I think some events for creating the Warsaw Pact nations, GDR, Poland, Czech, etc would be great.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Pls Help!
Pls help me!
Someone can explain me a good tactic to beat Germany in a Multiplayer match?
In 3 game that i had play with my friends, for 3 time URSS was fall in 2 year of war (we play a historical game - Barbarossa start in '41).
All tactics seem don't work (fortress in all provinces from kiev to Moska (5+ of fortress); a lot of tech and great quality of unit and a lot of infantery too (x2,5 of germany) don't stop the wermacht advance).
How can i suggest to my friends to beat Germany? And what is neccesary to obtain the Great Patriotic war (it was never appear in all of own game)?
Pls help me!
Someone can explain me a good tactic to beat Germany in a Multiplayer match?
In 3 game that i had play with my friends, for 3 time URSS was fall in 2 year of war (we play a historical game - Barbarossa start in '41).
All tactics seem don't work (fortress in all provinces from kiev to Moska (5+ of fortress); a lot of tech and great quality of unit and a lot of infantery too (x2,5 of germany) don't stop the wermacht advance).
How can i suggest to my friends to beat Germany? And what is neccesary to obtain the Great Patriotic war (it was never appear in all of own game)?
SOV move industry events
When the Soviet Union decides to move its industry, there are several provinces with 0 IC created.
province, start -> IC moved in SOV events
Donetsk, 6 -> -4 [in 2633a] -> -3 [in 222019]
Novgorod, 5 -> -5 [in 2633a]
Leningrad, 25 -> -10 [in 2633a] -> -20 [in 5270a]
Also does action b in SOV_2633 look strange because it says "limited action", but is even more severe on provinces like Donetsk than action a.
I think, that it would make sense to adjust the events in a way, that at least 1 IC does remain in those provinces.
When the Soviet Union decides to move its industry, there are several provinces with 0 IC created.
province, start -> IC moved in SOV events
Donetsk, 6 -> -4 [in 2633a] -> -3 [in 222019]
Novgorod, 5 -> -5 [in 2633a]
Leningrad, 25 -> -10 [in 2633a] -> -20 [in 5270a]
Also does action b in SOV_2633 look strange because it says "limited action", but is even more severe on provinces like Donetsk than action a.
I think, that it would make sense to adjust the events in a way, that at least 1 IC does remain in those provinces.
Last edited:
Lend Lease effects
I propose an event like this to better round out the effects of Allied Lend-Lease aid to the USSR. I propose that this should be in addition to the existing effects of the Lend Lease event.
name: Lend-Lease Vehicles Enter Service
description: American, British and Canadian aid to the Soviet Union, under the umbrella of the American Lend-Lease system, provided over 20,000 armored vehicles, 350,000 trucks, 75,000 jeeps and close to 8000 combat aircraft. This enabled the creation of several extra armored corps and air wings, and it greatly increased the mobility of all troops. Its largest benefit, however, was in the American trucks, which vastly eased the logistical task of the Red Army and many of which remained in official use by the Soviet Union all the way up to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980's.
trigger: anytime USA sends a lend-lease shipment to the USSR
effects: fit/div/tac IC cost -0.5, fit/div/tac build time -4 days, armor/mech IC cost -1, armor/mech build time -5 days, mot IC cost -0.5, mot build time -5 days, inf speed +0.25, global supply consumption -7%
************************
notes on overall justification for the event:
I think this event is justified in several ways. Most importantly, it happened!
In any case, there is plenty of documentation of the Soviets' use of British and American tanks. The M4A2 in particular was used exclusively in equipping a number of armored and mechanized corps in the period from 1944 to 1945. In fact, the first Soviet unit to enter Vienna was an armored unit equipped exclusively with M4A2 tanks. The Valentine and M3 tanks were also sent in significant numbers. There is likewise plenty of documentation of the very effective use the Soviets made of the roughly 5000 P39s and P63s they ordered under the Lend Lease program.
The American trucks provided under Lend Lease auspices became so common that popular Russian usage read the "USA" letters which were stenciled on all these truck as "Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa", which roughly translates as "Kill that son of a ***** Hitler!". The Germans definitely noticed the difference, too, as the Red Army very quickly went from being foot and horse drawn to being far more motorized than the Germans themselves. This was a major factor in the Germans' inability to ever again get their feet under them once their great retreat from Russia began. These trucks were also instrumental in moving supplies and fuel to the fighting units in those regions whose infrastructure had been ravaged by the scorched earth policy that had been employed during Barbarossa. The Soviet Union continued to use these trucks for moving supplies and agricultural produce all the way up to its collapse, cannibalizing some to keep others operational and fabricating simpler parts themselves in plants in Czechoslovakia, among other places. Indeed, some of those trucks are still in operation today, having been purchased or "liberated" for private use. Marshall Zhukov once remarked that the trucks the Soviet Union received from America were a vital factor in the Soviets' ability to recover from the initial German invasion.
notes on effects:
I could not think of any way to represent the gift of thousands of tanks and planes except to make armor, mech and air units less expensive and quicker to build. I initially thought about simply creating units of the types predominantly provided historically. But the Lend Lease arrangement allowed the Soviets to "order" vehicles and aircraft (as well as other resources) in order to fill their needs as they saw them. So if the Soviets had altered their deployment plans, they might have ordered a different balance of the specific models the Allies were offering at the time; also, had the USSR been drawn into the war later than it was, more modern equipment would have been provided. That is why I thought it best to simulate the effect by simply lowering the costs and times associated with those unit types in general.
Similarly, since one of the effects of all the trucks they got was to allow them to motorize entire rifle divisions, the cost and build time of motorized units should fall. Since the American truck quickly became the second most important link, after the railway, in the Soviet logistics chain, I figured lowering supply consumption for the massive Red Army was the most accurate way to reflect this particular benefit. This was also supported by the extensive and crucial assistance the Soviets received from the Americans in rail engines, cars and tracks. Lastly, the more flexible logistics that resulted from the use of the American trucks enable unmotorized infantry units to be ferried up more quickly when assembling for an offensive and to follow up behind the motorized forces in the van of any advance. By the end of the war, the Red Army had achieved a level of motorization far in excess of that enjoyed by Germany. This was due primarily to the trucks they received, which accounted for approximately three-fourths of all trucks in the Soviet Union by the end of the war. Hence the slight increase in speed for non-motorized infantry. In practical effect, Soviet rifle divisions were faster in maneuver and deployment than their German counterparts because of their ability to draw on the vast transport pool of trucks. They were almost motorized divisions in themselves, except that the trucks they used were not organic to their units.
note on the trigger condition:
Obviously the degree of benefit should be directly proportional to the amount of aid the USA elects to send, so the trigger was a no-brainer.
conclusion:
I'm not a coder, and thus don't know the ins and outs of how to set up an event, so any suggestions on tweaking this to make it more accurate and doable will be gratefully accepted. In particular, I am not sure the unit effects can be applied by an event like that, since a quick look through the game files only shows techs doing that. It might be necessary to make a set of marker techs with those unit effects and then make the event grant the techs, or some such arrangement.
Also I apologize if this has already been proposed, but I didn't feel like reading through the over 700 msgs in this thread to be sure. I did notice that early in the thread one person made a vague suggestion to this effect, but nothing seemed to come of it at the time. Also, from recent experience with v0.84, I know that the Lend Lease event still shortchanges Russia.
I propose an event like this to better round out the effects of Allied Lend-Lease aid to the USSR. I propose that this should be in addition to the existing effects of the Lend Lease event.
name: Lend-Lease Vehicles Enter Service
description: American, British and Canadian aid to the Soviet Union, under the umbrella of the American Lend-Lease system, provided over 20,000 armored vehicles, 350,000 trucks, 75,000 jeeps and close to 8000 combat aircraft. This enabled the creation of several extra armored corps and air wings, and it greatly increased the mobility of all troops. Its largest benefit, however, was in the American trucks, which vastly eased the logistical task of the Red Army and many of which remained in official use by the Soviet Union all the way up to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980's.
trigger: anytime USA sends a lend-lease shipment to the USSR
effects: fit/div/tac IC cost -0.5, fit/div/tac build time -4 days, armor/mech IC cost -1, armor/mech build time -5 days, mot IC cost -0.5, mot build time -5 days, inf speed +0.25, global supply consumption -7%
************************
notes on overall justification for the event:
I think this event is justified in several ways. Most importantly, it happened!
In any case, there is plenty of documentation of the Soviets' use of British and American tanks. The M4A2 in particular was used exclusively in equipping a number of armored and mechanized corps in the period from 1944 to 1945. In fact, the first Soviet unit to enter Vienna was an armored unit equipped exclusively with M4A2 tanks. The Valentine and M3 tanks were also sent in significant numbers. There is likewise plenty of documentation of the very effective use the Soviets made of the roughly 5000 P39s and P63s they ordered under the Lend Lease program.
The American trucks provided under Lend Lease auspices became so common that popular Russian usage read the "USA" letters which were stenciled on all these truck as "Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa", which roughly translates as "Kill that son of a ***** Hitler!".
The Germans definitely noticed the difference, too, as the Red Army very quickly went from being foot and horse drawn to being far more motorized than the Germans themselves. This was a major factor in the Germans' inability to ever again get their feet under them once their great retreat from Russia began. These trucks were also instrumental in moving supplies and fuel to the fighting units in those regions whose infrastructure had been ravaged by the scorched earth policy that had been employed during Barbarossa. The Soviet Union continued to use these trucks for moving supplies and agricultural produce all the way up to its collapse, cannibalizing some to keep others operational and fabricating simpler parts themselves in plants in Czechoslovakia, among other places. Indeed, some of those trucks are still in operation today, having been purchased or "liberated" for private use. Marshall Zhukov once remarked that the trucks the Soviet Union received from America were a vital factor in the Soviets' ability to recover from the initial German invasion. notes on effects:
I could not think of any way to represent the gift of thousands of tanks and planes except to make armor, mech and air units less expensive and quicker to build. I initially thought about simply creating units of the types predominantly provided historically. But the Lend Lease arrangement allowed the Soviets to "order" vehicles and aircraft (as well as other resources) in order to fill their needs as they saw them. So if the Soviets had altered their deployment plans, they might have ordered a different balance of the specific models the Allies were offering at the time; also, had the USSR been drawn into the war later than it was, more modern equipment would have been provided. That is why I thought it best to simulate the effect by simply lowering the costs and times associated with those unit types in general.
Similarly, since one of the effects of all the trucks they got was to allow them to motorize entire rifle divisions, the cost and build time of motorized units should fall. Since the American truck quickly became the second most important link, after the railway, in the Soviet logistics chain, I figured lowering supply consumption for the massive Red Army was the most accurate way to reflect this particular benefit. This was also supported by the extensive and crucial assistance the Soviets received from the Americans in rail engines, cars and tracks. Lastly, the more flexible logistics that resulted from the use of the American trucks enable unmotorized infantry units to be ferried up more quickly when assembling for an offensive and to follow up behind the motorized forces in the van of any advance. By the end of the war, the Red Army had achieved a level of motorization far in excess of that enjoyed by Germany. This was due primarily to the trucks they received, which accounted for approximately three-fourths of all trucks in the Soviet Union by the end of the war. Hence the slight increase in speed for non-motorized infantry. In practical effect, Soviet rifle divisions were faster in maneuver and deployment than their German counterparts because of their ability to draw on the vast transport pool of trucks. They were almost motorized divisions in themselves, except that the trucks they used were not organic to their units.
note on the trigger condition:
Obviously the degree of benefit should be directly proportional to the amount of aid the USA elects to send, so the trigger was a no-brainer.
conclusion:
I'm not a coder, and thus don't know the ins and outs of how to set up an event, so any suggestions on tweaking this to make it more accurate and doable will be gratefully accepted. In particular, I am not sure the unit effects can be applied by an event like that, since a quick look through the game files only shows techs doing that. It might be necessary to make a set of marker techs with those unit effects and then make the event grant the techs, or some such arrangement.
Also I apologize if this has already been proposed, but I didn't feel like reading through the over 700 msgs in this thread to be sure. I did notice that early in the thread one person made a vague suggestion to this effect, but nothing seemed to come of it at the time. Also, from recent experience with v0.84, I know that the Lend Lease event still shortchanges Russia.
Vittorio Perazzolo said:
Not to be hard on anyone, but please stick to english when you reply so everyone has a chance of understanding. Thx.
Ghost_dk
Soviet economic woes
Guys I have noticed in my games as Germany that the USSR rarely stands up to any sort of punishment due to the economic imbalance in my games, note this is single player only. Please allow me to explain what I mean by economic imbalance.
At the game start as Germany I immediately replace Frick with Himmler, this lowers CG requirements and while the manpower hit is large its far less than the economic hit of having Frick instead. On 1 Jan '37 Wermer who remains in place until the first round of conquest is over replaces Himmler. My build up to war is much like anyone else’s I imagine, however I do not build any armor until late '38. During the interwar period I concentrate my techs on industrial, artillery, tank, electronic, heavy air, light air, infantry, land doctrines and air doctrines in that order. When it comes time to construct armor I build only 0.50 caliber tankettes with attached engineer brigades. Why is that you may ask? Well tankettes are the fastest building, fastest moving and best buy per IC before '41. As soon as the End of the Czech Republic event fires I select partition with Hungary. At this point I save the game finish my deployments and due my DoW in this order, Poland (which gets the allies), Hungary (useless minor), Yugoslavia (see Hungary), Switzerland (see Hungary), Netherlands (Belgium neutral so no retreat) and finally I demand Lux (they usually surrender on the second go). Over the course of the next month I conquer Yugo, Hungary, Poland, Swiss, Netherlands then turn my armor to Belgium and France. Since I have Switzerland out of the way the Maginot is a joke I pincer north and south and push the last of the French troops into Tarbes and kill them. At this point I replace Wermer with Frick since manpower is of less importance than the IC's. Next on the hit list is Spain and Portugal, which are done usually by June or July '39. With all of Europe, baring Italy behind you with Frick in you should be running at 800-1k IC. When Wessenburg happens choose the declare war on all three flatten Norway and annex, then puppet Sweden. At this point the world is sort of open to you, you can DoW Italy and annex them in a few months via north Africa, or any other odd gambit you wish.
Sorry about the long-winded how-to on Germany but this is going somewhere. Anyway by 1 Jan '41 you are running at a solid 1000+ IC the Soviets a paltry 500ish. I don’t care how much manpower they have they are a joke at this point. By July '41 you have improved 88mm if you went that way or improved 75mm medium, June '40, with advanced 88mm in Sept '41. Which of course leads to a 3 to 4 month Barbarossa campaign before the Soviets sue for peace.
The Soviets economy cannot grow sufficiently quickly to overcome the vast growth that the German economy is capable of achieving. Even with the Five Year plans in place the Soviets, AI only, cannot hope to gain 500 IC’s. With those 500 extra IC’s Germany leaps far beyond the USSR in the tech race, as well as unit production. Furthermore, the Soviet AI is woefully incapable of getting the Land and Air doctrines required to match Germany before the war is begun. When the Red Army faces off against Germany in basic medium 40mm tanks and basic interceptors against improved medium 75mm mediums and improved ground attack bombers it’s a foregone conclusion.
Now I have looked at this problem and the core of the matter is the fact that a smart player never chooses the historic route. Why be trapped into repeating history if we know how it played out originally. Therefore I have created a set of additional events for the USSR that I will outline below.
Should Germany choose any of the following ahistoric options the Soviets have the option of adding additional IC capacity through forced labour:
Partition of Czech with Hungary
Conquest of Hungary
Conquest of Yugoslavia
Total Conquest of France
Conquest of Spain
Conquest of Romania
Limited M-R Pact
No Deals with the Bolsheviks
Additionally at the conclusion of the Finnish Winter War the Soviets gain Early War Combat Experience Analysis for both Air and Land doctrines if the Finns fold.
Now what do these changes make to the game? At the start of Barbarosa with the above outlined German strategy the Soviet economy is about 750 IC total with improved tank divisions just coming off the line. This allows the Soviets to put up a sufficient resistance that the war in the east comes down to few critical battles where the war is won or lost on the gamble of a hard strike at say Tula or even Moscow where failure to win a victory means a long cold winter of watching the Soviets grow in strength while the Germany army withers.
For brevities sake I have not posted the additional events as they are cross-tied with events from multiple countries and would require a few additional pages of text space. Should the fokes at CORE wish them I will gladly email the event tree to them.
Guys I have noticed in my games as Germany that the USSR rarely stands up to any sort of punishment due to the economic imbalance in my games, note this is single player only. Please allow me to explain what I mean by economic imbalance.
At the game start as Germany I immediately replace Frick with Himmler, this lowers CG requirements and while the manpower hit is large its far less than the economic hit of having Frick instead. On 1 Jan '37 Wermer who remains in place until the first round of conquest is over replaces Himmler. My build up to war is much like anyone else’s I imagine, however I do not build any armor until late '38. During the interwar period I concentrate my techs on industrial, artillery, tank, electronic, heavy air, light air, infantry, land doctrines and air doctrines in that order. When it comes time to construct armor I build only 0.50 caliber tankettes with attached engineer brigades. Why is that you may ask? Well tankettes are the fastest building, fastest moving and best buy per IC before '41. As soon as the End of the Czech Republic event fires I select partition with Hungary. At this point I save the game finish my deployments and due my DoW in this order, Poland (which gets the allies), Hungary (useless minor), Yugoslavia (see Hungary), Switzerland (see Hungary), Netherlands (Belgium neutral so no retreat) and finally I demand Lux (they usually surrender on the second go). Over the course of the next month I conquer Yugo, Hungary, Poland, Swiss, Netherlands then turn my armor to Belgium and France. Since I have Switzerland out of the way the Maginot is a joke I pincer north and south and push the last of the French troops into Tarbes and kill them. At this point I replace Wermer with Frick since manpower is of less importance than the IC's. Next on the hit list is Spain and Portugal, which are done usually by June or July '39. With all of Europe, baring Italy behind you with Frick in you should be running at 800-1k IC. When Wessenburg happens choose the declare war on all three flatten Norway and annex, then puppet Sweden. At this point the world is sort of open to you, you can DoW Italy and annex them in a few months via north Africa, or any other odd gambit you wish.
Sorry about the long-winded how-to on Germany but this is going somewhere
. Anyway by 1 Jan '41 you are running at a solid 1000+ IC the Soviets a paltry 500ish. I don’t care how much manpower they have they are a joke at this point. By July '41 you have improved 88mm if you went that way or improved 75mm medium, June '40, with advanced 88mm in Sept '41. Which of course leads to a 3 to 4 month Barbarossa campaign before the Soviets sue for peace. The Soviets economy cannot grow sufficiently quickly to overcome the vast growth that the German economy is capable of achieving. Even with the Five Year plans in place the Soviets, AI only, cannot hope to gain 500 IC’s. With those 500 extra IC’s Germany leaps far beyond the USSR in the tech race, as well as unit production. Furthermore, the Soviet AI is woefully incapable of getting the Land and Air doctrines required to match Germany before the war is begun. When the Red Army faces off against Germany in basic medium 40mm tanks and basic interceptors against improved medium 75mm mediums and improved ground attack bombers it’s a foregone conclusion.
Now I have looked at this problem and the core of the matter is the fact that a smart player never chooses the historic route. Why be trapped into repeating history if we know how it played out originally. Therefore I have created a set of additional events for the USSR that I will outline below.
Should Germany choose any of the following ahistoric options the Soviets have the option of adding additional IC capacity through forced labour:
Partition of Czech with Hungary
Conquest of Hungary
Conquest of Yugoslavia
Total Conquest of France
Conquest of Spain
Conquest of Romania
Limited M-R Pact
No Deals with the Bolsheviks
Additionally at the conclusion of the Finnish Winter War the Soviets gain Early War Combat Experience Analysis for both Air and Land doctrines if the Finns fold.
Now what do these changes make to the game? At the start of Barbarosa with the above outlined German strategy the Soviet economy is about 750 IC total with improved tank divisions just coming off the line. This allows the Soviets to put up a sufficient resistance that the war in the east comes down to few critical battles where the war is won or lost on the gamble of a hard strike at say Tula or even Moscow where failure to win a victory means a long cold winter of watching the Soviets grow in strength while the Germany army withers.
For brevities sake I have not posted the additional events as they are cross-tied with events from multiple countries and would require a few additional pages of text space. Should the fokes at CORE wish them I will gladly email the event tree to them.
...What a refreshing viewpoint! Most people's threads I've read recently complain about how difficult it is to defeat the Soviet Union, and here we have someone telling how to make conquering them even harder.
Shawkhan said:
After all, why not? What was the last country history records as successfully conquering the Russian Empire or Soviet Union? It is supposed to be a tough nut to crack!
Copper Nicus said:
But there is no reason why the NKVD could not be made to become a useful thing, in game terms. As you say, their intended role was to suppress any disloyalty in their own army's ranks and to suppress conquered territories. This could be expressed in game terms by lowering dissent and increasing foreign IC usage. After all, if the NKVD is given enough teeth to keep people from expressing their dissent, that is pretty much the same effect as lowering the dissent. And if they are good at keep conquered populations under control, that should logically result in greater output from industry in those conquered territories. Perhaps this could be implemented by event, where Stalin better organizes the NKVD to make them effective at these tasks. Alternately it could be introduced as a USSR-only tech which has the same effect. The cost of gaining the benefit could then be either political or economic, depending on the approach chosen. I don't know enough about the negative side effects of the NKVD to say which approach would be more accurate in historical terms.
Hmm, so NKVD could be a Soviet only tech, which increases defence efficiency by a substantial amount just to make conquest of Soviet harder. Then, you test it in a battle and see if it makes a difference.
Vittorio Perazzolo said:
Yes sure, but i'm really upset that ZaNo(Germany) annexed Toffa(URSS) in '44 Too!!!!
And I(Japan) send to Toffa a Lot of Tech! (Adv. Inf weapon,Late war doctrine, MBT Teory, for example)....
Germany is unrestrainable, also Tony take it and win in all fronts...
NKVD, Terror, Lend Lease & Soviet Tech
I've been modding up some events to simulate the Soviet S&T intelligence gathering prior and during the war. This is the Klaus Fuchs spy scandal, Amtorg as a espionage cover in the USA, the Burgess-Philby ring in the UK, etc. Some of the political intelligence is difficult to simulate (often its analysis by the Center was dead wrong) so it translates into a point or two or diplomatic influence. The S&T is easier handle. Those are straight-forward gain_tech events. As a non-Soviet player you just see a seemingly endless series of "Spies Report" events happen to the USSR.
I like the NKVD as a dissent reducing mechanism. The trouble here is that if you have a society in terror, that makes for less innovation (since failure may result in capital punishment). Russian theoretical science was generally pretty good so the terror might translate into a small penalty on the applications research, only.
The Russians were also notorious for reverse engineering the equipment they got via lend-lease. It seems that each lend-lease shipment should probably come with a load of technology, too. Instead of rescripting the existing persistent lend-lease material, you might have a series of lend-lease tech events.
So one way out of the weak Russia in the game is that they research like mad in the early game to build up their tech base. As the game goes on, their spies collect random technology. Once the war starts and lend-lease starts, the Russians get a raft of mid-level tech. Nuclear spying goes without saying, along with stealing the plans for the B-29. Consequently, once the war starts, they can take a lot of the IC that used to go into keeping up with the Germans and use it to buy lots of basic and improved level units.
Getting the balance right would be a bear, but it bears a passing resemblance to what happened.
I've been modding up some events to simulate the Soviet S&T intelligence gathering prior and during the war. This is the Klaus Fuchs spy scandal, Amtorg as a espionage cover in the USA, the Burgess-Philby ring in the UK, etc. Some of the political intelligence is difficult to simulate (often its analysis by the Center was dead wrong) so it translates into a point or two or diplomatic influence. The S&T is easier handle. Those are straight-forward gain_tech events. As a non-Soviet player you just see a seemingly endless series of "Spies Report" events happen to the USSR.
I like the NKVD as a dissent reducing mechanism. The trouble here is that if you have a society in terror, that makes for less innovation (since failure may result in capital punishment). Russian theoretical science was generally pretty good so the terror might translate into a small penalty on the applications research, only.
The Russians were also notorious for reverse engineering the equipment they got via lend-lease. It seems that each lend-lease shipment should probably come with a load of technology, too. Instead of rescripting the existing persistent lend-lease material, you might have a series of lend-lease tech events.
So one way out of the weak Russia in the game is that they research like mad in the early game to build up their tech base. As the game goes on, their spies collect random technology. Once the war starts and lend-lease starts, the Russians get a raft of mid-level tech. Nuclear spying goes without saying, along with stealing the plans for the B-29. Consequently, once the war starts, they can take a lot of the IC that used to go into keeping up with the Germans and use it to buy lots of basic and improved level units.
Getting the balance right would be a bear, but it bears a passing resemblance to what happened.
DoctorPlague said:
The NKVD could even be several techs. Here are couple of rough and dirty sample techs you could have:
1. NKVD GUGB Commissars (sp?) - Lower dissent and/or increase defence efficiency
2. NKVD GULAG Labor Camps - Lower dissent and manpower, increase industry by some percentage
3. NKVD GUVOVPGO Facility Guards - increase foreign IC usage by a percentage
4. NKVD GUGB Internal Security Police - decrease dissent but trigger random events which occasionally eliminate cabinet ministers as "enemies of the People".
It would be important, however, to be careful to include the negative side effects of the techs along with the increased efficiencies, both of which result from the brutality and injustices inherent in the NKVD.
Pro_Consul said:
1. You cannot lower dissent with techs
2. A no go area as far as both Paradox and CORE goes
3. This is an ability limited to ministers.
4. Again you cannot lower dissent with techs and there already are purge events which have the mentioned effects, at least as far as officers go in exchange for lowered dissent.
Ghost_dk
Ghost_dk said:
Hmmm. Thanks for pointing these probs out. I was afraid some, or even much, of this would require reworking before anything doable was arrived at. As I said in a previous post, I am not a modder or a coder. I am just a history buff who is in thrall to this game.
Lemme ask a few questions about each, just to make sure I understand these limitations and stuff:
1. Can a tech somehow trigger an event, which could then lower dissent? If not, then the NKVD idea would be best handled by event only.
2. Why is that branch of the NKVD a no go? I understand the swastika no-go, as that is offensive to many, and illegal in some countries. But what is the source of the taboo about the GULAG branch of the NKVD? Is it just that some would rather forget that it happened? I mean, I understand excluding the Nazi concentration camps from the game, as they were a horror that does not bear dwelling on, and they had no effect on any game aspect in any case. But the GULAG labor camps were instrumental in the Soviet transfer of industry to Siberia, as well as in rebuilding the railways and roads in the Barbarossa-devasted provinces over which the Red Army had to pass their supplies in their later counteroffensives. They were also responsible for handling certain labor intensive major works projects, thus freeing non-prisoner workers for other, less arduous industrial projects.
3. On rethinking the Facility Guards tech idea I realized that in reality they should increase industrial output across the board, albeit by a small percentage. They were used to guard facilities in Russia as well in Poland and other conquered territories (and make sure the workers kept working). They should also lower manpower, as these were able bodied troops who might otherwise have been employed in combat roles. Now the raising of industrial output is clearly a tech-able variable; but is manpower alterable by tech, or only by event?
4. Regarding the purge events, true there are some, but none of them lower dissent. They simply avoid a sharp rise in dissent. But historically the NKVD executed several ministers as enemies of the State, aside from all the officers they executed during the purges. In fact, all three people who headed the NKVD itself died this way. They also eliminated many vocal Party members who made noise critical of Stalin or his policies. This had the effect of preventing people from hearing just how bad things were in the pre-war years. And more telling, it silenced many other would-be critics. As I said before, stopping discontented people from showing their discontent is, for all practical game purposes, the same as lowering their level of dissent. But the purge events only keep you from suffering sharp increases in dissent. They have no positive side effects whatsoever, where I believe they should have some. But again, I don't know if this can be done by tech. Can it?
The more I look at this, the more I think that the NKVD ideas could probably only be handled by a set of events, if at all.
I hope my impression is wrong, however, because they would add an element of historical realism that is missing from the Soviet events.
Pro_Consul said:Hmmm. Thanks for pointing these probs out. I was afraid some, or even much, of this would require reworking before anything doable was arrived at. As I said in a previous post, I am not a modder or a coder. I am just a history buff who is in thrall to this game.
Lemme ask a few questions about each, just to make sure I understand these limitations and stuff:
1. Can a tech somehow trigger an event, which could then lower dissent? If not, then the NKVD idea would be best handled by event only.
well techs cant trigger events directly but having a tech may be a pre-requisite for an event to fire so there is a workaround for that.
Pro_Consul said:
All types of forced labour camps are a no go area. If one country gets them, others would have to have them as well.
Pro_Consul said:
This is actually very well portraited by picking some types of security ministers.
Pro_Consul said:
from a perspective limited to the political stability in the country I agree that dissent was stabilized somewhat through the exectutions. However dissent in HOI influences so much more then chance political climate. lowering dissent affects IC output, Troop effectiveness, consumer goods demands and such and I have my doubts that the positive effects from these purges could be seen in all these areas. The same however can be said about many other events which are in already so the idea may not be as bad as such.
I could settle for a set of random events which lower dissent 1-3 points of dissent in exchange for loosing a 1-2 ministers from the available selections(completely random)
Ghost
Pro_Consul said:
No, We just find those things equal with Nazi's atrocities - and they are treated equaly in the mod. Those things are also offensive to many. If you think otherwise, you can write your own events on that topic.
Pro_Consul said:
Death camps had no effect, but concentration camps and forced labor had. Huge part of conquered Europe was forced to work for Nazi Germany, freeing lots of manpower and resources in result. Still, we don't want to split whole banned topic on smaller parts - as it will evnetually result in requests for adding/removing this or that.
Pro_Consul said:
Same with German forced labor.
Pro_Consul said:The more I look at this, the more I think that the NKVD ideas could probably only be handled by a set of events, if at all.
Problem is that game engine is aimed for simulating country with economical and political system that is roughly based on capitalism. Stalin's USSR simply not fits that concept - it worked totally differently then all the other countries, including dictatorships and countries like Nazi Germany. Huge use of forced labor in peace time, no visible effects of dissent, will to kill huge parts of own population to achieve ideology-driven goals...
Copper Nicus said:
Point taken.
Copper Nicus said:
Hmm. Very interesting point, and one I had never considered. This bears some thought, but might suggest other avenues to try.
I cannot belive what I am hearing, people actually want to make the game easier for the USSR?!? LUNACY... ... ... ... :rofl: . My friends this is quite unneccessary, to explain I will change our example.
For reasons known only to myself I play more as the SU than as anyother country, I must say that playing as the SU is very easy, there is no need to make it any easier, at that point the game would become boring and uninteresting. After playing as the SU several times and finding the annexation Germany to be a cake-walk, I decided to try and play as Germany, maybe that would be a challenge, I have news, GERMANY IS THE EASIEST GAME IN THE HOI, except for the US (but that is a different matter), Germany actually gains land techs through events (at least in CORE 1.84).
Even without annexing every European country a German Player could have Panthers by September 1941. I should think that playing as Germany should be made a bit more difficult to compensate for its flagrant ease.
As far as NKVD deathcamps (work camps) go, if they put those in, Paradox (or CORE for that matter) will have to put in concentration camps, they will than be sued and boycotted and people like us will have nothing to do on Friday Nights.
On the topic of Lend-Lease, while this is a solid idea, once again, all it will do is unbalance the game, a Soviet Player already has things too easy, 'nuff said.
I also have some more ideas:
1. I only have one so bear with me. In the game the Soviet Player has several chances to go anti-Stalinist in history. One can send troops to Republican Spain (expeditionary forces, though this is not an event in and of itself), one can say no to Germany and not agree to partition Poland, one can have Trotsky not executed. IOW, one can act completly contrary to Stalinist theory, should this not than, technichally, change the SOV government to Leninst. Since the game allows for these decisions should they not have actual long term effects, I mean what is the point of sparing Trotsky in the game if all it gives you is +1% dissent. Why should the 3rd International be disbanded if the USSR does the unthinkable and actually acts like a communist country is supposed to.
For reasons known only to myself I play more as the SU than as anyother country, I must say that playing as the SU is very easy, there is no need to make it any easier, at that point the game would become boring and uninteresting. After playing as the SU several times and finding the annexation Germany to be a cake-walk, I decided to try and play as Germany, maybe that would be a challenge, I have news, GERMANY IS THE EASIEST GAME IN THE HOI, except for the US (but that is a different matter), Germany actually gains land techs through events (at least in CORE 1.84).
Even without annexing every European country a German Player could have Panthers by September 1941. I should think that playing as Germany should be made a bit more difficult to compensate for its flagrant ease.
As far as NKVD deathcamps (work camps) go, if they put those in, Paradox (or CORE for that matter) will have to put in concentration camps, they will than be sued and boycotted and people like us will have nothing to do on Friday Nights.
On the topic of Lend-Lease, while this is a solid idea, once again, all it will do is unbalance the game, a Soviet Player already has things too easy, 'nuff said.
I also have some more ideas:
1. I only have one so bear with me. In the game the Soviet Player has several chances to go anti-Stalinist in history. One can send troops to Republican Spain (expeditionary forces, though this is not an event in and of itself), one can say no to Germany and not agree to partition Poland, one can have Trotsky not executed. IOW, one can act completly contrary to Stalinist theory, should this not than, technichally, change the SOV government to Leninst. Since the game allows for these decisions should they not have actual long term effects, I mean what is the point of sparing Trotsky in the game if all it gives you is +1% dissent. Why should the 3rd International be disbanded if the USSR does the unthinkable and actually acts like a communist country is supposed to.
Asudulayev said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I most certainly am NOT trying to make the game easier to play as the USSR. I am trying to make the USSR realistically difficult to conquer when playing as Germany. That is the one thing that spoils things for me when I play as Germany. Even at high difficulty, conquering the USSR is just too easy for a human controlled Germany.
I have a secondary objective, which is somewhat at odds with the primary one, which is to make the USSR event and tech situation more detailed and rich as what CORE has done for many of the other countries. I think that so far CORE has neglected the USSR somewhat, probably due to lack of interest from people who are fixated on playing other countries.
Asudulayev said:
Excellent point. Most of the major Soviet multi-choice events have no upside. They tend to offer a choice between suffering some penalty or status quo ante.