Darkest Hour - Dev Diary #28 - Sneak Peak 1.03 - Combat rework and more

  • 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.
Yep.

I was actually thinking about taking Sarmatian post apart but lets keep it simple.

The pattern he describes is basicly how the doctrines develop, I never said anything else.
No idea what the complains are about, as he himself says that soviet losses were considerably higher, even still in 39.

I really hope it's some languagebarrier problem, as I can see no understanding of the modern research he mentions, or the overall situation of the soviet military in 1939 and onwards in his post.

So please no unnecessary arguing over problems that don't exist.

It's your game. You guys do whatever you want, but for me, it is a problem if as Germany, I have far bigger problem defeating France than USSR.

We're all passionate about WW2 here naturally, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I'm most passionate about the Eastern Front and Wehrmacht-Red Army conflict and I have spent many hours researching it, as others here have probably done.

By modern research I mean post Cold War research. Most of what we know prior to that came from German side, with most of that coming from three sources: Mellentin, Manstein and Guderian. There were other, of course but those three were primary. Two of those three are recognized "masters" of operational warfare and have been lauded as most deserving for German fantastic performance in the early years of the war. It comes naturally that we should take heed of what they have to say but they both have something in common - they focused on what happened 1941-1943. Both "Achtung Panzers" and "Lost Victories" only barely mention 1944 and 1945. Both Guderian and Manstein were moved from positions of prominence by that time and they didn't even try to cover the series of decisive defeats they received from their opponent. Even more, they lacked operational data from the other side so their conclusions weren't cross referenced. Those two works were by far most influental in the general image of the performance of the Red Army. Unimaginative, rigid, inflexible, with poor leadership, poor understanding of strategy, mass frontal assaults... are only some of the common stereotypes attributed to the Red Army...

But, it is 2012 now, Cold War is long over and there is no reason to limit ourselves to only German researchers. Usually, I like to point out Glantz as an example of more modern research. He's American, an expert on the subject, and he used both German and Soviet sources, and most importantly he used them in conjuction.
He stayed away from questionable research and he used Krivosheev's research, who pretty much set the standard for anything about Red Army and numbers.

A few paragraph from Glantz
If American wartime impressions of combat on the Eastern Front were vague and imprecise, there was
some improvement in that picture during the first decade and a half after war ended. However, during
that period a new tendency emerged that colored almost all future works describing events on the
Eastern Front. That tendency was to view operations in the East through German eyes and virtually
only German eyes. From 1945 to 1958 essentially all works written in English or translated into
English about events on the Eastern Front were written by German authors, many of whom were
veterans of combat in the East, works moreover, based solely on German sources.
This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included memoirs
written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate oneself from Hitler or
Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just that and essentially laid blame
on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical failures. Thus, an apologetic tone
permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of Hitler's armies refused to shoulder
responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only further research will judge the correctness of
their views.
The first of the postwar memoirs to appear in English was the by now classic work, Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian.4 Guderian's work, which casts considerable light on strategic and operational
decisions while Guderian was a panzer group commander in 1941 and later when he became Chief of
Staff in 1944, set the tone for future treatment by German generals of Hitler's leadership. Guderian
laid at Hitler's feet principal responsibility for all failures of the German Army and for the dismantling
of the German General Staff. The German General Staff was portrayed as both used and abused by
Hitler throughout the war. Guderian's message was best conveyed by the chapter heading he chose for
the section of the Polish War of 1939 which read, "The Beginning of the Disaster." As in most
subsequent works, Guderian included little Soviet operational data.
One of the most influential postwar German war critiques was General von Mellenthin's Panzer
Battles published ln English in 1956.5 Mellenthin's work, an operational/tactical account of
considerable merit, echoed the criticism of Hitler voiced by Guderian and showed how Hitler's
adverse influence affected tactical operations. Beyond this, Mellenthin's work adopted a didactic
approach in order to analyze operations and hence educate officers. Throughout the book are
judgments concerning military principles and assessments of the nature of the Soviet fighting men and
officers, most of which have been incorporated into the current "body of truth" about Soviet military
capabilities. Hence, Mellenthin made such judgments as these: the Russian soldier is tenacious on
defense, inflexible on offense, subject to panic when facing unforeseen eventualities, an excellent
night fighter, a master of infiltra- tion, a resolute and implacable defender of bridgeheads, and
neglectful of the value of human life.6 As was in the case of Guderian, Mellenthin's experiences
against the Red Army encompassed the period before spring 1944 and reflected impressions acquired
principally during years of German success.
Mellenthln's work, written without benefit of archival materials, tended to treat tactical cases without
fully describing their operational context. Opposing Soviet units, as in Guderian's work, were faceless.
Mellenthin's classic account of XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' operations along the Chir River after the
encirclement of German 6th Army at Stalingrad stands as an example of the weaknesses of his book.7
In it he describes the brilliant operations of that panzer corps in fending off assaults by Soviet 5th
Tank Army's units which included first the 1st Tank Corps and later 5th Mechanized Corps. On 7-8
December 1942, 11ch Panzer Division parried a thrust of 1st Tank Corps at State Farm 79 while on 19
December, 11th Panzer checked the advance of 5th Mechanized Corps. Despite the vivid accounts of
these tactical successes, Mellenthin only in passing describes the operational disaster that provided a
context for these fleeting tactical successes. For, in fact, while Soviet 5th Tank Army occupied
XXXXVIII Panzer Corps' attention, to the northwest Soviet forces overwhelmed and destroyed the
Italian 8th Army and severely damaged Army Detachment Hollidt. Moreover, Mellenthin did not
mention (probably because he did not know) that Soviet 1st Tank Corps had been in nearly continuous operation since 19 November and was under strength and worn down when it began its march across the Chir.8
Similar flaws appear elsewhere in Mellenthin's work, many of which result from a lack of knowledge
of opposing Soviet forces or their strengths.9
Of equal importance to Mellenthin's work, but written from a higher level perspective, was the
memoir of Eric von Manstein entitled Lost Victories.10 An important work by an acknowledged
master at the operational level of war, Manstein's book viewed operations from 1941 to early 1944 at
the strategic and operational level. Manstein's criticism of Hitler reflected active disputes which
ultimately led to Manstein's dismissal as Army Group South commander. Manstein's account of
operations is accurate although again Soviet forces are faceless, and opposing force ratios are in
conflict with those shown by archival materials of Fremde Heeres 0st (Foreign Armies East), Gehlen's
organizations, and of the OKH (the Army High Command).11 Again Soviet superiorities are overstated. These three basic memoirs dominated historiography of World War II in the 1950's and continue to be treated as authoritative works today even as unexploited archival materials challenge an increasing number of facts cited in the three works. Other works appeared in English during this period but were generally concerned with individual battles or operations.12 Whether coinci- dental or not, most of these unfavorable accounts of Soviet combat performance appealed to an American audience conditioned by the Cold War years. Notably, few German commanders of the later war years, a period so unpleasant for German fortunes, wrote memoirs; and the works of those who did (for example, General Heinrici) still remain as untranslated manuscripts in the archives.

I could now go into great detail, explaining the general state of the Red Army from Russian Civil war to 1945 and onwards, but the post is too long as is.

Considering losses, from mid-45 (after Kursk), German irreplaceable losses tended to be on par or higher than Soviet and the gap only widened in '44 and '45. The glaring example being Iasy-Kishinev (August '44) where Soviets forces suffered cca. 67,000 casualties and Axis more than 400,000. If you are interested, I will consult the books and give you more examples (eh, when I was younger, I could keep much more information in my head ;) ).

In conclusion I want to say that I'm not trying to argue with you guys for the point of arguing (you didn't make my favourite nation X the best, la la la). I'm genuinely trying to offer help. The eastern front was THE front in WW2 and it should receive special attention. If you aren't interested in a discussion, just say so.

Regards,
Sarmatian.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Second post

If your first post would have looked like this my reply would have been the following.

I have read a bunch of bachelor thesis based on the later works aswell, the older text were mostly used to determine modifiers for terrain and weather and to get a general idea of military simulators, most of the modern thesis expect such basics and don't list them anymore.

The point of parity to the german doctrines, which I used as baseline for comparison with other doctrines, is for defense part in 41-42 doctrines defense in depth, for offense and casualties the 43 movement speed doctrine.
I maintain a higher casualty rate for most doctrines even after that point, for one part to account for the better optics and analog computers that were used in most german artillery and tank targeting equipment, and it is easier to balance then nation specific unit types.
And because german doctrine placed a higher emphasize on reducing attrition compared to soviet, british or japanese doctrines (manpower, defense, light doctrine trees). We are talking 1,7% vs 1,8-1,9% average daily casualty rates here.
This is balanced with higher supply and reinforce costs for the german units, and faster production speed for soviet units.

Keep in mind that this higher casualty numbers only occur under 1:1 conditions of a prolonged battle, which won't be the case on a soviet front for the most part, even now.
Manpower doctrines offer some boni for faster Infantry training, and I have plans to add some decision based solution to account for the soviet mobilization efforts in 38-39 and 41-42, the current generic system makes it very difficult to achieve historic oobs and makes it almost impossible to recover from losses the soviet army suffered in the early years.

Also keep in mind most axis minors won't have the german doctrine and will suffer similiar losses under 1:1 conditions.

The Jassy-Kischinew battle works actually perfect as an example for what I'm talking about.
Overall soviet superiority was roughly 2:1, and much higher on the artillery and tank side.

BUT on the actual points of attack the soviet concentrated their troops to atleast 5:1 and even higher ratios to achieve faster breakthroughs and encircle the axis troops.
The commonly accepted optimal ratio of infantry / armed offense against a fortified position under the circumstances is around ~4.5-5 probably less because of the artillery superiority on attacker side.
If you go over that ratio your casualties rise faster then your increase in advance rate.

The soviets went over this ratio, something they did regulary when possible.
This is one reason why they suffer higher casualties then usual for the duration of attack, but also one of the reasons why they were able to break through faster, reducing overall casualties in the process.

The GDE only describes the expected average casualty rates per day, it is as I said before no indication of combat capabilities.
 
@Sarmatian
OK, now please explain to me what I'm missing here. I think that we all agree that the Eastern Front was THE front of the WWII and we all want to be challenged no matter whether we are playing as the Germans or the Soviets. But what's so wrong with doctrines? The 1941 ones are bad in DH, or in HOI2 Vanilla, for that matter, because they were bad IRL and the Soviets were clearly outclassed in 1941. They get better with time, just as IRL. The devs have already confirmed this.

So what's exactly the problem here? The fact that you quote Glantz doesn't mean that the supposedly existing "problem" you described somehow becomes more serious. In fact, late-war Soviet doctrines rarely come into play in the game, since most players crush the SU long before that happens. This is a general problem with the challenge factor of the game and the way the AI works. Also, there is no real logistical system in HOI2/DH, so every brilliant plan is easier to execute than IRL.

You can easily make the Soviets unhistorically weak or strong in 1941 if you wish, but then you will create another set of problems. If the Soviets cannot even touch the Germans in the first half of 1941, then what stops the player from withdrawing deeper inland before the war even happens? You see that sort of behaviour in many WWII games which give you the option of controlling the SU before the start of Barbarossa. And what if the German player advanced very fast and managed to conquer Moscow and Leningrad in 1941 because the events (or sth) giving defensive bonuses to the SU didn't fire in time. The end? If you make the Soviets too strong, then the GER AI will not make any progress at all. Moreover, many players will complain that the Soviets are artificially buffed and that the AI is "cheating" and all these pointless "If only Germany did X or Y, they would have won the war" posts will come. Of course, you can say that the Soviet power levels should be historical and "just right". Here is the shocker - most WWII games are trying to achieve this effect and usually they still have various balance problems. Balancing is a never-ending process.

On the other hand, if you just want Barbarossa to be more challenging, then you are simply stating the obvious - everybody wants that.
 
Last edited:
If your first post would have looked like this my reply would have been the following.

I have read a bunch of bachelor thesis based on the later works aswell, the older text were mostly used to determine modifiers for terrain and weather and to get a general idea of military simulators, most of the modern thesis expect such basics and don't list them anymore.

The point of parity to the german doctrines, which I used as baseline for comparison with other doctrines, is for defense part in 41-42 doctrines defense in depth, for offense and casualties the 43 movement speed doctrine.
I maintain a higher casualty rate for most doctrines even after that point, for one part to account for the better optics and analog computers that were used in most german artillery and tank targeting equipment, and it is easier to balance then nation specific unit types.
And because german doctrine placed a higher emphasize on reducing attrition compared to soviet, british or japanese doctrines (manpower, defense, light doctrine trees). We are talking 1,7% vs 1,8-1,9% average daily casualty rates here.
This is balanced with higher supply and reinforce costs for the german units, and faster production speed for soviet units.

Keep in mind that this higher casualty numbers only occur under 1:1 conditions of a prolonged battle, which won't be the case on a soviet front for the most part, even now.
Manpower doctrines offer some boni for faster Infantry training, and I have plans to add some decision based solution to account for the soviet mobilization efforts in 38-39 and 41-42, the current generic system makes it very difficult to achieve historic oobs and makes it almost impossible to recover from losses the soviet army suffered in the early years.

Also keep in mind most axis minors won't have the german doctrine and will suffer similiar losses under 1:1 conditions.

The Jassy-Kischinew battle works actually perfect as an example for what I'm talking about.
Overall soviet superiority was roughly 2:1, and much higher on the artillery and tank side.

BUT on the actual points of attack the soviet concentrated their troops to atleast 5:1 and even higher ratios to achieve faster breakthroughs and encircle the axis troops.
The commonly accepted optimal ratio of infantry / armed offense against a fortified position under the circumstances is around ~4.5-5 probably less because of the artillery superiority on attacker side.
If you go over that ratio your casualties rise faster then your increase in advance rate.

The soviets went over this ratio, something they did regulary when possible.
This is one reason why they suffer higher casualties then usual for the duration of attack, but also one of the reasons why they were able to break through faster, reducing overall casualties in the process.

The GDE only describes the expected average casualty rates per day, it is as I said before no indication of combat capabilities.

@Sarmatian
OK, now please explain to me what I'm missing here. I think that we all agree that the Eastern Front was THE front of the WWII and we all want to be challenged no matter whether we are playing as the Germans or the Soviets. But what's so wrong with doctrines? The 1941 ones are bad in DH, or in HOI2 Vanilla, for that matter, because they were bad IRL and the Soviets were clearly outclassed in 1941. They get better with time, just as IRL. The devs have already confirmed this.

So what's exactly the problem here? The fact that you quote Glantz doesn't mean that the supposedly existing "problem" you described somehow becomes more serious. In fact, late-war Soviet doctrines rarely come into play in the game, since most players crush the SU long before that happens. This is a general problem with the challenge factor of the game and the way the AI works. Also, there is no real logistical system in HOI2/DH, so every brilliant plan is easier to execute than IRL.

You can easily make the Soviets unhistorically weak or strong in 1941 if you wish, but then you will create another set of problems. If the Soviets cannot even touch the Germans in the first half of 1941, then what stops the player from withdrawing deeper inland before the war even happens? You see that sort of behaviour in many WWII games which give you the option of controlling the SU before the start of Barbarossa. And what if the German player advanced very fast and managed to conquer Moscow and Leningrad in 1941 because the events (or sth) giving defensive bonuses to the SU didn't fire in time. The end? If you make the Soviets too strong, then the GER AI will not make any progress at all. Moreover, many players will complain that the Soviets are artificially buffed and that the AI is "cheating" and all these pointless "If only Germany did X or Y, they would have won the war" posts will come. Of course, you can say that the Soviet power levels should be historical and "just right". Here is the shocker - most WWII games are trying to achieve this effect and usually they still have various balance problems. Balancing is a never-ending process.

On the other hand, if you just want Barbarossa to be more challenging, then you are simply stating the obvious - everybody wants that.

I'm going to answer both posts at once because my answers would have been similar. My overarching point is that in game Soviets are at a disadvantage compared to Germany, doctrine-wise. DH increased levels of German ORG and that ORG take much more time to deplete. Soviet ORG levels remained around the same as in vanilla. Now, even in 1943-1945, it still felt easier to win as Wehrmacht against Soviets than the other way around. Higher org levels and slower org depletion basically diminished main strength of the Soviet doctrine which was morale, ie. org regeneration. Couple that with Soviet tech team nerf and higher cost of doctrinal techs and you basically get in the situation where, even in 1945, 1 German division will take on 1 Soviet and win easily.

Now, in reality, Germany wasn't doctrinally superior to the Soviet Union. Both countries doctrines were actually mobility based. "Manpower focus" wasn't a doctrine, it was a necessity for the Soviets in the first years of the war. After they've spent several years re-learning themselves, Soviets started performing similar to Wehrmacht in its glory days and were getting better as the time went on, culminating in the August Storm. There isn't any real reason for Soviet doctrine to be weaker than its German counterpart later in the war and after the war, and it is, in the current situation.

From the OP, I gathered that in addition to that, newest version will also include a change and Soviets will suffer even more casualties just because they're Soviets, which triggered that response from me. It doesn't seem right to me. Yes, I play mostly Germany and Soviet Union. In fact, 90% of my all HOI games are those two countries. I want to be challenged as Germany and as Soviet Union. I want to have many untrained divisions thrown at me as Germany in the beginning, to have logistical and manpower problems and if I don't win early, I want to have Soviet army which will eventually catch up with me.

Right now it seems that Germany weakness are ignored or reduced and Soviet are overemphasized. Playing as Soviets and having Germans reach Stalingrad in 1943, I loaded up as Germany and see that they have no manpower, TC, resource or IC problems whatsoever. In fact, their IC was bigger than mine (ahistorical), they had huge manpower reserve (ahistorical) and their TC wasn't even near its limit (ahistorical).

German artillery was horse-drawn mostly, Soviets had much more mobile artillery force. No one thought that maybe artillery should add more speed malus for Germany than Soviets (or American for that matter). That was ignored, but whenever there is a historical reason for a Soviet nerf, it's coded in.

So, basically, right now we have Germany which ahistorically has better doctrine, which is a permanent and significant advantage. Germany also got boosted TC, IC and manpower and basically it can reach the Pacific without worrying about any of that. Instead of addressing any of those issues, we got another Soviet nerf.

I'm glad you guys are thinking about some decisions to give Soviet some divisions, so that the war isn't war after the several initial encirclements. But all those other problems are design issues and should be addressed.

In the great scheme, Germany wasn't prepared for a long war (TC, IC, resources, manpower) and it should be reflected. Soviets weren't prepared for war period in 1941 which is somewhat reflected but should be given even more emphasis. Giving them more malus in the beginning would be a good thing, along with those decisions that would offer free inf/mil or faster inf/mil production to simulate their elaborate reserve network.

So, for me, it's nerf after nerf after nerf for the SU and the exact opposite for Germany and even US. There's no basis for it in history or in gameplay as most people want a stronger SU and SU that is more of a challenge.

Again, no disrespect, just stating my opinion.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry once again for the tone of my first post. I got so used to dealing with Wehrmacht fanboys on the internet that sometimes I forget myself and apply my anti-fanboy style automatically.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The red army fully adopted the blitzkriegdoctrine in late 43/ 44 they even Had GFM Paulus teaching about german tactics at the red army officer academy in moskou.
The germans knew that and GFM Model had to completely reinvent the german defense tactics from scratch after the colapse of army group center.
Walter Model invented defense in the deep and the germans became masters in it,
Those tactics were even adopted by the nato (von Manstein was after the war an nato adviser)
The sovjets lost more men and hardware (tanks ed) almost every battle not talking about encirclements thats another story.
The germans very fast adapt their defense tactics and of course the mercedes benz mentality (the quality/discipline of the german soldier/officer).
That is in my humble opion the reason the sovjets lost so many more soldiers compare to germany.
 
The soviets being so easy to beat as Germany has very little to do with doctrines and everything to do with reinforcements being absurdly cheap relative to build costs, so German combat losses cost almost nothing to replace (IC-wise) while Soviet Divisions lost to encirclements are irreplaceable.

I really hope the devs are fixing this, TRP is actually better than DH vanilla at the moment for this reason alone.
 
The soviets being so easy to beat as Germany has very little to do with doctrines and everything to do with reinforcements being absurdly cheap relative to build costs, so German combat losses cost almost nothing to replace (IC-wise) while Soviet Divisions lost to encirclements are irreplaceable.

I really hope the devs are fixing this, TRP is actually better than DH vanilla at the moment for this reason alone.

I dont knowa lot about game mechanics but i know a lot about wwII history
trying to help with some wwII facts because i love the game and Yea iam a >TRP< fan to ................. :cool:
 
I'm more worried about overpowered overruns. ARMs can be supported by MOTs and they are not easily destroyed, anyway. However, with very fast units, it may become very easy to overrun the enemy troops due to how the game mechanics works. It would sad if overruns became preferable over encirclements any time.

Defense in depth is a relatively easy counter to overrun attacks and unit destruction. Also, ARM is quite easy to destroy if it is cut off from supply.
 
Defense in depth is a relatively easy counter to overrun attacks and unit destruction. Also, ARM is quite easy to destroy if it is cut off from supply.
The player will deal with it easily. I'm not so sure about the AI.

BTW guys, have you looked into the logistical system? Do you have plans to alter it in the future (1.04 maybe)? ATM the game is still using the poor old HOI2's system =/.
 
Last edited:
In the future yes (it should be a priority imho) but not for 1.03, that is for sure.

Hey. Look I don't want to pester but I really do want to know whether you guys decided at least to re-balance reinforcement cost.

ie: the issues I brought up in that previous thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...Russia-and-its-inablility-to-cope-with-losses

cause I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

Sorry I never got around to writing it all up separately, real life intervened unfortunately, but everything worth mentioning was posted in the thread anyway.

I won't bring this up again regardless - but I was hoping to find out if anything was being done, because I am 100% convinced this is one of the major issues regarding Germany/USSR, (and also Japan/China) since Germany can have its divisions take massive strength losses during combat but end up suffering almost no ill effects because so little IC is needed to repair them, whereas in real life, having several tank divisions + multiple others reduced to half strength during an offensive would be a very costly victory, even if none are outright destroyed.

Losing tens of thousands of men together with their equipment in combat should HURT, and be costly to replace, but at the moment it just isn't (unless actual divisions are destroyed, in which case it's fatal).

Something has changed since HOI2/arma in this regard - whether it's some variable in misc or something related to the build times being extended, but somewhere the balance between IC days to build a unit and IC days to repair it at various stages of damage has been totally lost.
 
I agree with you Dichromate, reinforcements were way too fast.
I would keep the same overall cost, but with a much longer delay.
I have the feeling that it has been modified, but Emphoenix would have to intervene.

To sum it all (simplistic view):
Germany win battles, USSR win the war
Germany lose unit strength, USSR lose units
 
Hey. Look I don't want to pester but I really do want to know whether you guys decided at least to re-balance reinforcement cost.

ie: the issues I brought up in that previous thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...Russia-and-its-inablility-to-cope-with-losses

cause I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

Sorry I never got around to writing it all up separately, real life intervened unfortunately, but everything worth mentioning was posted in the thread anyway.

I won't bring this up again regardless - but I was hoping to find out if anything was being done, because I am 100% convinced this is one of the major issues regarding Germany/USSR, (and also Japan/China) since Germany can have its divisions take massive strength losses during combat but end up suffering almost no ill effects because so little IC is needed to repair them, whereas in real life, having several tank divisions + multiple others reduced to half strength during an offensive would be a very costly victory, even if none are outright destroyed.

Losing tens of thousands of men together with their equipment in combat should HURT, and be costly to replace, but at the moment it just isn't (unless actual divisions are destroyed, in which case it's fatal).

Something has changed since HOI2/arma in this regard - whether it's some variable in misc or something related to the build times being extended, but somewhere the balance between IC days to build a unit and IC days to repair it at various stages of damage has been totally lost.

I agree 100 %. This should be very easy to fix - just raise the reinforce cost in mist.txt.
 
i've been thinking recently that there should be some more of some stuff. Like infantry Divs should be easier to kill (Down toned Victoria style) and harder to reinforce (Represent training replacements) and divs should take 6month to build during wartime (Honestly i've never fully mobilised so that's probably already in the game) But to account for all this there should be much more IC (Germany 400+ at 1941, USA 600+ at 1944) something like that. It's a suggestion and it would mean changing the game loads so i'm not sure if it would be worth testing it??

I agree with the points made above regarding SU weakness and GER Strength although i counter it with the fact that SU did suffer hordes of losses because of poor doctrines and training but produced much faster. GER had better men and equipment (Generally) but it was harder to produce and more time consuming especially as the Allied bombing campaign grew stronger. I take it this is reflected in the new changes??
 
I agree with the points made above regarding SU weakness and GER Strength although i counter it with the fact that SU did suffer hordes of losses because of poor doctrines and training but produced much faster.

SU suffered because of poor leadership and the purges, and to somewhat lesser extent, poorer training and lack of good equipment in the beginning.

USSR didn't have worse doctrine in reality. Actually, it was a world leader in mobile warfare in mid-30.

During the Russian civil war, Red Army fought not just the White Army but also had to fight off Polish invasion and several intervention forces than landed in Russia - Brits and Americans in Archangels and Murmansk, French in Crimea and Caucasus, Czech veterans that took control of Trans-Siberian railroad and cut off Russian Far East where Japanese and Americans roamed at will. Red Army was outnumbered and had to cover vast amounts of land. That war was much more mobile than the one in the west. Red Army had to end the battles quickly and with minimal losses. For that purpose brilliant minds like Tukhachevsky emphasized the strategy from which Deep Battle and Deep Operation doctrines were created - use of mobile forces to penetrate defences, in that time it was usually cavalry, armoured cars and armoured trains where applicable, and to continue exploitation far into enemy rear, never allow him to form a new defensive line or regroup. You see that its practically the same doctrine applied by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army in WW2, only with WW1 weapons. There were similar lines of thought in all major armies of the world but only in the Soviet Union that doctrine received official support and was codified as army doctrine in the manual of 1936. I assume you know how much difficulties Manstein and Guderian had when they tried to push their plan for attack on France, not just by Hitler but also by other senior commanders like Halder.

In the thirties Soviet adopted tank as the main weapon for such a doctrine. The first doubts begin to appear after the Spanish Civil War. Tanks of the time still weren't advanced enough, Soviets had problems of coordinating with Spanish infantry, that infantry was of poorer quality than the Soviet etc... All in all, tanks didn't perform as well as they should, but instead of identifying the correct reasons, committee set up to investigate it came to the wrong conclusion. That conclusion was also politically motivated as it was in the same time frame when Purges began. Tukhachevsky and his "faction" was purged, which incidentally involved majority of more open minded officers, leaving half-idiots like Voroshilov in charge of the army. One of the few Tukhachevsky disciples that survived was Zhukov, most importantly because he was relatively young and in the Far East at the moment. In general Far Eastern armies and their commanders weren't touched because they were too far to have any influence on politics and because of growing threat of Japan. Zhukov also had more prestige after Khalkin Gol. Although Khalkin Gol in 1939 showed what Deep Operations doctrine when performed by skilled troops and competent commander was capable of, it wasn't enough to vindicate it. Red Army deteriorated in a much worse fighting force than it was in the mid 1930's. It lost half of almost all officers in the army. What vindicated Deep Operations ironically was Wehrmacht's success in France and the Low Countries and partially it's relatively good application in the later stages of Winter War under Timoshenko.

So, in 1940, Red Army started another very slow, reorganization to make itself more similar to the mid 1930's and Wehrmacht. Soviets expected the reorganization to be finished in 1942. Also, under growing threat of the Germany, Soviets for the first time in a long time started looking at defense. In January 1940 two war games were held, practicing both defense and counter-attack. In the first Zhukov led the attack (enemy) while Belov led the defensive (Soviet) forces. Defensive forces were thoroughly beaten, prompting the Red Army to rethink its defenses. So another reorganization was started.

Lack of skilled officers of course slowed down those reforms. How serious was this lack after the purges show the example of then major later general Biriuzov, who had to assume command of his division because 4 higher officers were either killed or imprisoned. That position required at least three ranks and 10 years more experience than he had at the time.

Furthermore, after the purges, hierarchy in the Red Army was so complicated and huge that commanders often didn't know what to do and who to listen to. That was a part of Stalin's paranoid attempt to control totally every part of the Red Army. Orders were given in sealed envelopes that weren't to be opened unless several officers and political komisars were present, supply depots were sealed of until given specific orders from Moscow etc... In the chaos of the initial German attack many officers were dead so young and inexperienced officers were fearful of opening up the envelopes because they knew what can happen to them. Sure there were some commanders who showed initiative, like Rokossovsky, who refused to wait for the missing officers and practically stormed the depot and disarmed the guards who refused to allow him access, but that was the exception rather then the norm. Also Soviet troops were deployed without any logic. Forward positions were thinly manned not to provoke the Germans. The communications were in breakdown, partly because of German skillful disruption of communication line and partly of the impossible communication and command structure added to the confusion. Troops were given contradicting orders by various officers and Stavka couldn't get accurate information and assessments from forward position. Commanders were simply fearful of reporting just how terrible the situation was. That resulted in Stavka giving orders that were impossible to execute, for example an order to advance given to several division which were to be supported by several more. Problems those divisions that were supposed to provide support didn't exist anymore except on paper. That spelled certain doom for other division. In general, because of not knowing the situation Stavka and Stalin insisted on performing the counter-attack as planned. Of course it was impossible under the circumstances. Many forward supply depots were already taken by the Wehrmacht, there weren't enough supplies, ammo, shells, tanks, artillery and men to do it. Unfortunately, most commanders, knowing what may happen if they don't execute the orders simply started attacking allowing Germans to inflict massive casualties and to capture unimaginable amounts of enemy troops, equipment and supplies. There were some, again most famous example being Rokossovsky who retreated and saved what he could save but it was again the exception. Stavka, after seeing the disaster started to send representatives to bring back correct reports from the fronts. Indeed, Zhukov and Vasilevsky spent a good portion of the '41 just going back and forth from front to Stavka, for that only purpose.

Red Army lost huge amounts of equipment and weapons and their best troops. It lost majority of T-34 tanks, a huge number of airplanes, supplies, artillery, ammunition. That prompted another reorganization as Nazi advance continued. Tanks were no longer plentiful enough to form separate mechanized or tank corps, especially anything remotely similar to German Panzer Armies. They were relegated again to supporting roles. There was severe shortage of skilled commanders, mostly due to the Purge but German attack didn't help either, shortage of trained soldiers, shortage of tanks, airplanes and artillery. Under those circumstances, Deep Operations were off the table, as Zhukov, Vasilevsky and other Stavka members correctly assessed. On purpose, they brought back the Red Army to a far more primitive state than it was, using simply weight of numbers to wear enemy down and slow him down until the relocated industry starts producing again. Few skilled troops were put under competent commanders and organized into shock troops and given what was left of good equipment. The occasional glimpses of well executed delaying actions and counter-attacks in 1941 were performed by these troops. Zhukov and other leaders of the Red Army knew they had to wait until relocated factories produce enough weapons and equipment and until new soldiers acquire experoence and commanders mature enough to perform Deep Operations properly. That was the basic principle behind practically any decision by the leadership of Red Army until mid 1942. The occasional counter-attacks and counter-offensives were performed to slow down the Wehrmacht, rather than to regain huge swaths of territory, although Stalin often intervened in that regard.
 
This is a moot point, because in 99% of games the Germans attack after the Great Purges happen. The Soviets become stronger as they lose the bad effects that came with the Purges.

IRL the Soviets regularly suffered higher casualties than the Germans - whether it was Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk or even Operation Bagration, when the Germans fighting on two fronts (France and Poland/Belarus/Baltic States). The Soviets were more efficient than the Japanese, for example, but not more efficient than the Germans. It is widely accepted that the German Army was the most efficient force out of all major countries during WWII, despite all its shortcomings. Naturally, Barbarossa was the biggest blow to the Soviets, as it practically wiped out the entire Red Army (which the Soviets managed to rebuild even in 1941...), but the Germans kept the initiative until early 1943.

I expect that we do not want to see the Red Army in Berlin in 1942, so even for gameplay purposes Germany should be strong enough to maintain some offensive power in 1942/1943 and then give its enemies hell while they try to reach Berlin.

Also, the Soviet player should really feel that he is fighting for his life in the first years of war and that it won't be just a cakewalk. Players have enough of an advantage over the AI as it is - if we make the Germans weaker, then the game will be boring. In fact, the same is true when you are playing as the Germans, because generally you don't want to win easily and get a feeling that you only won because of the AI stupidity or poor balance.

It's one of the reasons why I have no problem with cheating AI, as long as the cheats are reasonable and not sth that just hits you in the face.

We should also acknowledge the fact that no WWII game ever managed to get the balance on the Eastern Front PERFECTLY right. There are some games which are nicely balanced, but generally balancing is a never-ending process.
 
Last edited:
This is a moot point, because in 99% of games the Germans attack after the Great Purges happen. The Soviets become stronger as they lose the bad effects that came with the Purges.

IRL the Soviets regularly suffered higher casualties than the Germans - whether it was Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk or even Operation Bagration, when the Germans fighting on two fronts (France and Poland/Belarus/Baltic States). The Soviets were more efficient than the Japanese, for example, but not more efficient than the Germans. It is widely accepted that the German Army was the most efficient force out of all major countries during WWII, despite all its shortcomings. Naturally, Barbarossa was the biggest blow to the Soviets, as it practically wiped out the entire Red Army (which the Soviets managed to rebuild even in 1941...), but the Germans kept the initiative until early 1943.

I expect that we do not want to see the Red Army in Berlin in 1942, so even for gameplay purposes Germany should be strong enough to maintain some offensive power in 1942/1943 and then give its enemies hell while they try to reach Berlin.

Also, the Soviet player should really feel that he is fighting for his life in the first years of war and that it won't be just a cakewalk. Players have enough of an advantage over the AI as it is - if we make the Germans weaker, then the game will be boring. In fact, the same is true when you are playing as the Germans, because generally you don't want to win easily and get a feeling that you only won because of the AI stupidity or poor balance.

It's one of the reasons why I have no problem with cheating AI, as long as the cheats are reasonable and not sth that just hits you in the face.

We should also acknowledge the fact that no WWII game ever managed to get the balance on the Eastern Front PERFECTLY right. There are some games which are nicely balanced, but generally balancing is a never-ending process.

This is WW2 game with realism at its core. Citing gameplay reasons isn't right. One should first take a look at the US in that regard. Their IC is off the charts, and it makes them totally unchallenging to play.

Secondly, there is ample reasons to strengthen SU a bit, as they're a walkover currently. I have to plan every bit of my French campaign and when I'm fighting SU it's basically select units, move them to the next province, rinse repeat until bitter peace. So, that's a gameplay reason.

It should be decided, either it's realism or gameplay. Citing realism as a reason to strengthen Germany(more than history requires) and US compared to vanilla and to nerf USSR for gameplay reasons is wrong.

Historically, Germany wasn't ready for a long war at all, it was a quick victory or no victory at all. In DH, Germany has no such issues at all. Heck, even vanilla HOI2 had me look after my TC, oil reserves and manpower frequently. When I play as Germany in DH, I pay absolutely no attention to those issues because I'm going to be on the coast of the pacific when it may become an issue.
 
Weren't people complaining that Germany was underpowered in the 1933 scenario? Also, I think that the devs have already said that they are going to make Fall Gelb easier and Barbarossa more difficult.

Anyway, I'm all for realism, but you cannot really claim that DH is realistic if there is no logistical system. IRL it was logistics which usually determined whether a plan was feasbile or not.

Also, gameplay reasons are important, because the AI will always be worse skill-wise than the player. Therefore, many things have to be created with AI shortcomings in mind.
 
Last edited: