HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.6.2 Update

[PanzerMonster]

Home fleet would only have been sitting ducks if the RAF didn't exist. The Germans didn't have the navy nor the ships to secure the channel or even a small passage. Any advantage gained early in the invasion would have been gone in a matter of weeks and whatever german forces that would have landed would be out of supplies really fast with no chance of relief or resupply.

The Brits had every advantage to defend their Island from the Germans and any Germans crossing would either die or be captured in weeks, not months. Especially since there would be no air support good enough to keep control over the skies of the channel, especially near the british coast, let alone the skies in Britain itself. It would set Germany back loads and would either cause the Soviets to invade them in 41 or 42 and make the war end earlier than 45. No chance for the Germans to even consider a barbarossa or africa campaign.

There is no chance for operation sealion in any period after 39 unless Hitler did everything different from the very start.

Indeed, that's why Hitler had a plan to knock out Soviets, take their oil fields to boost his economy and war machine and then sue for peace with UK (i.e make them accept peace)

 

[PigletCNC]

Indeed, that's why Hitler had a plan to knock out Soviets, take their oil fields to boost his economy and war machine and then sue for peace with UK (i.e make them accept peace)

Exactly.

Anyone even thinking Germany would have stood a chance is delirious. Has no understanding of warfare or any knowledge of the situation as it was then. Britain had a large supply of weapons on their island and a large force of men at the ready to fight on British soil. Before the war the british were already preparing for a war and they were ready for heavy bombardments before the war even began. Then they spend the entire 'phoney war' period preparing some more. They didn't have an atlantic wall or anything but they didn't need to. They had a wall of ships the Germans needed to break through first and then a hard to invade coast on the shortest path and an airforce on par with what the Germans could use and an easier ability to supply their troops than the germans would ever hope to have.

Not to forget that any naval action by germany in the channel to support the invasion and supply of the troops would prevent effective blockade of Britain so less sunk convoy ships and more raw goods getting into britain. "Yes, we DO have bananas" would be what we'd remember most about the 'scarcity' during the war. Heck, there'd be pictures showing brits walking German prisoners through london and them being showered with chocolate because they'd be fucking malnourished and the brits would have plenty (okay okay, maybe that's a bit too much...). Sure it would be intense and with a fucktonne of luck the Germans might get a good foothold and maybe capture some important cities, heck maybe even London. But they wouldn't ever be able to hold it.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Home fleet would only have been sitting ducks if the RAF didn't exist. The Germans didn't have the navy nor the ships to secure the channel or even a small passage. Any advantage gained early in the invasion would have been gone in a matter of weeks and whatever german forces that would have landed would be out of supplies really fast with no chance of relief or resupply.

The Brits had every advantage to defend their Island from the Germans and any Germans crossing would either die or be captured in weeks, not months. Especially since there would be no air support good enough to keep control over the skies of the channel, especially near the british coast, let alone the skies in Britain itself. It would set Germany back loads and would either cause the Soviets to invade them in 41 or 42 and make the war end earlier than 45. No chance for the Germans to even consider a barbarossa or africa campaign.

There is no chance for operation sealion in any period after 39 unless Hitler did everything different from the very start.

Much of this is because Hitler didn't really want a war with UK to begin with and didn't consider them an enemy until they were at war and the bombs started flying.

That said if Germany starting in 1939 had doubled down on aircraft production and tripped their pilot training efforts, as well as focused on knocking out the airfields, radars & RAF instead of London during the Battle of Britain I think they would have had a decent chance of gaining control of the airspace over the English channel and southern UK.

Especially if they can get drop-tanks to the Bf109s out a bit earlier than August - October 1940 ( These drop-tanks extended the range of the Bf109 from 660km to 1325 km, so pretty much double. )

Another key problem for Germany in this scenario is that they didn't have good anti-ship weapons or training, their only really effective plane was the Stuka which couldn't carry large enough bombs to really threaten capital ships.

The best they could hope for ( In a scenario where they aim to prepare for Seelion from 1939 ) I think is a brutal slugfest in which any German forces trying to cross are just as shot to pieces as the Royal Navy ships or the RAF that get bombed/hunted are. The question is who runs of divisions/ships first.

 

[PigletCNC]

No, Hitler thought the Brits would surrender after France had fallen, or at least go for a white peace. If Germany doubled down on anything it would only have prolonged the hurt. Increasing production for one would lead to decrease of other. Then there is the problem with how much fuel Germany would need to support that, that Germany didn't have a navy that was on par with the brits, that the brits had the advantage of defending and was ready for naval warfare from the air to aid their fleet.

Again, at best, weeks before the Germans had to surrender their troops in Britain setting them back really bad.

A victory is out of the question for the Germans in Britain. I mean, the Germans didn't know where the radar installations in Britain were because they couldn't spot them so taking those out is out of the question. Even during the Blitz when they were completely focussed on taking out industry and the RAF they werent even close to bringing the RAF down on their knees.

There is no chance for getting air superiority in Britain and maybe parity in the Channel, with advantages to either side on their respective coasts. Sealion is/was retarded and even the Germans knew this.

 

[wesleytj]

A victory is out of the question for the Germans in Britain. I mean, the Germans didn't know where the radar installations in Britain were because they couldn't spot them so taking those out is out of the question. Even during the Blitz when they were completely focussed on taking out industry and the RAF they werent even close to bringing the RAF down on their knees.

False. Many locations of the Chain Home system were known and attacked. They were also, however, repaired relatively quickly, and several stations along the chain would have had to have been simultaneously out of action for the entire system to be compromised. The Germans also didn't think they had done much damage, so after Adler Tag (Eagle Day) those attacks on radar stations were discontinued.

 

[PigletCNC]

False. Many locations of the Chain Home system were known and attacked. They were also, however, repaired relatively quickly, and several stations along the chain would have had to have been simultaneously out of action for the entire system to be compromised. The Germans also didn't think they had done much damage, so after Adler Tag (Eagle Day) those attacks on radar stations were discontinued.

You are completely correct. Sorry, I was misinformed on that. Thought they could locate the origin of the radar signals and hence... But you're right, reading up on it, it seems that they thought the expense of taking these towers out was too great and lacked an understanding of what they actually did to fail to see the importance of them.

In the end it only proves though that the Germans wouldn't have taken out the radar even if they had more aircraft, resulting in the BoB always going to the Brits (and even if the Germans knew what they were dealing with, ease of repair indeed would have probably prevented significant obstructions in the coverage).

Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Increasing production for one would lead to decrease of other.

Exactly my point. How many fighters can Germany get instead of say 2000 Panzers, 50000 Trucks, thousands of longer ranged bombers and countless other vehicles they need to attack Soviet with?

Do you think 3000 more by end of 1940 or mid 1941? I think that's a low estimate.

Then there is the problem with how much fuel Germany would need to support that

About 10-20% of the fuel needed to support twice as many airplanes + 30 tank/motorized divisions fighting deep in Soviet as well as keeping hundreds of submarines in the Atlantic as was done historically during 1942-43 I would guess.

Fuel is litterally not an issue at all for Germany during Battle of Britain. They have just captured boatloads of French fuel mostly intact. Fuel historically doesn't start to become an issue for Germany until 1942-43 and the same thing is even more true if Germany doesn't attack Soviet but decide to make UK their primary target instead.

There is no chance for getting air superiority in Britain and maybe parity in the Channel

So you don't think that a Luftwaffe with twice as many planes/fighters and 3 times as many pilots could have defeated the same RAF that according to most historians came within a hairs breath of being defeated, and had run out of all reserves with all their pilots flying from dawn till dusk and mechanics working around the clock?

That is a very unconventional opinion to have there.

 

[PigletCNC]

So you don't think that a Luftwaffe with twice as many planes and 3 times as many pilots could have defeated the same RAF that came within a hairs breath of being defeated, and had run out of all reserves with all their pilots flying from dawn till dusk and mechanics working around the clock?

That is a very unconventional opinion to have there.

That's not how close the RAF came to defeat. The number of pilots the RAF increased by about 40% during the Blitz, they had the advantage that any pilot jumping out of their plane could be recovered and put into a new aircraft, the germans didn't. A loss is a loss for them, 100%. For the Brits it wasn't. They lost a lot of aircraft but what men survived could at least return to combat or teach new recruits. Any servicable losses were easier on the Brits to recover too, any german plane that was a loss and couldn't cross the channel was a complete loss to the germans. The same with all of their pilots. Those that didn't die were captured, that didn't go for the brits.

Then the losses on the German side were far higher than on the british side, whatever airfield was bombed could quickly be restored since the aircraft didn't need hard surfaces to take off from, just mostly flat and not muddy. Enough land like that in England during the summer months. The brits had advantage of knowing when aircraft would come and from where and in what number. By the end they were out producing their losses and during the battle there was only one day where the Germans lost fewer aircraft than the British. Any other day the 'k/d' was positive for the Brits too. Since the Brits knew if the incoming force was fighters or bombers (because of radar) they knew what fighters of their own they needed to deploy, sending in the right fighter for the job against an aircraft, increasing familiarity of situation for British pilots so they became more efficient.

Then there is all the extra stuff from the commonwealth and foreign pilots that came to volunteer/fled Western Europe.

Battle of Britain was a clear defeat for the Germans and no respected historian is claiming any different. They all see that the numbers were always in favor of Britain and even a year extra of fighter production starting in 39 (which would also decrease supply of their army during the attack in May on the low countries and France, making their operations more difficult there) would not have supplied sufficient numbers of aircraft to win the battle. Just prolong it at worst.

It's also useless in saying that those numbers you name (which aren't even accurate) would have resulted in enough fighter production to win the air war in britain and would have left the Germans vulnerable to the Soviet Union (who was already arming up and preparing for war with Germany, expecting an eventual invasion and would most likely have attacked otherwise with allied backing). The Germans can not win BoB nor can they do Sealion. The germans knew this, that's why sealion never happened and never went beyond initial planning. And if the Germans know a plan can't work during WW2 then you KNOW there is no use trying to say they could have made it.

Seriously, give it up. There is no use trying to defend sealion. It's a dream (or nightmare more like it), nothing more. There is more sanity in Barbarossa then there is in Sealion.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Seriously, give it up. There is no use trying to defend sealion.

I am not defending sealion. I am defending the Luftwaffe. An airforce that historically reigned supreme everywhere it went in Europe from 1937-1942 with the one exception of a few months during BoB, and "no respected historian is claiming any different".

Battle of Britain was a clear defeat for the Germans and no respected historian is claiming any different.

I never claimed that the end outcome was anything else either. We were not debating the historical Battle of Britain to being with.


On another note. The "Respectfully disagree" or "agree" buttons is there so you don't have to make a post where you just write "disagree" or "agree". If you explain in length why you disagree or agree there is no purpose in using those buttons because you already made that clear.

 

[PanzerMonster]

Fuel is litterally not an issue at all for Germany during Battle of Britain. They have just captured boatloads of French fuel mostly intact. Fuel historically doesn't start to become an issue for Germany until 1942-43 and the same thing is even more true if Germany doesn't attack Soviet but decide to make UK their primary target instead.

Fuel was always an issue. If fuel wouldn't be an issue, German panzer divisions would have wiped out Soviets and anyone in EU without breaking a sweat.

Already in 1941 they knew that they have fuel reserves only for couple months to fight with full capacity not even considering how much fuel would be required to expand the army..

 

[Alex_brunius]

Already in 1941 they knew that they have fuel reserves only for couple months to fight with full capacity not even considering how much fuel would be required to expand the army..

The clue is "A couple of months to fight with full capacity".

Does this mean that fuel was an issue during those months or does it mean that it wasn't if they could fight "at full capacity"?

Next question, I made it a simple one. Was BoB in 1940 before or after 1941?

And final question: If Germany doesn't spend all that fuel attacking Soviet, does their fuel situation become a bigger or a smaller issue for them?

 

[PigletCNC]

You just said that the Germans would have won with 3000 more planes and pilots to fill them. That means that you think the outcome would have been different. You also said that the british were almost defeated during the original, historic, very real, battle of britain. That's completely false. The British came stronger out of it than they went into it. The losses on the German side were way more severe.

The 3000 extra aircraft would have needed to be fueled too, being a huge drain on the fuel supplies. This would have only made the situation in 41 more dire. Sure they could have wasted more materiel and men on Britain but the outcome would have been the same for the British and way worse for the Germans. It's just totally impossible. The Luftwaffe was pretty good, yes. But more in combined warfare with the Army than in maintaining air supremacy over an island far away. Most of the other oponents during the early years of the war didn't even have an airforce equiped to take on the Germans, the Brits did.

 

[Alex_brunius]

On another note. The "Respectfully disagree" or "agree" buttons is there so you don't have to make a post where you just write "disagree" or "agree". If you explain in length why you disagree or agree there is no purpose in using those buttons because you already made that clear.

You know what Alex, there are two types of people. Those who read your posts and try to reply factually to them... and then there are those that don't read a word of it because they already made up there mind. The second type is not worth your Time Replying to.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The second type is not worth your Time Replying to.

Ok. Thanks for your advice.

 

[PigletCNC]

I read every word of what you say. I take it to heart, I genuinely do. But if you're pigheaded (ha, get it, my username) and keep insisting that Britain was close to defeat or Germany stood a better chance if they forsake every other area their army needed equipment for (I mean, they really lacked a lot of equipment even during their attack on the west. They really relied heavily on their speed and outflanking the allied forces to win the battle not on how equipped they were, they were better equiped during Barbarossa, a far more viable plan that still wasn't smart).

You are just not seeing the real picture here. Sealion and Battle of Britain didn't stand a chance. It could not be done. The Brits were too prepared. It's a fantasy only able to be achieved in video games, movies and literature.

Edit: I also suggest turning off mentions of if anyone 'voted' on your post, makes posting a lot more relaxing when you don't always look at the agrees and disagrees that pop up in your feed.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Edit: I also suggest turning off mentions of if anyone 'voted' on your post

As soon as people understand that it's not a voting system at all ( as described in the post which you now twice failed to read properly ) I will stop trying to mention it to them.

 

[Uncharted95]

With this new update im getting this new error?

Token has_idea is not supported within the allowed trigger of a decision

the idea in question is the the economy law idea

 

[pdxguyorsomething]

So, longtime player, first time commenter.
I'm here just because I have some thoughts and observations regarding the game now, fixes I'd like to see, and expansions I'd like to suggest. First, issues:
1) Convoy priority settings
I would like the ability to reallocate my convoys pursuant to my needs. I have been in the position where I have assigned all of my available convoys to lend/lease and trade...and then a change in circumstances requires that I move armies by sea. I would like the ability to temporarily re-assign my convoys to the task of troop movement (without having to go around and cancel lend leases and trade agreements to free up convoys...just suspend/slow the delivery when I have pulled all convoys from that task). I would also like to option to set the shipping priorities if I begin losing convoys. For example, I might want to ensure that a certain number of convoys are always assigned to troop resupply, or that my troops are always resupplied first before any convoys are assigned to trade. If the u-boats take too many transports, I want to make sure that my factories slow down before my boys starve (or vis-versa if the situation requires it).

2) Toggle enable/disable oceangoing army movement.
I never again want to see a panzer army get the bright idea that, instead of driving through the narrow spearhead corridor I've just punched from the Ardennes to the channel, it'd be easier/quicker to redeploy by taking a boat ride from Wilhelmshaven to Le Havre only to be sunk en-mass along the way. A toggle allowing/disallowing ocean-going travel (right next to the infrastructure redeploy button) should do the trick. With the addition of fuel into the game, this choice has good cost/benefit rewards. It would certainly be more fuel efficient and quicker to redeploy by sea in many situations, but I want the option to always force land redeployment if I cannot assure navel supremacy and a safe voyage.

3) Man the Guns bases:
I believe Man the Guns expansion eliminated the "home base" designation for fleets. I would like it brought back and expanded. With the addition of the "strike force mission," the starting base position of the strike force fleet is key. I have attempted to assign task forces to the "strike force" role in the South Pacific, only to realize that the fleet was attempting to sortie out and intercept spotted fleets in the Pacific from a base in Virginia. Only by manually directing the fleet to sail to Hawaii and then triggering the "strike force" order would the task force behave as directed. Additionally, because fleets can now be captured if they are repairing and are overrun, controls on where fleets will seek to repair need to be put in place. I understand that the repair option can be toggled on a port by clicking on it, but there are times when a port near a front line can and does change hands quickly and I don't want to have to quickly notice that I've taken a port in order to toggle the repair option in order to prevent the pride of my fleet from taking a quick repair break within easy grasp of the enemy. An option of "only repair at home base" or "designate repair base" for a task force would be nice. Likewise, designating different secondary forward refuel/operating bases from which to sortie out on patrols, as opposed to rear repair bases to fall back to, would be helpful, especially in the Pacific. There is a trade-off here between sortieing from bases further back and therefore less effective and more fuel consuming...but out of range of enemy air power, and I'd like to designate which ports my fleets use.
Also, when you tell ships to go out training, and then toggle the training off...my experience is that the fleets just hang-out at sea. Any way to have them head on home to base?

4) Man the Guns reinforcement
I had an issue with task-force reinforcement. I set a task-force composition of 4 carriers. I was building a number of carriers, and waiting to fill the task-force. When the 4th carrier was built, it was assigned to the task-force (making the task force 4/4 on carriers)...and then one of the carriers that was already in the task-force was immediately bumped to reserve (3/4 on carriers)...and then reassigned to the task-force (4/4), and then one of the other carriers was bumped to reserve (3/4)...and on and on it went, sending one or two carriers into reserve, then immediately reassigned them back to the task-force, then back to reserve again. Has anyone else encountered a similar loop?

5) Man the Guns reinforcement assignment
Now that we've got reinforcement reserve fleets by theater, can we assign in-production ships to reserve fleets by theater? You can assign in-production ships to task-forces and to specific ports, but now that we can reinforce from a reserve fleet, I'd like to assign a production line of destroyers to the reinforcement reserve fleet in a specific theater.

Hopes for the future: a revamp of the air-war along the lines of man the guns. I'd like to see air forces like the US 8th and 9th air-forces with attached airwings working in assigned regions. I'd like to see some of the dynamics related to fighter escort of bombers as opposed to un-escorted bombers replicated in the game. I'd also like to see the expansion of the escort range reaching into Germany being replicated in the game as a turning point in the war. Perhaps the option of assigning fighter wings to escort duty as opposed to air superiority, or to free hunter roles? Depending upon tactics, escort fighters might employ close escort to protect bombers better and permit them to bomb more effectively, but take higher casualties and inflict fewer losses on intercepting fighters; or the escort fighters might instead do high altitude over-watch escort for higher kill counts on intercepting fighters and fewer losses to the escorting fighters, but higher bomber disruption? Perhaps there could also be dynamic loss of efficiency of bomber groups if they fall below effective defensive formation size, so like ship repair settings or army tactic aggressiveness, an airwing's ability or willingness to continue operations could be set as needed.
Additionally, if the air-war gets a man the guns like overhaul, drop-tanks would be an important tech tree (with a corresponding longer range but higher fuel usage trade-off). Bomb-sights, self-sealing gas tanks, deflector sights, airborne radar for night-fighters, and aircraft rockets could also be included along with various levels of engine, air-frame, and anti-air-armament.
Also, we could use air recon? It would certainly make a difference for the sea war, especially in the mid-Atlantic gap which was prime u-boat hunting grounds until the expanded air-cover of escort carriers established complete coverage for the convoys.

 

[llib]

That's not how close the RAF came to defeat. The number of pilots the RAF increased by about 40% during the Blitz, they had the advantage that any pilot jumping out of their plane could be recovered and put into a new aircraft, the germans didn't. A loss is a loss for them, 100%. For the Brits it wasn't. They lost a lot of aircraft but what men survived could at least return to combat or teach new recruits. Any servicable losses were easier on the Brits to recover too, any german plane that was a loss and couldn't cross the channel was a complete loss to the germans. The same with all of their pilots. Those that didn't die were captured, that didn't go for the brits.

Piglet, by the way, I'm rather sure I recall reading repeatedly in past that at some point strength of fighter command was almost breaking, and that's when they deployed Polish and Czechoslovak squadrons. You repeated how RAF strength grown... are you actually talking about Fighter Command, or whole RAF? And what numbers are you looking at - are they numbers of fully trained fighter pilots ready for battle?
It's possible that some new information came out during the years I was not paying attention, but I thought this subject thoroughly covered long time ago.

EDIT: so it seems that Wiki article makes this sufficiently clear, there was new view on this between 2000/2010, back in the early days I would have been left with only access to translated literature which would likely been older...
But I'm not going to try to figure out which numbers are right.

 

[Titanic]

Can we get some focus on research speed? Seems like with all the new naval tech and doctrines taking 340+ days to complete it is almost impossible to research through the trees and this is especially tough for multiplayer games and minors.