HoI4 Dev Diary - Combat Changes & Soviet Exiles

[pro.gamer.69]

On the MP thing, I'm still not convinced it's an issue outside of competitive MP. I role-play my land combat, and don't optimise in any way, shape or form - according to threads on 'the best division structure' in these parts, from a gameplay mechanics perspective my division structures are apparently terrible. Are the changes to the way mechanics work really going to give the AI such an advantage that players will be forced not to role-play any more? And if they aren't, how is it a serious issue for SP?

i'm pretty sure i asked you about this in another thread but maybe it was someone else.

your argument seems to be that "i'm not optimizing so it won't really affect me." but if that's the case, then why change the system at all? the old system was far better suited for using 30w or whatever the "historical" template is. and the combat system itself, though still very arbitrary, was at least somewhat better-fitting too - divisions tend to concentrate their attacks IRL, not spread them, which is INSANELY arbitrary (just like the terrain-based combat widths are...). so no, players can certainly still roleplay - but they already could, so the only effective change is that it is an objective disadvantage to use larger widths (which doesn't just affect MP players either - plenty of SP players optimize)

the main downside is that it's a lot of extra micro, reduced performance and the AI would need to have its preferred templates broken down to brigades as well to be competitive, so do we want a game that encourages this? If we don't, do we need stronger mechanics (beyond needing more generals/etc for more divs) to discourage too many 'discrete units' in any combat situation (having it based on 'discrete units' would still enable the use of small divs where it made sense because supply can't support large divs)?

these are downsides - and the reduced performance one is a big one - but the worst in my mind is that now there will be practically no reason not to use the smallest width possible (possibly with a slightly different one for mountains due to their funky combat width). this will make combat far, far less dynamic than it currently is and make microing less rewarding.

i also disagree that this is more historically accurate but to be fair i know relatively little about IRL combat.

More constructively, in terms of what sounds like a bit of a quirk with divisions org taking damage independently of the size of the division - why not advocate for org damage to be adjusted by division width as well? The idea that org is independent of division size (in the context of damage taken) seems pretty implausible, so adjusting org damage taken by the width of the division would help get away from the situation where mechanics favour a particular division size. How does that sound as an idea?

other people have suggested making org additive instead of averaged which would have a similar effect, but first of all, it has the issue of being counterintuitive - org is heavily just an abstraction of morale/willingness to fight and hold together as a cohesive unit, though it's also an abstraction of ability to hold together as a cohesive unit, and also just a system to make pure tank/pure arty divisions less viable. making it additive/linear kind of defeats that.

on top of that, i'm not quite sure how you'd go about doing so. are you suggesting that, for example, a 10w always take more org damage/hit as a 20w, regardless of composition? would the "base" be at 60w? would that not lead to situations where a arty-heavy div, despite having less overall org, would have more "real" org just... because? i don't think taking up increased frontage made divisions lose cohesiveness faster irl either, so this is a very arbitrary fix to an arbitrary problem.

and finally, even just with additive org, you still would have a likely single-width meta due to a lack of differences between widths/lack of incentives to use different widths. after all, as i've said, it's not that i mind the low-width part that much - like you, i can happily pretend they're regiments/battalions - i just dislike a single-width meta. though making combat less dynamic in the name of "historicity" and "eliminating arbitrary mechanics" only to create a system that's still ahistorical and arbitrary is pretty ironic.

I mean, ideally, and not taking into account different terrains have different optimum widths, unless we were getting deep into theories of organisational effectiveness, and modelling far, far more than just the division and 'Army' and 'Army Group' in HoI4, the decisions as to division size shouldn't really be that important, beyond it being a good size for the province density/supply issue balance. Wouldn't a good end goal be (arbitrary terrain maximum widths aside) that each division is as good as the other, and what really matters is the type of battalions engaged in fighting? I could be wrong with all of this - I'm just a bit perplexed as to what the 'landies' goal is. Personally, I think a game where there are any 'division width metas' is missing something when it comes to its gameplay mechanics for land combat.

is that how it worked IRL? did different nations have differently-sized divisions... because? or were there legitimate benefits and tradeoffs to different organizations?
either way, if the case is/if what people want/if what PDX wants is to make all division sizes equal, it's not what's happening right now, and i think the far easier way to go about it would be to just change templates to a more arcadey, "preset" system where you have a few different offensive infantry divisions to chose from, a few defensive ones, a few tanks, a few mechs, etc. and each has a "simple" width of 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever. in a system like that you could also set up support companies to be army-wide too. i'd be happy with such a system and it would make the game far more beginner-friendly AND less arbitrary too.

I'm not saying these factors are strong enough in the current balance, but there are two reasons why the bare minimum combat width might not be the optimal combat width: generals and support companies.

If you have an army almost entirely comprised of 2-width infantry divisions, you'll quickly run out of good generals and field marshals. I don't know how well players will be able to micromanage around this or how much of a difference a few skill levels will make in combat compared to larger enemy organization, but at least on paper it could counterbalance tiny division spam.

this argument can be pretty instantly ignored due to the fact that, when it's allowed, 10w USSR builds are immensely popular. generals are not a huge issue, you can easily get 1 or 2 tank generals and even in a 10w meta (which is what it will likely be - forget about 2w due to overstacking penalties) i doubt tank counts would increase by more than 4x, which two 72-cap generals can handle. the micro part will matter somewhat, but in SP you can always slow down (and MP too) and in MP you can always add more coops. you rarely see people in MP doing objectively worse builds because they make micro easier.

Low-width divisions also make support companies less practical for two reasons. First, and perhaps less importantly, they increase the amount of support equipment per deployed manpower, which will be expensive to sustain for nations with smaller industrial bases. Second, they'll tank your divisions' organization, forcing you to choose between organization and important combat benefits.

A single-battalion infantry division loses 20 organization (1/3 of its starting total) with the addition of a single support company, and that further drops to 33.3 with a second support company. Armor has it "better," since its organization without doctrines is 10, lower than the 20 org many support companies provide, but organization trending upwards rather than downwards to 20 with the addition of support companies isn't a great place to be.

the cost thing is not an issue. 10w USSRs still manage to equip everyone with AA just fine. and i've heard many people (in current meta) argue 20w are better for attacking because they see more supports as an advantage - they give you more stats/combat width, which now that attack concentration is gone will be even more important.

i also expect people to do SF a lot more, which makes most supports org-positive, but even if not people will still use them. having 1/3 less org from putting a support on is better than having half it from using a doubly-large division.

I'd suggest a reduction in command limits to 12 divisions per general and 4 armies per field marshal. I'd keep the Expert Delegator bonus the same and either keep the Skilled Staffer bonus the same or reduce it +4 divisions per army.

but if divisions are battalion-sized that becomes horribly unrealistic. instead generals should be limited based on battalions. (hell, everything that takes division numbers into accounts should be changed to be based on battalion counts.)

but again, just to be clear, even with 20w USSR people rarely use generals. generals only matter for tanks and for last standing infantry. adding a 10% modifier of whatever to shitty defensive spamfantry isn't really worth it in comparison already and won't be a deciding factor in the meta.

 

[SRhistory]

Believe the most important question for me coming out of this dev dairy is “what about performance “ @podcat with the new meta/attack way of working ? Change the way the meta works will certainly impact the amount of units round 1941 because more people will use smaller div’s. Currently the performance round 1941/1942 is for many people a game stopper. So aren’t you afraid that with this change the game will be unplayable for many people? Did the dev team tested this new change on slower pc’s? And is dev going to do something about the performance? For all the other updates I must say I am eager to get my hands on it. But I am really afraid the game could get unplayable with to many div’s/caculation late game.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Did the dev team test this new change

+1

 

[WindingArc]

is that how it worked IRL? did different nations have differently-sized divisions... because? or were there legitimate benefits and tradeoffs to different organizations?

Yes. Germany had lots of different division sizes and armaments, partly to serve in different roles and partly because the Nazis politicized their administration of everything, the military very much included. Multiple nations had divisions with special equipment or functions, and many of these divisions had different strengths than standard infantry divisions.

Like Axe99 mentioned, the battalion was in many ways a more fundamental organizational unit across most armies than the division was. Battalions were often detached from divisions or grouped in non-division-sized combinations. A lack of equipment for one or more divisions or the desire to garrison a location with less than a division were common reasons for having standalone battalions.

either way, if the case is/if what people want/if what PDX wants is to make all division sizes equal, it's not what's happening right now, and i think the far easier way to go about it would be to just change templates to a more arcadey, "preset" system where you have a few different offensive infantry divisions to chose from, a few defensive ones, a few tanks, a few mechs, etc. and each has a "simple" width of 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever. in a system like that you could also set up support companies to be army-wide too. i'd be happy with such a system and it would make the game far more beginner-friendly AND less arbitrary too.

The HOI4 developers have explicitly said their goal is to incentivize the use of a variety of division sizes within and across nations.

this argument can be pretty instantly ignored due to the fact that, when it's allowed, 10w USSR builds are immensely popular. generals are not a huge issue, you can easily get 1 or 2 tank generals and even in a 10w meta (which is what it will likely be - forget about 2w due to overstacking penalties) i doubt tank counts would increase by more than 4x, which two 72-cap generals can handle. the micro part will matter somewhat, but in SP you can always slow down (and MP too) and in MP you can always add more coops. you rarely see people in MP doing objectively worse builds because they make micro easier.

the cost thing is not an issue. 10w USSRs still manage to equip everyone with AA just fine. and i've heard many people (in current meta) argue 20w are better for attacking because they see more supports as an advantage - they give you more stats/combat width, which now that attack concentration is gone will be even more important.

That's more or less what I was arguing. 10-width divisions are "battalion" sized in the sense that they occupy a single column ("battalion") in the division designer and 12-width division templates often use historical battalion rather than division names. Much if not most of the outcry seems to be that organization will become so important that it will outweigh all other concerns, leading to 2-width division spam rather than a bunch of 10-20 width divisions.

i also expect people to do SF a lot more, which makes most supports org-positive, but even if not people will still use them. having 1/3 less org from putting a support on is better than having half it from using a doubly-large division.

I agree here, too. I'd like land doctrines to be rebalanced just like most of the forum users, but I play singleplayer and don't optimize nearly as much as the multiplayer crowd does, so I don't have many concrete suggestions on this front.

but if divisions are battalion-sized that becomes horribly unrealistic.

My point was that it would be less viable to have armies of battalion-size divisions if armies were limited to twelve divisions each, not that both changes would coexist comfortably. If you're saying that smaller armies would have no deterring effect on players spamming small divisions, then fair enough. Neither of us can say for sure.

instead generals should be limited based on battalions. (hell, everything that takes division numbers into accounts should be changed to be based on battalion counts.)

I agree on this as well, and it would be part of my preferred solution. I'd limit battalions and divisions per general, and divisions and armies per field marshal. But, since that seems unlikely in the near future, the quicker, easier solution would be to more strictly limit divisions per general.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Yes. Germany had lots of different division sizes and armaments, partly to serve in different roles and partly because the Nazis politicized their administration of everything, the military very much included. Multiple nations had divisions with special equipment or functions, and many of these divisions had different strengths than standard infantry divisions.

Like Axe99 mentioned, the battalion was in many ways a more fundamental organizational unit across most armies than the division was. Battalions were often detached from divisions or grouped in non-division-sized combinations. A lack of equipment for one or more divisions or the desire to garrison a location with less than a division were common reasons for having standalone battalions.

i'm not sure what you're saying yes to as i asked an either-or question. were there actual advantages/drawbacks to different sizes or was it mostly "arbitrary"/by chance (i.e. battalions grouped together as needed for a battle)?

The HOI4 developers have explicitly said their goal is to incentivize the use of a variety of division sizes within and across nations.

actions speak louder than words, especially when the words are coming from people who seem to lack understanding of their own game (see: dev performance against youtubers in MP game, devs constantly mixing up mechanical phrases like overstacking and overwidth, devs claiming they were trying to give value to piercing under armor and then showing numbers which would do the exact opposite, etc.).

in regards to the combat width changes - it's true that in theory having different terrains be different sizes would encourage players to use different sizes, though i don't think anyone asked for/wanted to/felt it would be historical to be incentivized to literally change division sizes (and nothing else) for every single different kind of terrain. i certainly didn't and would prefer it on a larger scale. but regardless it was looking like, prior to the recent announcement, that something around 20w and something around 40w would be relatively meta anyway due to fitting most terrains pretty well (except for mountains which would probably need truly separate divisions) - after all switching every time does have an experience cost and makes your divisions low-strength temporarily. so PDX wouldn't have even changed the combat width metas that much fundamentally, other than requiring different widths for mountains and of course making combat even more arbitrary and ahistorical...

. Much if not most of the outcry seems to be that organization will become so important that it will outweigh all other concerns, leading to 2-width division spam rather than a bunch of 10-20 width divisions.

the issue isn't that it's directly becoming more important but rather relatively, due to the fact that stat concentration - which was far more important previously - is being removed altogether. anyway people saying 2-width spam were just people having shock reactions and forgetting about overstacking. i've always been saying 10 width and have been saying it since months ago when people seemed to start suggesting the changes we got.

 

[Axe99]

Thanks for all your thoughts @pro.gamer.69 , @PtY and everyone else that's weighed in on this issue. The point of my posts are to try and help 'talk it out' so it can make sense to me and players like me, and maybe (possibly optimistically) have a few ideas that might help remedy any issues that have arisen.

The main issue I see with org damage increasing as combat width decreases is that it would further disadvantage the Mass Assault doctrine, which is (I think) the only land doctrine to offer combat width reductions. It's often panned for not offering enough combat bonuses, causing its users to lose too many battles and effectively farm general experience for their opponents in the process. Tying org damage to combat width would take that unique advantage and make it into another disadvantage for the doctrine.

This is a good point - but if this is the main issue with tying org damage to combat width, it could be remedied by complimentary buffs added to the Mass Assault doctrine. They might even be historically plausible (ie, making relatively weak infantry formations less likely to break than they otherwise would be).

i'm pretty sure i asked you about this in another thread but maybe it was someone else.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't me - I just looked and I'm not in any of the dedicated 'combat width' threads. I had a look in them, but my brain's too small to cope with discussion in more than one place

on top of that, i'm not quite sure how you'd go about doing so. are you suggesting that, for example, a 10w always take more org damage/hit as a 20w, regardless of composition? would the "base" be at 60w? would that not lead to situations where a arty-heavy div, despite having less overall org, would have more "real" org just... because? i don't think taking up increased frontage made divisions lose cohesiveness faster irl either, so this is a very arbitrary fix to an arbitrary problem.

and finally, even just with additive org, you still would have a likely single-width meta due to a lack of differences between widths/lack of incentives to use different widths. after all, as i've said, it's not that i mind the low-width part that much - like you, i can happily pretend they're regiments/battalions - i just dislike a single-width meta. though making combat less dynamic in the name of "historicity" and "eliminating arbitrary mechanics" only to create a system that's still ahistorical and arbitrary is pretty ironic.

I'm definitely not suggesting additive. Org would work as it works now, but when org damage was applied, it would have a multiplier based on combat width, such that a 10w div that took 20 damage would suffer the same org loss as a 30w div that took 60 damage, and so on. The rational for this is that damage to organisation should depend on the level of damage relative to the size of the organisation. So org is still a 'kind-of-average', but the impact on the average should vary by the size of the unit the average applies to. So composition matters (a high-org average would still have more staying power than a low-org average) - but small units aren't magically organizationally robust against large amounts of firepower.

To use a naval analogy, if a 4" shell hits a destroyer, it should do more org damage than if a 4" shell hits a battleship, all else being equal, as the blast will affect a far larger proportion of the vessel.

your argument seems to be that "i'm not optimizing so it won't really affect me." but if that's the case, then why change the system at all? the old system was far better suited for using 30w or whatever the "historical" template is. and the combat system itself, though still very arbitrary, was at least somewhat better-fitting too - divisions tend to concentrate their attacks IRL, not spread them, which is INSANELY arbitrary (just like the terrain-based combat widths are...). so no, players can certainly still roleplay - but they already could, so the only effective change is that it is an objective disadvantage to use larger widths (which doesn't just affect MP players either - plenty of SP players optimize)

This is a fair point - sorry, not trying to delegitimize the experiences of other players, deffo not the intention - consider that argument dropped.

is that how it worked IRL? did different nations have differently-sized divisions... because? or were there legitimate benefits and tradeoffs to different organizations?
either way, if the case is/if what people want/if what PDX wants is to make all division sizes equal, it's not what's happening right now, and i think the far easier way to go about it would be to just change templates to a more arcadey, "preset" system where you have a few different offensive infantry divisions to chose from, a few defensive ones, a few tanks, a few mechs, etc. and each has a "simple" width of 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever. in a system like that you could also set up support companies to be army-wide too. i'd be happy with such a system and it would make the game far more beginner-friendly AND less arbitrary too.

Bearing in mind I'm far more into things naval (but I have read bits and pieces about land combat), that's definitely my impression. There were benefits to being part of the same general formation, but these benefits tended to be in terms of support from other areas of the formation (reinforce chance or artillery support, for example) rather than in direct combat - and many of those benefits were at the corps rather than division level, and some were at the army level. My view should not be considered expert by any stretch, and it'd be great if someone with more of a clue could chime in, but as far as I'm aware there's no historically plausible argument for a particular division size being more capable than another (extremes notwithstanding) as long as they had appropriate organisational structures above and below the division. I'm very open to being schooled otherwise of course, but in my view, combat width should be something that is used to limit the amount of units that can face each other at the same time, but beyond that shouldn't have a role in terms of "one combat width is better than another".

That's more or less what I was arguing. 10-width divisions are "battalion" sized in the sense that they occupy a single column ("battalion") in the division designer and 12-width division templates often use historical battalion rather than division names. Much if not most of the outcry seems to be that organization will become so important that it will outweigh all other concerns, leading to 2-width division spam rather than a bunch of 10-20 width divisions.

A very minor point, but I'm fairly sure 10w divisions are closer to brigades/regiments (the term brigade/regiment can be used differently in different armed forces at different times, making the conversation more potentially confusing than preferred! One of the reasons I ran with battalion ), and a battalion would be one of the 25 available squares on the division grid.

 

[WindingArc]

i'm not sure what you're saying yes to as i asked an either-or question. were there actual advantages/drawbacks to different sizes or was it mostly "arbitrary"/by chance (i.e. battalions grouped together as needed for a battle)?

You asked if that was how it worked in real life. The answer is yes, and as far as I can tell, varied division designs conferred both theoretical and actual benefits to the armies that employed them.

actions speak louder than words, especially when the words are coming from people who seem to lack understanding of their own game (see: dev performance against youtubers in MP game, devs constantly mixing up mechanical phrases like overstacking and overwidth, devs claiming they were trying to give value to piercing under armor and then showing numbers which would do the exact opposite, etc.).

in regards to the combat width changes - it's true that in theory having different terrains be different sizes would encourage players to use different sizes, though i don't think anyone asked for/wanted to/felt it would be historical to be incentivized to literally change division sizes (and nothing else) for every single different kind of terrain. i certainly didn't and would prefer it on a larger scale. but regardless it was looking like, prior to the recent announcement, that something around 20w and something around 40w would be relatively meta anyway due to fitting most terrains pretty well (except for mountains which would probably need truly separate divisions) - after all switching every time does have an experience cost and makes your divisions low-strength temporarily. so PDX wouldn't have even changed the combat width metas that much fundamentally, other than requiring different widths for mountains and of course making combat even more arbitrary and ahistorical...

the issue isn't that it's directly becoming more important but rather relatively, due to the fact that stat concentration - which was far more important previously - is being removed altogether. anyway people saying 2-width spam were just people having shock reactions and forgetting about overstacking. i've always been saying 10 width and have been saying it since months ago when people seemed to start suggesting the changes we got.

I have no more comment on the rest here since, like I said, I don't know for sure how it will work out. A meta of lots of infantry divisions with 10-20 combat width and some heavier armor and artillery divisions with 15-30 combat width seems most plausible to me.

This is a good point - but if this is the main issue with tying org damage to combat width, it could be remedied by complimentary buffs added to the Mass Assault doctrine. They might even be historically plausible (ie, making relatively weak infantry formations less likely to break than they otherwise would be).

As I understand it, the Soviets and Chinese did best when combat width was low and they had lots of reinforcements waiting to replace their losses and broken units. That's not so much having extra tough infantry units as it is having a lot of manpower, a high reinforcement rate, and short intervals before reinforcing units join combat.

I don't have very strong feelings on this point other than that it's probably for the best that Paradox isn't touching land doctrines this update. They have enough other stuff to work on and bundling whatever fixes they'll inevitably need to make to Barbarossa with land doctrine updates makes intuitive sense to me.

Bearing in mind I'm far more into things naval (but I have read bits and pieces about land combat), that's definitely my impression. There were benefits to being part of the same general formation, but these benefits tended to be in terms of support from other areas of the formation (reinforce chance or artillery support, for example) rather than in direct combat - and many of those benefits were at the corps rather than division level, and some were at the army level. My view should not be considered expert by any stretch, and it'd be great if someone with more of a clue could chime in, but as far as I'm aware there's no historically plausible argument for a particular division size being more capable than another (extremes notwithstanding) as long as they had appropriate organisational structures above and below the division. I'm very open to being schooled otherwise of course, but in my view, combat width should be something that is used to limit the amount of units that can face each other at the same time, but beyond that shouldn't have a role in terms of "one combat width is better than another".

I think that's mostly right. As long as units didn't lack internal or external logistical support and weren't poorly coordinated, I don't think there was too much difference in actuality between one large division and several smaller units under common superior command. The game does a poor job of representing the cohesion and command of groups of divisions, but I can't think of a good way to represent that better without something like HOI3's order of battle feature.

A very minor point, but I'm fairly sure 10w divisions are closer to brigades/regiments (the term brigade/regiment can be used differently in different armed forces at different times, making the conversation more potentially confusing than preferred! One of the reasons I ran with battalion ), and a battalion would be one of the 25 available squares on the division grid.

You're right. I mixed up battalion and regiment when I was checking my numbers against the wiki's.

 

[Yes I play hoi4]

Not unless you use console commands.

will that being considered?

 

[TempestM]

What's the point if they won't have anything unique about them? Just use the console if you really want too, it's literally 1 command

 

[themrspartan]

It works sort of like this. It checks first whether UK is in a faction and is leader - if so, it will request to join the alliance and rename it. If UK is not leader, it will check if France is in a faction and is leader - if so, it will request to join the alliance and rename it. If one of them isn't in a faction it will then also get invited to that faction. If neither are in a faction, Russia becomes faction leader of a new faction and invites both.

Very nice, and quite modular. It always makes me very happy to see trees interacting with one another like this.

Disappointed that Ridiculous ArchpatriArch is still there though

Yeah it is quite silly, in eu4 terms it would be like Martin Luther becoming pope of protestantism. It just makes no sense at all. But I am willing to ignore it tbh. I'm also slightly annoyed by the country name changing to "Third Rome" when this was just a title for the Russian Empire, nobody actually wanted to change the name to that!

 

[themrspartan]

20W is pratically as good as it can get right now. 18inf with a heavy tank (making it 20w) to get a cheap division that is able to withstand a lot of punishment

Says 40w are outdated but still makes space marines. Bruh moment. Just send an attache to China and grind the Spanish civil war. Focuses give plenty of army xp too. What have you been doing for those 2500 hours? I have 1800 but I could have told you that this was nonsense a thousand hours ago.

 

[Tercjusz]

instead generals should be limited based on battalion

Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense in hoi iv, because we don't have division lvl commanders (not even corps lvl). For army commander it doesn't matter if he has 50 or 100 battalions in his army, because there are two more levels in the chain of command.

 

[Gracz]

Please more history portraits generals for Chinese Warlords, and for Canada.

 

[kauzer]

Awesome! For the true Tsar!

 

[Nawolith]

After feeling very meh about the first Exiles DD, i really enjoy those changes! More flavour, options and you even implemented the break-away of countries in the civil war! This is great stuff; thanks for listening to the players! Keep up th good work!

 

[BUMBITO]

In one of the previous diaries it was said that all the ASSR could be made independent from the USSR, but the Mordovian ASSR was not on the map. But it is also clear from the diary that the USSR has not yet been completed, so I wanted to ask if Mordovia will be in the game?

 

[xtfoster]

In one of the previous diaries it was said that all the ASSR could be made independent from the USSR, but the Mordovian ASSR was not on the map. But it is also clear from the diary that the USSR has not yet been completed, so I wanted to ask if Mordovia will be in the game?

1) I don't remember them saying all of the ASSR could be made independent. I actually don't remember them mentioning ASSRs at all.
2) IIRC they mentioned "Breakaway Republics" (or something like that), and even then I don't think they said ALL of them were available.
3) I seriously doubt Mordovia, which covers ~26,200 square km, would be represented by more than a single province in game. And we know how much they don't like creating single province states just to represent a micro-nation that to this day is still not independent. Even when it proclaimed itself a Republic in 1990 it didn't proclaim its sovereignty.

 

[RoarkTenjouin]

As white Russia relocates it's capital to St.Petersburg wouldn't it make more sense to call the alliance of Germany and white Russia the Berlin-Petersburg Axis instead of Berlin-Moscow Axis?

If you look at the focus tree, it's pretty apparent that Berlin-Moscow Axis is only available to a Fascist Russia - if it was available to both, it would be on the dotted line, but it's connected to a solid line that's linked to "Dismantle the Zemsky Sobor".

 

[kronos8]

If you look at the focus tree, it's pretty apparent that Berlin-Moscow Axis is only available to a Fascist Russia - if it was available to both, it would be on the dotted line, but it's connected to a solid line that's linked to "Dismantle the Zemsky Sobor".

I don't think that's true, there is no line between Berlin-Moscow Axis and Dismantle the Zemsky Sobor. There's only a solid line running from Pacify the Rim, and either monarchists and fascists can complete Pacify the Rim. That said, there could easily be additional requirements like being the same ideology as Germany, so a monarchist Russia could ally with a monarchist Germany possibly.

 

[RoarkTenjouin]

I don't think that's true, there is no line between Berlin-Moscow Axis and Dismantle the Zemsky Sobor. There's only a solid line running from Pacify the Rim, and either monarchists and fascists can complete Pacify the Rim. That said, there could easily be additional requirements like being the same ideology as Germany, so a monarchist Russia could ally with a monarchist Germany possibly.

Are you looking at a different image than the one I'm looking at? Because there is a line between Dismantle the Zemsky Sobor and Berlin-Moscow Axis (it's just not a very direct one).