now.

But the lack of intelligence in the game gives very little hints about what germany is planning and doing, making sure you always will "waste" resources in things you're not gonna need it.

 

[davej]

As it stands, due to the shortage of guns and artillery that a competitive UK will have if he is actively trying to win the air war as he should be, the UK is forced into choosing between defending the British isles OR the overseas colonies like Egypt and Singapore, not both. Even with competent commonwealth players, the UK still needs to provide the bulk of the divisions.

A day one Operation sea lion is possible due to the way naval/air superiority works for naval invasions. Once the Germans take a port, its all over. Conversely, if the UK defends the homeland to prevent a day one sea lion, Egypt will definitely fall.

So either fix the way naval invasions work.

OR

Give the UK more guns, artillery and support equipment at the start of the game so the UK can properly garrison key areas.

Is this in regards to the DLC, or in general? In general it is very easy for the player to defend the main isles.

 

[hkrommel]

As it stands, due to the shortage of guns and artillery that a competitive UK will have if he is actively trying to win the air war as he should be, the UK is forced into choosing between defending the British isles OR the overseas colonies like Egypt and Singapore, not both. Even with competent commonwealth players, the UK still needs to provide the bulk of the divisions.

A day one Operation sea lion is possible due to the way naval/air superiority works for naval invasions. Once the Germans take a port, its all over. Conversely, if the UK defends the homeland to prevent a day one sea lion, Egypt will definitely fall.

So either fix the way naval invasions work.

OR

Give the UK more guns, artillery and support equipment at the start of the game so the UK can properly garrison key areas.

This is a problem with multiple countries, probably most obvious in France. In reality France had massive stockpiles of WWI weapons and artillery and their problems were simply modernizing, but in game they have an enormous shortage. This is more of a balance thing than anything, since in MP the allied players could just spam divisions and use their already-large militaries to stomp the Axis early.

 

[Dalwin]

This is a problem with multiple countries, probably most obvious in France. In reality France had massive stockpiles of WWI weapons and artillery and their problems were simply modernizing, but in game they have an enormous shortage. This is more of a balance thing than anything, since in MP the allied players could just spam divisions and use their already-large militaries to stomp the Axis early.

Yes. I have always felt that those shortages were used as an easy way to portray the Allies unwillingness and unpreparedness for an early war. This design approach has some noteworthy shortcomings, of course. The most notable of these, IMO, is the ease with which the USA can be conquered if you attack them not later than the 2nd quarter of 1937. In the case of the USA there should be an event triggered by such an early defensive war that instantly gives them several thousand infantry weapons and even some trained divisions.

By the time you factor in the National Guard and the Army Reserve, the active Army during peacetime comprises close to one third of the ground forces of the USA. These reserve divisions have also always been among the first to get sent into combat.

 

[hkrommel]

Yes. I have always felt that those shortages were used as an easy way to portray the Allies unwillingness and unpreparedness for an early war. This design approach has some noteworthy shortcomings, of course. The most notable of these, IMO, is the ease with which the USA can be conquered if you attack them not later than the 2nd quarter of 1937. In the case of the USA there should be an event triggered by such an early defensive war that instantly gives them several thousand infantry weapons and even some trained divisions.

By the time you factor in the National Guard and the Army Reserve, the active Army during peacetime comprises close to one third of the ground forces of the USA. These reserve divisions have also always been among the first to get sent into combat.

Not to start another debate but I really wish there was some sort of political system so there could be those same limitations without ahistorical nerfing.

As for the gameplay element a good set of house rules usually does the trick, and you're absolutely right that with the USA in particular the National Guard (kind of halfway between regulars and reserves) and reserves aren't really portrayed accurately, and neither are the coastal defense forces which aren't modeled at all to my knowledge.

 

[Katsuki126]

Don't confuse 1914 and 1916. In 1914, BEF was a lot more prepared for war, man for man, than in 1916.

I'm curious now, how did they do to have a worst army in 1916 than 1914 despite two years of war experience behind them ?

 

[Aodhan_]

Ouch, that is really an awful statement for the Brits, because the WWI BEF was already in a terrible state, the Somme didn't turn into a bloody disaster by itself...

I would say the Somme did turn into a bloody disaster by it's self, it was called arrogant (I would say snooty) leaders. But I'm no expert on WW1 only going on what my Grandfather and his brothers would have said about the Somme.