Finland and the Winter War

[Samilou]

I must disagree on that. Fact is that the Baltic States initially became so called 'Soviet Socialist Republics' (SSR:s) when they where threatened into submission by the USSR. This meant a 'puppet' relationship where they had their own governments (obviously under full control of the USSR) and allowed the USSR free use of military bases. After a short period of time however these SSR:s 'voted' yes to be incorporated (annexed) into the USSR. There is absolutely nothing that points towards the conclusion that a 'puppeted' Finnish SSR wouldn´t suffer the same fate.

Indeed, there was absolutely no difference between the Soviet attutude towards Finland and the baltic states, other than the fact that they were proven to be wrong on Finland.

[Fulmen]

Finland wasn't going to be incorporated. Stalin had already set up a puppet government.

And there were also puppet governments for the Baltic States before they "joined" the USSR (after the Communist coups in the summer of 1940).

The secret protocol of the M-R Pact gave Finland to the USSR and Finland was to become a part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, that was the plan all the way up until the Germans invaded Russia.

I find it hard to believe that there are still people who think Stalin wanted "no more than a buffer zone for Leningrad". Have you guys been reading Soviet "history" books or what?

[Klewer]

Back to game I think.

The way the game is now the Soviet Union is just overpowered at this point in the game compared to RL. As suggested above I would agree with some events to make it more even.

I have never seen the Finnish AI put up a good fight.

[ewphoenix123]

The problem is that the ai commits to many troops to finland, better doctrines don't help.
Historical the rough manpower ratio was about 2.2:1 better doctrines and good defensible terrain can with luck compensate that. (I'm talking tactical level, not strategic level, the soviet had more troops but rarelycommited beyond this ratio, and only at the end of the war)

Ingame we have currently a force ratio of ~4-5:1, at which point doctrines can't really save anyone.
So the soviet ai needs to leave more troops at the german border to give the fins a chance. Sadly that's easier said then done. ^^

[Samilou]

The problem is that the ai commits to many troops to finland, better doctrines don't help.
Historical the rough manpower ratio was about 2.2:1 better doctrines and good defensible terrain can with luck compensate that. (I'm talking tactical level, not strategic level, the soviet had more troops but rarelycommited beyond this ratio, and only at the end of the war)

Ingame we have currently a force ratio of ~4-5:1, at which point doctrines can't really save anyone.
So the soviet ai needs to leave more troops at the german border to give the fins a chance. Sadly that's easier said then done. ^^

Try what I suggested in the first page (my last post). The stacking penalty dependant on supply limit. It's a part solution. Then you just have to ensure the AI understands the stacking penalty and avoids attacking with everything they have when it is not feasible.

[TremblingBlue]

And there were also puppet governments for the Baltic States before they "joined" the USSR (after the Communist coups in the summer of 1940).

The secret protocol of the M-R Pact gave Finland to the USSR and Finland was to become a part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, that was the plan all the way up until the Germans invaded Russia.

I find it hard to believe that there are still people who think Stalin wanted "no more than a buffer zone for Leningrad". Have you guys been reading Soviet "history" books or what?

Well, that's all I've read. I wasn't aware of the other "puppet states".

Why is a communist Finland in the game?

[Easy1]

Has anyone actually managed to surive the winter war with Finland? I tried a couple of times but failed

[T.j. Arnold]

Has anyone actually managed to surive the winter war with Finland? I tried a couple of times but failed

I've done it as Sweden with the a-historic direct-intervention Decision. Only was able to keep the line a few provinces back, just waited until Germany began plowing through and the Russians realized that the war should be fought elsewhere (i.e. the actual Motherland).

[ewphoenix123]

Try what I suggested in the first page (my last post). The stacking penalty dependant on supply limit. It's a part solution. Then you just have to ensure the AI understands the stacking penalty and avoids attacking with everything they have when it is not feasible.

Easier said then done. *g*
And there are some fundamental flaws in that concept from a reality standpoint, the soviet could attack in such numbers, thats what they did at the end of the war and what lead to their victory. They just didn't do it in the beginning, b ecause it's extremly wasteful from a casualty standpoint.

After implementing some changes I'm currently working on, the winter war looks actually "okish" the fighting last regulary to late february, the continuation war is another story.
I hope to have some new features in the next weeks to play around with, but I'm still very early in the balance process.

[Samilou]

Easier said then done. *g*
And there are some fundamental flaws in that concept from a reality standpoint, the soviet could attack in such numbers, thats what they did at the end of the war and what lead to their victory. They just didn't do it in the beginning, b ecause it's extremly wasteful from a casualty standpoint.

After implementing some changes I'm currently working on, the winter war looks actually "okish" the fighting last regulary to late february, the continuation war is another story.
I hope to have some new features in the next weeks to play around with, but I'm still very early in the balance process.

I would regard the war of continuation as even more important. In RL there were extensive rearmament programs and major purchases of military equipment from Germany during and especially after the winter war. Of course the material situation of the Finnish military had already improved drastically from the winter war itself, both from foreign aid, increased military spending and from Soviet war trophies.

Major fortification projects were also launched to replace the Mannerheim line (some of them completed only during some point of the war of continuation), but covering several lines and on an even wider front, these fortifications played key roles in thwarting Soviet offensives during the later phase of the war of continuation due to the much more stationary nature of this war.

So there we go, some Finland-specific decision and event ideas. Which reminds me of the need for reworking the AI trade system, to make it possible for resource-poor countries to run industry at full potential - otherwise the events and decisions will have to be free bonuses.

[TremblingBlue]

Wouldn't a simple increase in fortification stop the soviets?

[Easy1]

I'm still pretty convinced what I wrote on the HOI3 forum a couple of years ago would make great deal of difference in solving this and similar issues.

I would say that a connection between infrastructure and terrain would bring more realism, balance and authentic flavor to the game. Such a connection exists, and it is a significant factor of conventional warfare.

This connection is fairly simple and works like this; where the terrain is impassable the reliance on good infrastructure is much higher than where the terrain is more traversable. A more specific example: In regions where dense forest is dominant the need of good infrastructure will be much greater than in regions with open plains, especially for the part carrying out the offensive maneuvers. It would be virtually impossible for a motorized brigade from the 1940s to maneuver in mountain regions or areas covered with dense forest without good quality infrastructure. The very same brigade will still be fully able to maneuver in open plains without any infrastructure at all.

This connection is a simple, yet a very important aspect of the Second World War. Where the infrastructure in a sufficient manner did not exist, it was very difficult to carry out a successful offensive attack, IF the terrain in addition was especially impassable. This has been the cause or at least an influencing factor for a large number of fronts and even wars having stagnated in the last century. Of these wars are the Vietnam War, the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Continuation war are inevitable examples. The reason that the front along the Finnish and Soviet border was more or less static during the Continuation war, was due to the combination of dense forests and little existing infrastructure.

During a battle, both infrastructure and terrain acts as a balance, that is, that the first either mitigate or aggravate the penalty/bonus given by the other. Accordingly, infrastructure and terrain interact with each other and together they constitute the “traversability”. Traversability can act as an advantage or disadvantage on the battlefield, and during the Continuation war and the other wars mentioned above it acted as a clear disadvantage

I would therefore suggest a more direct connection between infrastructure and terrain as factors that influence the outcome and progress of a battle, not as isolated factors (as in the previous HOI-games), but rather as factors that influence the battle progress in conjunction with each other.

[Easy1]

Reading this from the newest developer diary I reckon what I wrote in the previous post to some extent has been included in 1.3

• Generic movement modifiers for terrain are gone.
• Each unittype has it’s own individual terrain modifier that are based mostly on the factors used by different military simulation systems.

Armor moves fast over plains and deserts, but slows down to infantry speed when moving through jungle.

Nice work guys!

[ewphoenix123]

Thx.
And it's one of the things that helped with the winterwar.

I thought about the effect you describe, but a good implementation is problematic.
Armored units combat ability suffer heavily from such a situation, while infantry units are affected to a much smaller degree, but in both cases the main factor is the problematic terrain, bad infrastructure is secondary and only a very small factor in infantry advance capabilties.

Supplyefficency is the main factor that suffers from bad infrastructure, and this of course affects all units abilities, but to a higher degree armored and motorized forces.

So what I am saying is, while what you say has it's merrits in reality, your idea for an engine implementation doesn't work out.
First because you try to apply a very unit specific effect in a very general way.
Second because the effect belongs in the supply system and not in the combat formula, otherwise you apply the same mali twice. Thats btw one big problem in many mods and in 1.2 aswell, a lot of balance/tweak efforts only modify one factor but the engine has 2-3 values that are used slightly different, but affect the same thing in the end.

[T.j. Arnold]

Thats btw one big problem in many mods and in 1.2 aswell, a lot of balance/tweak efforts only modify one factor but the engine has 2-3 values that are used slightly different, but affect the same thing in the end.

Is this why provincial manpower is such a pain to modify?

[ewphoenix123]

Is this why provincial manpower is such a pain to modify?

Quite possible.
I never ran into any problems in that regard, but if you can describe what the problem is I can take a look if there is a way to make it easier.

[AbsoluteZer0]

Correct me if im wrong but dosnt USSR in HoI3 has a "disorginised army" modifier?
Mybe a similar thing can be incorparated into DH?

[MartinSWE]

My personal view is that the main flaw here is the long-term or rather lack of long-term effects from the Great Purge on the Red Army. IRL the Purge quite literally decapitated the Officer Corps and also made the lucky survivors reluctant to take personal responsibility for fear of reprisals. This could be represented somewhat by adding a negative modifier on Morale/Organisation and perhaps an increase on attrition from combat (if that is possible) in the Great Purge event. These modifiers can then be removed after the end of the Winter War since this was what happened historically. The lessons from the Winter War when it came both to organisation and tactics played a vital role in the Soviet victory against Germany and it´s Allies.

[Legions of Rome]

My personal view is that the main flaw here is the long-term or rather lack of long-term effects from the Great Purge on the Red Army. IRL the Purge quite literally decapitated the Officer Corps and also made the lucky survivors reluctant to take personal responsibility for fear of reprisals. This could be represented somewhat by adding a negative modifier on Morale/Organisation and perhaps an increase on attrition from combat (if that is possible) in the Great Purge event. These modifiers can then be removed after the end of the Winter War since this was what happened historically. The lessons from the Winter War when it came both to organisation and tactics played a vital role in the Soviet victory against Germany and it´s Allies.

This would be the best option IMO, the purge should be much more deadly.

[T.j. Arnold]

Quite possible.
I never ran into any problems in that regard, but if you can describe what the problem is I can take a look if there is a way to make it easier.

I never messed with manpower myself. It's just that I hear other modders say they have issues modifying manpower since it's defined in multiple, differing areas.