85% of the Soviet armoured vehicle park on 1.1.1936 is missing from HoI4 (updated to NSB)

[Cain012]

I mean, yeah, consistency is important. But let's not pretend that the Soviets are the only victim here. The French don't have their old WW1 stockpiles of equipment. (Neither do the other victories of WW1 as far as I can tell.) In the case of France, there isn't a clearer demonstration of "We did this to balance gameplay" in the entire game. I suspect that it's the same thing here with the Soviets.

I seriously doubt the Devs just didn't know about the tanks. Most of the numbers of these AFVs can be found on Wikipedia. Hell, if I were an unpaid intern at Paradox, I could generate Soviet AFV types and numbers by using the links to various Soviet tanks in Wikipedia. It would take half an hour.

That being said, someone else already mentioned that this sort of issue is related to the whole "the war is won in the factories" aspect of HOI4. And more than once person has indicated that it would be great if the Soviets were nerfed in other ways to make up for the large stockpiles. But I'm not sure the game mechanics as they stand now "stretch" quite that far.

Again, I go back and look at how France is nerfed. If France had her actual starting stockpile of equipment, even if you nerfed their army with worse national spirits, she's probably be the most overpowered country in the early game or impossible to play if you set their ORG to a ridiculously low value. But if you do that, then when France capitulates, guess who benefits from all that extra equipment? That's right: Germany.

View attachment 783050

I wish I had a better answer for you, but I really don't. :shrug:

If equipment were actually represented 1:1 and had stats based on a rule system it would go a long way to countering this. But then you’d need thousands of unique equipment types.

There’s an Hoi3 mod which attempted to use hidden techs representing individual weapons systems and historical TOEs to accomplish exactly this, “balance” not being the goal but “see what you can do with what they actually had.” But, typically, he got only as far as totally kitting out Germany, 75-percent kitting out the Allies and the Soviets, and other lesser nations not at all. Hoi4 does seem better-suited to the concept since it actually uses units of equipment. But I’m sure there are other issues preventing it.

 

[Crecer13]

I mean, yeah, consistency is important. But let's not pretend that the Soviets are the only victim here. The French don't have their old WW1 stockpiles of equipment. (Neither do the other victories of WW1 as far as I can tell.) In the case of France, there isn't a clearer demonstration of "We did this to balance gameplay" in the entire game. I suspect that it's the same thing here with the Soviets.

I seriously doubt the Devs just didn't know about the tanks. Most of the numbers of these AFVs can be found on Wikipedia. Hell, if I were an unpaid intern at Paradox, I could generate Soviet AFV types and numbers by using the links to various Soviet tanks in Wikipedia. It would take half an hour.

That being said, someone else already mentioned that this sort of issue is related to the whole "the war is won in the factories" aspect of HOI4. And more than once person has indicated that it would be great if the Soviets were nerfed in other ways to make up for the large stockpiles. But I'm not sure the game mechanics as they stand now "stretch" quite that far.

Again, I go back and look at how France is nerfed. If France had her actual starting stockpile of equipment, even if you nerfed their army with worse national spirits, she's probably be the most overpowered country in the early game or impossible to play if you set their ORG to a ridiculously low value. But if you do that, then when France capitulates, guess who benefits from all that extra equipment? That's right: Germany.

View attachment 783050

I wish I had a better answer for you, but I really don't. :shrug:

The USSR is extremely poorly modeled. The USSR does not even have rifles at the start of 1936, although there were millions of Mosin rifles in warehouses from Tsarist times and what was produced before 1936. The USSR does not even have the weapons to send them to China and Spain, let alone the tanks they sent there.

 

[Ludek]

Again, I go back and look at how France is nerfed. If France had her actual starting stockpile of equipment, even if you nerfed their army with worse national spirits, she's probably be the most overpowered country in the early game or impossible to play if you set their ORG to a ridiculously low value. But if you do that, then when France capitulates, guess who benefits from all that extra equipment? That's right: Germany.

This mainly because in HOI4 you can raise as many divisions as you can there is no limit due to fact the you suffer no cost besides combat loses, and occasional attrition with is manageable in peacetime.
There no political costs for large mobilization either external (such thing is major diplomatic event) and internal - people do not like t be locked in military units with good reason(with is factor for France but much less so for Soviets )

 

[Secret Master]

There no political costs for large mobilization either external (such thing is major diplomatic event) and internal - people do not like t be locked in military units with good reason(with is factor for France but much less so for Soviets )

Well, I mean, there are political costs.

The default cost is 150 PP per level of conscription.

Of course, I feel that conscription in vanilla HOI4 is generous anyway. But that's a whole other topic.

 

[Gethsemani]

The USSR is extremely poorly modeled. The USSR does not even have rifles at the start of 1936, although there were millions of Mosin rifles in warehouses from Tsarist times and what was produced before 1936. The USSR does not even have the weapons to send them to China and Spain, let alone the tanks they sent there.

We should always remember that Infantry Equipment is not just a gun, but a simulation of the entire kit of a group of soldiers. This means uniforms, webbings, gas masks, entrenching tools and all the other things a soldier needs to operate in the field. By that standard, yes the USSR had a lot of guns but it was also very short on all those other things. This was amply shown in the Winter War, when even units normally assigned to arctic regions turned out to lack basic winter equipment like snow shoes and even winter uniforms in some cases.

 

[Crecer13]

We should always remember that Infantry Equipment is not just a gun, but a simulation of the entire kit of a group of soldiers. This means uniforms, webbings, gas masks, entrenching tools and all the other things a soldier needs to operate in the field. By that standard, yes the USSR had a lot of guns but it was also very short on all those other things. This was amply shown in the Winter War, when even units normally assigned to arctic regions turned out to lack basic winter equipment like snow shoes and even winter uniforms in some cases.

In total, the Soviet Union delivered 648 aircraft of six different types; 347 light tanks (16 foreign-made tanks, 50 BT-5 and 281 T-26); 60 armored vehicles (37 BA-6, 3 BA-3 and 20 FAI; 1186 artillery pieces; 340 mortars; 20,486 machine guns and 497,813 rifles, as well as ammunition (including 156,453 bombs, 64,748,320 air ammunition), gunpowder, fuel, medicines, outfit and other military equipment.

In the realities of the game, the USSR can lend-lease to Spain only with all its aircraft that it has at the beginning of the game and remain absolutely without weapons, all other points of the USSR are negative. And this is without taking into account China, which was supplied with weapons, tanks, aircraft.

It is unlikely that the USSR supplied all this and left its troops unarmed.

It's so ridiculous, the USSR starts with a negative balance of weapons, but in reality sends 500,000 rifles to Spain. Regarding equipment, when the war began, a large number of new divisions were immediately created and they were dressed, armed with rifles, gas masks, etc. So the USSR had equipment. Yes, the USSR had to lower equipment standards for fast and mass production. But its was.

 

[Gethsemani]

Regarding equipment, when the war began, a large number of new divisions were immediately created and they were dressed, armed with rifles, gas masks, etc. So the USSR had equipment.

Most soldiers of 1941 received a uniform, a pair of shoes and footwraps (or felt boots when the autumn arrived), two ammunition pouches, a bread pouch, a spoon and a weapon. By the standards of any of the other major powers this was an insanely frugal kit. The USSR had a lot of guns lying around and probably uniforms, but not much else. As has been brought up in this thread in regards to tanks (lots of tanks made, few spare parts), a lot of guns were manufactured but very little consideration was paid to all the other things a soldier might need.

That the USSR could send a lot of equipment to Spain is also partially because a lot of the equipment sent was old, obsolete equipment and because a lot of the equipment was purchased from other countries. On top of that the USSR expected Spain to pay for the "aid" with gold and the confiscation of the Spanish gold reserve was in fact the Soviet Union claiming payment for the aid it had delivered. So for the USSR it was a very lucrative affair to aid in the fight against international fascism in Spain.

 

[Crecer13]

I am also very interested in the question. And where are the Soviet paratroopers in 1936? By the end of 1933, the airborne troops had 1 brigade and 8 separate battalions: one each in the Ukrainian Military District, the Belarusian Military District, the Moscow Military District, the Volga Military District, the Transcaucasian Military District, the Trans-Baikal Military District and two battalions in the Special Red Banner Far Eastern Army. Which were reorganized in 1936 into the Airborne Brigades.
The USSR began to form Airborne Units in 1930. But there were no airborne units in 1936, no transport aircraft, no historical general of the Airborne Forces, or any national focus for the Airborne Forces.

 

[Secret Master]

no historical general of the Airborne Forces

There is a Soviet general at game start that can take the paratrooper trait on day 1. Kutzenov I think? He is skill 3, so with a bit of farming in the SCW, you should be able to get him to skill 4 and appoint him as special forces guy for the general staff long before 1939.

Not that I have a particular desire as the Soviets to tie up a general staff slot on a special forces advisor, but you can do it.

(I tell half a lie. I did a test run one time with heavy armor amphibious battalions just for the lulz to see if a special forces advisor and a panzer advisor would stack together to make river penalties obsolete. They did not, but I got river penalties down to low levels.)

 

[Crecer13]

There is a Soviet general at game start that can take the paratrooper trait on day 1. Kutzenov I think? He is skill 3, so with a bit of farming in the SCW, you should be able to get him to skill 4 and appoint him as special forces guy for the general staff long before 1939.

Not that I have a particular desire as the Soviets to tie up a general staff slot on a special forces advisor, but you can do it.

(I tell half a lie. I did a test run one time with heavy armor amphibious battalions just for the lulz to see if a special forces advisor and a panzer advisor would stack together to make river penalties obsolete. They did not, but I got river penalties down to low levels.)

General Kuznetsov never served in the Airborne Forces. Here are the first three general commanders of the Airborne Forces.

Vasily Glazunov - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alexander Kapitokhin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ivan Zatevakhin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ketchup & friends]

This mainly because in HOI4 you can raise as many divisions as you can there is no limit due to fact the you suffer no cost besides combat loses, and occasional attrition with is manageable in peacetime.
There no political costs for large mobilization either external (such thing is major diplomatic event) and internal - people do not like t be locked in military units with good reason(with is factor for France but much less so for Soviets )

Is it True?
yes. the worst about it: it won't change uness PDS makes a diplo-themed DLC.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

where are the Soviet paratroopers in 1936? By the end of 1933, the airborne troops had

Did the Soviet Union conducted any airborne operations of scale during WWII?

There’s an Hoi3 mod which attempted to use hidden techs representing individual weapons systems and historical TOEs to accomplish exactly this, “balance” not being the goal but “see what you can do with what they actually had.”

You can nail the numbers of "individual weapon systems" and theoretical ToEs (theoretical - because RL ToEs differ) down to the last detail and still get a result nowhere close to RL. Take a simple RL fact - ammo power can easily change RL arty performance to the tune of 100%. So do you add ammo types to "individual weapons systems and historical TOEs"? What about shelf-life? Both propellants and HE degrade over time so you can have the same rounds yet effect of fire will differ drastically. Counter-battery fire is very sensitive to ToT so shall you emulate a command chain and comms? And the list may go on.

PS Leaving alone gaming US Army used for decades a spectacularly wrong numbers for the effect of Soviet HE-FRAG fire on armoured vehicles. Some people built a wrong model over wrong assumptions.

 

[Crecer13]

Did the Soviet Union conducted any airborne operations of scale during WWII?

Airborne operations:

During the war years, about 30 tactical airborne operations were deployed behind enemy lines, which were used for:

- capture of airfields and destruction of enemy aircraft (in the areas of Medyn, January 1942; Maykop, October 1942)
- strengthening the troops that fought in the encirclement, and helping them to exit the encirclement (Rzhev region, February 1942)
- capture of bridgeheads during the landing of amphibious assault forces (Odessa region, September 1941; Kerch Peninsula, December 1943)
- violation of control and communication of the enemy, the work of his rear (for example, Demyansk landing)
- solving special problems (for example, the Maykop landing).

The largest airborne assault operations importance were used in the Vyazma airborne operation in 1942 and in the Dnieper airborne operation in 1943.

More than 20 more landings were landed at the final stage of the Soviet-Japanese war - on the Liaodong Peninsula, North Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Which involved more 16,000 people, almost all of them were landing and ordinary soldiers participated, but the 1st Guards Airborne Operation was also involved.

It is also worth noting the canceled Airborne Operations: the Airborne Unit of Operation Polar Star (1943), 5 Guards Airborne Divisions (about 50,000 paratroopers) were allocated for this operation, the paratroopers were supposed to seize important communications: railway stations and cut off German supplies ... The operation was canceled due to the German offensive and the paratroopers were deployed at the front for defense.

Crimean Airborne Operation, three Airborne Brigades were to take part in it. 1943.

Hungarian Airborne Operation. All available airborne units were merged into the Airborne Army and were supposed to be involved in parachute operations in the battle for Hungary. It was canceled due to unfavorable conditions for paratroopers.


Perhaps one of the most interesting and my favorite operations (of the whole war) is the Mtsensk Airborne Operation. After Guderian surrounded the Soviet troops near Vyazma, the Orel - Mtsensk direction remained practically without Soviet troops. It was decided to send the Paratroopers through the air, who in this operation performed the role of rapid reaction forces. 6 140 paratroopers of the 201st and 10th Airborne Brigade of the 5th Airborne Corps together with cars - 3, trucks - 35, special - 1, bicycles - 114, T-37 tanks - 8, 76mm guns - 6, 45mm guns - 3, 50mm mortars - 33, 82mm mortars - 8. Transported at a distance of 500 kilometers. Part of the paratroopers landed at the airfield in the city of Oryol under artillery fire. Most of them landed at the airport in the city of Mtsensk. The paratroopers cut the Orel - Mtsensk highway and successfully defended their positions until the arrival of the 4th Tank Brigade (the future 1st Guards Tank Brigade) by the end of the day. Together they counterattacked and halted the German advance for two weeks. Allowing to prepare the city of Tula for defense where Guderian's tanks were stopped. After the battles for Mtsensk, Guderian writes about the superiority of the T-34 tanks, as well as the best tank ace of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, Dmitry Fedorovich Lavrinenko, participated in these battles.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

During the war years, about 30 tactical airborne operations were deployed behind enemy lines,

You conveniently side-step the numbers. The biggest ones were Vyazma and Dnepropentrovsk. The first was 3.5K people and the second - 4.5K. So what it makes as a share of total Soviet Armed Forces back then? Less than 0.1%? And how much is that to a typical HoI4 army at the time of Barbarossa? 2-4 line battalions total? Is it really the biggest issue at the moment?

 

[Cain012]

Did the Soviet Union conducted any airborne operations of scale during WWII?

You can nail the numbers of "individual weapon systems" and theoretical ToEs (theoretical - because RL ToEs differ) down to the last detail and still get a result nowhere close to RL. Take a simple RL fact - ammo power can easily change RL arty performance to the tune of 100%. So do you add ammo types to "individual weapons systems and historical TOEs"? What about shelf-life? Both propellants and HE degrade over time so you can have the same rounds yet effect of fire will differ drastically. Counter-battery fire is very sensitive to ToT so shall you emulate a command chain and comms? And the list may go on.

PS Leaving alone gaming US Army used for decades a spectacularly wrong numbers for the effect of Soviet HE-FRAG fire on armoured vehicles. Some people built a wrong model over wrong assumptions.

Right. As I said earlier, “realism” is not really attainable in the absence of modeling for every possible contingency, which modern game engines barely allow for. It’s also questionable how fun these would be.

That being said. Hoi4 has many mechanics that could facilitate something closer to a nominal reality than what we get. Some abstraction decisions are a little strange in my opinion. I wish national variations in equipment allocation and authorized establishment were modeled better. Certain games like Steel Division 2 use the historical establishments a unit had on the spot to showcase the varying ways an infantry or panzer division could actually be organized, and managing your military becomes pretty fun when you have to think about a particular division’s strengths and weaknesses in this quasi-skill tree type way. A small modification of the battalion system and less abstraction in equipment representation would complement the focus trees in making countries truly unique beasts to play with.

But that’s just what I think is fun. I find min-maxing very dispiriting but that’s just me. In the end, all these mechanics and preferences function arbitrarily not objectively.

Tl;dr, you’re right.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Certain games like Steel Division 2

Try Combat Mission series. They have many WWII instalments, two modern warfare ones and a ColdWar title. And they have free to play demos so you can test run gameplay at no cost. Steel Division is a fancy looking arcade compared to those guys If you want to go real hard core - Combat Mission Black Sea is the most brutal - every units has thermals and long range optics, - followed by Combat Mission Cold War.

 

[Crecer13]

You conveniently side-step the numbers. The biggest ones were Vyazma and Dnepropentrovsk. The first was 3.5K people and the second - 4.5K. So what it makes as a share of total Soviet Armed Forces back then? Less than 0.1%? And how much is that to a typical HoI4 army at the time of Barbarossa? 2-4 line battalions total? Is it really the biggest issue at the moment?

More than 10,000 paratroopers took part in the Vyazma operation. 9,500 paratroopers took part in the Demyansk operation.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

More than 10,000 paratroopers took part in the Vyazma operation. 9,500 paratroopers took part in the Demyansk operation.

Re: Vyazma - "The airborne insertion of 4th Airborne Corps behind enemy lines began on Jan, 27. 2'497 people of the 8th bde and 34.4 tons of supplies were airdropped by Feb, 1. These units joined with 1st Guards cav Corps and fought as part of it. Due to the shortage of transport aviation assets and bad weather further air insertions of the Airbone Corps were halted." Source: The History of the Second World War 1939-1945, Vol. 4, p. 543. Where did you take your data?

 

[Crecer13]

Re: Vyazma - "The airborne insertion of 4th Airborne Corps behind enemy lines began on Jan, 27. 2'497 people were airdropped by Feb, 1" Source: The History of the Second World War 1939-1945, Vol. 4, p. 543. And where did you take your data?

On February 1, three battalions of the 8th Airborne Brigade totaling 2,497 people were parachuted into the indicated area, as well as 34.4 tons of cargo

Add to this the parachuting of the 9th and 214th Airborne Brigades took place at night from 16 to 24 February. During this period, 7373 people and 1525 bales of ammunition, weapons, food and other property were thrown out in the Zhelania area.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

On February 1, three battalions of the 8th Airborne Brigade totaling 2,497 people were parachuted into the indicated area, as well as 34.4 tons of cargo

Add to this the parachuting of the 9th and 214th Airborne Brigades took place at night from 16 to 24 February. During this period, 7373 people and 1525 bales of ammunition, weapons, food and other property were thrown out in the Zhelania area.

Again where is it coming from? The numbers mean nothing without the source.