Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Session 8 - 21st February - 20:00 CET Options · View
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:56:24 AM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
True true, it's Nov 1940.. and Japan can attack all over the world. The Allied ship losses are unfortunate but I am actually okay with that. My main concern is that Japan can defeat China so early and send its entire army on a rampage, I think the war should be a little longer. India will fall every time with our current setup, as the previous games have also shown. It's not like UK got a nice ANZAC force to fight the Japanese in New Guinea or anything like that Sad

AFAIK the positioning penalty is only used when ships ENTER combat, the next hours it is not used. The chance of a BB to close with a CV is abysmal, even if its fleet has a higher average speed. CAGs are not affected by the positioning penalty, but they do get different efficiencies depending on whether they do CAG duty or ranged strikes. I agree that the 4 hours of uninterrupted bombing is to much and not at all realistic. First strike should be important and decisive, but this is to much.

Edit: I guess Hirohito also cried about unbalanced strikes after Midway...

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:25:49 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Midway took 3 days though the jap cvs got wacked in 6 mins - hard to find a good mechanism to emulate this and still have the game balanced.

India held on very well - you lost supplies and thus had to leave - build more convoys - how many are u building now? (i dished out as uk 20 convoys all the time). I wasnt moveing forward much in india untill u decided to run. Usa entered the game real early - it has huge ammounts of units all over the place - 16+ in india, 10 + in hawaii, 10+ in panama, numbers in mexico and more in uk.... furthermore if you think i can attack all over the place then the mexico attack did get you paraniod - plan worked Smile - its really a huge effort to launch such an attack & very risky.

If japan was stuck in china this game would be over for axis. Concentrate on me not germany Smile. Usa's full cv potential is +18 months from war entry (if sheuy didnt fuck up) so thats mid 1941... and really they can afford to build 10 a go at 7 ic a pop or less. that still leaves him 340 "free" ic for tanks... now call that unbalanceing for poor japan who has to beat min. 8 uk carriers and umpteen usa ones...
Orthank
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:22:57 PM
 1st Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 1/22/2009
Posts: 184
Location: Wilanów
I agree that Japan should be bound in China longer, much longer.

Strategically USA is in a superiour position in Mexico (short supply lines, close to industry, HQ, and Capital), and yes there will be a good fight there, but this is what we wanted get.

I have only one question, how could US left western coast without any serious navy to protect?
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:48:57 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Orthank wrote:
I agree that Japan should be bound in China longer, much longer.

sure with usa in war with japan in nov 39 and japan stuck with china - japan is easy picking - it cant even hold on to the islands. Whilst usa + uk have around about then 12 cvs together zounds of tanks from france. Im sure the gar can hold on in mainland japan... Crazy
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:49:44 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
With Italy boosted UK really needs some presence around Suez and USA has shit troops until sometime in mid 1940. I simply cannot see how Japan is threatened before France falls.

Well I have convoys enough for India, but the number of troops are simply to high. Also, I would rather save my army than see it be destroyed by Japan.

The issue with naval combat is that the game is played on a strategic level and naval combat is much more a tactical matter, the sea provinces are so big that you can not really simulate proper naval combat. I am okay with that, but some small changes would really help. For example, you should only be able to repair capital ships in a level 5 port for example... and it should take longer time and IC.

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:03:18 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Balance between nations ois very complicated to even begin discussing.

I was mostly concerned that CV battles were somehow totally out of whack but it seems we agree that they are very dangerous and that is how it must be. I don't see anything that could make this better in a patch or expansion really without all too much changes to the game (which wont happen, small effective improvments might make it however).
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:54:32 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Hytzon wrote:
With Italy boosted UK really needs some presence around Suez and USA has shit troops until sometime in mid 1940. I simply cannot see how Japan is threatened before France falls.

Well I have convoys enough for India, but the number of troops are simply to high. Also, I would rather save my army than see it be destroyed by Japan.

The issue with naval combat is that the game is played on a strategic level and naval combat is much more a tactical matter, the sea provinces are so big that you can not really simulate proper naval combat. I am okay with that, but some small changes would really help. For example, you should only be able to repair capital ships in a level 5 port for example... and it should take longer time and IC.


you think my troops were better than lvl II? most of my inf was that level & lvl I when i dowed usa (IIRC i had 40 brigades lvl IV and thats it + 40 marines lvl IV at the start of the war - the rest were lvl i, ii). Hell i still have lots of lvl IIs around. I bet usa doesnt esp now - id be suprised if you have a lot.

you think i can supply though your ports more troops than u can? Crazy I had 1 lvl 10 port -& one far off in rangoon which kills through put. you had 2 lvl 10 and 4 lvl IVs. If you didnt have convoys on all the time you get wacked - you microed them (the scapa flow to caclutta one is an act of desperation drawing the line of supply even further). I didnt catch any later on to the small ports thus i speculate that none headed there.

Once france fell you had a hell of a lot of troops in india - if i was stuck in china those troops could land anywhere - even bunker up singapore or netherlands and philly. I would have no off cap with usa gettting stronger and stronger.
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:12:17 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
The thing is you do not need the same number of troops when you have naval supremacy - you can move them around at will. I did not have troops to defend the small ports and couldn't get anymore there. With a massive German paratrooper / marine force looking at me across the channel, I have to keep an eye on what is happening at home. Not that I believe Sealion is eminent, but if I let my guard down it could happen as a lightning from a clear sky.... my own strategy from the last game as Germany Smile

I have seen India fall to many times and the armies there destroyed, I opted to save them before it was to late. Please note, I do not complain about my losses - I just say they seem to happen a bit to early.



You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:16:52 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
all im saying that i really dont have naval sup - look at last game when uk went heavy on offensive. If just usa chose to move to singapore i prolly wouldnt have take it then. If japan is stuck in china then usa needs to be out of the war so that there can be still surpise - but that is moot if they can build loads of shit and put on the small islands - without those jap cant move forward at all.
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:21:22 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Fiendix wrote:
all im saying that i really dont have naval sup - look at last game when uk went heavy on offensive. If just usa chose to move to singapore i prolly wouldnt have take it then. If japan is stuck in china then usa needs to be out of the war so that there can be still surpise - but that is moot if they can build loads of shit and put on the small islands - without those jap cant move forward at all.


I think we agree that USA should not be at war in 1939, they should not be allowed into war with the Axis just because USSR is on the offensive. I am not advocating a massive boost to China, just a small delay so the eventual defeat takes longer. All in all, I think it's a bit early talking about major re-balancing, let's see what happens in Mexico and where UK will use its newly freed Indian army One Tooth Grin

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:24:30 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Generally for ballance:
  • Japan should need much more time to finish China.
  • SU and to some extent also Italy needs higher neutrality to prevent excess dows before eventual US war entry around end of 1940/mid 1941.

    As for naval combat, 4hrs shooting might be better halved to two, otherwise those coin-flips will be this deadly. Maybe some more things, but I think we should discuss this in more detail after we are finished with this game, not now.
  • Traks
    Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:37:08 PM
     Centurion
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/4/2009
    Posts: 853
    My opinion is:
    Ideally, Japan should win or get stalemate by end of 1939.
    Italy should be able to go to war in middle of 1939 if it takes steps to reduce neutrality, or Greece affair if it does not.
    SU should be able to wage more wars in middle of 1940 if it took steps to reduce neutrality.

    I don't think we can change 4 hour flip coins to 2, as it is in exe.
    But we can look at variables again.
    Fiendix
    Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:59:18 AM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    had to add this to pass the time Smile

    Fiendix
    Posted: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:17:51 AM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    juv95hrn wrote:
    I'd rather see 1vs3 or 2vs4 losses than 0 vs 3-4 all the time. Other than that these battles seem to have worked fine even if Japan came out on top this time too. Better ships, defending, potentially better doctrines seems to have settled the issue.

    The 65% vs 66.5% positioning... what it the influx on the battle of that? It decides starting positions but does it mean Japan gains 1.5% advantage, which is very little or is it black and white, Japan won so they get all the advantages of a won positioning roll?

    I thought combat turns were 1 hour. Do one side really fire uninterrupted for 4 hours than the other side returns fire? That seems a little unbalanced.

    And I agree, there should be a a chance that the fleet entering the sea zone becomes the "defender" and fires first.


    what id suggest - as i also found this out is that the suprise effect that airplanes can have when they first attack allegedly last 3 hrs - and thats why one side can get wiped out very fast. Id suggest paradox reduce this to 1 hr at max.
    Nikitn
    Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:20:42 AM
     Sergeant
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 1/11/2011
    Posts: 61
    Obviously, Japan is massievly overpowered without the war in China.

    Anyhow, it was a very poor decision from the Japs to bring USA into the war so early - I would even call it stupid. Japan declaring war on the US has effectively increased the US IC by 300% (went from 150 to 450) - while the Japanese were already at their full capacity.

    Very foolish move.

    Don't worry too much about the US Smile USA can afford taking losses.
    Ederon
    Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:41:31 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Nikitn wrote:
    Anyhow, it was a very poor decision from the Japs to bring USA into the war so early - I would even call it stupid. Japan declaring war on the US has effectively increased the US IC by 300% (went from 150 to 450) - while the Japanese were already at their full capacity.

    This would be true if USA was not already able to join the war by itself, due to way how threat works. So no, it wasn't bad move by Japs, quite the opposite.
    Fiendix
    Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:15:09 PM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    I think Nikitn is not aware how mp games go. Obv if there was a house rule forceing usa late war entry (or as Daniel said the threat usa got from ussr was lower) its not a good idea to attack so early. As it stands IMO it was the best option for getting the forward islands of usa which allowed us to push the front further away from mainland japan and didnt allow usa easy support for uk troops in indochina.

    If we waited 1-2 more months usa would have been at war anyways as there is not much point for it to wait + had its usual 450 ic + it would have fortified its forward bases to such an extent that we wouldnt have such an "easy" time in getting them. So all this was done in anticipation to imminent usa war entry. I think the "extra" 350 ic for 2 months are quite worth it seeing the current state of the map and usas ship loses.

    We are quite aware that usa can afford to lose 5 cvs and the 40+ other ships you lost. At least they are sunk and not harrasing us and usa needs to spend the 35+ extra ic to replace them instead of building tanks for germany - and thats the whole point... Obv the longer this goes the harder japan will be pressed 450 vs 250 is an obv. advantage.
    Fiendix
    Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:31:57 PM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    Pity Daniel that we dont have the ship losses stats calculator for hoi3 like for hoi2 (hint hint Smile )

    ------CA--CL--CV--CVL--DD--SS--TP
    UK----3---5----------------3----------4
    USA--2---15---5-----1----13---4-----4
    JAP-------------------------7------------
    ITA--------1---------------11---12-----
    Nikitn
    Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:22:14 PM
     Sergeant
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 1/11/2011
    Posts: 61
    Not really. USA is almost never ready in 1939.. We weren't planning for war until the UK would be in trouble or if the Japanese would start attacking the allies.

    Japanese attack was a good wake-up call. All in all it was a good thing - it made the US act.

    As it stands, it was a very poor decision. Japan would always be able to take the forward islands.. Their superiority in doctrines is just too great, though brining in the USA early is a mistake, especially since the Japanese would have an IC advantage vs a peaceful USA (not to speak about the doctrine superiority..). Why would the US land army fight Germany? What a silly thought, the US will just give some support to the UK wherever it needs it...

    oh, and sorry if I sound aggressive. That picture fiendix posted slightly annoyed me Wink

    Fiendix
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 12:47:59 AM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    Nikitn wrote:
    Not really. USA is almost never ready in 1939.. We weren't planning for war until the UK would be in trouble or if the Japanese would start attacking the allies.

    Japanese attack was a good wake-up call. All in all it was a good thing - it made the US act.

    As it stands, it was a very poor decision. Japan would always be able to take the forward islands.. Their superiority in doctrines is just too great, though brining in the USA early is a mistake, especially since the Japanese would have an IC advantage vs a peaceful USA (not to speak about the doctrine superiority..). Why would the US land army fight Germany? What a silly thought, the US will just give some support to the UK wherever it needs it...

    oh, and sorry if I sound aggressive. That picture fiendix posted slightly annoyed me Wink



    You keep going on about ic advantage - just in the last 2 games we had usa join jan 1940 and march 1940 iirc - so i'd anticipate usa would plan to be ready for then esp since shuer rather plays very aggresive. True USA is not really potent at that stage but it can defend its forward bases (last 2 games guam never fell - or anything past that) - so your point about japan "easily" takeing forward islands is moot. Esp. if you take into account a well done defence by uk. Once usa mobilises and has forces japan wont take anything easily. So 2 months early than "usual" is not too bad noteing that my hand was forced. Furthermore imminent France surrender helped me along in that decision.

    USA land army doesnt need to fight germany all it needs to do is be there to put stress on Germany - and wait for better tank doctrines (it can get many tanks from uk through the diplo screen and have a big army 200 days after it enters) - not to mention potentially help uk in med vs uk and provide huge support to with fleet and air assets.

    BTW iirc last game usa did land in denmark with a tank army in march 1941. Will you be able to do the same in this game earlier than in Jan 1941 seeing now its 10th november 1940?
    Ederon
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 3:40:35 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Fiendix wrote:
    Pity Daniel that we dont have the ship losses stats calculator for hoi3 like for hoi2 (hint hint Smile )

    Oh yes, it's on my rather long TODO list Smile
    Nikitn
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:33:21 PM
     Sergeant
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 1/11/2011
    Posts: 61
    fiendix, sorry but you are wrong. Japan should always be able to take the forward islands.. It doesn't matter if it attacks the US in 1939 or 1941.

    Schuer had unfortunately not positioned professional infantry there, that was the problem. It had nothing to do with Japanese "surprise attack".

    Honestly I can't see your point. Japan should stall the war as long as they can so they can prepare.. Japanese IC at total mobilization is bigger than the US one ++ doctrine advantages and MASSIVE manpower advantage.

    So conclusion is, thank you for awakening the U.S. giant. Japan's mistake was quite major here Smile
    Fiendix
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:52:32 PM
     Pilus prior
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 4/25/2008
    Posts: 1,017
    Japan isnt able to stall - usa is able to join due to ussr threat. It always joins at the start of 40 and gets its 450 ic irrelevant of japans actions. If you dont understand that then there is not much more i can say.
    Orthank
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:40:28 PM
     1st Lieutenant
    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 1/22/2009
    Posts: 184
    Location: Wilanów
    Nikitn wrote:
    fiendix, sorry but you are wrong. Japan should always be able to take the forward islands.. It doesn't matter if it attacks the US in 1939 or 1941.

    Schuer had unfortunately not positioned professional infantry there, that was the problem. It had nothing to do with Japanese "surprise attack".

    So conclusion is, thank you for awakening the U.S. giant. Japan's mistake was quite major here Smile


    Nikitn, you are playing against two adult players, keep your propaganda for your own troops trapped at Midway naval base.
    Ederon
    Posted: Sunday, February 27, 2011 8:34:34 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Nikitin, take a look at record of past three-four games. You'll notice US joined as early as 1940 and not due to Japanese attack, but rather due to high belligerence of USSR. This time it was not different. US was able to join yet before Japanese attack. What Japan did this time was they seized initiative rather then waiting for inevitable - US war entry and subsequent IC boost you are talking about. If Japan did not DoW itself, US would be in war within weeks (or month/two), so there goes your argument...
    Users browsing this topic
    Guest


    Forum Jump
    You cannot post new topics in this forum.
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
    You cannot create polls in this forum.
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

    Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
    Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
    Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.