Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

DD Tech tree and Naval Combat Improvement mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
egslim said:
No, it isn't. Check the US model names, only one of them is missing - and that's the improved carrier, not one of the later models. ENG has all of them.
Click to expand...

Not within the timespan of the game...

egslim said:
While the current system for rocket interceptors has its flaws, integrating them with the AA guns is even less realistic. What's needed is a new unit model.
Click to expand...

Only the germans deployed rocket interceptors as an emergency response to allied bombers. No one has since deployed rocket interceptors beyond concepts and studies. Because of that, all other countries have to suffer upgrading through rocket interceptors to turbojet ones. Lovely. But having them add to province AA is the closest thing to realism we can get short of making them a new unit (which as I understand is not possible). I wouldn't mind removing them alltogether.
 
Wait a sec.. You actually already removed one carrier from the original by having two nuclear carriers instead of one. For a total of 10 like the original. I actually didn't notice this, sorry!

Yeah ok then it's possible to squeeze in all british carriers because they built so many different classes with few ships in each class as opposed to the americans who built lots of carriers in each class.

edited...
 
Even for the US only one class is missing, and that one could be represented by splitting Essex into standard and extended Essex.

For the British I used carrier classes that were proposed but scrapped, like the Malta class. Which would have been built, had the war continued. So they are realistic to include.
 
*bump*, but also: is work on this mod still alive? I really like it, and I'm contemplating making some changes for it to work w/ DAIM (which looks like a challenge).
 
I'm still around. :)

I've haven't done much, lately, for various reasons. But when I get back to playing HOI2 I'll fix some minor issues and make a few other changes that I've been thinking about. Also add support for the remaining scenarios.
 
I had a convo with you or another about transports and their relationship to LCI and LCT. Several of us had to come to the conclusion that LCI & T would have best been represented by an amphibious brigade attachment that of itself carried the capacity for amphibious assault. Is it possible to mod this kind of brigade attachment?

Also, technically speaking, how exactly does your modification address this problem, please? As I see from your posts, you have somehow prevented Transport L-1 from providing LCI and T, and which I completely agree with.

Very interested, thanks!
 
Is it possible to mod this kind of brigade attachment?
Click to expand...
It's impossible to create new brigades or divisions, so no.

Also, technically speaking, how exactly does your modification address this problem, please?
Click to expand...
Instead of one kind of TP there are 5 levels of them, each with an increase in range.

As you know, troops can be transported between naval bases through the rebase command, regardless of wether the base is in range. However, amphibious assaults can only be conducted within range.

The level of transports you can build depends on your naval doctrines, what branch and how far advanced your research is. So Germany with SI is only able to do short amphibious hops - crossing the English Channel will be difficult. At the same time Japan with Base Strike has enough range to attack islands in the Pacific, because their TP's are a higher level with more extended range.
 
egslim said:
It's impossible to create new brigades or divisions, so no.


Instead of one kind of TP there are 5 levels of them, each with an increase in range.

As you know, troops can be transported between naval bases through the rebase command, regardless of wether the base is in range. However, amphibious assaults can only be conducted within range.

The level of transports you can build depends on your naval doctrines, what branch and how far advanced your research is. So Germany with SI is only able to do short amphibious hops - crossing the English Channel will be difficult. At the same time Japan with Base Strike has enough range to attack islands in the Pacific, because their TP's are a higher level with more extended range.
Click to expand...

So range has assumed the role of determing the presence of landing craft? At which of the five levels do you think that landing craft in their historically developed form (produced in the U.S. circa '42-'43) are best represented? IOW, is there researched and accurate basis to the Tech tree, or do you consider it a gamey solution to the problem?

Thanks.
 
Range doesn't determine the presence of landingcraft. It determines the range over which a navy can conduct amphibious assaults. Germany in 1940 would have had trouble crossing the Channel, even without a Royal Navy. The British were able to conduct landings in North Africa, Sicily, etc, but they also faced huge logistical difficulties when they wanted to take part in the offensive against Japan.
 
egslim said:
Range doesn't determine the presence of landingcraft. It determines the range over which a navy can conduct amphibious assaults. Germany in 1940 would have had trouble crossing the Channel, even without a Royal Navy. The British were able to conduct landings in North Africa, Sicily, etc, but they also faced huge logistical difficulties when they wanted to take part in the offensive against Japan.
Click to expand...

In other words it's purely a gamey fix. The presence or absence of landing craft is the factor determining the ability or inability to perform an amphibious invasion - or am I mistaken?
 
egslim said:
Range doesn't determine the presence of landingcraft. It determines the range over which a navy can conduct amphibious assaults. Germany in 1940 would have had trouble crossing the Channel, even without a Royal Navy. The British were able to conduct landings in North Africa, Sicily, etc, but they also faced huge logistical difficulties when they wanted to take part in the offensive against Japan.
Click to expand...
It wasn't the Kriegsmarines inability to launch amphibious operations across the channel, rather, it was the difficult, and impossibility if the RAF survived, of setting up a supply line. Actually, I've heard that the German's had the ability to land 100,000 soldiers in a single day. The problem was getting supplies, and protecting the supply lines. If they had broken the RAF, they could prevent the the Royal Navy from interfering significantly with their surface fleet in the channel, but they wouldn't have the planes to defend a supply convoy emanating from Bremen, which is what I believe they would have perhaps needed. Or not. I can't say I know much about what they would have done in supplying their invasion force.

Bottom line: they wouldn't have had a problem landing the forces. It's the issue of supply. And, if this is the best way of simulating this problem, then good job :D
 
I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't use landingcraft for their '42 offensive. So no, landing craft are not a requirement for a succesful amphibious assault.

As the distance between operational bases and assault beach increases, logistical issues for transporting the fighting forces and supplying them become increasingly difficult.

Take for example air power. Crossing the Channel, aircraft can be simply based on the friendly shore. North Africa was more of a challenge, but aircraft could be stationed at Gibraltar and rebase from there directly to the bridgeheads. Of course, this required equipment for repairing (or even constructing) airbases shortly after the invasion, as well as men and equipment to operate the aircraft. In the pacific a significant number of carriers needed to remain continuously operational in the vicinity of an island for the duration of the fighting. During that time they would need to be refueled and resupplied.
As the British experienced in 1944, such long range operations are not a trivial matter.
 
I'm using this: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

stevieraystrat said:
It wasn't the Kriegsmarines inability to launch amphibious operations across the channel, rather, it was the difficult, and impossibility if the RAF survived, of setting up a supply line. Actually, I've heard that the German's had the ability to land 100,000 soldiers in a single day.
Click to expand...
The claim about the 100,000 soldiers is incorrect, or at least unrealistic:

To get the first wave across, the Germans gathered barges and tugs, [...] Eventually, 170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs were gathered. [...] The barges were mainly those designed for use on the Rhine, with a shallow freeboard. They sink in anything above Sea State 2. The wash from a fast-moving destroyer would swamp and sink the barge.
[...]
the Kriegsmarine estimated that a minimum of 20,000 extra crew would be needed. [...] By stripping its ships to the minimum [...] the Kriegsmarine was able to supply 4,000 men. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe transferred 3,000 men who had been sailors in civilian life, and an in-depth trawl of the reserves and the factories and the drafts brought forward another 9,000 men. After digging through the entire manpower cupboard, the barges were still 4,000 men short of the minimum required.
[...]
Finally, the barges were under-powered for open water operations, and required towing. The basic unit was a tug towing two barges, and travelling at 2-3 knots, in the Channel, which has tides of 5 knots. Given that the distance that the far left of the invasion had to cross, a minimum of 85 miles, the poor bloody soldiers would be wallowing for a minimum of 30 hours in an open boat, and expected to carry out an opposed amphibious landing at the end of it.
[...]
The plan was that this huge mass of towed barges would proceed in column until reaching a point ten miles from the landing beach, then wheel and steer parallel to the coast. When this was complete, the vessels would make a 90 degree turn at the same time, and advance in line towards the coast. This was to be carried out at night, and controlled and co-ordinated by loud hailers. There had been no chance to practise the operation, and there was less than one skilled sailor per vessel.

If they had broken the RAF, they could prevent the the Royal Navy from interfering significantly with their surface fleet in the channel,
Click to expand...
I believe some 39 destroyers had participated at Dunkirk. This included sailing there, lying still to load troops, then sail back. Only 4 destroyers were sunk during the 11 days (?) lasting evacuation.
At that point in time Luftwaffe aircraft were fairly ineffectual against fast-moving destroyers.

I can't say I know much about what they would have done in supplying their invasion force.
Click to expand...
Neither did the Germans:
It was recognised that it was essential to capture an intact port. Dover was the port chosen. The Kriegsmarine were told to put the Wehrmacht ashore in Dover, but nothing in the Wehrmacht plans indicates that they were required to capture Dover.

It was planned to drop all the paratroopers on the heights north of Dover to help 16 Army. However, 9 Army had been told that all the paratroopers would be dropped near Portsmouth. The Luftwaffe had been told to support the seaborne landings, but no escort was intended for the paratroop drop, wherever it might end up taking place.

In a stroke of tactical genius, the Dover drop zone was about the worst possible for human ingenuity to select. It was intended to drop the paratroopers 10-15 miles from the target (shades of Arnhem) in a landing zone that was a mixture of hills and hop fields. No resupply was planned.

Basically, the Germans had no appreciation of the amount of detailed planning, organisation and combined operations necessary for a succesful amphibious assault.
 
egslim said:
I'm using this: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm


egslim said:
The claim about the 100,000 soldiers is incorrect, or at least unrealistic
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I got the 100,000 number, and it was more around 120,000 IIRC, from a quote from Runstedt. His whole schtick was that they could land those forces, but the supply would be impossible.


egslim said:
At that point in time Luftwaffe aircraft were fairly ineffectual against fast-moving destroyers.
Click to expand...

But if those destroyers are attacking Kriegsmarine ships? When in attack mode, rather than defensive posturing, I'd imagine they'd become more static targets. Again, hearsay. Any realistic Sealion would have required a man different than Goering, and a more realistic and intelligent Hitler.
Click to expand...
 
stevieraystrat said:
I'm no expert, but I got the 100,000 number, and it was more around 120,000 IIRC, from a quote from Runstedt. His whole schtick was that they could land those forces, but the supply would be impossible.
Click to expand...
He was right about the latter, but what you have to keep in mind is that while von Runstedt was a good army commander, he knew nothing about amphibious assaults:

The Engineer Battalion 47 of VII Army Corps was designated as having responsibility for the "construction of seaworthy ferries out of auxiliary equipment, local supply and bridging equipment".
[...]
They built rafts from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the barges being towed by the tugs

My point is that the German commanders lacked all competence for amphibious assaults, so that their judgements about what they could do don't have any credibility.

But if those destroyers are attacking Kriegsmarine ships? When in attack mode, rather than defensive posturing, I'd imagine they'd become more static targets.
Click to expand...
Destroyers don't fight from a battleline, they will twist and turn at 30 knots to avoid hits and launch their torpedos. Twisting and turing between those barges alone would be enough to sink them.
 
I have been playing a version of this mod since May, and have taken Brazil to the year 2006,using the no-time limit patch. I'm using DD1.1 and the .21 version of this mod. I'll be posting screen shots next week. Question: I've built some very long range cannons and would like to SR(strategic redeploy) them to my colonies in Africa. Can I do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back