Then you have countries of two different factions fighting on your side. The wiki is not quite right though because the guarantor can refuse the call to war at a diplomatic penalty.
- 1
-
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.
It doesn't appear to be right at all, because I just declared war on Denmark guaranteed by The Netherlands and they did not join Dutch faction. I'm not sure if tag switching caused this, though.
Thanks for your swift reply! As usual you are right. However, the attrition rates that ARM do suffer in rough terrain literally kills me. Losing men and cheap equipment is one thing, losing even more men and multifold worth in equipment does not sound all too appetizing.
Also, slowing ARM assets to INF speed seems not to be a solution, unless you are speaking of AMPH tanks for river crossings. So in the end it all boils down to the conservative approach of maximising encirclement bonuses and numerical superiority by attacking from as many sides as possible i guess
Thanks for your swift and elaborate answer! After thinking it over, i tend to entirely agree when it comes to Anglo-Saxon powers which can afford every single research due to ... ingame reasons ... (?!?) and maybe Germany, the only Axis power to feature a reasonable research prowess as they can afford to limit on naval spending.
The problem i see is not only - but especially - about JAP. Their shopping list for research is as full as the Anglo-Saxon powers but they instead suck at research in general, don't get stuffed up to the roof with additional bonuses - and they suck even more so in air research in particular until they can shackle off some of their maluses.
Your suggestion of swapping out part of naval research in favor of air research seems to be a good ingame solution. Especially since TACs were discovered to be so powerful at sea. However, heavy FTR seriously suck in air combat when facing regular FTR. OFC USA always wins the attrition game in the end - for JAP i doubt it.
My thinking might be a bit clouded in this regard - i must admit that i have quite some reservations on playing a CV-less JAP. Thus i think they cannot get around the regular FTR anyway.
And i have another - shorter - one this time. 
LARM being used as recon support battalions next to breakthrough also add armor and hardness to a div. At least according to the unit stat sheet. However, the visual hardness bar below the values does not account for that hardness number of above.
What now - do they actually add hardness and armor in combat or not?
LARM being used as recon support battalions next to breakthrough also add armor and hardness to a div. At least according to the unit stat sheet. However, the visual hardness bar below the values does not account for that hardness number of above.
What now - do they actually add hardness and armor in combat or not?
i dont know what you mean when you say that they add hardness according to the unit stats sheet. where on the sheet do you see that?And i have another - shorter - one this time.
LARM being used as recon support battalions next to breakthrough also add armor and hardness to a div. At least according to the unit stat sheet. However, the visual hardness bar below the values does not account for that hardness number of above.
What now - do they actually add hardness and armor in combat or not?
they add armor. not hardness. those are distinct stats.
- 1
Not having the game opened ATM my memory seems to fail me. Sry for that. So they don't help in any way but adding BRK and some easy to overcome armor?
The background is the consideration of adding LARM to make INF somewhat better at actually attacking. If my memory does not fail me again you once recommended such an approach for JAP fighting in CHI - do you still stick to that statement?
The background is the consideration of adding LARM to make INF somewhat better at actually attacking. If my memory does not fail me again you once recommended such an approach for JAP fighting in CHI - do you still stick to that statement?
they only give 50% of the brk that a normal light tank battalion would. and 5 armor is enough to be overcome by anything bigger than 1936 guns and arty.
which is good enough for japan, because china doesnt even have either of those. they start out with 1932 guns which wont even pierce 1932 light tanks. japan can use light tank recon to make their divisions more or less invulnerable to ai china. but a player china will make aa support which hard counter the strat.
- 2
- 1
You're facing the AI right?
You can count on the US AI to send it's fleets into places where your air power is dominant giving you the advantage. Keep in mind that US has worldwide naval commitments. You don't. You can afford to concentrate naval strength in fewer areas to strike decisively. This wouldn't have worked historically (for a whole list of reasons), but it can work in HOI4. Seize the Philippines (for it's air bases). Then take Singapore. Then the DEI. From there, you have to decide whether to take out the Raj or push against Australia and New Zealand. From there, the world's your oyster.
- 1
- 1
See SM's point about mission efficiency. 100 heavy FTR won't trade well against 100 FTR, fighting 1:1. But 100 heavy FTR at 100% efficiency in the air zone versus 100 FTR at 30% efficiency in the air zone means that the fight is really 100 to 30, and the heavies have all the advantages of numerical superiority and 2:1 individual combats working for them. If you have to base 350 light FTR in the air zone to match 100 heavy FTR in effective numbers, then you have a production disadvantage (and probably need to build some more air bases as well).
- 2
- 1
@Secret Master Yes i do but please do not get me wrong - AI never is a problem, no matter what power i play. In the pacific AI USA / JAP being my respective enemy, they even tend to fully commit to cowardice. I usually require more than a year of screening the ocean to finally find and force to combat any serious fleet of them. After one or two engagements, the remainder of them dissipates to nowhere, never to be seen again (at least in the timeframe i play until i call a game being won).
@Anaraxes Thanks for your kind clarification of @Secret Master s point which i really appreciate. Problem solved. Thank you both.
@Anaraxes Thanks for your kind clarification of @Secret Master s point which i really appreciate. Problem solved. Thank you both.
- 1
Yep. Mission efficiency is what turns an even dogfight into a slaughter. It's also why certain types of planes are almost useless (I'm looking at you, Rocket Interceptor I.)
On top of that, heavy fighters provide 1.25 units of air superiority per plane compared to the 1.0 units of air superiority for light fighters.
So, if we are looking to shut down carriers with air superiority values (or debuff troops on the ground), heavy fighters make up for their added cost by providing extra power in this small but important category.
It's also worth noting that carrier planes tend to be more expensive than the non-carrier version. So, the increased IC cost of heavy fighters isn't as big of a problem as it might appear if you were planning to spam Zeroes anyway. (Although certain national spirits can change the math on this due to discounts on certain aircraft types.)
- 1
But also:
You can always use Fighters, but Heavy Fighters are quite situatinal, so needing to research them just for that could be a quite high cost.
Then you can often just pull aways 400 regular fighters from another theater of war atleast for a while, use them to shot down enemy carrier operation and then sending them back. Further muddeling the IC cost of multi-purpose fighters vs dedicated researched and build heavy fighters.
You can always use Fighters, but Heavy Fighters are quite situatinal, so needing to research them just for that could be a quite high cost.
Then you can often just pull aways 400 regular fighters from another theater of war atleast for a while, use them to shot down enemy carrier operation and then sending them back. Further muddeling the IC cost of multi-purpose fighters vs dedicated researched and build heavy fighters.
- 1
That is exactly the perspective i was coming from.
The point of min-maxing naval warfare (partly by bypassing CVs and) by using surface killer-groups being protected by TACs, NAVs and heavy FTR as an MP-based playstyle is perfectly legal - and i have taken it as such. I personally won't follow that advice which i feel to be gamey and absolutely not immersive. Still, it might very well help others and also has helped me forward in my considerations and weighing-off process.
A thing that many players mainly being used to playing USA/UK/GER do not understand is the overall extent of ingame JAP limitations that hamper them and the player cannot do anything about it. As USA or UK you can get everything you want and also in the numbers you desire. This simply does not account for ingame JAP.
Next to industrial prowess (weakness in their case) - which can at least partly be overcome by powergaming the Sino-Japanese war for the ones that like that playstyle - JAP suffers in regards of the ability to develop when it comes to a combination of growing economy and military footing at the same time and - most crucial in the field of research.
The latter is a limited ingame resource and JAP gets treated as a retard in this area. It is astounding to see even non-belligerent minors getting extensive focus-trees with custom bonuses to their research and intelligence power while JAP gets treated as backwatered and limited as it was (or is at least supposed to be by some) in history.
This being said i stick to my belief that JAP has to streamline it's research plan overall and (according to my personal taste) in a historically plausible way. Using CV-based FTR in several roles fits that bill, extensive use of twin-engined FTR does not. There also are many land and sea areas where a range-overkill does not benefit at all while way more agile single-engined FTRs (even with the range-designer) are much more cost-effective at the same time. Playing JAP is not about effectiveness by throwing in some 2,000 to 5,000 optimised planes in several given spots like USA and UK do, but their play needs to be about overall efficiency.
- 1
Hardness don't change with supports, probably some Paradox mistakenly say that.And i have another - shorter - one this time.
LARM being used as recon support battalions next to breakthrough also add armor and hardness to a div. At least according to the unit stat sheet. However, the visual hardness bar below the values does not account for that hardness number of above.
- 1
A noob here. How to best use the Spanish Civil War for experience gains, as Germany? I can only send 2 divisions...
you could send more volunteers if you had more fielded divisions. if you had 121 divisions fielded you could send 7 volunteers.
i assume you mean to ask about general xp, because there are better ways of getting army xp (attache to japan, lend-leasing guns, etc). start out with a general that has no grindable traits as every grinded trait reduces further trait xp gain to 1/(n+1) where n is the number of traits they currently possess. i use kesselring as general and dietrich as field marshal. send between 20-40% tank divisions so that you do not gain either infantry leader or panzer leader. then just grind attacking tiles for the specific traits you want. if you want ranger, attack into forests. if you want trickster, attack from three directions. etc. do not take the tiles, halt before winning and let the republicans reorg so you can attack them again. when the trait you are grinding is close to complete, around 95-99%, stop grinding it and move on to another trait. when all the traits you want are close to completion, only then finish them all up.
- 2
How long is the war supposed to last, with La Resistance version active?
It's supposed to last about 2 years, but that can vary widely with player involvement.
If you wanna farm ArmyXP in general, you can send like 10k guns to the spains, just be careful to have an active lend lease after sending guns in bulk once. I always suggest 1 fuel daily, since this won't hurt you at all.
Also having more divisions meaning you can send more volunteers, and then attack in unplanned offensive states, so both sides have the -90% attack modifier, so you are in battle forever without any side losing or winning.
You get more xp by division combattime, so have more divisions fighting gives more xp and having them constanly fighting and not marching somewhere gives more xp.
Unit XP, General XP and Trait XP are all linked to that, but have slight modifications.
Also having more divisions meaning you can send more volunteers, and then attack in unplanned offensive states, so both sides have the -90% attack modifier, so you are in battle forever without any side losing or winning.
You get more xp by division combattime, so have more divisions fighting gives more xp and having them constanly fighting and not marching somewhere gives more xp.
Unit XP, General XP and Trait XP are all linked to that, but have slight modifications.
- 1