• 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.
Update: US naval production the day after Pearl Harbor

HoI3_83.jpg


They attacked on November 1st, and this is where we stand. I have met my CVL production target.

Notes:

By this point, I have also built some armor, a full 10 divisions of MAR (active duty) and I have added 4 MR, 2 TAC, 2 NAV, and 2 STR (still in queue).

I am researching Nuke techs furiously. To be realistic, when the time comes, I will build at least one reactor. The cost of doing so is a real drain on IC, so it's not worth skipping on.
 
Expanded the Soviet entry to better match the format used in the later ones.

@SecretMaster: Looks like you're about 1/3 of the way there :) Have you tried any of the other naval plans? The small ones like the Polish or Swedish plans are pretty easy as those countries have more than enough spare IC and LS to build the ships, and can't really afford to expand their armies due to low manpower. I'm currently trying the Soviet plan right now, and I don't think I'll be able to win since it's June 1941 and I only have 850 brigades total.
 
Update: 1943.

Japan lasted 60 days before surrendering on Christmas Day, 41. Italy surrendered in August of 42.

HoI3_88.jpg


Without sounding too confident, I think we can say that, unless the USA reverts to peace time laws before 44, the USA on normal can very easily meet USN production targets. I don't think I need to continue the experiment any further.

Additional notes:

The USAAF is in Britain shooting down German planes and bombing Europe. The CAGs that the USN utilizes still out number USAAF wings. I have about 10 MRs, 4 TACs, 2 NAVs, and 2 STRs in Britain. I don't know if this counts as enough air forces historically or not.

The USA completed its 2nd nuclear reactor right before New Years Eve, 42. The Manhattan Project is humming along nicely and is a good drain on IC, although as I build Nuke practicals, reactors get much cheaper. They only cost around 30 IC a day now.

The USA has about 285 brigades. While they are not quite done yet, an additional 15 divisions of HARM/SPART are in the queue alongside additional ships. With Italy out of the picture, Overlord can commence as soon as I get all that armor across the ocean. You can't say the USA has skimped on the army.

The USA has built a constant stream of convoys and escorts since we ended the last IC run in 37. We have a large merchant marine. No IC savings there.

The USA has either 45% or 50% practicals in all ship types except for subs and transports. I only recently queued up a bunch of subs after a two year hiatus because I realized I was falling behind.

Most of the sparkling new CVs, CLs, DDs, and the new run of subs will sit out the war in Norfolk. There's really nothing for them to do now that the two major naval powers of the Axis are defeated. There are not any more German subs in the Atlantic. My NAVs helped the RN finish the last of them off in late 42.

My subs haven't done a whole lot during the war. Japan and Italy fell so fast, that there wasn't much long-term raiding of merchant shipping. So, in IC terms, they are a waste at this point. :)


If I were to redo this in VH, the difficulty would be whether the USA can maintain production goals and upgrade units effectively. Every time I hit a new level of small warship RADAR or ASW, my upgrade costs shoot through the roof. And in a VH game, you can't really skimp on those techs. Your DDs and CLs are pointless without them. I can easily burn 20% of my IC for a month or two at a time getting upgrades done.

On the other hand, you could always do a third run of IC. And once you get practicals built up, even CVs only take 16 months or so to build.
 
Well, it could be better. :)

Seriously, part of the reason it is so easy to take out Japan is that the home islands are garrisoned badly. What should IJN happen is that if you invade Japan, it should be a long slog that is dangerously undermined if you don't have naval superiority. Instead, I can invade Japan without even sinking the IJN, and swiftly occupy the islands while the IJN struggles in vain to sink either my convoys or navy.

If the Japanese AI would take the time to build and then garrison all of its ports with 5 MIL divisions, then this would be harder. MIL isn't great, but it's a lot better than having half the ports ungarrisoned and the other half manned by a single INF division.
 
One main problem is IC. Japan simply doesn't have enough IC to build enough ground troops for China, SE Asia, the Pacific, and the home islands and build those expensive carriers and planes. Perhaps their practicals aren't high enough? Maybe some units cost too much IC?

However, I find that the main problem is that the AI for Japan and the UK doesn't keep troops at home, but rather sends them all over the world instead. It's quite common to find several unguarded ports for both nations. Because they don't share land borders with their main opponents the AI can't properly judge how many troops it needs for defense. Germany and the USSR don't have this problem as they are surrounded by other countries with a land connection.
 
this may be a dumb idea, but would it be possible to introduce some kind of "weight" limit that they have to keep at home? take Germany RL, for instance, according to orbat, they had 34 infantry divisions stationed on defense when barbarossa was launched. that would be about 1/3 to 1/5 of their total land forces? something like that, anyway? or would that be outside the range of the engine?
 
I agree that the Garrison AI is the main problem here, because it doesn't recognise the threat the amphibious and airborne invasions pose. Another is extremely weak naval AI. It fails at threat evaluation and prioritization, e.g. the Japanese AI can waste all its fuel on China, while all it would need are some patrols, TP escorts and occasional support of land operations, while the British AI makes 15106 patrols in the Atlantic and forgets about homeland defence. Also, it makes stupid fleets and it doesn't take aircraft into consideration.

Additionally, it's way too easy to land in Japan with little logistical support. However, it's a broader topic, as amphibious invasions are too easy to conduct in HOI3 in general.
 
Where there's a whip, there's a way.

A feasibility study of Stalin's naval program in HOI3.

I have taken up the challenge presented by Stalin's ambitious naval build plans in 1936 and 1937. Stalin's plan is easily the most insane out of all the naval programs listed in this thread. Not only will it create a navy that would rival the size of the actual USN at the end of WWII (a navy that dwarfed all major naval powers combined), but it plans to build ships that the Soviets have no technologies for in 1936.

The naval situation in 36:

It has already been pointed out that, historically, the Soviets basically had no ship building industry after the civil war. HOI3 reflects this in abysmal ship practicals in almost every category. Aside from destroyers and submarines, ship categories are sitting at -45% or -50% practicals. Even destroyers have negative practicals, just not so bad.

Even worse, the Soviets do not have technology for BCs or even the ability to build CAGs, much less actual CVs. Furthermore, except for destroyers and submarines, the Soviets are sitting at WWI technologies for things they can build. Any ships produced in the next 5 years will be technologically inferior to even the rust buckets of the RN. And thanks to bad practicals, technological improvements will be slow.

All of this must also factor in the fact that the Soviet Union actually has to survive and win WWII. The Soviets cannot simply fortify the border with the Axis powers and sit around improving the navy. Stalin doesn't know it, but we do: by late 41, we will at war with the Axis powers and it won't be pretty.

But as insane as Stalin's naval plans are, the Soviet Union enjoys some advantages that make naval expansion possible. While it is not the largest industrial power in 36, the Soviets are 3 IC runs away from becoming the world's largest industrial power. While the laws in place in 36 kind of suck, by 37 we can enact the purge and ramp up production. When the war breaks out, the Soviet Union can easily be in a position to mass produce anything it has a mind to build. Heavy Industry Emphasis, coupled with 2-3 IC runs, and improved production techs (which are cheap to research ahead of time if you have construction practicals from 2-3 IC runs), means that even at lousy practicals, I can churn out BBs in 23 months. Once practicals finally kick in, I can cut that way down. Also, resources are not a problem. The Soviets can fuel enough IC to give Hitler a big frowny face. :D

Furthermore, HOI3 SOV has some advantages over it's historical counterparts. Reading about the historical attempts to construct some Soviet BBs, one thing that plagued their construction was that at least one or two hulls had to be abandoned because German offensives threatened the shipyards and German planes were bombing the facilities. HOI3 SOV has no problem with building BBs in Siberia, and then teleporting them to a port facility. As long as the Soviet Union has enough ground and air forces to halt the German advance, naval expansion can continue unhindered.

I also have a personal advantage over Stalin. I have played the Soviets before with the intention of building a blue water force that could at least challenge Japan. If I could build a SHBB navy consisting of 6 SHBBs and a comparable group of destroyers, then I know where to cut corners and how to abuse practicals in pursuit of Stalin's insanity.

Stalin's plan is also insane in HOI3 terms due to how techs and doctrines work. All those CAs on the list are basically pointless to produce. If you can build 40 BBs, then the CAs are not serving a purpose. Also, the Soviet plan does not focus on either DDs or CLs. Even worse, the number of BBs in the plan does not mesh well with the CVs in the plan. And given the size of the surface fleet planned, the submarine requisitions seem to serve no real purpose. A navy with over 40 BBs and a comparable number of screens really doesn't need to convoy raid with submarines; it can sink the opposition and then raid with the BBs.

The plan:

Assuming that I have to build both the 1936 plan and the 1937 plan (Stalin wants both, right? we're talking at least 39 BBs/BCs, right?), IC will be the primary limiting factor. Practicals will come along as the ship building industry gears up. Thus, there is no real purpose to starting any naval construction in 36 or 37. Furthermore, because the Soviets must also plan for the mother of all land wars, there is nothing to be gained from tying up tons of IC in the 30s with naval assets. We have to prepare for war against the Axis first, then we can focus on the navy. And even then, that navy has to be finished by 1947.

Given the poor state of Soviet naval technology, and given the insane number of ships Stalin wants, it is clear that Stalin doesn't give a damn about the technological capability of these ships. What Stalin wants is tonnage; he wants to be able to claim that the Soviet Union has the biggest navy in the world. And we can give him that. While some naval research will take place, in many cases the ships produced will just be floating ego-supports. They will not be able to stand up to the modern US navy, but they will let Stalin satisfy is desire to have biggest naval peen. :D

The plan will thus follow 3 distinct phases.

Phase 1) Pre-war build up: The Soviet Union will do 2-3 IC runs. The Purge will be enacted. Once the IC is up, the Red Army will be expanded. The goal is to have an army that qualifies for "Great Army" before Barbarossa. The Red Army will be basic in character. It will largely be 3xINF, 1xARTY divisions, with 4xMIL divisions to garrison ports and 2xARM,2xSPART divisions for armored attacks. The Soviet air force will add 20 wings of INT/CAS (whatever configuration seems to work) before Barbarossa. This force should be enough to at least stonewall the Axis. Enough MIL will be produced to put 5 MIL divisions in each Soviet port, along with a single MIL in every province bordering Manchukuo and Korea. INF in the Far East will be brought to Europe as the MIL takes their place. This will cheaply dissuade AI Japan from DOWing and tie them up for months if they should even try.

After the IC is built, a single BC, BA, DD, and CL will be put in the queue. This is merely to start warming up practicals. Their quality is irrelevant.

Phase 2) Initial war production: A few months before the war, IC will be shifted to upgrades and reinforcement to prep for the war. I will not pre-mobilize, but sitting at 3 year draft means I can still get most reserves up to speed. When the war starts, all existing LARM and CAV will start to convert to ARM. additional SPART will be constructed to fill out existing LARM/MOT divisions. When Heavy Industry Emphasis is put in place, 50 INF/ARTY divisions (5 runs of 10) will enter the queue along with 3-5 TACs and some additional ARM/SPART.

Phase 3) Once the Axis advance is halted and we start pushing them back, naval units will enter the queue in full force. Ideally, we can keep some IC invested in upgrades and reinforcement and devote the rest to naval production. Unless we lose a ton of units to encirclements, the force as scheduled should be able to effectively defeat the Axis eventually. There is no hurry to win the war quickly; we just have to win. By the time 42 rolls around, we should have enough practicals to actually make a realistic determination as to what we should produce.

House rules:

The game will be played on normal.

No gamey encirclements (i.e. luring 40 German divisions towards Kiev, and then cutting them off).

No phoney wars.

No ahistorical annexations. There is no point in annexing 500 extra IC and then saying "Look, Stalin's plan is feasible in HOI3." Aside from the Baltic states and MR parts of Poland, we will puppet all Axis powers we force to surrender.

No ahistorical wars before Barbarossa. We will only fight the Winter War with Finland, and we will only puppet Finland, not annex.

After the war starts, I reserve the right to spread Communism anywhere it is deemed feasible to spread it. This might include Japan, Turkey, Persia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Sweden. There are some nice strategic modifiers that can indirectly help the Soviet war effort, and I may want to utilize them.

All decisions will be historical. I'll play nice with Germany this time around.

If I am in a position to liberate members of the Allies, I will do so.

Now, let's see what a whip, an inexhaustible supply of labor, and Heavy Industry Emphasis can do. :D
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The '37 plan is a revision of the '36 plan. 2 CVLs, 12 CLs, 68 subs were dropped while 10 destroyers and 9 capital ships were added. I'll go make a note of that in the Soviet and other entries to clarify. If you haven't started your test yet and don't mind modding your game, I would suggest giving yourself all level 1 BC and BB techs to represent WW1 construction and completed ships that were either not finished or scuttled after the Russian surrender to Germany.

In regards to models, the Sovetsky Soyuz battleships are defined as:

Code:
battleship.4 = {
	capitalship_armament = 4
	battleship_antiaircraft = 3
	battleship_engine = 3
	battleship_armour = 4
	largewarship_radar = 0
	battlefleet_concentration_doctrine = 0 
	battleship_crew_training = 0 
}

So, rather than model them as SH-BBs PI decided to make them roughly similar to the Bismarck. Not sure why since they were absolutely massive ships, far bigger than anything being produced at the time except for the Yamato. The Kronshtadt and Stalingrad-class BCs are defined as:

Code:
battlecruiser.3 = {
	capitalship_armament = 2
	battlecruiser_antiaircraft = 2
	battlecruiser_engine = 3
	battlecruiser_armour = 3
	largewarship_radar = 0
	cruiser_warfare = 0 
	cruiser_crew_training = 0 
}

battlecruiser.4 = {
	capitalship_armament = 2
	battlecruiser_antiaircraft = 4
	battlecruiser_engine = 4
	battlecruiser_armour = 4
	largewarship_radar = 0
	cruiser_warfare = 0 
	cruiser_crew_training = 0 
}

Just an fyi in case you want to have the classes match or not. You can find all of the juicy details in the file SOV - Ships.txt in ../HOI3/units/models and the file models.csv in ../HOI3/localisation.
 
Last edited:
The '37 plan is a revision of the '36 plan. 2 CVLs, 12 CLs, 68 subs were dropped while 10 destroyers and 9 capital ships were added. I'll go make a note of that in the Soviet and other entries to clarify. If you haven't started your test yet and don't mind modding your game, I would suggest giving yourself all level 1 BC and BB techs to represent WW1 construction and completed ships that were either not finished or scuttled after the Russian surrender to Germany.

Oh, I only have to build 20 something BBs/BCs? Aw heck, I can do that. That's not nearly as insane as I thought; it's just what I would call, "ambitious." :)

BTW, regardless, it's still a stupid build plan with HOI3's mechanics. Stupid, stupid CAs. :wacko:
 
Oh, I only have to build 20 something BBs/BCs? Aw heck, I can do that. That's not nearly as insane as I thought; it's just what I would call, "ambitious." :)

BTW, regardless, it's still a stupid build plan with HOI3's mechanics. Stupid, stupid CAs. :wacko:

It's only stupid because of how PI set up the doctrines. The game's naval doctrines simultaneously encourage the player to research the right 2 (the basing and spotting tech in the raiding doctrine is useful for everyone, just like the target chance and target choice techs in the battleship tree), while forcing the player to choose 2 ship types to use. Want to use CLs instead of DDs with your battleships? Need to focus on the carrier and battleship trees, plus the spotting one in the raiding tree. The naval doctrine design leaves a lot to be desired, since no navy ever only focused on two ship types. Each ship had its own role to play in the grand scheme of things. This is where I think the HPP did it right, in that all three doctrines encourage the player and AI to create and maintain balanced navies.

Another reason why CAs aren't good units is because PI oddly chose to make them be capital ships. The only navy in the world during the '30s that used CAs as capital ships was Germany, and that was due entirely due the Versailles Treaty limits on Germany's navy, which lead to the so-called Panzerschiffe, which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns (all other CAs had 8" guns). Every other navy used them as screens for bigger ships, or to lead patrol groups.
 
It's only stupid because of how PI set up the doctrines. The game's naval doctrines simultaneously encourage the player to research the right 2 (the basing and spotting tech in the raiding doctrine is useful for everyone, just like the target chance and target choice techs in the battleship tree), while forcing the player to choose 2 ship types to use. Want to use CLs instead of DDs with your battleships? Need to focus on the carrier and battleship trees, plus the spotting one in the raiding tree. The naval doctrine design leaves a lot to be desired, since no navy ever only focused on two ship types.

Well, you have to factor in the fact that both DDs and CLs can do each others jobs efficiently. Specializing doctrines is one thing, but even with their stat differences, DDs and CLs end up just being the same in game terms. They just use different techs and practicals to get the same results, which encourages everyone, including me, to pick one or the other to focus on.

Another reason why CAs aren't good units is because PI oddly chose to make them be capital ships. The only navy in the world during the '30s that used CAs as capital ships was Germany, and that was due entirely due the Versailles Treaty limits on Germany's navy, which lead to the so-called Panzerschiffe, which were heavy cruisers with 11" guns (all other CAs had 8" guns). Every other navy used them as screens for bigger ships, or to lead patrol groups.

This is also a side effect of the stacking penalty system. Why use a CA to take up a ship slot when you can use a BB, CV, or screen with a DD or CL? CAs are so weak that they are pointless in major fleet engagements when BBs and CVs are in the mix, and they can't look for subs or kill air craft. When you say "lead patrol groups", I want to add "use them to make patrol groups able to tactically withdraw from larger BB fleets and escape." CAs should be able to lead DDs and CLs on patrol and anything bigger than them, they should just be able to run away from (except planes, obviously).

I mean, what should happen is that a major naval power should look at CAs and say "Aha, cruiser practicals. Good, we can streamline production of both CAs and CLs, filling our naval OOB out quite nicely." Instead, my Soviet naval build plan says, "Aha, cruiser practicals. I will build 20 pointless CAs to generate practical for the CLs I really want to build and use.
 
As I am building my Soviet navy, I have to ask a stupid question.

What in the Hell is a destroyer leader? I looked it up, but it the information is kind of vague. The wiki makes it look like the Soviets didn't commission any destroyer leaders after 1940, which is before the war. Should I count them as just DDs or would it make sense to add a few CLs, given what capabilities HOI3 gives CLs?
 
I answered that question 4 posts below the Soviet entry :) Anyway, a destroyer leader is the biggest ship in a destroyer flotilla. The Dutch used light cruisers as DD leaders, while everyone else used destroyers that were slightly bigger than normal ones. For simplicity's sake, just assume that DD leaders are included in the flotilla unit, since an in-game DD unit is a group of ships rather than just one.
 
This is also a side effect of the stacking penalty system. Why use a CA to take up a ship slot when you can use a BB, CV, or screen with a DD or CL? CAs are so weak that they are pointless in major fleet engagements when BBs and CVs are in the mix, and they can't look for subs or kill air craft. When you say "lead patrol groups", I want to add "use them to make patrol groups able to tactically withdraw from larger BB fleets and escape." CAs should be able to lead DDs and CLs on patrol and anything bigger than them, they should just be able to run away from (except planes, obviously).

I mean, what should happen is that a major naval power should look at CAs and say "Aha, cruiser practicals. Good, we can streamline production of both CAs and CLs, filling our naval OOB out quite nicely." Instead, my Soviet naval build plan says, "Aha, cruiser practicals. I will build 20 pointless CAs to generate practical for the CLs I really want to build and use.
Just FUI. (1942 tech both groupes and CAGs) 4CA+4CL fight 3CV+BB+4CL just fine, and BB don`t last long under focused fire.
 
Just FUI. (1942 tech both groupes and CAGs) 4CA+4CL fight 3CV+BB+4CL just fine, and BB don`t last long under focused fire.

I wouldn't put a BB with 3 CVs anyway. One BB is never good enough. Now, I might go 2 BB, 1 CVL, and 4 DDs. That is a winning combination.

For a SAG, you want at least 2 BBs and a bunch of DDs (6 for preference but it's variable.) You could go 3 BB and run with 4 DDs, but depending on the BB and DD hull ratings, that can get sketchy. On the other hand, high end BBs do a ton of damage to anything that gets within striking distance.
 
I wouldn't put a BB with 3 CVs anyway. One BB is never good enough. Now, I might go 2 BB, 1 CVL, and 4 DDs. That is a winning combination.

For a SAG, you want at least 2 BBs and a bunch of DDs (6 for preference but it's variable.) You could go 3 BB and run with 4 DDs, but depending on the BB and DD hull ratings, that can get sketchy. On the other hand, high end BBs do a ton of damage to anything that gets within striking distance.
No. BBs just too slow to propely catch CVs. Even BCs have some problems.
 
Alright, the Soviet experiment is complete. I achieved success (easier than I though, actually).

In HOI3 terms, Stalin's plan is doable. In order to achieve success, you need to stay at war constantly once the Axis attacks. The extra IC from total mobilization is important, but since naval vessels take forever to build, Heavy Industry Emphasis is so very important in shaving time off construction. By implication, the Purge is necessary, otherwise you won't have the unity to enact Heavy Industry Emphasis.

Phase one was no sweat. Of course, we easily hit the Great Army mark before war with Germany. I did 2 1/2 IC runs. The first two were in 36 and 37. Then, when I engaged Heavy Industry Emphasis during the Winter War with Finland (1938), I fired up another partial run just to take advantage of the laws. Aside from that, I only cooked a few ships in most categories for practicals, while focusing on land and air power prior to the war.

When Germany attacked, I was not able to engage phase 2 as quickly as I would have liked, due to much larger upgrade costs than I anticipated. The upgrade from LARM and CAV to ARM took longer than I anticipated as well (lower than usual armor practicals because I was not rushing to get really nice armor). However, Germany obliged me by playing a lousy game. Despite setting up defensive lines on rivers, the AI felt it necessary to send HARM against me, trying to use brute force to cross the rivers. German air forces badly damaged most of my CAS, but my INTs contested the skies effectively. The Germans even let me keep Marat off the Baltic coast, providing shore bombardment while the German navy and air force did nothing. The only naval action at this stage in the war was when the plucky little Romanians sent their one NAV repeatedly against my Black Sea Fleet.

Before December of 41, we had liberated Poland and taken Danzig. Romania was puppeted when the German army advancing on Stalingrad refused to turn around and help out their allies. This resulted in a huge pocket that took half a year to clear.

By 42, I had added a ton of aircraft to the queue, but also CAs were entering full production. All CAs produced by the Soviets this game used WWI techs. They exist solely to fulfill Stalin's plan and to generate cruiser practicals.

By 43, most of the Axis was puppeted, aside from Japan. I hit Great Air Force and Grand Navy this year.

By 47, the war is dragging on as I take out unaligned minors just to keep Heavy Industry Emphasis.

And the results:

HoI3_103.jpg



HoI3_100.jpg


And just to make sure you know I built proper air and land forces.

HoI3_101.jpg


HoI3_102.jpg



Now, the Soviet Navy looks awesome on paper. It rivals the historically powerful war-time production of the USN. But underneath those numbers lay dark secrets.

1) All those subs are pre-1943 techs. Their hulls and engines make them unsuitable to force projection in a Cold War setting. They will have to be scapped and new ones built.

2) All CVLs are WWI era hulls and engines. They are only suitable for training or target practice. I built them while I researched the full CV tech to generate some carrier practicals. They served their purpose, but they are garbage.

3) All CVs are pre-1940 hulls and engines. Their CAGs are awesome, thanks to Soviet light aircraft practicals and techs, but they are all too slow to engage in fleet operations with modern ships. They will have to be scrapped (a new set of 9 CVs is in production as of the screenshot, so it's not all bad).

4) All CAs are WWI tech. They were only built to satisfy the plan and to generate practicals for the CLs. Sell them for scrap.

5) All BCs are WWI tech. They are only good for scrap. I built them to generate capital ship practical early in the war.

6) About 1/3 of the DDs are pre-1941 techs. They have upgraded ASW and RADAR, but they are too slow to keep up with newer ships.

7) About 10 of the CLs are in the same condition as the DDs. They are unsuitable for Cold War operations.

8) About half the BBs are level 3 or worse, making them unsuitable for Cold War operations. And remember, 3 of the BBs on that list date from before the Revolution! (They never got sunk, even when shelling Germany for years on end.)

Now, the good news.

The BBs completed in January of 47 look like this.

HoI3_99.jpg


Soviet CAGs, despite never firing a shot, are awesome thanks to supplementary research from light aircraft. That means that whenever those newer CVs are finished they will be able to terrorize the oceans. The USA had better be careful during the Cold War.


Some thoughts:

As anyone who has played the Soviets knows, the real limiting factor for land and air forces is logistics. The USSR can spam INF/ARTY and INT/CAS all day, but in the end, unless you also spam infrastructure and supply techs, you can only keep so many units supplied sufficiently to be a credible threat against either Germany or Japan. In particular, invading Manchuria and Korea renders Soviet manpower and IC superiority somewhat moot; build all the brigades and wings you want, but you aren't moving all of them through Asia.

This means that any Soviet naval plan has some built in IC slack from the beginning it can take advantage of. Even on VH, with its associated IC and resource penalties, a semi-skilled Soviet player can produce more land and air units than can be utilized effectively. So, in that sense, what else are you going to spend your IC on, but a navy? Even at its worst, a Soviet player can dedicate 100 IC a day to keep upgrades humming along and still have plenty left over to build new things. Furthermore, spamming brigades costs leadership, which is more of a finite resource than IC for the Soviets (assumes the Purge was enacted).

What makes the navy difficult is that Soviet naval techs are so bad, and practicals are so bad, that you waste a disproportional amount of leadership trying to even get marginal techs, to say nothing of cutting edge technologies. In order to get decent techs, you have to trade IC for research: build useless ships just to get practicals to speed up research and build newer ships. Again, luckily for the Soviets, IC is not a real issue and it is a viable strategy to trade IC for research.

I considered taking the SHBB route. I've done it before with the Soviets, but I didn't do it this time. Yes, the Soviet BBs planned were to be bigger than Yamato, but if you examine the screenshot, the BBs I finished in 47 have a much higher hull rating than Yamato, more firepower, are faster, have more operational range, and more AA. Basically, the Soviet BBs I built make treaty battleships look like wimps, which was the point of Yamato anyway.

Given Soviet limitations in leadership, in a real game, I would streamline the Soviet navy along BB lines and dispense with subs and carriers. The reason is that my doctrines are crap in this game. You'll notice that the BB has 1946 guns and engines, but 1943 doctrines. It's even worse for subs and CVs. If you could see my air doctrine page, you would be aghast. In other words, the limitations of Soviet leadership make naval specialization a must, not IC limitations.

A final thought:

Stalin's naval build plan only works because he can impoverish the Soviet people using a war time economy. The people of the Soviet Union faced real hardships during the war, and the increased IC efficiency and output, and reduced consumer goods demands, simulates their sacrifice (as it does for all other war time powers). Without the ability to force the population to accept these sacrifices, his build plan seems unreasonable unless you totally abandon the army and air force. Without practicals, naval build times are atrocious, and it is much easier to build those practicals by using Heavy Industry Emphasis to substantially cut build times. Furthermore, the plan only works because the Germans and Japanese can't bomb ships as they are being built. In the real world, Stalin's plan was sensibly abandoned when the war broke out, but I don't see how it would have been successful without a war time economy.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Looks like I went about the plan the wrong way. I was trying to be 100% historical by doing 2.5 full IC runs (spend nothing but IC, supplies, reinforcements, and CG on more IC) then going for historical naval, air, and ground force production by 1938. I haven't finished that test game, but it seems like you had a breeze doing a slightly ahistorical build.

The main weakness of Stalin's plan is the reliance on battleships. The Red Navy commanders knew that carriers were the future of warfare, but those individuals were either ignored or purged, leaving the old school thinkers in charge. The long-term viability of either the 1936 or 1937 plan is questionable, given that both Japan and Germany, the USSR's main foes, were slowly (or in Japan's case, quickly) embracing carriers as the primary arm of the modern navy.