Improved Soviet leadership?

[Insert-Name]

Hey all.
As you can tell, I'm new to your forums. So hi!

Anyways, I've been playing HoI2 for about six months, and I've loved it. Once I stayed up for 28 hours. I ALWAYS play Soviet Russia (and in Soviet Russia, game plays YOU!). Sorry for obvious bad joke. However, something bugged me as a history buff: the pre-Zhukov/Rokossovsky/Konev Civil War-era commanders are all overly weak. This makes no sense to me, as many even conservative historians I've read, and military-based shows I've watched (although these aren't nearly as trustworthy), all portray the Civil War-era generals as highly competent, and the Great Purge as being thoroughly wasteful.

Now, I can understand that HoI2 is meant to be an historical simulation that will change, however, WHY is it that I have no motivation to not purge my 1-skill, Old Guard, officers like Yakir or Tukhachevsky, despite the fact that they've been lauded (and not just by the wiki articles!) as being brilliant military tacticians in reality? Will there even by any motivation to NOT PURGE the Red Army in HoI3? I love what I've been seeing on the development site, and my semi-literate peasant conscript hordes marching into Germany in HoI2, but please Paradox, give me the pleasure of seeing skill-3 Marshals of the Soviet Union Gamarnik, Yakir, Tukhachevsky, and Blyukher marching through the Brandenburg gate.

So, in short, will there be an improved Soviet pre-Purge officer caste? Or at least an effort that will be made to cast the purges in a negative light? Or an "I heart Tukhachevsky" mod?

Thanks all!

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Hi, pal!
Maybe these leaders weren't made very impressive, because they were never tasted in the WW2, or even in one of this minor conflicts like Finland and the Far East.
So it's very difficult to asses the generals only from there peacetime or WW1 work.
If we are going to asses them only on that, many American generals will be underrated.

 

[Insert-Name]

Hi, pal!
Maybe these leaders weren't made very impressive, because they were never tasted in the WW2, or even in one of this minor conflicts like Finland and the Far East.
So it's very difficult to asses the generals only from there peacetime or WW1 work.
If we are going to asses them only on that, many American generals will be underrated.

Well, they did have massive military maneuvers in 1936 in the Kiev military district, which caused one British onlooker to go "I didn't know you could even do that....", and Gamarnik, Yakir, Tukhachevesky and co., unlike clowns like Voroshilov or Buddenij (who might have been fit to command divisions, but not Marshal's ranks), attended high-prestige German academies in the 30's just as Blitzkrieg was being developed, and even made their own doctrine, called Deep Operations, also based upon combined-arms and an armoured-unit emphasis.

However, they were all dead by the time of actual WWII, and Finland, I just want to see at least improved skill on them, and remove the "Old Guard" stat. This is for three reasons:

1) Relative youth (Tukhachevsky was only 43 when he was executed)
2) Amazing Civil War records (Blyukher marched his division three hundred miles in 40-below weather in under a week over mountainous terrain!)
3) High levels of training (attending German military academies)

Moreover, many Soviet commanders trained the Chinese National Revolutionary Army during the 1920's and before the Germans arrived to help out Chiang-Kai Shek, along with operations in Afghanistan, Mongolia, and massive military excercises in the USSR itself.

However I don't know much about American commanders, so I can't say about how underrated they were. But I DO know that American commanders were never executed en-masse along with almost 70% of the rest of the senior officer corps.
er
However, the new "leadership" system seems good.

Then again, there will always be mods to help treat my Red-tooth

 

[PIT_AMERO]

If you look at the prewar record of Bradley and Eisenhawer, you won't get very impressed (I know that Army Industrial College and Army War College sounds more than impressive, but still).

 

[Alerias]

I agree that the Soviet military old guard (not the trait, you know what I mean) is quite underrated in HoI and HoI2. I always suspected it was largely done to make the purges more tolerable for the player, who would otherwise be sorely tempted to go ahistorical or cheat to keep good generals.

I still believe it was somewhat overdone tho, and do hope HoI3 is less deterministic in this regard. Some of these guys would have made a huge difference in 1941.

 

[Insert-Name]

If you look at the prewar record of Bradley and Eisenhawer, you won't get very impressed (I know that Army Industrial College and Army War College sounds more than impressive, but still).

Fair enough, but then again, they didn't have a crippling civil war lasting 5 years in which to prove themselves (they had to wait to WWII to prove that they were tactical geniuses), whereas everyone knew that Tukhachevsky was a genius from '18 onwards (when he was entrusted with Division command at 22).

That being said, is there any hope for a better Soviet leadership? I'd like to point out that, say, France has a stack of skill-2 WWI-era Old Guard generals, but they were ACTUALLY proven to be incompetent, whereas Soviet generals don't even get a benefit of the doubt!

Honestly, the Civil War SHOULD have been the event that determined political advancement in the USSR into the '50s... but there was a purge, so it was WWII until the 80's.

 

[Insert-Name]

I agree that the Soviet military old guard (not the trait, you know what I mean) is quite underrated in HoI and HoI2. I always suspected it was largely done to make the purges more tolerable for the player, who would otherwise be sorely tempted to go ahistorical or cheat to keep good generals.

I still believe it was somewhat overdone tho, and do hope HoI3 is less deterministic in this regard. Some of these guys would have made a huge difference in 1941.

Thanks for agreeing! I hope that they do, too.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

There's your point. Good in WWI and the Civil War. Thats why they get the old guard trait. They've come from the old school.

Can you really name one good WWI division level commander who excelled in WWI and WWII. (Yes, they do exist, one of the Canadia generals come to mind)

The point is, their skill 1/ old guard is mostly justified.

Besides, fighting well in the Russian Civil war and fighting well against Germany are two different things, the Civil War tactics did not go well against early German tactics

 

[TheLoneGunman]

I'd be all for upping their skill, but if the player keeps them around then Stalin loses face and has the potential for uprisings, civil war, or just losing power to others.

And then with the new leadership you could take away any of the events that Stalin influenced in the war with Germany.

So on one way you get better generals but more internal problems and lack potential war-winning anti-German events. Then the other way, where you eliminate your talented generals in exchange for mindless hordes of united peasant workers all marching to overthrow facism!

Edit: Another idea would be to change Soviet doctrine accordingly for either choice. Meaning by purging the officers you get a better overall WW2 doctrine, but if you keep them you maintain a WW1-style doctrine that might end up hurting you further in a war with Blitzkrieg-doctrine Germany.

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Fair enough, but then again, they didn't have a crippling civil war lasting 5 years in which to prove themselves (they had to wait to WWII to prove that they were tactical geniuses), whereas everyone knew that Tukhachevsky was a genius from '18 onwards (when he was entrusted with Division command at 22).

That being said, is there any hope for a better Soviet leadership? I'd like to point out that, say, France has a stack of skill-2 WWI-era Old Guard generals, but they were ACTUALLY proven to be incompetent, whereas Soviet generals don't even get a benefit of the doubt!

Honestly, the Civil War SHOULD have been the event that determined political advancement in the USSR into the '50s... but there was a purge, so it was WWII until the 80's.

A division commander on 22?
I know that such things existed in the RCW, but how good he was from a professional point of view?
The boys and girls from Westpoint study 4 years, but at the end are awarded with the command of only platoon/company. And there is a good reason for that, guy on 22 just can't cope with the responsability of commanding 10 000+ men.

 

[Insert-Name]

There's your point. Good in WWI and the Civil War. Thats why they get the old guard trait. They've come from the old school.

Can you really name one good WWI division level commander who excelled in WWI and WWII. (Yes, they do exist, one of the Canadia generals come to mind)

The point is, their skill 1/ old guard is mostly justified.

Besides, fighting well in the Russian Civil war and fighting well against Germany are two different things, the Civil War tactics did not go well against early German tactics

Except they were mostly in their 20's and early 30's during the Civil War, whereas French generals were in their 60's by WWII.

I'm saying that, in terms of game play, it's overdone, and the purges' political and military impact underdone.

Moreover, as I said in my opening post, the Soviet generals were experimenting with Combined Arms strategies, and were instrumental in building up large numbers of tanks, paratroopers, aircraft, etc. They were NOT following WWI-style trench-warfare tactics.

The Civil War tactics, used by IDIOTS like Budennij and Voroshilov were not what Tukhachevsky and co. were training their men in or interested in themselves, on an historical note. Moreover, Tukhachevsky and co. went to GERMAN military colleges, expected German invasion (Tukhachevsky was officially censured in 1935 for writing an article lambasting Hitler and accusing him of trying to invade, along with a speech you can find on YouTube where he demands higher military spending), and would even disobey Stalin. When WWII started, Stalin's officers were men he had served with in the 1st Cavalry Army (a division) during the Civil War and whom he favoured. This along with the fact that there had been a purge, a massive backlash in terms of tactics (the purged generals wanted tanks, Voroshilov wanted Civil War cavalry), and were completely unprepared paved the way for a massive loss in the opening years of the war.

I wonder how the purges will be represented in political terms in HoI3... massive leadership loss?

Oh, and that reminds me, Ground Defence Efficiency also annoys me. The Soviets should have it higher, not have it so darn low!

 

[Insert-Name]

A division commander on 22?
I know that such things existed in the RCW, but how good he was from a professional point of view?
The boys and girls from Westpoint study 4 years, but at the end are awarded with the command of only platoon/company. And there is a good reason for that, guy on 22 just can't cope with the responsability of commanding 10 000+ men.

Tukhachevksy was a genius, very simple. He did very well during the Civil War, and he had been a Tsarist officer before that (but had been captured) and had been educated at Imperial Russian West Point-equivalent.

And about tactics: I would like to reiterate the fact that the generals before WWII in the USSR HATED Civil War tactics, which was why they went to German colleges to learn tank-based warfare. There shouldn't have been a purge! Though from the perspective of the game, I can understand, being a simulation and all.The purge should just have a bigger impact than increase your dissent 10%.

And maybe if there's no purge and too high dissent, an anti-Stalinist coup takes place? Premier Zinoviev, anybody?

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Why it's so important if you attended a German war college?
If so, then why don't make all graduates of Sandhurst and West Point with additional bonuses?

 

[Insert-Name]

Why it's so important if you attended a German war college?
If so, then why don't make all graduates of Sandhurst and West Point with additional bonuses?

Because Sandhurst taught Trench Warfare. Germany taught tank warfare. Moreover, he developed his own theory (Deep Operations), whereas many British/French schools were still teaching subjects left over from Napoleonic days which the Germans simply ignored.

And by "German Schools", I mean advanced military academies that the likes of Rommel and Manstein would have studied at for post-graduate programs solely based on warfare, not like taking History at Sandhurst at the age of 19.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Except they were mostly in their 20's and early 30's during the Civil War, whereas French generals were in their 60's by WWII.

I'm saying that, in terms of game play, it's overdone, and the purges' political and military impact underdone.

Moreover, as I said in my opening post, the Soviet generals were experimenting with Combined Arms strategies, and were instrumental in building up large numbers of tanks, paratroopers, aircraft, etc. They were NOT following WWI-style trench-warfare tactics.

The Civil War tactics, used by IDIOTS like Budennij and Voroshilov were not what Tukhachevsky and co. were training their men in or interested in themselves, on an historical note. Moreover, Tukhachevsky and co. went to GERMAN military colleges, expected German invasion (Tukhachevsky was officially censured in 1935 for writing an article lambasting Hitler and accusing him of trying to invade, along with a speech you can find on YouTube where he demands higher military spending), and would even disobey Stalin. When WWII started, Stalin's officers were men he had served with in the 1st Cavalry Army (a division) during the Civil War and whom he favoured. This along with the fact that there had been a purge, a massive backlash in terms of tactics (the purged generals wanted tanks, Voroshilov wanted Civil War cavalry), and were completely unprepared paved the way for a massive loss in the opening years of the war.

I wonder how the purges will be represented in political terms in HoI3... massive leadership loss?

Oh, and that reminds me, Ground Defence Efficiency also annoys me. The Soviets should have it higher, not have it so darn low!

I think the answer to these questions are related to gameplay

The purge purges at random. So, post-purge, there has to be a large number of level 1s and old guards. Or else you could well end up with all the generals many see as being really quite good. However, that would not portray the purge correctly. Further more, it would give the German AI even more trouble reaching Moscow, and they have enough problems usually

On ground efficiency, once more, for gameplay, its to give the Germans better chance at creating break throughs, if you want to weigh it up, consider it the general equipement disadvantage (Early game) which is abscent otherwise

 

[Insert-Name]

I think the answer to these questions are related to gameplay

The purge purges at random. So, post-purge, there has to be a large number of level 1s and old guards. Or else you could well end up with all the generals many see as being really quite good. However, that would not portray the purge correctly. Further more, it would give the German AI even more trouble reaching Moscow, and they have enough problems usually

On ground efficiency, once more, for gameplay, its to give the Germans better chance at creating break throughs, if you want to weigh it up, consider it the general equipement disadvantage (Early game) which is abscent otherwise

About the purge, that point seems fair enough, and, on a side note, I've never let the fascist pig-dogs set one of their Hitlerite boots on the sacred soil of Mother Russia

And GDE sounds fair enough, but there should be ways to get rid of it (eg, spending disproportionate amounts of tech on the small-arms and tanks tech trees)

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Because Sandhurst taught Trench Warfare. Germany taught tank warfare. Moreover, he developed his own theory (Deep Operations), whereas many British/French schools were still teaching subjects left over from Napoleonic days which the Germans simply ignored.

And by "German Schools", I mean advanced military academies that the likes of Rommel and Manstein would have studied at for post-graduate programs solely based on warfare, not like taking History at Sandhurst at the age of 19.

From where are you sure that at Snadhurst, they taught only trench warfare, even more than Germany's institutions?
They taught them exactly what the Empire was needing then.
As to the Napoleonic tactics, didn't they study the Hanibal's battles in West Point even now?

 

[unmerged(56754)]

About the purge, that point seems fair enough, and, on a side note, I've never let the fascist pig-dogs set one of their Hitlerite boots on the sacred soil of Mother Russia

And GDE sounds fair enough, but there should be ways to get rid of it (eg, spending disproportionate amounts of tech on the small-arms and tanks tech trees)

They disappear via events do they not? I believe they could be triggered by loss of national territory, and so, by not allowing them deep into the Motherland, the events don't trigger, so your GDE remains forever low ...

Would have to check up on it though

 

[Aethis]

The combat of World War 1 was very very different to that of World War 2, it's hard to represent this in the skill of the generals and it's mainly shown in the power of armoured units and the various doctrines.

These generals may have been genious trench warfare and guerilla warfare commanders but not so at mobility focus doctrines.

 

[Insert-Name]

The combat of World War 1 was very very different to that of World War 2, it's hard to represent this in the skill of the generals and it's mainly shown in the power of armoured units and the various doctrines.

These generals may have been genious trench warfare and guerilla warfare commanders but not so at mobility focus doctrines.

To address a few points...

1) The purged Soviet commanders hated trench warfare and were developing an armoured doctrine! They hated trench warfare!
2) @ Pit: They still study Hannibal's tactics, but they don't teach people how to use swords and elephants, and at Sandhurst, the military doctrine was based on Trench Warfare and grand battle (as exemplified by the HoI2 tech tree)
3) The GDE increases when the Germans attack and how far they get in, along with each year. But for me, my stacky-piles of death have never had trouble with the Germans