|
Post by thestick on Aug 5, 2019 7:47:43 GMT -6
See title. Playing USA, 1.06, Very Large fleet, Varied Technologies, and I see this message all of the time even though I have a 4-1 force superiority in the sea zone. Don't think I've ever gotten an invasion to fire in this game. What causes this message to appear? Enemy fleets in surrounding sea zones that might enter your sea zone?
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Aug 5, 2019 9:54:48 GMT -6
I don't know but it's bloody annoying. The player should have the option to force the launch of the invasion. If the enemy really has contested sea superiority, he can prove it by sinking the invasion transports.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 5, 2019 12:17:34 GMT -6
I am having the same frustration. Spent a year trying to invade the Solomon Islands with a good 10/1 superiority. If it wasn't delayed because of a supposed uncertain margin it was unfavorable weather. Had unfavorable weather for 6 straight months, how does that work?
Also get a lot of messages about the enemy dominating the areas around my possessions when we have approximately the same force levels, maybe related? That one could actually make sense though, I had several possessions in the area to defend and they only had 1 so maybe the game divides my forces by the number of places I have to cover. Easier to concentrate forces on the offense.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 5, 2019 15:23:29 GMT -6
getting this as well - i'll have 3 BB in a seazone while the enemy only has an AMC for turns on end and i get the uncertain margin of superiority message
i figure the invasion mechanic will be looked at and tweaked eventually so i don't bother mentioning it in the bug thread
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Aug 5, 2019 15:33:57 GMT -6
If it wasn't delayed because of a supposed uncertain margin it was unfavorable weather. Had unfavorable weather for 6 straight months, how does that work? While it's unlikely and fairly irritating to see in-game, I'd say there's some plausibility to that. The Allied landings on Normandy could only be performed a few days out of any given month because they were dependent upon tides, moon phases and weather all lining up favorably. The invasion almost was pushed back a few weeks for a date that, as it turned out, would suffer heavy storms. So if we assume that any given invasion attempt will suffer the same restrictions (which is a debate in and of itself), there is a chance you could get phenomenally bad luck with the weather.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 5, 2019 19:06:06 GMT -6
The amphibious invasion of Normandy on D-Day was the largest and most complex ever attempted. The weather had to be perfect for it to work. They needed moonlight to remove obstacles from the beaches during the night. They needed good flying weather to drop paratroopers behind the lines to capture strategic locations.
Bad weather got the Americans ashore at Guadalcanal, the same place I was waiting 6 months for good weather, with no resistance. Not every invasion is D-Day.
|
|
|
Post by xt6wagon on Aug 5, 2019 19:11:02 GMT -6
It looks like the AI doesn't need superiority as I got a hostile invasion battle when I was behind with 200 points for me and 300ish for them.
Not really mad since it let me sink almost all of their battleships and 1/2 their light forces solving the "how long will this war drag on with monthly light cruiser battles as the highlight" problem.
|
|
|
Post by callum on Aug 6, 2019 12:13:28 GMT -6
I am currently getting insufficient force superiority when there are no enemy vessels in that zone at all
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Aug 6, 2019 17:30:10 GMT -6
I am having the same frustration. Spent a year trying to invade the Solomon Islands with a good 10/1 superiority. If it wasn't delayed because of a supposed uncertain margin it was unfavorable weather. Had unfavorable weather for 6 straight months, how does that work? Also get a lot of messages about the enemy dominating the areas around my possessions when we have approximately the same force levels, maybe related? That one could actually make sense though, I had several possessions in the area to defend and they only had 1 so maybe the game divides my forces by the number of places I have to cover. Easier to concentrate forces on the offense. I played a game as Japan where it took me 3 years to conquer Britian's possessions in South East Asia. In real life it took them about 4 months in 1941-42.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 6, 2019 17:52:24 GMT -6
I played a game as Japan where it took me 3 years to conquer Britian's possessions in South East Asia. In real life it took them about 4 months in 1941-42. Historical Britain was already embroiled in a major war which had led them to draw part of their forces from the Far East to Europe and North Africa and give the remaining forces a much lower priority for equipment, was just coming out of a period of economic depression, and wasn't far removed from a treaty-mandated period of stasis in the defenses of its Asiatic colonies. None of that is necessarily true of alternate-timeline Britain, and on top of that if there wasn't a WWI-equivalent in the alternate timeline - as is normally the case in 1900-start games of Rule the Waves 1 & 2 - then there may not have been so strong a disaffection with military and naval preparedness as was the case historically. Alternate-timeline Britain could very easily be significantly better prepared for a war with alternate-timeline Japan than historical Britain was for a war with historical Japan in the early 1940s.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 6, 2019 18:12:05 GMT -6
I am having the same frustration. Spent a year trying to invade the Solomon Islands with a good 10/1 superiority. If it wasn't delayed because of a supposed uncertain margin it was unfavorable weather. Had unfavorable weather for 6 straight months, how does that work? Also get a lot of messages about the enemy dominating the areas around my possessions when we have approximately the same force levels, maybe related? That one could actually make sense though, I had several possessions in the area to defend and they only had 1 so maybe the game divides my forces by the number of places I have to cover. Easier to concentrate forces on the offense. I played a game as Japan where it took me 3 years to conquer Britian's possessions in South East Asia. In real life it took them about 4 months in 1941-42. I am thrilled you managed to conquer all their possessions there. I have waged many a war as Japan and come away with bubkus for my efforts. Pretty sure there's no Japanese equivalent for that term. :]
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Aug 8, 2019 9:16:35 GMT -6
The amphibious invasion of Normandy on D-Day was the largest and most complex ever attempted. Yes, because France was heavily defended, and therefore you needed to land a large army plus vast amounts of supplies every month.
Most invasions in the time period 1900-1955 were much smaller affairs, e.g. Britain invaded Iceland and Madagascar in WW2 using much less resources.
Modelling this in the game could be done by giving each territory a "size" based on its size, population and level of industrial development: the larger these are the harder to invade. And invasion distance could depend on this too, e.g. the Normandy invasion was only possible because it is close to the UK, if France was 500 nm distant from the UK, the invasion would have been impossible as it would have required too much resources.
(On a wider note, modelling land warfare with anything approaching accuracy would be rather difficult.)
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Aug 8, 2019 9:20:54 GMT -6
I played a game as Japan where it took me 3 years to conquer Britian's possessions in South East Asia. In real life it took them about 4 months in 1941-42. Historical Britain was already embroiled in a major war which had led them to draw part of their forces from the Far East to Europe and North Africa and give the remaining forces a much lower priority for equipment, was just coming out of a period of economic depression, and wasn't far removed from a treaty-mandated period of stasis in the defenses of its Asiatic colonies. None of that is necessarily true of alternate-timeline Britain, and on top of that if there wasn't a WWI-equivalent in the alternate timeline - as is normally the case in 1900-start games of Rule the Waves 1 & 2 - then there may not have been so strong a disaffection with military and naval preparedness as was the case historically. Alternate-timeline Britain could very easily be significantly better prepared for a war with alternate-timeline Japan than historical Britain was for a war with historical Japan in the early 1940s. If i remember correctly in this game the RN refused to turn up, which is a shame because I like the big fleet battles. It's rather frustrating building 80,000 ton battleships and then the enemy refuses to fight them.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Aug 8, 2019 9:27:11 GMT -6
Possible stupid question, but are you all running the latest update? I did have these issues in 1.5 too, but with the last update I had clean and easy invasions triggering
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 8, 2019 11:23:26 GMT -6
Haven't got much time in with 1.07, the experiences detailed above were with .06.
|
|