Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Операция "Ой морозь морозь" - Maintain a high operational tempo through the winter, attacking weak points as able

6 (60%)

Операция "Не морозь меня" - Slow things down, making a few major and considered attacks without wasting strength

4 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 10

[Fishbreath]

At this point, I'll ask for some broad strategy directions from the peanut gallery (and those who are responsible for it, too). There's not much spare production room right now, although we can probably fit in some airplanes (interceptors or tactical bombers, both of which we have a production line reserved for).

Mostly, I want to know the preferred research direction for each of my three ministries: if there are any technology targets you'd like me to aim for, if you'd like to focus on doctrine or technology one more than the other (as it stands, I'm running them equally), and so on. It's Saturday morning here, and I'll probably end up playing again on Tuesday night, so consider that your deadline.

[Hyo]

I request an attack on Norway then Denmark, then Persia and Afghanistan respectively. We have to get our soldiers to do something while waiting for Barbarossa, and the war Civil Expense reduction is great too. Besides, the latter two doesn't have any RR, which is always nice.

Production is infrastructure - mainly for Moscow, the Siberian Industrial Zone and resource-rich provinces; although it might be a better idea to get more troops out on the front, and as for doctrine... Since we're already on Human Wave, I would like a series of continuous research for land doctrine, at least until we get all three '41 doctrines to prepare for Barbarossa. That and don't forget assembly line, ;P.

[Fishbreath]

The price of garrisons for Norway, Denmark, Persia, and Afghanistan almost certainly outweigh the benefits of invading those countries. Persia has oil, but we have an obscene surplus of that, and all of those other countries, though useful as bases for our assault on the Allied world, are territories we can take when the Germans aren't going to attack in a year and a half.

The benefit of war--reduced civil expenses--isn't really too much of a draw to me; we've already got a massive civil expense reduction thanks to our sliders, and 2000 unassigned manpower makes a whole lot of excess cash.

[EuchreJack]

I'd suggest shooting for the T-34 main battle tank ASAP.  But as a Tank Commander, I obviously have my bias.

[inteuniso]

Despite not having anything invested in this, I would agree. T-34s rip up german tanks. Also, get the IL-2 to rip up german tanks, and something to rip up german air.

[EuchreJack]

For infantry, see if you can get them an anti-tank weapon.  I don't recall Russia having one in WWII.

Air power is also important.  The Yak and La-5 designs need to be developed and deployed much faster than historically.

[Hyo]

The price of garrisons for Norway, Denmark, Persia, and Afghanistan almost certainly outweigh the benefits of invading those countries. Persia has oil, but we have an obscene surplus of that, and all of those other countries, though useful as bases for our assault on the Allied world, are territories we can take when the Germans aren't going to attack in a year and a half.

An assault on Afghanistan and Persia should still be viable, because they don't provide any partisan activity / RR; at least in the version I play. Besides, Persia often joins the Allies, which is one more territory you have to fight for.

For infantry, see if you can get them an anti-tank weapon.  I don't recall Russia having one in WWII.

Err, the SU and Germany were the two countries who invested most heavily in specialized armaments such as artillery, tank destroyers, assault guns and the like, just to say.

[Jopax]

Well those are all heavy stuff, but at the beginning of the war the regulary infrantry didn't really have anything to fight german armor.

As far as navy goes, i'd say we continue our push down the carrier line atleast until basic level, after that go for improved battleships and once that's finished nothing is stopping us from going after the super heavy monstrosities

[Hyo]

Eh, really? I say just stick to CVs and DDs; I doubt we have the ability to keep up with more than one or two naval units.

[Jopax]

I'm not really going for viabilty or anything, i'm just going for what seems the most awesome at the moment, besides, it will be a while before we engage in any real naval combat so we should have some nice stuff by then

[EuchreJack]

I was actually refering to man-portable anti-tank weapons, not items that often are classified as "artillery".

[Jopax]

Unfortunatley i think we will have to go with AT arty in this one, since i don't think regular infrantry improvements raise their hard attack that much, and unlike HoI3 we can't improve individual areas of a certain unit type (one thing that i actually miss and think it's quite a great system that allows you to specialize and adapt to a given foe)

[Hyo]

The thing is, artillery in general is all pretty inefficient, including AT artillery; the TC factor, the drainage of supplies, etc; except for commandos and ARMs. Of course, if we're going for flavour and keeping it historical; as in not get overly gamey, such research should be conducted as well, ;P.

And point taken, EuchreJack; I apologize for misinterpreting you like that.

[Fishbreath]

Hyo, you're missing a fundamental point about AoD combat there: concentration of force is really, really important. Infantry divisions are large in terms of the front they cover, and if you express a unit's combat power as (attack / size-of-front), the effective combat power of a force on the attack is proportional to the square root of its unmodified combat power. Infantry sans brigades is horribly ineffective; defense may be nice, but offense is what wins wars.

[Hyo]

Okay, let's try to explain myself, without going into a bunch of calculations.

While, force depth is also an important part of battles, which often is the largest modifier as well, one must also consider that while two battles, with the only difference being the lack of ART brigades will certainly prove your point, you can also consider that the same battle can be started in a different premise. As in, the TC and supplies being used for that brigade(s) can be used to bring /more/ divisions into the battle.

The thing is: for the resources that you spend on bringing divisions with brigades, you could easily simply send in more divisions, which, while capable of giving a similar boost also helps out in ORG and STR-wise; as in taking more hits. The problem then becomes which is more *efficient* but I believe there were already a few threads in Paradox Plaza about brigade efficiency that already did the calculations for me.

I'm not sure what AoD did to change this, and while if it has, I might be spewing out totally incorrect crap, but I'm pretty sure that if it still holds true. Except for special circumstances such as when you're fighting with forces around 100 divisions where command limits becomes a problem.