Can we talk about the Soviet Union nerfs?

[The_Tim]

I donno the exacts for a German, but I can concur with this as playing as Poland getting invaded by the Germans was Much more of an ordeal than when the Soviets Invaded. While I did have better armed troops on the Soviet Border they also were about only 2/3rd the number of troops and while the Soviets made Some Progress due to their love of using Forced Attack it was overall much, much easier than holding off the German Blitzkrieg. But when it comes to AI vs. AI I actually see the German AI getting stuck in Belarus and Ukraine at various areas where you run out of supply even when you have motorized logi just 1 province away from a Soviet-Held Hub. Should the Soviets last, however, I find it that the Soviets end up having the same problem when they're pushing out the Germans

 

[Mrakvampire]

Perhaps I am reading you wrong here, but if you are asserting that the Soviets had superior quality and a 'tactical advantage' over the Germans, you would be incorrect.

You are reading wrong.

 

[Bhangbhangduc]

Perhaps I am reading you wrong here, but if you are asserting that the Soviets had superior quality and a 'tactical advantage' over the Germans, you would be incorrect.

'Tactical advantage' is impossible to quantify but the Soviet Union probably did have "superior quality" troops to the Germans at least by the winter offensive. The Germans suffered from the Versailles restrictions which attenuated their supply of officers and NCOs and the need to release their troops back to their factory jobs which led to a labor shortage throughout the course of the war. This is not to mention the equipment, clothing, and armor the USSR brought to the front. Despite the purges and political mess, in Barbarossa, the Soviets acquitted themselves better in the face of the Germans than any European military had thus far. Soviet tanks famously outmatched the Germans in Barbarossa by a lot. Partially this is due to geographic factors and the sheer size of the Red Army, partially the interwar innovation though the impacts of that are somewhat controversial.

 

[DerGrößteRitter]

'Tactical advantage' is impossible to quantify but the Soviet Union probably did have "superior quality" troops to the Germans at least by the winter offensive. The Germans suffered from the Versailles restrictions which attenuated their supply of officers and NCOs and the need to release their troops back to their factory jobs which led to a labor shortage throughout the course of the war. This is not to mention the equipment, clothing, and armor the USSR brought to the front. Despite the purges and political mess, in Barbarossa, the Soviets acquitted themselves better in the face of the Germans than any European military had thus far. Soviet tanks famously outmatched the Germans in Barbarossa by a lot. Partially this is due to geographic factors and the sheer size of the Red Army, partially the interwar innovation though the impacts of that are somewhat controversial.

This is false.
The Versailles restrictions did nothing to impact either the quality or quantity of the officers nor the NCOs- look up Seeckt and what he did with the Reichswehr (the Army of the Weimar Republic). The restrictions allowed the Reichswehr to retain the best officers who were then developed into a cadre force that would teach officers and NCOs that were rotated into and out of active service in order to appear to be abiding by the Treaty (though in reality creating a large pool of trained men that would be activated when rearmament began).
"Equipment, clothing and armour the USSR brought to the front"- what? Are you saying they brought more of such?
"in Barbarossa, the Soviets acquitted themselves better in the face of the Germans than any European military thus far"- um, no? In Barbarossa, the Red Army was virtually annihilated- their performance was very poor. Prior to the Winter Offensive, the only military said to have done worse might be the French.
"Soviet tanks famously outmatched the Germans in Barbarossa by a lot"- this is simply not true at all. I suppose you are referring to the T-34 and KV-1 tanks, that had much thicker armour than the German tanks that they faced? Those were but a miniscule portion of the entire Soviet tank fleet, the vast majority of which were light tanks, or severely outdated multi-turret designs. All these tanks were markedly inferior to the German ones.
It is also worth noting, that despite the almost impenetrable armour of the T-34 and Kv-1, they were very effectively neutralized- they were used poorly tactically, and were driven by inexperienced crews, not to mention inherent design flaws that hindered communication, target acquisition, and effect reactions. While many times German tanks and AT-guns were unable to penetrate the armour of these tanks, they were also unable to really effectively damage the enemy either, and often German forced when around them while heavier AT or infantry were brought up to destroy said tanks. By the time T-34's became the standard tank of the Red Army, the Wehrmacht already had Stug III's and up gunned Pz IV's that were more than able to handle them.

 

[DerGrößteRitter]

You are reading wrong.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[LAF1994]

This is false.
The Versailles restrictions did nothing to impact either the quality or quantity of the officers nor the NCOs- look up Seeckt and what he did with the Reichswehr (the Army of the Weimar Republic). The restrictions allowed the Reichswehr to retain the best officers who were then developed into a cadre force that would teach officers and NCOs that were rotated into and out of active service in order to appear to be abiding by the Treaty (though in reality creating a large pool of trained men that would be activated when rearmament began).

Also IIRC the Reichswehr trained their NCOs as junior officers and had a far larger NCO-to-private ratio than other militaries. The reason for this was that the Treaty had restricted the number of officers the Reichswehr was allowed to have but it did not say anything about NCOs (i.e. loophole abuse, which is extremely common with pretty much all arms-control treaties).
Incidentally, what was the reason for the name change (Reichswehr -> Wehrmacht)?

 

[DarkSpiryt]

Game with soviet AI:
In 1942 USSR have 33% consumer goods - no wonder why AI have no factories.
No warbonds, 1 time propaganda -5% used, no polibiuro -2%, no industrial concern.
One thing - hes relocating industry to Urals (right ones).

 

[The_Tim]

'Tactical advantage' is impossible to quantify but the Soviet Union probably did have "superior quality" troops to the Germans at least by the winter offensive. The Germans suffered from the Versailles restrictions which attenuated their supply of officers and NCOs and the need to release their troops back to their factory jobs which led to a labor shortage throughout the course of the war. This is not to mention the equipment, clothing, and armor the USSR brought to the front. Despite the purges and political mess, in Barbarossa, the Soviets acquitted themselves better in the face of the Germans than any European military had thus far. Soviet tanks famously outmatched the Germans in Barbarossa by a lot. Partially this is due to geographic factors and the sheer size of the Red Army, partially the interwar innovation though the impacts of that are somewhat controversial.

Where to start.....

As multiple people said the Supply of Officers and NCOs really didn't even matter since the NCO part is just wrong and the Germans did some loopholing with its NCOs, and post-Rhineland germany basically ignored the officer part when it was massively increasing the size of its army

If we talk about Prime Barbarossa, then the only reason the Soviets aquitted themselves better than any other European Nation(sans Britain) is because they didn't get occupied within a year, if we talk about the Army side of things the Soviets were having entire armies being disintegrated and encircled, From there the Winter Offensive had.... the Driving the Germans from the Gates of Moscow to somewhat outside the Gates of Moscow, with the other battles during this offensive resulting in bloody soviet defeats or the start of the Rzhev meat grinder and then from there the Germans were back to beating the Soviets Black and Blue until the Battle of Stalingrad

While the T-34 and KV-1 when used properly were better than the German Tanks during the first year of Barbarossa, lets take account of how well the 934 T-34s on the front line and the 525or so replacement T-34s: Only about 133 of them survived. How did this happen? You have incidents such as the 7th Panzer, armed with primarily Pz. 38ts, encountered the Soviet 5th Tank Division while forcing a river crossing, the Soviet 5th Tank Division had 44 T34s along with other tanks. The Result? 27 T-34s destroyed along with 46 other tanks destroyed with a loss of 11 Tanks. As for the KVs while you had edge cases where singular tanks delayed entire divisions for days on end, soon enough though many of them were destroyed and really didn't do much to slow the German Advance. From there the T-26 was just inferior to any German Model during Invasion, and the BT Tanks while they had vastly better mobility compared to the German tanks with an okay gun, it was used in a fashion that its engine didn't do anything so you had its okay gun with very mediocre armor against the Germans

tbh some of the acutal battles and how comedic the difference in losses therein does kinda makes me want to say that yes the Germans should have a large Attack buff at the start of Barbarossa so it can be somewhat recreated

 

[Bhangbhangduc]

This is false.
The Versailles restrictions did nothing to impact either the quality or quantity of the officers nor the NCOs- look up Seeckt and what he did with the Reichswehr (the Army of the Weimar Republic). The restrictions allowed the Reichswehr to retain the best officers who were then developed into a cadre force that would teach officers and NCOs that were rotated into and out of active service in order to appear to be abiding by the Treaty (though in reality creating a large pool of trained men that would be activated when rearmament began).
"Equipment, clothing and armour the USSR brought to the front"- what? Are you saying they brought more of such?
"in Barbarossa, the Soviets acquitted themselves better in the face of the Germans than any European military thus far"- um, no? In Barbarossa, the Red Army was virtually annihilated- their performance was very poor. Prior to the Winter Offensive, the only military said to have done worse might be the French.
"Soviet tanks famously outmatched the Germans in Barbarossa by a lot"- this is simply not true at all. I suppose you are referring to the T-34 and KV-1 tanks, that had much thicker armour than the German tanks that they faced? Those were but a miniscule portion of the entire Soviet tank fleet, the vast majority of which were light tanks, or severely outdated multi-turret designs. All these tanks were markedly inferior to the German ones.
It is also worth noting, that despite the almost impenetrable armour of the T-34 and Kv-1, they were very effectively neutralized- they were used poorly tactically, and were driven by inexperienced crews, not to mention inherent design flaws that hindered communication, target acquisition, and effect reactions. While many times German tanks and AT-guns were unable to penetrate the armour of these tanks, they were also unable to really effectively damage the enemy either, and often German forced when around them while heavier AT or infantry were brought up to destroy said tanks. By the time T-34's became the standard tank of the Red Army, the Wehrmacht already had Stug III's and up gunned Pz IV's that were more than able to handle them.

I realize that discussing this issue with you is probably an exercise in futility but the point I'm trying to make is really twofold.

First, German victories did not happen because of superior troop quality (although they had fine, even in some cases great, troops) or superior quality of munitions. They were successful when they were successful because of their superior ability to make use of the military resources that they had.

Second, Barbarossa was a failure. Despite taking huge amounts of territory, prisoners, and dealing incredible damage to Soviet warmaking ability, the German military was unable to knock the Soviets out of the war or to cripple its military industry. This locked them into a long, high-intensity war that their military, with its relatively limited manpower and industrial capacity, could not win.

Third, the Soviet winter counteroffensive came extremely close to shattering the German army entirely, a counterattack in which the Soviet Union, for a wide number of reasons, held air and armor superiority and employed better-equipped and better trained infantry.

Finally, unlike every other European power, including great power armies, the Soviet Union did not collapse after a short campaign. The Germans had sent France, Britain, and Yugoslavia packing in relatively short order. Not so the Soviet Union, for a wide variety of factors.

Let me get back to the point that this is a game here. Playing Germany in single player, it's relatively trivial to conquer the Allies by the end of 1940 entirely, post your armies on a line, draw an arrow, and coast on the Soviet debuffs all the way to Omsk.

This is supposed to be the highest intensity front of the war and instead it's a snoozefest where you can leave the game running, at least for the German player.

 

[The_Tim]

TBF the reason why its trivially easy to beat the allies in 1940 as Germany is that from my experience(at least AI vs. AI Germany) is that Britain is probably hardcoded to hold a couple Army Groups in Britain now instead of sending them to France(or much to my annoyment, Poland) and france either has pickets or cannot even cover their northern border properly

In regards to the Soviets being weak, that I'd have to say is likely more to do with the AI USSR not being able to utilize their focus tree well, this isn't new across the NSB nations as fairly often I see Poland have the Peasant Revolt, and the Baltic Nations of revolts of their Fascist Organizations. So its entirely possible that the Soviets don't manage Stalin well and purge themselves into oblivion along with not being efficient in how they do things

 

[Infryndiira]

When in 1942 USSR have 33% consumer goods - no wonder why he have no factories.
No warbonds, 1 time propaganda -5% used, no polibiuro -2%, no industrial concern.
One thing - hes relocating industry to Urals (right ones).

Why didn't he reduce consumer good factories from Gosproyektstroy and/or the Sinkiang focus? You can have a much, much lower CG factor by 1941.

 

[Iskulya]

@Bhangbhangduc

Are you the same Bhangbangduc that argues with Donald Parkinson on twitter? Man, it's a small world.

I feel like the people who have tried using anecdotes to demonstrate that you can still achieve the same industrial build up are pretty disingenuous. It inevitably involves a crazy amount of metagaming that the vast majority of players won't ever both with either because it's too difficult to understand or is just plain unfun. Isn't the point of a huge focus tree with an incredible diversity of choices and options kind of defeated if the only way to remain competitive is to metagame the hell out of the system with a hyper-specialized preset list of decisions?

For me at least, that is boring and stale, and I'm almost surprised such people even bother to play the game at all.. I'd imagine they'd be rather be out there titillating themselves by editing financial spreadsheets.

I do think some of the ideas like a consumer goods penalty, efficiency cap increase and efficiency growth decrease are pretty interesting and different compared to what we've seen in focus trees up to now. It'd be a shame to see it disappear entirely because people want a more traditional setup, but I think there definitely need to be some tweaks.

I really like the idea of the Gobi Gambit content, I had written about that being a possibility in the Soviet rework a long time ago, but I feel like it was a really weird design decision to actually tie permanent consumer goods reduction in the five year plan to it. Especially considering that when you play with historical focuses off, Japan sometimes may not ever declare war against China.

I remember in older versions of the game Sinkiang avoided joining the Chinese United Front unless very specific conditions were met, like the Soviet Union being at war with Japan while the Chinese United Front exists and is also at war with Japan. That seems to have changed and it virtually always joins the United Front now. It's a shame there's no way we can pre-empt this short of justifying a war goal and puppeting them near the game start.

Bottom line is that I suppose the actual consumer goods penalty itself doesn't actually bother me that much. It's more that there's such a huge amount of focuses and no real time for them because of the huge number of issues you have. Who is ever going to take the time to do the foreign policy focuses like Collective or Individual security for example? Who is *ever* going to bother with *any* of the naval focuses before 1945? The fact that the Soviet Union starts off with a paltry 3 research slots means you can't really afford to branch out into other things much.

And that's just for historical/Stalinist Soviet Union. For the Opposition routes, the problems are even more acute, including a whole sub branch(The Cooperation against Stalin/Restore Democracy to the Party) that is useless because it takes so long to do that the opportunity cost of it is unacceptably high. Also, I'm going to insert an obligatory complaint about Bukharin's coup being RNG based just because. There's a reason you never hear about anyone playing this route or see many videos of it online.

 

[Tulev]

Bukharin path is a joke for DLC path. Focuses are waaay to long (most of them 70-days), uprisings from focus only incrases paranoia, not giving in fact any real support for civil war (if fired), coup beeing RNG based, NEP beeing one of the worst economy policy in the game. And endgame focuses are even more jokes. +1 research slot and +10 stability and you get with it -10 war support and -3% manpower (!). Not mentioning half of it is bugged. As Bukharin you get ONLY debuffs. Stalin purges everyone because of high paranoia from uprisings, lack of industry, lack of PP, lack of army buffs.

I.e. you CAN'T get rid of ban anti-soviet attitiude in army/navy/air because coup turns paranoia decision part off, and you need that part to take decisions for removing nerfs.

 

[Pale Blue]

Focuses are not just long but also purely negative filler. Like if a focus takes 35 days and gives 25pp. That's -10pp gain compared to not taking a focus. We really don't need focuses that do nothing except waste your time. There are so many focuses you want to take why do filler focuses even exist in this new tree?

 

[The_Tim]

Bukharin path is a joke for DLC path. Focuses are waaay to long (most of them 70-days), uprisings from focus only incrases paranoia, not giving in fact any real support for civil war (if fired), coup beeing RNG based, NEP beeing one of the worst economy policy in the game. And endgame focuses are even more jokes. +1 research slot and +10 stability and you get with it -10 war support and -3% manpower (!). Not mentioning half of it is bugged. As Bukharin you get ONLY debuffs. Stalin purges everyone because of high paranoia from uprisings, lack of industry, lack of PP, lack of army buffs.

I.e. you CAN'T get rid of ban anti-soviet attitiude in army/navy/air because coup turns paranoia decision part off, and you need that part to take decisions for removing nerfs.

I think the point about the Right Opposition path is that you can get the most powerful factories individually because I think some of the Right Opposition-only Bois make factories more powerful, This doesn't excuse the fact that tbh the path isn't that good overall. Also while I don't think a -3%recruitable population factor as really bad(you are the USSR after all) but why even bother having negatives for late-game foci

This isn't to mention the fact that going Civil War is just a no, you don't get a large amount of Army Support like you get in the Left Opposition nor do you get the large amount of free units that you get with the Whites(also making parts of Siberia not Cancer in terms of supply, still unless you do omega cheese that civil war is still hell)

And to top it off I'm fairly sure that those bois also get Purged by one of the scripted purges if you go Right Opposition, so you Really Gotta get lucky with that RNG else there's no point in Right Opposition. I like the fact that the path is in there, its just I really wish it had Something to put it within the power range of the other Three Paths

 

[Secret Master]

Let me get back to the point that this is a game here. Playing Germany in single player, it's relatively trivial to conquer the Allies by the end of 1940 entirely, post your armies on a line, draw an arrow, and coast on the Soviet debuffs all the way to Omsk.

Are you including Sea Lion in that, or just the historical defeat of France and Benelux, plus Yugoslavia and Greece?

you get a bunch more out of it than Support AA, and you can instead use that Support Company Slot for something more helpful.

I don't think support AA is that bad of an investment, myself. But, yeah, now that width is a bit more flexible in general, slap in a line AA if you want other support stuff.

AA is more or less as potent as it was prior to NSB as far as I can tell. It's just that you can't defend trucks and trains with division AA.

 

[The_Tim]

AA is more or less as potent as it was prior to NSB as far as I can tell. It's just that you can't defend trucks and trains with division AA.

I originally thought that State AA actually defended against Logi Strikes for whatever reason, so I booted up a '39 start, IC'd lvl5 AA on every polish state, and did logi strikes using the German Air Force and it turns out that there isn't anything that protects your Trucks and Trains from Logi Strikes

So I decided to see how much of an effect that Armored Trains have on Logi Strikes, the results are that they take roughly 1/3rd the losses(which admittedly does make up the somewhat higher cost) but much to my surprise and dismay Armored Trains, which historically were loaded with a LOT of anti-aircraft guns, did NOT actually shoot down any aircraft. So it turns out that having some airforce is going to be required, even if its just to intercept logi strikes unless you really want to have your supply situation be miserable

 

[LIE is my LIfE]

Bukharin path is a joke for DLC path. Focuses are waaay to long (most of them 70-days), uprisings from focus only incrases paranoia, not giving in fact any real support for civil war (if fired), coup beeing RNG based, NEP beeing one of the worst economy policy in the game. And endgame focuses are even more jokes. +1 research slot and +10 stability and you get with it -10 war support and -3% manpower (!). Not mentioning half of it is bugged. As Bukharin you get ONLY debuffs. Stalin purges everyone because of high paranoia from uprisings, lack of industry, lack of PP, lack of army buffs.

I.e. you CAN'T get rid of ban anti-soviet attitiude in army/navy/air because coup turns paranoia decision part off, and you need that part to take decisions for removing nerfs.

I think the point about the Right Opposition path is that you can get the most powerful factories individually because I think some of the Right Opposition-only Bois make factories more powerful, This doesn't excuse the fact that tbh the path isn't that good overall. Also while I don't think a -3%recruitable population factor as really bad(you are the USSR after all) but why even bother having negatives for late-game foci

This isn't to mention the fact that going Civil War is just a no, you don't get a large amount of Army Support like you get in the Left Opposition nor do you get the large amount of free units that you get with the Whites(also making parts of Siberia not Cancer in terms of supply, still unless you do omega cheese that civil war is still hell)

And to top it off I'm fairly sure that those bois also get Purged by one of the scripted purges if you go Right Opposition, so you Really Gotta get lucky with that RNG else there's no point in Right Opposition. I like the fact that the path is in there, its just I really wish it had Something to put it within the power range of the other Three Paths

You two are wrong, you can easily avoid civil war without losing best advisors
I just finished my Alexey Rukov's(leader that you can choose if you don't like Bukharin in the Right path) Russia game and it feel way bettet than either a left one or even historical
I give you a quick guide to have not lose 2 good advisors that you would choose, and avoid civil war completely, all that you need is to know where purges will start and time your focuses right
Don't setup an Secret Headquarter because you don't need one, take Inflintrate the NKVD first to recieve 30% more chanse to kill Stalin and also reduce paranoia(your chance to kill would be 80%, and if you won't get lucky, than it's time to make a new post about how bad is Right path(as devs said - high risk - high reward)
Then take "The Need Policy Changes" to progress, also check your decision tab to see what the dog doin what Stalin are doing, if you don't know what focuses are he would do next. than check your focuses, where you can see The Centre path focuses, by this you would know that after Stalin's Constitution he would go down to the first purge
Your need is to bypass this, taking "Divert Attintion Towerds the Military", or "Eliminate the Left", i don't know if it's a bug or not, but Eliminate the Left focus bypass first purge too, althoght it's now mentioned in it's decription, it suppoused that Divert Attention one will bypass first purge, and Elimitane the Left will make your Right advisors safe as long as Left advisors not purged
Reduce Paranoia and don't try to Expand the NKVD Military Branch because it's useless for you
Soon after taking "Organize Uprisings in the Country" mass protests events are gonna happen, choouse the second option to reduce Paranoia, you don't need PP and popular support if you not going to fight a civil war
Keep in mind that less paranoia means less purges and more political and military advisors that would survive when you finish dealing with Stalin
At this poin when i was at doining a "Plan for the Coup" i've got an interesting event to purge Ivar Smigla(which we consider an RNG)
By taking "Eliminate the Left", you make this 3 advisors be 100% purged when purge will occour(which will be the Second Purge, because we avoided the first), and when Paranoia go over 25 - random purges may occur(and when over 75 great purges will occur) and we dont want to waste our 3 comrades that we save for the Second Purge, because if they won't exist by the Second Purge, than your Right path boys will be purged next, so we want DON'T take option to purge some of this guys when single(small) purges happen, take +10 paranoia to save them for later
Well. well, here are the First Moscow Trial, and first 3 advisors are those that we accused of treason, to save our own boys, last two are characters that we don't be able to use, so they are useless for us, and by this the First Moscow Trial are great success, we killed our enemies with the hands of our other enemies
Also if small purges want to purge our future Captain of Industry(Nikolay Voznesensky) - save him if situation is not critical, do keep in mind that some focuses will higher Paranoia and you don't want the number to go over 90 because it will trigger a civil war
When you finish "Plan for the Coup" immediatly do the decision that will make the Head of NKVD loyal to you(90 days), at this point it should be Nikolay Yezhov
By the time you'll be half way throught completing "Dissent in the Party", and you would be set on a timer, when have 100(or some more/less) days remaining to overthrow the government, before Purge of the Military occur, triggered by "The Military Conspiracy" focus, which will kill good field marshals like Tukhachevsky(if you don't want him, then it does not matter, but for me it's good to have him alive)
Also don't forget to click "Forge Satisfactory Produciont Reports", because it's your only opportunity to reduce Paranoia without purging someone
I got unlucky and Tomsky became the target of the purge, for me he is a very good advisor that you soon can upgrade even more, and i choosed to save him and later got purge of the military(not that one that kill tukhachevsky, but they killed chief of the army that gives defence and 4 other dudes)
In other runs purge targets were "more friendly", but it's RNG, you can't do anything about it
As soon as decision to ensure loyality of head of the NKVD end, you will recieve an option to kill Stalin, immediately do it
At this point you would be at this(11-s screenshot), when you have 31(more or less) days to finish your focus and kill Stalin
After the successful elimination of Stalin Lavrenty Beria will assume control, but it won't matter because you will overthrow him in a coup by a focus and be able to play like normal Soviet Union without fighting in civil war
If you don't get lucky and Stalin survived, then start a new game a do the same stuff, save-reload don't refresh chanses in hoi, it's decided from the start whatever you get lucky or not
Also your chanses may be tied up with the Head of the NKVD, when i have Yezhov it takes 90 days to complete decision to make him loyal, and the same one for Yagoda taking only 60 days(Also Yagoda produces 1 less Paranoia per week, so it's a reason to keep him too)(If you fail with the Stalin kill, and have a save before Yagoda was purged and try to keep him instead of Yezhov to try kill Stalin - just don't, if this georgian man with mustache survive once in your save, then he will survive even in the older save, you need to start a new game, sadly)
After killing Beria and assuming power, you get an event to choose between Bukharin and Rykov, i choose Rykov because with him you can get -10% consumer goods(-5% is his trait and another -5% by a focus if Rykov is alive)
Although you have 20% chanse that you will fail, Right Opposition path give you very powerful boosts to your economy, and on top of that - you don't have to fight a Civil War, like the Left Path of Exiles
You can end up in 0% and even less consumer goods(meaning, that if your stability will drop you would still have 0% or so)
In 1940 with this path i'm enjoing 150 factories(note that i played on older version of beta, which have Five Year Plan 10% consumer goods, now it's only 5%, so you can get more)
I know that NEP gives you -15% construction speed, but it terms of consumer goods it's better that war economy, and you get it for free, saving you 300 pp that you will spend on War Economy and Total Mob.
Later you can upgrade NEP to 10% consumer goods, and +10% max factories in a state, which will give you to build more industry in safe Siberia, where no one could steal it from you
You can compensate contruction speed more easily with tech, while consumer goods reduction require more time and Focuses, if you go Centre, Left or Exiles
For me this 3 advisors are best, you can change Voznesensky later on when you stop building factories for a +15% stability guy or Bukharin, if you don't choose him as a leader
Also you can upgrade Tomsky to make him better and lose debuffs
The whole "Socialist Humanism" focus discussion is useless. because by the time of you finish all the NEP and Industry to the USSR Academy of Sciences stuff you would need to start amy/air or even navy focuses, and 5 not very useful focuses to get to 1 research slot is a bad idea in my opinion(if germany is not fascist or you want to chill, than you good to go for it)
You can discuss all you want but there not much majors(on my memory - no one) that can have 0% consumer goods that easy by just doing focuses and clicking some decisions, -20% construction speed is a low price, all you need is luck and patience doing kill Stalin stuff, that's all!

 

[Secret Master]

You two are wrong, you can easily avoid civil war without losing best advisors

I don't think I made a statement about the civil war. I was just trying to clarify what that person meant by their statement. And I reaffirmed my general approval of AA guns.

 

[LIE is my LIfE]

I don't think I made a statement about the civil war. I was just trying to clarify what that person meant by their statement. And I reaffirmed my general approval of AA guns.

sorry!