A future re-balance?

[pnt]

I have raise this point earlier, but it would be interesting to hear some practical suggestions on how one could address the issue. So if you disagree with the premise, maybe sit this one out?

EDIT: Please note that this is a polite way of asking for constructive, on-topic posts.



So here is the premise:

The history of WW2 - and in particular the popular history of WW2 - incorporated a large number of myths, many of which are rooted in the ideologies and propaganda of the time. The myth of a vastly superior Wehrmacht (what else would you expect from the master race?), that could only be defeated by the combined forces of all the world's major powers certainly sounds more impressive than saying that it was just your typical European army of the day - but one that in contrast to its neighbors was well prepared for the war which Germany started (it would have been a bit strange if it were otherwise), and that that its war effort could only be sustained not by German efficiency but rather a slave labor system that was as brutal as it was extensive. But they still ran into trouble as soon as they had to face the Allies on more equal terms.

And in the East, once Adolf ended their alliance after 32% of the war in Europe (22 out of 68 months), Stalin realized that a victory over Germany needed to be painted as his victory. As a good propagandist, he also understood that if his victory was over a "near-invincible" Wehrmacht, it would sound even grander. And thus, all Soviet propaganda (and sympathetic historians elsewhere) have worked hard to portray WW2 as essentially a conflict between two Titans, where in the end, despite great sacrifices for the benefit of humanity, the inherently superior communist system prevailed. It certainly sounded better than saying that the Russian-led Red army showed great incompetence throughout the war (just at the Russian army does today), but that with a massive influx of lend-lease it could improve its logistics so that it could deploy more and bigger cannons over time. And it is worth noting that the only major victories of the Red Army until late '43 (Stalingrad, Kursk) came as a consequence of major, unprovoked German blunders to a large extent originating with the Fuhrer himself (who rose to the impressive rank of corporal during WWI, which certainly explains his acumen for strategic thinking). And first offensives that were not just counter-attacks were mounted by the Red army after the surrender of Italy, by which time they had a massive artillery advantage over the Germans, who were fighting a two-front war.

The counterpoints above are not meant to represent the "true" historic interpretation - but rather to illustrate the risks on relying too much on a view of WWII based on nazi or communist sources - even if they are contemporary - rather on more objective metrics such as industrial output, logistical capabilities, etc.


And here is the game representation:

Currently, Germany is greatly overpowered. Early on this is necessary to achieve the historic outcomes, but there also seems to be an underlying desire to make world conquest a feasible outcome. In reality, even without an opposing navy, a transatlantic invasion was a logistical impossibility. But to keep this option open, Germany needs to stay overpowered, while the US needs to be weak. By extension, in order to balance the war on the Eastern front, the Soviet Union also needs to be equally overpowered to reach historic outcomes for AI vs AI. But although it is based on a gameplay technicality, this state of affairs resembles the Stalinist (and more recently Soviet / Russian) view of WW2 instead of reflecting the more objective economic and military realities of that time period.


A first step to a solution?

They key to rebalancing seems to be to re-define the concept of German / Axis victory, which could involve defeating Britain and/or the USSR. If Britain is defeated, though, it is utterly unrealistic that its overseas territories would accept Axis hegemony, which could be an excuse for renewed hostilities later on. With the Soviets, it would add the interesting - and realistic - aspect that the clock was ticking. Germany did not only need to win, but win quickly before if would get obliterated by Allied firepower once the US had fully geared up for war - a lesson the Germans painfully remembered from WWI. And making the war of the Eastern front into a race against time would not resolve the need for a Red superArmy, but would also allow for more diverse strategies.
To make this all work out, one would still need to ensure the historic early success of the Wehrmacht. With 20/20 hindsight it would be too easy to make it not happen. But the details of how this is implemented are perhaps not that important as long as they don't leave long lasting consequences. From this point of view, the current implementation seems to be working well.
But the US in particular would need to be made far stronger than it is right now in order to reflect its historic capability and contribution. Still, there could be mechanisms added to avoid unleashing its power prematurely. The first step could be that in a historic playhough it would actually join the ear only at the end of 1941. But while greatly increasing the cap, one could adjust the ramp up (and ramp down post war) get a playable balance (and the ticking clock effect). And since the US allocated disproportionate resources to its navy (building ships to a level where it by itself would outnumber all adversaries combined by a factor of many), one could impose restriction that would let it build its historical supernavy, but without the possibility to allocate the resources elsewhere (say, for internal political reasons).


Open question:

The current global game balance works reasonably well on a technical level, but IF you think that the game would in the long term benefit from a rebalance that would more closely reflect the historical realities, it would be interesting to hear what you think should be done to achieve this? Are the suggestions above useful? And which other things would one need to implement?

 

[LastButterfly]

The current global game balance works reasonably well on a technical level, but IF you think that the game would in the long term benefit from a rebalance that would more closely reflect the historical realities

That's messing with my brain. You acknowledge that the current situation is decently balanced on a game basis, and yet you want the balance to change to more closely match a historical situation that would make the game less interesting and fun to play ?

There are too many problems. For example, you offer to make the US even more overpowered than they are now, but to avoid them steamrolling on the world, you suggest adding even MORE restrictions on what the player is allowed to do with it. Which, in terms of game design, is one of the worst thing you could be doing, ever. A much easier, more railroaded experience for the US ! sounds great.

It feels like you forgot people actually play those nations. That you're only talking about them as if they're 100% AI played.


Yes, Germany is MUCH more powerful than it was IRL, and that's a good thing. If it wasn't, the game wouldn't have much of a balance without stacking restrictions upon restrictions on its typical opponents. So you nerf Germany to the ground, railroad the gameplay of everybody else, and you end up with a super realistic worst game of all time.
There was a time, a past update, when the USSR was just oh so slightly stronger than Germany. It wasn't any fun for anybody else on the allied side. You'd just watch them die.

... To be fair, you didn't get off to a good start.

So if you disagree with the premise, maybe sit this one out?

That's not how this forum thing work. I'm not gonna stay silent when you suggest something so detrimental, so far removed from how the game should be. If you disagree, do speak up.

 

[TechGlitchReporter]

The Soviets have a smaller industry than the UK. That's just patently absurd.

 

[pnt]

In my latest game as the soviet union I had close to 700 factories after a German surrender in 1942 where i only took puppets in europe (comecon is a bit OP), ans was completely resource limited. But even that aside, the starting numbers are not very indicative of the number of mils by 1941. I appreciate your input, but if played well the USSR is currently ridiculously strong. Of course, any country can be intentionally or unintentionally played in a way that does not realize its full in-game potential - but such considerations greatly complicate a more general argument, which is why I was hoping we could stay on topic as stated above.

Thank you!

 

[Cavalry]

With the Soviets, it would add the interesting - and realistic - aspect that the clock was ticking. Germany did not only need to win, but win quickly before if would get obliterated by Allied firepower once the US had fully geared up for war - a lesson the Germans painfully remembered from WWI. And making the war of the Eastern front into a race against time would not resolve the need for a Red superArmy, but would also allow for more diverse strategies.

Sorry, no, the world is not like that. Better to change history teacher. Or better use math, how many million troops the Axis, Soviet, US have?

 

[The Colonel]

I mean, I can't say I agree with the overall premise of this thread at all really, seems awful for actual gameplay.

I do think a potentially interesting gameplay feature and something that could help with certain historical outputs is some degree of anti-snowballing mechanic that players still are able to mitigate or avoid with good play. Effects of long wars, high casualties, sustained total war economy production. Something that gives an actual reason to pump the breaks or play more carefully. I dunno if this would just be like stab and war support penalties that rise with length of war and casualties, maybe other negative modifiers too. I think it would also have to be designed to happen less or not at all when you are losing on your own core territory, we don't need nations collapsing even faster than they do now. If anything, I think there should be some more bonuses for nations on death's door, maybe take inspiration from the revanchism mechanic in other paradox games.

The thing is, this would be a massive overhaul so like if pdx did it at all, it won't be this DLC/patch. I do think if they're willing to actually leverage the "missiolini" system more in the future rather than making it like other DLC features that only ever exist in the nations from said DLC, that could be a good way (or a core part) of integrating this kind of thing. "War weariness is rising! Take a total of at least 20 victory points in the next month to rally the populace or lose 5% WS." "Casualties are too high. Take fewer than 10k in the next month or lose 10% stab." That kinda thing.

 

[pnt]

I mean, I can't say I agree with the overall premise of this thread at all really, seems awful for actual gameplay.

When you say that you don't agree with the overall premise, which is that the relative strengths of the participants should be re-balanced toward a more historical setting, why would this be awful for gameplay? The only global difference would be that Germany would not be able stage a transatlantic invasion of North America. But this is a somewhat ludicrous idea, and based on your post suggesting realism on a much smaller scale elsewhere (Japanese armored recon, for instance) I would be very surprised to hear that you would miss it.

The German army clearly needs to be able to replicate its initial successes, but adding a fictitious industrial base to sustain a long war of world conquest, only to balance it with an equally fictitious Red superArmy seems to be a zero-sum game with little overall impact other than shifting the balance between theaters. Why would having more realistic force on either side of the Eastern front be less fun?

And in terms of the US, I don't see how rushing their entry into the war by 6 months at a relatively high level of readiness improves the fun factor. In reality, the US entered the war in December '41, but its first major operation in the European / African theater was Torch in November '42. Of course, the US industrial might was such that when it was fully engaged, its contribution was decisive. Instead, in the current quick ramp / low cap scenario you just see a lot of early suicidal naval landings in Europe, essentially no naval presence in the western pacific, etc. I think that a lot of people would actually prefer to see a slower, more realistic ramp up in combination with a more realistic, much higher cap. I also don't see how giving the US the chance to build a dominant navy would reduce the fun. On the contrary, I would expect that a lot of people would love to see some of the most iconic ships of the war actually get built (as it is now they are effectively excluded from the game). You would certainly want to avoid exploits such that a US player who knows that the navies he/she will be facing are weak cannot just stop ship construction and shift to an early air / army ramp up without meaningful penalties - but why would that not be fun?

I can understand that a glorification of the German or Soviet armies can appeal to some political fringe - but the issue there being an intrinsic conflict between realism and fun seems very odd to me. The idea that Germany or Japan could not sustain and win a long war and thus needed a quick victory was very fundamental to the strategic thinking in those days, and it shaped the nature of the conflict. If you remove this premise, you remove the most fundamental aspect of WW2 strategy. And if this is what is supposed to make HOI fun, then I may move on to CK.

 

[mursolini]

I don't fully agree with OP.
While US industrial production was enormous, US army was tiny, because it managed to out-source much of low-level farming and mining and most of land fighting to USSR, British Empire and China, and as such all countries benefit from lack of harsh penalties to conscription, US can field Wermacht-sized army for no production downfall, and Germany can match US production for same reason. All countries kinda work under same very idealistic conscription, mining farming quotas.

Soviets, are obviously "more powerful then history" if played better, since SU lost 40-60% of relevant production and manpower to occupation and fighting historically, and yet, managed impressive numerical feats. Player should do almost twice better just because AI can't push player effectively.

Germany, is a complicated subject and I've seen conflicting views, since the question of how much did German actual historical production, especially in 1940-1942 matched potential, which seems to be too low, due to various factors. At least, there is little evidence that Germany had more productive capacity in 1943 than in late 1940, yet difference in production figures was dramatic. Also historically industries of Italy, Hungary and Romania were utilized poorly unlike in game reality.

Player, also has hindsight 20/20, which means typically lazer focus on war winning items of light fighter, CAS medium tank and submarine, ignoring vanity projects like surface navy, heavy bombers of sorts, V weapons, ex. Which makes Germany far more powerful, as neither Brits not US can just ignore navy due to Japan.

I don't think under current system simulation can improve much, and the only real remedy that might currently be needed is a review of US factory slots number. Allies still have far more oil and other resources then axis, far more manpower to draw from, and as long as Axis can't posh them hard enough in early period, or player is involved, war will go historically. Unless game goes very deep into details of agriculture and industry, it will be extremely hard for game to have realistic figures, allied advantage of market access to neutral economies property addressed, oil as engine of domestic efficiency of Allies and a huge shackle on Axis and effects of fielding large force be demonstrated.

Also, frankly Allies will need a completely different gameplay loop, because it isn't a question of wether they will win, but how.
Player would have to be forced into some form of "just defeating Axis" is not good enough, if my own country suffered a lot mentality, otherwise it would be madness for USSR to allow German imports pre-Barbarossa or for Brits to have appeasement.

Player is a huge issue, as it's not unusual for player to have efficiency of x5-x10 of A8, something woefully unrealistic, and yet pretty much constant in HOI series.
With that efficiency differential, player can defeat world as Italy, for heaven sake.

 

[pnt]

I don't fully agree with OP.
While US industrial production was enormous, US army was tiny,

I actually agree with this!

The US made the judgement call that it would not need more infantry to defeat Germany in western Europe - and they turned out to be right. It is not clear that the push into Germany would have been significantly quicker if there were more divisions. But this was a bit of a gamble, and probably not a very wise one (in particular compared to the ultra conservative navy estimates). However, since the US was the major with the largest population, and incomparably greater GDP and industrial output than any of the other majors, it could easily have raised the world's largest infantry army at short notice - and it is reasonable to give the player this option. But it seems unnecessary to do so in mid '41 rather than '42.

EDIT: Just to be clear, though, perhaps one should point out that the differential between the land armies that were fielded were that large. The USSR had about 500 brigade-sized "divisions" of about 8k men - but they suffered from acute manpower shortages until the end of the war and introduced various semi-formal "reduced' TOE's towards the end of the war. Most Western divisions were twice that size, so the Soviets fielded at most 250 "division equivalents," which was not much more than the Germans did. The US army and marines together accounted for more than 100 such "division equivalents." But the allied forces had a much higher degree of motorization / mechanization, much stronger artillery support, and an air force dominating the skies, so the "tiny army" can be a little misleading. In terms of firepower, if the allies and soviets duked it out right after WW2, my money would be on the allies...

Soviets, are obviously "more powerful then history" if played better

The Red Army consistently underperformed on the battlefield, despite a large superiority in numbers and equipment. With minor variations this was true throughout the war. One can debate why this was the case, but even official Soviet statistics confirm this, so it is not a controversial issue. But this is not adequately reflected in the game. The Soviet industrial base was very small, but a very large fraction of it was used for arms production, focusing on a small number of key weapons that were made in large numbers. However, since almost no spare parts were made and maintenance was not a priority, the level of availability was low. And in many sectors including logistics, were neglected. Thus, taking the nominal Soviet numbers but without the real life penalties that the Red Army faced exponentially exaggerates its operational capabilities - and this is what happens in the game at the moment.

Germany, is a complicated subject and I've seen conflicting views, since the question of how much did German actual historical production, especially in 1940-1942 matched potential, which seems to be too low, due to various factors. At least, there is little evidence that Germany had more productive capacity in 1943 than in late 1940, yet difference in production figures was dramatic.

Yes, this is true. Prior to Speer the German armaments program was poorly organized and focused on odd items (like heavy AA guns). Prior to 1943 the conditions of the German workers were more comparable to those in the US, and the slave worker program was only being phased in. On the other hand, what is your benchmark? A German worker working US or Soviet hours? Slave workers aside, the worker exploitation of the Speer era came at a certain cost. The game tries to model this with policies. But you don't need to go into fine detail. The industrial output of the US alone was greater than of the Axis and USSR combined - so any attempt at balancing will likely be a nerf of the US. The trick is just to do it in a way that does not shift the global balance to the point where it looks silly. HOI is about WW2, after all.

Player, also has hindsight 20/20, which means typically lazer focus on war winning items ... player can defeat world as Italy, for heaven sake.

This is a key point an experienced player does not need to play a major to win. But most of us also want the setting to at least resemble WW2. This is the main draw of HOI. If one deviates too much, one can just as well try to find another point of balance - and call it EU IV...

 

[CrespoBatistuta]

I'll have to disagree with OP, and I'll use that other major participant in the war, France, to make my point.

If all major powers were to be rebalanced, then I'd argue the capitulation of France shouldn't be as quick as it was in real life. That's an alt-history rabbit hole which might be a difficult problem at best and at worst would change what Hearts of Iron is trying to be.

 

[jpd]

I've played Germany quite al lot over the last few years, and here is one thing I took away from that:

I don't need to build CiC's, and still end up with dozens of them to fuel my construction lines. And that's because of all the CiC's I end up with when I do my early conquests, both pre-war (through the various NF's) and early war. This, in turn, allows me to expand my war industry (MiC's, and, if so desired, NiC's) much faster than Germany could manage in real life. Germany and, to a lesser extend, Japan, can utilise the industry of all the conquered nations. While the opponents (USA, UK, USSR, etc) are condemned to only use their own local industry. Those minors tend to have a far bigger sized local industry than their real life counterparts had.

But here is the thing.

This, ultimately, is a game. Not a real life history simulator. People will like a shot at being able to actually win. Which means win by defeating their opponents. Not 'win' by surviving beyond a preset end date before getting overrun by the opposing side. Which is how some other WW2 war games treat the Axis vs. Allies conflict.

 

[pnt]

This, ultimately, is a game. Not a real life history simulator. People will like a shot at being able to actually win. Which means win by defeating their opponents. Not 'win' by surviving beyond a preset end date before getting overrun by the opposing side. Which is how some other WW2 war games treat the Axis vs. Allies conflict.

I could not agree more.
But does "victory" have to mean painting the map? In fact, I would argue that the great strength of HOI is that its political complexity allows for a much wider range of meaningful outcomes.

In this particular case, consider three examples as an illustration.

1. Germany defeats Britain by early '41. In this case it is unlikely that the US would have declared war on Germany, and the war is over with major territorial gains for Germany. It is unlikely that overseas territories like Canada or India would submit to Germany - but the German player would always have an option to renew the conflict later on if they choose to do so. But a more historical choice would be an invasion of the Soviet Union - a war in which the US would be unlikely to get directly involved. Overall, it seems to be a very tangible victory with opportunities for continued play.

2. Britain does not fall, but the Soviet Union is defeated. If the Axis retain control of southern Europe, and the Allies have suffered considerable casualties, it is possible that they would consider signing a peace with Germany that would give Hitler all that he ever dreamed of. While not painting the full map, how could one interpret this as anything but total victory? In reality, of course, the Allies might not have agreed to a peace regardless and just bombed / nuked Germany into oblivion - but this is a "what if" where one can argue both sides, so nobody would mind Paradox picking the one that best suited gameplay.

3. Even if neither Britain or the USSR fall, but the war at sea is lost (either by a successful U-boat campaign in the Atlantic or sweeping Japanese victories in the Pacific), Britain may offer Germany a peace that would effectively ensure a victory over the USSR. With some delay, the outcome would thus be similar to the previous one.

EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked up the New World Order achievement on steam, and it looks like only 2.7% of players ever "painted the map," even though it is one of the easier achievements out there. This could suggest a slight disconnect between the preferences voiced here in the forum versus what the broader player base actually does...

 

[kettyo]

I could not agree more.
But does "victory" have to mean painting the map? In fact, I would argue that the great strength of HOI is that its political complexity allows for a much wider range of meaningful outcomes.

In this particular case, consider three examples as an illustration.

1. Germany defeats Britain by early '41. In this case it is unlikely that the US would have declared war on Germany, and the war is over with major territorial gains for Germany. It is unlikely that overseas territories like Canada or India would submit to Germany - but the German player would always have an option to renew the conflict later on if they choose to do so. But a more historical choice would be an invasion of the Soviet Union - a war in which the US would be unlikely to get directly involved. Overall, it seems to be a very tangible victory with opportunities for continued play.

2. Britain does not fall, but the Soviet Union is defeated. If the Axis retain control of southern Europe, and the Allies have suffered considerable casualties, it is possible that they would consider signing a peace with Germany that would give Hitler all that he ever dreamed of. While not painting the full map, how could one interpret this as anything but total victory? In reality, of course, the Allies might not have agreed to a peace regardless and just bombed / nuked Germany into oblivion - but this is a "what if" where one can argue both sides, so nobody would mind Paradox picking the one that best suited gameplay.

3. Even if neither Britain or the USSR fall, but the war at sea is lost (either by a successful U-boat campaign in the Atlantic or sweeping Japanese victories in the Pacific), Britain may offer Germany a peace that would effectively ensure a victory over the USSR. With some delay, the outcome would thus be similar to the previous one.

Neighter of these are actually realistic.

Germany HAS defeated Britain in 1940 IRL and yet Britain did not fall (did not sue for peace). There's no realistic way for Germany to actually conquer Britain either.

Even if the USSR was defeated (not surrendered as it's unrealistic but his industry and fighting potential seriously reduced) and Germany could sort of consolidate the East and regroup most of the armed forces to the West it would still make no sense to make peace with Hitler given how treaties meant nothing for him.

Maybe if Hitler was assassinated and supreme power fell outside of his inner circle (like e.g. OKW) - especially in the hands of someone relatively respectable - some peace treaty was maybe possible, especially so if Germany had a hard time like bombed successfuly by nukes etc.

 

[Herr B.]

Germany HAS defeated Britain in 1940 IRL and yet Britain did not fall (did not sue for peace). There's no realistic way for Germany to actually conquer Britain either.

I would disagree on this point. There was the large and very impactful air battle over britain. The RAF won this air battle. It doesn't take to much imagination to consider the case of a German victory in the air battle. In this case, with total air dominance, the Operation Sealion would indeed have been feasible, because Germany could have countered Britains naval superiority with its air superiority. This is already in the game.

 

[kettyo]

I would disagree on this point. There was the large and very impactful air battle over britain. The RAF won this air battle. It doesn't take to much imagination to consider the case of a German victory in the air battle. In this case, with total air dominance, the Operation Sealion would indeed have been feasible, because Germany could have countered Britains naval superiority with its air superiority. This is already in the game.

Yeah i mean the BEF was defeated which was a major and unexpected defeat.

I haven't got enough knowlegde to consider how close the Germans were to win the air war over Britain. As far as i know they consistently have lost much more planes than the British did. Also whether the British would be unable to replace planes or pilots anymore, i don't know. Losing planes over enemy territory is generally much more risky regarding the pilots.

If the Germans actually won the air war they might have forced an invasion through but certainly the British had tried every opportunity to hinder resupplying efforts. Had been an interesting scenario for sure. But just consider the huge difficulties with Operation Overlord with total air and naval supremacy. Even with strong German air superiority it cerainly wouldn't have been an easy undertaking

 

[pnt]

I'll have to disagree with OP, and I'll use that other major participant in the war, France, to make my point.

If all major powers were to be rebalanced, then I'd argue the capitulation of France shouldn't be as quick as it was in real life. That's an alt-history rabbit hole which might be a difficult problem at best and at worst would change what Hearts of Iron is trying to be.

The French army performed very poorly on the battlefield in 1940. There were many reasons for this, but it was not just "bad luck." I think that under the circumstances most historians would see a better performance as an anomaly. Thus, the historic outcome is the one that the game should aim for in a historic scenario. From your post I get the impression that you would want to accomplish this in a different way than is done currently. Fair enough, but would this really matter that much? And the Free French are quite strong and fun to play (also if you do it as Britain).

However, the French case is in stark contrast to the arguments for buffing Germany and the Soviet Union, while weakening the US, which are not based on historical arguments, but on "what players want."

 

[mursolini]

I actually agree with this!

However, since the US was the major with the largest population, and incomparably greater GDP and industrial output than any of the other majors, it could easily have raised the world's largest infantry army at short notice - and it is reasonable to give the player this option. But it seems unnecessary to do so in mid '41 rather than '42.

US population was actually smaller than USSR's by 60millions, 120mvs 190ish.

The Red Army consistently underperformed on the battlefield, despite a large superiority in numbers and equipment. With minor variations this was true throughout the war. One can debate why this was the case, but even official Soviet statistics confirm this, so it is not a controversial issue. But this is not adequately reflected in the game.

It is true, Red army wasn't good at utilizing it's assets, but It's really hard to get those soft factors right.

The Soviet industrial base was very small, but a very large fraction of it was used for arms production,

Soviet industrial base was larger than German.

focusing on a small number of key weapons that were made in large numbers.

That is a myth. Soviet industrial program used arguably more items than western allies. In aviation, Soviets had full set, even if only their 2 lines of fighters(Yak and La) and IL-2 CAS are famous, tactical bombers, dive bombers and I think variation of heavy fighter were present as well.

In tanks, while T-34 is famous in vest, light tanks T-60 and T-70 were built in huge numbers, so was SU-76, lightly armored TD/assault gun, T-34 derived TDs like SU-85, SU-122 assault gun, and let's not forget the much more numerous then their German counterparts series of heavy tanksand their derrivatives, KV-1, KV-1s, SU-152, IS-2, ISU-152. All more numerous then Tigers.

In artillery, Soviets used both tube artillery and various rocket launchers.

In infantry Soviets used a number of SMGs in addition to bolt action rifle.

By any measure, Soviet armament production wasn't narrowly focused.

However, since almost no spare parts were made and maintenance was not a priority, the level of availability was low.

That maybe was the case in 1941-1942, but there was no real issue with maintenance in 1943-1945, Soviet vehicles were maintained at ok level.

And in many sectors including logistics, were neglected.

Was it? Soviet logistics was always train based, and still is, by nessasity. Later it was improved dramatically by lend lease.

Thus, taking the nominal Soviet numbers but without the real life penalties that the Red Army faced exponentially exaggerates its operational capabilities - and this is what happens in the game at the moment.

Main issue is hindsight and mobilisation system.

Yes, this is true. Prior to Speer the German armaments program was poorly organized and focused on odd items (like heavy AA guns). Prior to 1943 the conditions of the German workers were more comparable to those in the US, and the slave worker program was only being phased in. On the other hand, what is your benchmark? A German worker working US or Soviet hours? Slave workers aside, the worker exploitation of the Speer era came at a certain cost. The game tries to model this with policies. But you don't need to go into fine detail. The industrial output of the US alone was greater than of the Axis and USSR combined - so any attempt at balancing will likely be a nerf of the US. The trick is just to do it in a way that does not shift the global balance to the point where it looks silly. HOI is about WW2, after all.

It's impossible to model US output without delving into factory farming, car and other consumption, industrial base to support it, and domestic oil availability. Otherwise US just gets vierd.

This is a key point an experienced player does not need to play a major to win. But most of us also want the setting to at least resemble WW2. This is the main draw of HOI. If one deviates too much, one can just as well try to find another point of balance - and call it EU IV...

The issue is resemblance of WW2 is very lens and hindsight based. Just like question of when countries surrender, and how theoretical victory of Axis is supposed to be handled.

Or for example tank design lense. People in west ask questions of what was the point in Panther, since US didn't field heavy armor, and British Churchill wasn't great, ignoring the fact, Germans faced thousands of heavy Soviet KV-1s in up to that point, and actual IS series , that surfaced in 1944 was too though even for Panthers cannon. But Soviet heavy vehicles aren't famous, for many reasons, one particular being post-war memoir bias.

I'll have to disagree with OP, and I'll use that other major participant in the war, France, to make my point.

If all major powers were to be rebalanced, then I'd argue the capitulation of France shouldn't be as quick as it was in real life. That's an alt-history rabbit hole which might be a difficult problem at best and at worst would change what Hearts of Iron is trying to be.

France's fall pretty much determined the way war went, it wouldn't be a WW2 game, frankly if France doesn't fall.

Germany HAS defeated Britain in 1940 IRL and yet Britain did not fall (did not sue for peace). There's no realistic way for Germany to actually conquer Britain either.

In theory, there was a way to defeat British Empire. The issue Nazis had, was just how willing were US and SU to just let them win.
Considering US behavior, they thought that US will enter war when if felt like it, like in WW1. Soviets were in process of very rapid rearmament and army enlargement, hence the question of how long would peace last, was up in the air.

Even if the USSR was defeated (not surrendered as it's unrealistic but his industry and fighting potential seriously reduced) and Germany could sort of consolidate the East and regroup most of the armed forces to the West it would still make no sense to make peace with Hitler given how treaties meant nothing for him.

Countries do bail out of lost wars. It's just impossible to narrow down exact reasoning in general, but Russians went for peace in WW1, Russo-Japanese, Soviet-Polish war, and a number of conflicts later.

Allies, also were not immune to war fatigue, and considering British Empire had various colonies, peace wasn't necessarily bad option in the face of colonial revolt. Obviously once Nazis got 3 world's most powerful countries against then, and were not succeeding in SU, it made no sense to surrender.

Maybe if Hitler was assassinated and supreme power fell outside of his inner circle (like e.g. OKW) - especially in the hands of someone relatively respectable - some peace treaty was maybe possible, especially so if Germany had a hard time like bombed successfuly by nukes etc.

Issue isn't Nazis offering peace, it's allies accepting what sort of peace it would be. I doubt nothing less then Versailles 2 would be on table.

 

[pnt]

Wow, that was one of the most impressively long cut-and-paste posts I have seen in a while!

However, the key issue is perhaps your discussion of populations, which often cause a lot of misunderstandings. So let me try to address this briefly.

According to the Soviet 1937 census, the population was 162 million at that time. It rose to 170 million by 1945. However, a large part of this growth came from conquest. The population in the pre-1937 territories actually declined in this period. More importantly, however, in the initial months of WW2, the Germans overran areas which contained a large fraction of the population, which was no longer available for recruitment. Also, another large potion was confined to gulags, or had served there and was not in shape to perform military service.

In contrast, the US population rose from 129 million in 1937 to 140 million in 1945, which was 30 million less than in the Soviet Union. However, during the time of active conflict in WW2, when troops were being recruited for front line service, the controlled and recruitable population of the US was significantly larger than that of the Soviet Union.

 

[blahmaster6k]

EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked up the New World Order achievement on steam, and it looks like only 2.7% of players ever "painted the map," even though it is one of the easier achievements out there. This could suggest a slight disconnect between the preferences voiced here in the forum versus what the broader player base actually does...

Steam achievement stats really don't mean anything at all for this game.

One: New World Order isn't one of the easiest achievements in the game. Sure, it's easy - for a veteran player. But even for veterans it's still extremely time consuming for a game that can take several hours to most of a day just to finish up the war in Europe depending on how fast your PC is. It's especially disingenuous to say it's one of the easiest in the game when achievements like "join a faction" exist.

Also, you're forgetting that a massive portion of the player base plays with mods, on lower than regular difficulty, or with ironman off, which disables achievements. That alone means it's impossible to tell how many people really do world conquests.

Further - even if everyone played ironman, the steam achievement system counts everyone who downloaded the game, ran it for 5 minutes, decided it looked too complicated, and quit. For many games you'll see achievement stats where only 20% off players have the achievement for beating the first level or winning a single match.

Tl;Dr achievement stats mean absolutely nothing and it's very flawed reasoning to try to use them to back up your points.

 

[pnt]

From what you say, it does not sound like you paint the map very often yourself...