-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Yes, actually, the main reason for the minors to go this way is really not the actual combat performance, but manpower.
These guys eat less manpower than Infantry for the same amount of "success," per se.
Though their combat powers are very, very useful because they're fast. It's all about swift strikes and encirclements. As a minor, attritional war is your doom. Local superiority is everything. That's why the airforce is also crucial. Striking on dug-in divisions or long strategic bombing campaigns are pointless as minors: they need the best of CAS or TACs, guarded by skilled interceptors. Entire divisions will die even faster than encirclements if your planes can overwhelm the front and bomb them into Oblivion, and TACs on Logistical Strike can delay precious reinforcements from the enemy.
However, they will need more resources and TC per div. to be effective than Infantry.
And the reason for mechs is not because they're any better than the panzers--panzers are waaaay cooler anyway--but that they achieve roughly the same firepower with much less cost in research, production, and maintenance. Economics.
The Navy, though, is a sad state. Only a Great Power or a Great Power-to be (i.e. a brilliantly-played human minor) can produce navies that can challenge the existing superpowers. And even then they'll require local superiority like nothing else.
Keba: Nukes increase dissent on enemies. They also do significant, if sadly not permanent, damage on the static province assets of the province that got nuked. Some divisions will suffer too, though much less than one wants it to be.
Some players like to build up a nuclear arsenal of six or more and unleash them on the USA at once at the highest IC provinces (the more IC damaged in a shot, the higher the dissent) and see partisan uprisings scattering around the country. Funny and actually is quite effective if combined with invasions to exploit the opportunity, since dissent, as we must all remember, also reduce combat ability.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Bah. I just lost my entire battle fleet - in a single battle!
I invaded Vichy, and had just about finished polishing them off on the mainland with a very neat, well conducted campaign when they started invading a couple of useless Italian provinces of mine in Africa. I decided to intervene to stop them because I wanted to keep one of those provinces to use as an invasion base for one of their African VP provinces - Oran, I think it was.
So I fired up my transport fleet - six transports carrying six elite divisions, escorted by my four battleships plus my two best cruisers and six destroyers. I only just got them out of Genoa when they ran into a Vichy fleet - sixteen ships including a flattop and four battleships.
My fleet started losing so I tried to extricate it but couldn't. (Are you able to break off contact in a naval battle? The game doesn't seem to let you). So I rushed my nav bombers, plus the rest of my navy to the rescue.
The result? The battle went on for about three days, they lost the flattop, I lost 45 ships! - my entire navy, along with six elite divisions and two good commanders, all to the bottom of the sea.
YEEEAAARGH. ~:mad ~:mad ~:mad
Now I'm going to have to replay the entire Vichy campaign over again. I bet it doesn't go as well this time!
But I can't help thinking something is seriously up with the naval combat system. It's just plain RIDICULOUS to lose 45 ships in one battle! You should be able to disengage if you're losing. Also, your transports should be able to disperse and get out of the way when they have escorts to cover their retreat. Did I do something wrong to have this happen, or is the naval combat system just screwed up?
Apart from which, don't those damn Vichies know they are supposed to be a pathetic bunch of cowardly collaborators and surrender monkeys? :furious3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Watch your TC, especially if you're not using the economic giants. Motorized and mechanised divisions require more TC (not sure of the ratio) than infantry, who require about 1 TC per division. Each Panzer division takes 3, unless I'm mistaken - this is all after modifiers for distance and offensive supplification. This may not seem too bad at first, but keep in mind the supply issues that you'll incur after leading a successful campaign, further bogged down through occupied territory maintence and the absolutely insane partisan activity. While tanks may seem nearly invincible, a large bunch of them off in foreign territory will drag down your supply efficiency. I learned this the hard way.
Did I mention that sub-optimal TC affects unit speed?
Yeah, I know about the TC, I've had a lot of problems with that. I only plan to build maybe three Armoured Divisions at most. Italy doesn't really have a huge need for them, at least, not at this point in the game. Or maybe I'll go for the mech divs since Antiochus seems to think they're better value.
What I am wondering about is though whether I should build a rocket site. Actually, I'm already building it, but it's horrendously expensive and I'm not sure if it's worth it. I'm building it because I want to give myself the best possible chance of getting jet planes later in the game, but it isn't clear from the manual whether you actually need the rocket site to do this. Do I really need it, or will I get the jets anyhow?
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Now I'm going to have to replay the entire Vichy campaign over again. I bet it doesn't go as well this time!
But I can't help thinking something is seriously up with the naval combat system. It's just plain RIDICULOUS to lose 45 ships in one battle! You should be able to disengage if you're losing. Also, your transports should be able to disperse and get out of the way when they have escorts to cover their retreat. Did I do something wrong to have this happen, or is the naval combat system just screwed up?
YOur commander was probably terrible, plus bad doctrine. Result being terrible positioning values. And if that happens they will be EXTEREMLY hard to shake, the result being that your fleet is butchered. Also watch for stacking penalties. Also note that you can not run in the first 4 hours. You can tell your transports to run, but they at least need to be in their own fleet, not stacked with ships that you want to stay and fight. And your commanders aren't dead btw.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Oh, the commanders somehow magically survived? They must be the only guys who did!
And the transports should have been in their own fleet? But will the two fleets stick together in movement? And what's to stop the enemy picking on my transport fleet instead of the supposed escort fleet?
But yeah, it's true I've completely neglected the naval doctrines. I doubt I could have advanced far in them anyhow, but not being able to disengage a battle for three entire days is just nuts!
And I don't know what was up with my supposedly uber-killer nav bombers. Their impact seemed to be negligible. In fact I couldn't even get them to fly for the last couple of days. It didn't seem to be bad weather, perhaps they were disorganized by AA fire or something.
And what about the rocket site? Do I need to build it?
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus
Yes, actually, the main reason for the minors to go this way is really not the actual combat performance, but manpower.
These guys eat less manpower than Infantry for the same amount of "success," per se.
I can't believe manpower could ever be a problem. I already have over 70 divisions, and I still have manpower of about 850. That's another what? 85 Infantry Divisions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Though their combat powers are very, very useful because they're fast. It's all about swift strikes and encirclements. As a minor, attritional war is your doom. Local superiority is everything. That's why the airforce is also crucial. Striking on dug-in divisions or long strategic bombing campaigns are pointless as minors: they need the best of CAS or TACs, guarded by skilled interceptors. Entire divisions will die even faster than encirclements if your planes can overwhelm the front and bomb them into Oblivion, and TACs on Logistical Strike can delay precious reinforcements from the enemy.
Must say I haven't had much problem beating the other guys so far. Yugoslavia was probably the toughest so far and they weren't very tough. I just use my mountain divisions as my mobile force, they move faster than infantry divisions and can generally beat enemy divisions to the province they're trying to retreat to, which means effectively they get surrounded and destroyed. At least, that's how it seems to work.
As for bombers, I just put them on Interdiction and forget them. I can't be bothered trying to finesse with different attacks. Causing the enemy to lose org just keeps 'em retreating, so you can eventually corral them where you want and destroy them.
[quote=AntiochusIIIThe Navy, though, is a sad state. Only a Great Power or a Great Power-to be (i.e. a brilliantly-played human minor) can produce navies that can challenge the existing superpowers. And even then they'll require local superiority like nothing else.[/quote]
As I just found out. See my post about the big naval battle with Vichy above (Vichy! Bah).
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
And the transports should have been in their own fleet? But will the two fleets stick together in movement? And what's to stop the enemy picking on my transport fleet instead of the supposed escort fleet?
He meant that unless the fleet is warship-only, it cannot be made to flee the sea zone within the first four hours after contact is made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
But yeah, it's true I've completely neglected the naval doctrines. I doubt I could have advanced far in them anyhow, but not being able to disengage a battle for three entire days is just nuts!
The issue there is the carrier. It has a much greater range than the other ships around, since it counts the Carrier Air Group as being part of the ship's range. Your battleships will try their best to close, but the other fleet can simply maintain their distance and reign death upon you thanks to the attached planes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
And I don't know what was up with my supposedly uber-killer nav bombers. Their impact seemed to be negligible. In fact I couldn't even get them to fly for the last couple of days. It didn't seem to be bad weather, perhaps they were disorganized by AA fire or something.
If they're not flying, you should pay more attention to the mission parameter popup window. The game defaults delay of action when the planes are under 50% strength or organisation, but you can lower this yourself before you send them off. Also, their effect won't be so great on an entire assembled fleet at once, especially, if I understand properly, if the fleet has a CAG to fight off incoming planes. How many naval bombers do you have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
And what about the rocket site? Do I need to build it?
Well, are you intending on researching rocketry or building missiles? Having a rocket site speeds up research for the rocketry-oriented technologies, but seeing good results can involved a lot of waiting, sometimes.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
He meant that unless the fleet is warship-only, it cannot be made to flee the sea zone within the first four hours after contact is made.
Hmm, okay. But it still doesn't answer my question regarding why the enemy fleet might just not find my transport fleet instead and bomb that to hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
The issue there is the carrier. It has a much greater range than the other ships around, since it counts the Carrier Air Group as being part of the ship's range. Your battleships will try their best to close, but the other fleet can simply maintain their distance and reign death upon you thanks to the attached planes.
Hmm, maybe that was the problem, but if so carriers must be pretty awesome. I lost 45 ships! And I actually sunk the carrier about two thirds of the way through the battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
If they're not flying, you should pay more attention to the mission parameter popup window. The game defaults delay of action when the planes are under 50% strength or organisation, but you can lower this yourself before you send them off. Also, their effect won't be so great on an entire assembled fleet at once, especially, if I understand properly, if the fleet has a CAG to fight off incoming planes. How many naval bombers do you have?
I only had three level one nav bombers, each with a bomb factor of four. But I also threw my tacs into the fray, I had four of them with a bomb factor of 3 apiece. So I had seven bombers altogether. But after flying a few missions, they just stopped, and I couldn't figure out why. I'd order them to fly into the zone, and then they would just remain at their airports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Well, are you intending on researching rocketry or building missiles? Having a rocket site speeds up research for the rocketry-oriented technologies, but seeing good results can involved a lot of waiting, sometimes.
I don't care about rockets. All I want is to make sure I get turbojet airplanes later in the war. I'm not sure if I can get them without a rocket station, that's all.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Oh, the commanders somehow magically survived? They must be the only guys who did!
And what about the rocket site? Do I need to build it?
A) Commanders go back to the commander selection pool when their command is destroyed.
B) You don't need to, but it will speed up research.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
I don't care about rockets. All I want is to make sure I get turbojet airplanes later in the war. I'm not sure if I can get them without a rocket station, that's all.
When researching stuff, look at the kinds of skills that are need to research it. Turbo jets will be some rocketry skill, and like was said before rocket research centers help speed rocketry research.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
When researching stuff, look at the kinds of skills that are need to research it. Turbo jets will be some rocketry skill, and like was said before rocket research centers help speed rocketry research.
Maybe I won't bother with it then. It takes 162 days to build and costs 40 IC, since I only want jet planes and won't be bothering with rockets, it's probably a waste of IC's.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Maybe I won't bother with it then. It takes 162 days to build and costs 40 IC, since I only want jet planes and won't be bothering with rockets, it's probably a waste of IC's.
Rockets beat strategic bombers any day ... you can cranck them out pretty fast (with the Rocket assembly line tech), they are fairly cheap and ruin industry like you wouldn't believe. As an added plus, little or no interception chance, unless the enemy waste resources on rocket interceptors.
As an added plus, the ICBM is exceptionally useful, you can hit an enemy a long way away without threat from retaliation. Add to that that you can mount nukes on those ... :dizzy2:
Personally, I always go for turbojet aircraft ... they can give you an exceptional edge if used early on (mostly because I almost never bother making a lot of aircraft ... I let my 'allies' handle that battlefield role mostly).
Keep in mind that the fact that you're not the biggest industrial power in your alliance actually takes away a lot of the need to shoulder the pressure. With, say, Germany or USA, you practically fight the war on your own, while your allies hold a support role (like holding a part of the front, or small-scale advances ... or just providing convenient aribases and ports).
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Rockets beat strategic bombers any day ... you can cranck them out pretty fast (with the Rocket assembly line tech), they are fairly cheap and ruin industry like you wouldn't believe. As an added plus, little or no interception chance, unless the enemy waste resources on rocket interceptors.
I'm only playing Italy ya know! :laugh4:
I haven't the resources to build everything. I think I'll leave the rockets to Germany...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
As an added plus, the ICBM is exceptionally useful, you can hit an enemy a long way away without threat from retaliation. Add to that that you can mount nukes on those ... :dizzy2:
No hope of Italy getting nukes. Italy doesn't have a single nuclear research team. It would take forever to research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Personally, I always go for turbojet aircraft ... they can give you an exceptional edge if used early on (mostly because I almost never bother making a lot of aircraft ... I let my 'allies' handle that battlefield role mostly).
Yeah, I'm keen on the jets, since standard aircraft research only has three levels (and I already have two of them, by 1941).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Keep in mind that the fact that you're not the biggest industrial power in your alliance actually takes away a lot of the need to shoulder the pressure. With, say, Germany or USA, you practically fight the war on your own, while your allies hold a support role (like holding a part of the front, or small-scale advances ... or just providing convenient aribases and ports).
I'm not actually in an alliance, yet ~:) I plan to try and stay out of the big war until I'm ready, which means when I've done all the conquest I want to in order to build up my strength to the max. Then, maybe I'll go into alliance with Germany and mount a suprise attack on Gibraltar and Suez, thus turning the entire Mediterranean into an Italian lake.
Or maybe just for fun, I'll throw my lot in with the Allies and mount a suprise invasion of Germany :eyebrows: I haven't decided yet.
I'm not sure what else I want to conquer yet. I've taken Spain, Albania, Yugoslavia and Greece (the latter puppeted) and I'm about to take Vichy, which I will probably annex. After that I might take Portugal and puppet that, and/or Bulgaria and Turkey. The US is not very happy with me already though, so I may not be able to take all these without triggering a US DoW.
The main disadvantage of not being in an alliance is - no help with research. But I think one is amply compensated by the fact that you're not wasting IC's defending yourself against the major powers...
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
About Vichy... They have VP provinces as far as Saigon. It is no enough to take out their european holdings , and Dakar, you will have to take out Asia too. So prepare for a long war. I did it once, shipping a single paratrooper to Saigon to finish them off, but it is hopeless, you can't hope to mantain order, and your TC will go through the roof.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Maybe I should just puppet them then? I've almost got enough VP's to do it.
Somebody said something about being patient and waiting for their farflung provinces to go to Free France. I'm not too sure about this though - won't Free France want to declare war on me to get its Vichy territories back?
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Maybe I should just puppet them then? I've almost got enough VP's to do it.
Somebody said something about being patient and waiting for their farflung provinces to go to Free France. I'm not too sure about this though - won't Free France want to declare war on me to get its Vichy territories back?
They will, if you start messing with the allies and generally get your belligerance too high. For some reason those damn democracies don't like you if your belligerance is high.
Those provinces might go to Free France because Vichy is weakened, but they won't necessarily depending on how the game progresses. I believe puppeting Vichy is the best option, but if you control Spain, you migh want to leave a land corridor between Spain and Italy to be able to deploy troops there if nothing else.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
They will, if you start messing with the allies and generally get your belligerance too high. For some reason those damn democracies don't like you if your belligerance is high.
Yeah, my popularity with the US is already -181, and I think they go to war with you at -200 don't they?
Oddly enough, I'm only at -139 with Britain. Maybe they're secretly happy to see their old enemy France get her come-uppance ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Those provinces might go to Free France because Vichy is weakened, but they won't necessarily depending on how the game progresses. I believe puppeting Vichy is the best option, but if you control Spain, you migh want to leave a land corridor between Spain and Italy to be able to deploy troops there if nothing else.
How do I get a land corridor, you mean by demanding certain provinces from them? I hadn't really thought of that. My main purpose in fighting Vichy is to get that land corridor to Spain, so maybe that's the best shot. I was going to demand a puppet state plus military access, but demanding provinces instead of military access might make more sense, I guess. Might get me a few extra IC's, too.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Yeah, my popularity with the US is already -181, and I think they go to war with you at -200 don't they?
Oddly enough, I'm only at -139 with Britain. Maybe they're secretly happy to see their old enemy France get her come-uppance
Beligerence, not your relations, determine when they can go to war with you. I'm not too sure how relations come into it. I know they do have to do with trading agreements(better relations = better deals).
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
The better your relations with another country, the better off most deals will be. Presuading them to join your fledgling alliance or to sign a non-aggression pact is much easier if you're on better terms with the country. They won't necessarily declare war if your relations have sunk to -200, but, in most cases, nations won't declare war on you if relations are at +200, even if you're very belligerent.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
I assumed belligerence fed into the relationship factor, and that it was ultimately relationship that caused you to go to war. But that was only my assumption.
I think my belligerence is around 70 or 80 right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorebag
The better your relations with another country, the better off most deals will be. Presuading them to join your fledgling alliance or to sign a non-aggression pact is much easier if you're on better terms with the country.
Yeah, I'm just beginning to realize the advantages of alliances. If you can get an alliance and then assume military control of its forces, it can make more sense than invading and annexing, because you effectively get the use of ALL that country's IC's instead of just a few. You also get their army for free, and you don't have to support it yourself. You can also get blueprints from them.
Probably the only downside of an alliance I think is that you can't actually control what that country builds or researches. Apart from that, alliances can be quite useful I think. I'm in an alliance with Bulgaria now. Now I will probably have to use my influence on it until it lets me get control of its military. Or maybe I will have to conduct a coup?
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Ideally you want to keep your belligerance below 50. Played as Argentina took Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uraguay, and Brazil. I fended off the US for quite awhile actually. Tanks and Mech Inf. Don't do so hot in the Jungles and we were at a Stand Still. Was going to take Venezuela, so I declared war, my Belligerance went over 50 and I was suddenly at War with the UK, Italy, France, and the USSR. then I got pwned.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Yeah, I think next time I play Italy I'll try to take Republican Spain before the civil war breaks out. That's one less faction I'll get belligerence points for DoW'ing.
And then maybe I won't bother DoW'ing Albania either. Maybe I'll just try to coup and puppet or something. It only has a couple of pretty useless provinces, hardly worth the extra belligerence points you get for the DoW.
BTW, I've remained at war with Ethiopia right throughout this game because I've noticed that you only use half as many consumer goods when you're at war. I'm not sure if there's a downside to being permanently at war though, in terms of production I mean. I thought I read something about it in the manual but haven't been able to find it again. Is there any downside you know of, either in terms of production or diplomacy, to being at war?
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I can't believe manpower could ever be a problem. I already have over 70 divisions, and I still have manpower of about 850. That's another what? 85 Infantry Divisions?
The drain is not the division-building, mainly, since we can always calculate that. The true drain, however, is reinforcements. The divisions suffer strength losses in combat, and very high losses in heavy combat; you'll have to reinforce them with the ICs and manpower or have understrength divisions that can't perform properly.
Italy is not suffering much from that point, though, unlike, say, Japan in China, or an Axis Minor fighting in Russia.
Also, avoid offensives in winter if you want your troops to live. It's a huge bonus on the enemy, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Must say I haven't had much problem beating the other guys so far. Yugoslavia was probably the toughest so far and they weren't very tough. I just use my mountain divisions as my mobile force, they move faster than infantry divisions and can generally beat enemy divisions to the province they're trying to retreat to, which means effectively they get surrounded and destroyed. At least, that's how it seems to work.
Hey, you're not facing anything like the Russian Bear yet. Or the African campaign; or something such. Those guys...you will be outnumbered eventually, if not locally, and you'll have to encircle and destroy them. Beating up the minors are easier: they don't have hundreds of divisions to throw against you.
Your way of destroying enemy divisions is similar to mine, but I have serious problems fighting the Russians that way. The traditional encirclements (taking provinces surrounding a province with enemy forces in, and destroy that pocket) works better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
As for bombers, I just put them on Interdiction and forget them. I can't be bothered trying to finesse with different attacks. Causing the enemy to lose org just keeps 'em retreating, so you can eventually corral them where you want and destroy them.
Interdiction is useful in battles (they turn the tides, too) and against enemy positions. But you'll be better off with ground attack on those retreating divisions. When they're moving or retreating, divisions are awfully vulnerable to annihilation by a sufficiently persevere airbombing, even without direct groundfighting. And my God it's beautiful when that crazy Panzer division that beat the crap out of your infantry just evaporates into thin air thanks to your bombers' efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
As I just found out. See my post about the big naval battle with Vichy above (Vichy! Bah).
Ouch. Be careful of carriers. I'm a traditionalist and love my BBs, but the carriers own me unless my fleet's made up of a crapload of destroyers.
Also, Italy's fleet, though large by anyone's (except the mightiest's) standard, is very old. It's like the French's, all class I, class II stuff. So though your Regia Marina looks mighty in numbers and might be able to just about survive the fight with the Royal Navy, it really is not, unless you strengthen it:
If you don't have the resources for the big ones (BBs, CVs), build a crapload of as modern destroyers as possible. They're the fastest-building of all the fighting surface ships, so it won't be years before your fleet can even do anything, and in numbers they can be surprisingly good. Even though they lack the weight of the big ones, you can afford their losses. Mix them with the old battleships and you just might stand a chance.
The way the Navy works is this way: the fleets detect each other. They close in. Those with longer range "fire" first, in which carriers benefit. The admirals will maneuver for the "best" fighting spot, the positioning value. If out of position they can't really fight. The doctrines mark your positioning value, as well as the skill of the Admiral. The ships have specific ranges where they can join combat. Carriers have 100+ km with cag brigades, while the next-longest one, the Battleship, is 32+km. That's why people fear carriers so much. Therefore, it is best to research better doctrines for your fleets if you want them to perform. And the carriers fight with airpower: only the smaller ships, CL or DD's, are truly capable of countering airpower, and only in numbers, except, of course, if you have carriers of your own...
One trick that people like to do in building up their navies is to focus on carriers, building level one carriers. It's quite an exploit, actually, since ships don't upgrade, but the cag brigades on carriers upgrade like other brigades, so the carriers won't be obsolete. Of course, Italy is not suited for carriers at all. Their doctrine is the Battleship one.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
The drain is not the division-building, mainly, since we can always calculate that. The true drain, however, is reinforcements. The divisions suffer strength losses in combat, and very high losses in heavy combat; you'll have to reinforce them with the ICs and manpower or have understrength divisions that can't perform properly.
Italy is not suffering much from that point, though, unlike, say, Japan in China, or an Axis Minor fighting in Russia.
Oh, of course, I didn't think of that. Obviously just beating up the minors isn't going to cause too many problems in that regard, is it? ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Interdiction is useful in battles (they turn the tides, too) and against enemy positions. But you'll be better off with ground attack on those retreating divisions. When they're moving or retreating, divisions are awfully vulnerable to annihilation by a sufficiently persevere airbombing, even without direct groundfighting. And my God it's beautiful when that crazy Panzer division that beat the crap out of your infantry just evaporates into thin air thanks to your bombers' efforts.
Yeah, I should have realized that myself from a little battle I had yesterday. A couple of enemy divisions were taking so long to retreat out of a province of mine I decided to switch to ground attack just to try and get rid of them. Three sorties and poof! they were gone. I watched the battles - half the unit strength gone in a single attack!
This is one tactic I obviously must make more use of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Ouch. Be careful of carriers. I'm a traditionalist and love my BBs, but the carriers own me unless my fleet's made up of a crapload of destroyers...
I'm deliberately neglecting my fleet because I figure that once I take Gibraltar and Suez the Med. will be an Italian lake anyhow. I will then just use Gorebag's trick of annihilating enemy shipping with navs, and then it won't make a lick of difference how ancient my ships and naval doctrine are (I hope).
My biggest problem at this stage is deciding who to go for next. I've got Albania, Yugoslavia, Greece and all the important bits of Vichy, I figure the next target should be either Portugal or Turkey. But since Portugal has VP provinces scattered all over it's another Vichy and I'm probably better off making an alliance with it.
That leaves Turkey. I figure I could take Turkey and then use it as a base to attack the Soviet oil producing provinces such as Baku and Grozny - in other words, try to help the Krauts beat the Soviets.
But then since my belligerence is already 116, just the attack on Turkey will probably trigger an Allied DoW so it probably makes more sense to secure my flank first. That means DoW'ing the Allies now by mounting a suprise attack on Gibraltar and Suez.
So even though I'm reluctant to enter the Big War against the Allies, logic seems to suggest that this is the sensible thing to do at this point. Alternatively though, I could sit tight for another year, maybe two, and just build up my strength so I'd be better prepared to defend myself when I do make the move. But then the Allies will be building up their strength too...hard choice to make :juggle2:
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
But then since my belligerence is already 116, just the attack on Turkey will probably trigger an Allied DoW so it probably makes more sense to secure my flank first. That means DoW'ing the Allies now by mounting a suprise attack on Gibraltar and Suez.
So even though I'm reluctant to enter the Big War against the Allies, logic seems to suggest that this is the sensible thing to do at this point. Alternatively though, I could sit tight for another year, maybe two, and just build up my strength so I'd be better prepared to defend myself when I do make the move. But then the Allies will be building up their strength too...hard choice to make :juggle2:
The problem is that one of the countries Guaranteeing the independence of Turkey is the Soviet Union, I learned that the hard way whent they declared war on me.
In africa, I'd advise you not to stretch yourself too thin. I had no problems taking out the Brits in Egypt and I've advanced as far as Somalia (and linked up with the troops in Ethiopia), but now the TC is over the top, and I've got too few units for too many provinces (and they take so long to get anywhere, and those are armored and motorized divisions). So, yes, I'd take Egypt and the Suez, but would not advance too far south, Ethiopia should be the lower end (maybe take out the Free French provinces).
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Yeah, I don't intend to go any further than the Med coast really. I just want to take all the main ports around the Med. coast and the rest I probably won't bother with. I don't really care what happens to Ethiopia either, it's got nothing in it and I just have four militia divs there to keep the natives under control.
I didn't notice a Soviet guarantee of independance for Turkey but I'll check that out before attacking. Thanks for reminding me.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
In my las game, I puppeted Ethiopia and shipped all my troops there to N.Africa to take and hold Suez, Alexandria and all the other bits. For fighting in Africa, my motto is if a province has TC< 20 % it isn't worth taking unles is a VP province. Just because it takes so long to walk in and out, that if the enemy attacks those provinces, you'll be aware of that with enought ime to set up a defense or counterattack anyway.
You can DoW Portugal and take everything of theirs but Lisbon, which you can't take, and get some african territorise and islands off the deal too, if you want them (I did, and then puppeted them too, but the allies quickly occupied them in the conflict...) My navy still got thrashed once, even after taking Gibraltar and Suez, because I deprived Vichy from all their ports, so their huge fleet was just roaming around the med, and ran into my transports - which was a miserable sight - But I am killing them off one at a time with aviation and subs. Still cost me a lot of time and resources - those italian admirals are mostly worthless.
Turkey. If they DoW you, you can take Istanbul, and garrison with infantry and artillery, and take the mountain south provinces, garrison with your trusty mountain troops, and let the turks lose men and sleep trying to kick you out. Even better, if you are allied to Blgaria, use their troops to invade Turkey from sea and through Istanbul, which serves 2 purposes: weakens both Turkey and Bulgaria, and forces Bu;garia t spend ICs on refitting the troops, which means you are going to be more advanced than them technologicaly, should you wish to use that advantage. It also leaves the Bulgarian divisions and turkish territory between you and the russians, if they are guaranteeing independences or get into the war some other way.
One thing though: When the war with the brits breaks out, take Iraq ASAP and garrison it with strong divisions in strategic points, as the brits will try hard to get it back, and while their power is crumbling in the mediterranean and Africa because they are out of supplies, they will fight hard in Asia, because there is plenty of divisions in India, and Australia and New Zealand will help them.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
One thing though: When the war with the brits breaks out, take Iraq ASAP and garrison it with strong divisions in strategic points, as the brits will try hard to get it back, and while their power is crumbling in the mediterranean and Africa because they are out of supplies, they will fight hard in Asia, because there is plenty of divisions in India, and Australia and New Zealand will help them.
Once defeat is imminent for British Iraq, a movement to turn on the British appears and peace is signed, as Iraq leaves the Allies. Of course, this might be limited to a German occupation being the event trigger, but I doubt it.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Once defeat is imminent for British Iraq, a movement to turn on the British appears and peace is signed, as Iraq leaves the Allies. Of course, this might be limited to a German occupation being the event trigger, but I doubt it.
Never happened in my game. I occupied and puppeted once, then the brits took it back when I had to move divisions to the turkish border, and then I retook it and annexed, but no event has been triggered.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
It's an event for Germeny after the creation of Vichy event. The Germans are offered possibility of turning Iraq away from the Allies by sending troops to Syria. They lose supplies (I don't remember what else), Syria gains a squadron of German bombers, and Iraq leaves the Allies.
-
Re: Hearts of Iron II Doomsday
After enjoying HOI 2 so much I bought DD :2thumbsup:
However what are the side effects of using nuclear weapons, apart from province damage? What about international relations... etc?
