• 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.
So true, so true. I can't quote anyone other than Joseph Stalin but as you say, he'd be a dubious source because he was a pro-allies co-conspirator working for the German General staff. - "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."

Funny comment^^ Please check the source or more precisely the context (not the only flaw, but the most obvious one). Anyway. Apparently I didn't manage to get my point across (concerning game design changes stemming from "History"). My fault.
 
So true, so true. I can't quote anyone other than Joseph Stalin but as you say, he'd be a dubious source because he was a pro-allies co-conspirator working for the German General staff. - "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."

Snark all you want, the fact remains that among serious historians, there is no unanimity on the question of whether the Soviet Union could defeat Germany by itself. It's only fair that the game reflects this disagreement, this by leaving a 50-50 (or 33-66,66-33, 40-60... whatever) chance of either the USSR or Germany winning in the end. Which is about where it is now, hurray for compromise.

And whomever posted the nonsense about prior US knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour: your post was bad and you should feel bad. Nothing but a conspiracy of the American far-right to tar FDR's legacy.
 
It is too much of offtop, but they needed big uniting event similar to 9/11. Sacrifing two old battleships is a piece of cake.
Next big uniting event is already underway, seeing 4USA CVs near Iranian coasts.
That is end of my offtopic.

It may be off topic, but it didn't happen. Nor did the US government have anything to do with 9/11.
 
Snark all you want, the fact remains that among serious historians, there is no unanimity on the question of whether the Soviet Union could defeat Germany by itself. It's only fair that the game reflects this disagreement, this by leaving a 50-50 (or 33-66,66-33, 40-60... whatever) chance of either the USSR or Germany winning in the end. Which is about where it is now, hurray for compromise.
Yeah, I've had disagreements like that all the time. One guy thinks that God makes the flowers grow and the other guy thinks its photosynthesis.

I can't debate someone's faith and I won't debate these "imaginary" experts you've read about. I can tell you what Joseph Stalin said. But if you don't trust his words, even though you were quoting his son, just a few posts before, then you and the "Pearl Harbor" guy have a lot more in common than you might imagine.
 
It may be off topic, but it didn't happen. Nor did the US government have anything to do with 9/11.

Read on Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is official document. Governments lie all the time, and Japan and German normal citizens did not know how bad situation is until very end.
And if you think USA government is different, heh.
 
Not sure there is any debate, I think we all agree that actually taking officers from the USSR would solve the issue of the USSR being as powerful as it currently is.

The issue is that some of us, not me. Don’t think a rebalancing is required because they think that the USSR vs. Germany, is currently balanced.
 
Maybe with final map project a little rebalancing will be required. But overall I am happy with balance too. SU is made much stronger and as Italy I had to work my ass off to help Germany win.
 
As a human Germany, I have little to no difficulty putting down France in 6-8 weeks tops, and I take a slower, more firepower oriented approach than doctrinaire blitzing. I have however noticed that AI Germany has great difficulty sometimes. In my last Italy game, 1941 rolled around and GER was still battering away at the Maginot line with some modest gains in the North. GER proceeded to dow SOV right on schedule and of course got steamrolled. I wound up loading an earlier save and joined the war to finish off FRA so GER could re-deploy to invade Russia so I would agree that AI GER needs some help at this point. As it stands in SP, if you are not playing Germany, you don't get a good WW2.
 
As Italy or Japan you can help Germany win, and it is much more satisfying. I agree on AI Germany burning too much manpower in France, especially map changes in 3.05 hurt it.
 
Not sure there is any debate, I think we all agree that actually taking officers from the USSR would solve the issue of the USSR being as powerful as it currently is.

The issue is that some of us, not me. Don’t think a rebalancing is required because they think that the USSR vs. Germany, is currently balanced.

I disagree. I think a human Germany versus the USSR is balanced. I don't think an AI Germany versus an AI USSR is balanced.
 
Say the main reasons for the outcome of WWII where 1. Germany's strong military leadership (on all levels) 2. USSR's weak leadership and unpreparedness 3. USSR's vast resources 4. Reckless decisions on both sides.

Is it impossible to model this via different levels of alertness, aggressiveness of the AI and certain stats like Generals? Could someone with knowledge on how the AI is implemented comment on this?
 
Yeah, I've had disagreements like that all the time. One guy thinks that God makes the flowers grow and the other guy thinks its photosynthesis.

I can't debate someone's faith and I won't debate these "imaginary" experts you've read about. I can tell you what Joseph Stalin said. But if you don't trust his words, even though you were quoting his son, just a few posts before, then you and the "Pearl Harbor" guy have a lot more in common than you might imagine.

You are making a straw-man of my actual positions, and confounding different issues. The game, as it stands, has only one kind of American intervention that matters, and it is an actual invasion of Western Europe. Lend-Lease is not modelled to full effect (not even close). I pointed this out a thousand posts back. The USSR the game offers is one where lend-lease comes "built-in," it's not optional.

Without lend-lease, the USSR would have been in a bit of a pickle. But that's not what an American intervention means, in game-terms. It means having a second front. The USSR should be full well able to beat the Germans without a second front, which is what the game offers now. Cutting their officer rate across the board would make this virtually impossible, for an AI anyway.

Only as part of a game-wide make-over, with appropriate modelling of lend-lease, recalibrated allied AI and a plethora of other things would weakening the USSR make any sense.

Admittedly, maybe I overstated the inherent power of the USSR. I should have made the distinction earlier, between lend-lease and the second front, before I was trolled into that unsourced statement (then again, defending the in game status quo of a strong USSR, the burden of proof isn't on me anyway).

By the way, who on earth quoted any of Stalin's sons?
 
Not sure there is any debate, I think we all agree that actually taking officers from the USSR would solve the issue of the USSR being as powerful as it currently is.

The issue is that some of us, not me. Don’t think a rebalancing is required because they think that the USSR vs. Germany, is currently balanced.

If you prevent/forbid spamming reserve tank divisons for 25% of full price... then Soviet vs Germany is currently balanced. Otherwise I agree that Soviet has the advantage both thanks to the supply situation and thanks to the access to oil/fuel needed.

As long as Stalin doesn't have 100 tank divisions ready for the onslaught Germany do have a fair chance to overrun Soviet, especially so if they save both their über decisions and fire them so they overlap during the first 6months of Barbarossa.


I'm just in the process of playing one such MP game at the moment, and getting beaten back as Soviet with 1000+ brigades even though I outnumber the Germans 2:1 or even 3:1 in both tanks and divisions where our local battles are taking place.
 
So, let's get back to topic at hand.

You the vocal minority, don't think that the USSR needs needs rebalancing and don't think Germany should get any benefits, like decreased delay. So, in all future games, Germany will continue to loose at the hands of the USSR, without US intervention. Thus, playing as the US is pointless, since the USSR can win against Germany, so the point of having the US in the game is a lot of wasted time by PI.

Congrats, I'm out of this discussion. I'm just not in the mood to quibble over this, who cares if playing the US is pointless.


As for these statements
I disagree. I think a human Germany versus the USSR is balanced. I don't think an AI Germany versus an AI USSR is balanced.
I guess PI should sell the game as a play Germany sort of game. Since Germany is the only one that's been nerfed to make the game a challenge, if you play Germany. If on the other hand you want to play any other country, your're out of luck. Since Germany is balanced to its knees and will loose in an AI vs. AI situation. :)
 
Just confirming what I suggested earlier in this thread. Playing as the United States, my desire was to play a game where I faced a stronger than normal Axis. Japan got bogged down in China, so in 1939 I saved my game, loaded as China, and disbanded the Chinese army (this required 3 different loads, for 3 different Chinese factions). Japan soon conquered China. Germany did fine until Barbarossa, where by August of 1941 it was obvious Germany was not moving forward very quickly. So I saved and loaded as Russia, disbanded most of the Russian Army as well as cancelled their builds and tech research. On November 1, 1941 Japan attacked the U.S., and Germany got Drang Nach Osten in the middle of that month.

I find the distinction between me doing these things to create the game I want and HoI-3 doing it on its own pretty much irrelevant. Such measures are unneccesary if I am playing Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy, or France. I agree the German A.I. is underpowered against Russia but I am in a position to change this if I want a more challenging UK or USA game.
 
Since Germany is balanced to its knees and will loose in an AI vs. AI situation.

And that is how it should be. In most games playing Haiti or other minor/neutral, in long run Axis should lose. With rare wins.
Now if you join on Axis side, you should be able to push balance enough to win in most of games.
 
And that is how it should be. In most games playing Haiti or other minor/neutral, in long run Axis should lose. With rare wins.
Now if you join on Axis side, you should be able to push balance enough to win in most of games.
And here we disagree. Without the US being 100% involved there would be no Allied victory.

Stalin could only starve so many people, working in his factories beyond the Urals, before the attrition would catch up to the USSR and they'd ultimately lose.
 
And that is how it should be. In most games playing Haiti or other minor/neutral, in long run Axis should lose. With rare wins.
Now if you join on Axis side, you should be able to push balance enough to win in most of games.

There's not much you can do to help Germany as Japan, except join Barbarossa. And fighting the Soviets isn't in Japan's best interest in '41. That's the most frustrating thing playing as Japan; watching the Axis collapse in Europe and knowing you are on your own.
 
There's not much you can do to help Germany as Japan, except join Barbarossa. And fighting the Soviets isn't in Japan's best interest in '41. That's the most frustrating thing playing as Japan; watching the Axis collapse in Europe and knowing you are on your own.

What's more fun than having the world against you? It's not like the Germans were going to help you at any point. I love the late 1947 game showdown to save the Home Islands and keeping the Americans away from China.