Conquering the USSR in one go?

[Sancho Pansa]

The issue at hand is this:

As Germany, while attacking the USSR you have an option to go for the "Bitter Truce" or for the "Real McCoy". Either way, unless you really heavily invest in spying or strategic bombing, you need to take Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and quite a bit beyond. But never beyond the Urals.

My point is that it just feels unrealistic that the whole USSR (1/7 land area of the planet, or so) would go under, and uniformly surrender to Hitler after most of its European cities were conquered (the way it happens in the game).

Vladivostok is today a 9 days (and nights) train ride from Berlin (7 from Moscow). How long would it take for the newly appointed Gaulaiter of Vladivostok to go from Berlin to his appointed duty station? A few days after "Stalin is dead"? As the game has it, all of the Russian vastness just lays there (after you "conquer") for you to do your stuff, oh, perhaps you will have the usual 1 militia per week guerrilla pop-up...

In my understanding, getting the USSR out of the fight by dealing with the European (and maybe slightly beyond) parts of it, should (in the event of "conquer") spring a number of funny "republics" and what not throughout the Asian parts of it. National (based on pre-soviet divisions), regional etc. Not necessarily armed to the teeth, but if any military units were stationed there when the collapse happened most/some of them should go under whatever "local" control. I would also expect a (considerable!) degree of chaos in the leftover Soviet Union after a "Bitter Truce"...

The following anecdote may help you understand how far the Russian "Far East" is from Moscow.
If you ever happen to go to Vladivostok (yeah, good luck!), you may see, that 99% of the cars on the streets have the steering wheel on the right side (or at least it was the case in 2008). They still drive on the right side. The cars are all second hand imported from Japan and Korea. And that includes city busses, industrial trucks etc. I think in 2006 or 2007, Vladimir Putin pushed for an all-Russia ban on right-steering-wheel cars (too much cheap imports from Asia and a need to promote domestic car industry seemed to be the driving power behind the new law). It went through the Duma (Russian Parliament) swiftly, but... for the Russian Far East it lasted only about a week. An exception HAD TO BE MADE, or otherwise the roads would be empty...

I guess in 1942, 1943 or whatever war year, the governors (and military commanders) of Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, probably also Irkutsk, Novosibirsk and many other major eastern soviet cities, would not just sit on their behinds polishing their German to meet the newly appointed Gaulaiter, but would at least attempt to carve out a piece of land for themselves, Stalin, the International, their own family/clan, or whatever. And yes, some of them would quickly apply for the access to the Axis, but not all of them. Some could seek protection from elsewhere. A lot would depend on Japan being in war or not, Allied fate in SE Asia, configuration of the Chinese factions and more. But I don't see the USSR just surrendering to Germany/Axis the way the game simulates it.

 

[IronMurg]

Well if you do conquer USSR as Germany you're going to be dealing with near-constant partisan uprisings for the rest of the game, so the transition of power would hardly be smooth.

While it would be conceivable that some Soviet divisions in the Far East would continue to fight on after the fall of Moscow, in gameplay terms I can't really see how that would work -- why should the USSR get a bonus in this event but no other country does? If the Axis should capture Washington DC should the governor of as-yet-unoccupied California revive the Bear Flag Republic and vow to fight on? There's too many possibilities to account for.

 

[chals]

There is not much beyound the urals.. USSR is very centralized, and whitout stalin its DEAD - as STONE DEAD - as he made sure anyone who can replace him is DEAD

 

[grumphie]

it's not really realistic for the SU to fight on after the west falls. local units keeping on fighting, sure, but the entire central government and sup-ply network would have been destroyed by that time. the urals is still a gigantic area to police against partisans though, which will spring up regulary. but a cohesive nations that fights on seems a bit far fetched to me.

 

[Secret Master]

The game simplifies things in order to have rational rules and some kind of balance.

This means that not only is it possible to annex the entire Soviet Union, but it is also possible to puppet the entire Soviet Union without even getting rid of the Communist government. That makes even less sense than annexation.

If you think that annexing everything is unrealistic, don't do it. The AI will only add the historical war goal. In MP, just use a house rule to prevent silliness.

 

[Kovax]

If you do puppet the SU, you have only yourself to blame when (not "if") your entire supply stockpile suddenly goes into the system and vanishes, leaving the rest of your troops around the globe going in and out of supply for the next couple of months. Eventually, those distant Soviet units in places such as Vladivostok will get their supplies all the way from Berlin, and the system will begin to stabilize, then suddenly you'll start to get all of that excess back from the system, and have 110K supplies for the next couple of months, with 10K vanishing (and wasted) at midnight each night. Remember, when it happens, it's YOUR fault. Somehow, I don't see it as an "exploit", more like a mistake.

 

[themousemaster]

If you do puppet the SU, you have only yourself to blame when (not "if") your entire supply stockpile suddenly goes into the system and vanishes, leaving the rest of your troops around the globe going in and out of supply for the next couple of months. Eventually, those distant Soviet units in places such as Vladivostok will get their supplies all the way from Berlin, and the system will begin to stabilize, then suddenly you'll start to get all of that excess back from the system, and have 110K supplies for the next couple of months, with 10K vanishing (and wasted) at midnight each night. Remember, when it happens, it's YOUR fault. Somehow, I don't see it as an "exploit", more like a mistake.

Or use what I like to call "supply fleets" of 30+ transports, sitting at a remote port, where you can STR-deploy your entire army to, load em up, and then ship em back closer to your capital.

After having this happen in roughly 93287489234 playthroughs, I had to come up with some drastic options ;p

 

[Sancho Pansa]

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Silly exploits and/or puppetting the USSR (does the game actually allow it? If so - shame!!) were not the subject here. My point was, that the game allows for a German "conquer" of the USSR without any help from Japan, and the results of a successful attempt I find... questionable.

Well if you do conquer USSR as Germany you're going to be dealing with near-constant partisan uprisings for the rest of the game, so the transition of power would hardly be smooth.

This ("near constant partisan uprisings" in fact a 2-3 MIL brigades leaderless division with no efficiency, or supplies, once a week or so) applies to any conquest, and is not a serious issue. Whack-a-mole seems to be the term used on this forum, and the whole thing is no more than a nuisance. I did refer to it in my original post. It's not enough in the context I'm trying to present.

While it would be conceivable that some Soviet divisions in the Far East would continue to fight on after the fall of Moscow, in gameplay terms I can't really see how that would work -- why should the USSR get a bonus in this event but no other country does? If the Axis should capture Washington DC should the governor of as-yet-unoccupied California revive the Bear Flag Republic and vow to fight on? There's too many possibilities to account for.

You seem to be missing my point here.
It's not about a bunch of divisions continuing the fight in the Far East. It's about the Party Aparatus, local nationalists (not necessarily Russian), local bandits etc. having enough time to consolidate some sort of power over some areas before ze Germans would be able to put any semblance od control into place.
And no, I don't think what I'm talking about would be a "bonus" to the USSR. After all France gets a trick on its own, and pretty close to what you are suggesting (no bear on the flag though, I'm afraid)... The way the game plays now, not having any serious mess in the eastern half of the USSR after "Stalin is dead" is a bonus for ze Germans! They get some 15% of the planet's land area without a single German boot within thousands of kilometres...

I don't know about the USA, nor the Bear Flag you refer to, but let me just try again: the distance between Washington DC and Los Angeles is about half the distance between Moscow and Vladivostok. Also, I would think that (in 1940's) DC was connected to California by more "logistics" than a 7000km straight-as-it-gets rail link (only partially! double-rail) and a semi-redundant telephone/telegraph cable... Both of the above (in case of the USSR) going for good hundreds of kilometres at a time without passing through a self-sustainable human colony. [This one: the emptiness of Siberia, also brings me to vote against any in-game partisan uprisings in the northern parts of Siberia, particularly further than 1-2 provinces from the Baikal-Amur railway. Nobody lives there even now, and for good reason!]


An attempt at a bottom line:
In my opinion, Germany should ONLY have an option to go for the "Bitter Truce". If a "conquest" option were to be sustained, they would have to face the consequences (as suggested in the original post). Also, to force a German player to have to actually conquer (heh!), should the "conquer" option be chosen at the DOW, the USSR could get an "event" boosting it's national unity up to 90%+ and/or shifting the Victory Point value of locations so, that ze Germans would have to actually go for the whole shebang (or nearly so), or make sure to invite the Japanese and hope for them to take care of the Russian Far East for them.

Last thought: I don't see the surrender of the UK (it usually requires conquering the British Isles, North Africa, and a few locations in India to work) happening without parts of their SE Asia, Caribbean and what not colonies proclaiming some sort of independence. Same story for the Netherlands...

Last thought 2. I would expect just about any part of any "conquered" state-like entity to start "developing ideas", as in organising itself: national idea + militias etc., unless the conquering power can present a garrison (even if a token one) in every VP location within, say, 4-6 weeks of the "conquest". Or something to the effect that a 10+ provinces blob not having a garrison (strength of the latter to be considered) within 2, or 3 provinces from it would be susceptible to producing a country-like structure with the usual militias etc. Subject to known historical nationalisms, religions etc. You might have noticed that the game has "an idea of Pakistan" that historically flourished long after "game over", huh?

 

[gregor_mendel]

In my opinion, Germany should ONLY have an option to go for the "Bitter Truce". If a "conquest" option were to be sustained, they would have to face the consequences (as suggested in the original post). Also, to force a German player to have to actually conquer (heh!), should the "conquer" option be chosen at the DOW, the USSR could get an "event" boosting it's national unity up to 90%+ and/or shifting the Victory Point value of locations so, that ze Germans would have to actually go for the whole shebang (or nearly so), or make sure to invite the Japanese and hope for them to take care of the Russian Far East for them.

Germany does face the consequences of maintaing all of that land against partisan uprisings, which are quite hectic and do not go away during the game's time period. Also, as others have already pointed out, the Soviet Union was THE centralized state, par excellence. With the Moscow apparatus out of the picture and Stalin killed/captured, what impetus would Russians on the frontier have for revolt?

To be frank, the Ural's and beyond are too underpopulated to necessitate any need for a special resistance event chain. A locomotive may take 7 days to travel to Vladivostok from Moscow but news travels much faster. A Soviet capitulation in Moscow would equal a Soviet capitulation in Vladivostok.

And it's not like you'll immediately be getting resources and supplies from Vladivostok or the frontier, either. If the Soviet's have just surrendered it means the infrastructure is probably very tore up which will take weeks-months to repair.

No player with further objectives evacuates all troops from the East after conquering the Soviet Union. Experienced players know that much work remains so it's a bit silly to act like there are no in-game mechanisms to justify this when, in fact, there are plenty.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

"A Fistful of Zlotys" has Poland annexing the USSR after helping to push them out of Germany. As far as I know he never pushed that far into European Russia but the USSR's National Unity fell too far and the government surrendered.

That's just what happens with vanilla wargoals sometimes.

This situation isn't really any more realistic than The Bitter Peace from earlier games, but if they can keep their unity high enough you need to keep advancing until it goes down enough so it is realistic in that sense.

 

[Secret Master]

So, if the AI doesn't do it, and you can just choose not to annex the entire Soviet Union, and you can add a house rule, what's the problem?

 

[Sancho Pansa]

So, if the AI doesn't do it, and you can just choose not to annex the entire Soviet Union, and you can add a house rule, what's the problem?

The problem, in my opinion, is that once you have to start using mods, or implementing whatever house rules, the vanilla stops performing its duties. I, personally, enjoy paying for products that meet my expectations (as screwed up as they may be by marketing endeavours of the selling company).

A "problem" with maintaining "all of that land" honestly does not seem like a problem. Go through the Forum and you will see tens of threads devoted to discussing PARAs&TRAs vs CAV spam and GAR+4*MP, and more... Holding the immense area of the eastern USSR calm, does not seem to be an issue per se. It's the technicalities that are being discussed.

My point is different.
I don't think anybody should be allowed to conquer the USSR without actually covering most of the area. And I do think that if a victory like the "Bitter Truce" should be allowed in the game, it should lead to a serious political and military mess East of the Urals, or at least East of Novosibirsk.

Gregor_Mendel above, insists that the USSR was "the centralised state" of the era. Perhaps it was, but what does it mean to be "centralised"? Why deport half of the population of the Caucasus (the Ingush and the Chechens) to whatever Kazakhstan and beyond, if they were supposed to be such "centralised" loyal subjects? [Mind you - I am NOT discussing their loyalties, I am pointing my finger at what the Moscow's perception, clearly, was.] And how long can a state run with an iron fist ex-Moscow retain its power over the outlying regions once Moscow itself is taken? Don't forget that the October Revolution and the following Civil War took place only 20+ (and not a big "+") years before Barbarossa. "The centralised state, par excellence"?!

And don't forget, that I am not pushing here for some sort of a new USSR and new conditions of its conquer exclusively. As I said above, I don't see (for instance) the British Caribbean colonies subscribing to the Swastika just because "London has Fallen". I can see many a petition sent to the US congress (and FAST!) for assimilation into the USA before the first ship with the first Gaulaiter hits the harbour... A particularly interesting thing should be the stand of colonies on the fall of the... "protecting power". How high were the nationalisms? Why so many people in North Africa were allegedly opposed to the Allies? Why so much mess in SE Asia? Why India has such a messy history of the period?

 

[Secret Master]

Since there will be no more expansions for HOI3, perhaps you should make this case in the HOI4 forum.

 

[Sancho Pansa]

Since there will be no more expansions for HOI3, perhaps you should make this case in the HOI4 forum.

I might.
It's just that I haven't seen HOI4 yet. Perhaps my reasoning is there already.

 

[Secret Master]

I might.
It's just that I haven't seen HOI4 yet. Perhaps my reasoning is there already.

Take a look. Podcat has mentioned some stuff about national goals and politics, so maybe this issue will be addressed.

 

[gregor_mendel]

I don't think anybody should be allowed to conquer the USSR without actually covering most of the area.

But that's ridiculous. For two reasons, as I stated before:

1) The highly centralized nature of the Soviet Union
2) The extreme underpopulation of the land west of the Urals

Finally, like SM mentioned already, you can choose not to annex the Eastern half of the USSR. As for the "exploits", well, just don't use them. The AI certainly won't. Absolutely nothing wrong with having your own personal set of House Rules. As well as a working knowledge of the various console commands...

 

[Sancho Pansa]

But that's ridiculous.

Thank you! So kind.

For two reasons, as I stated before:

1) The highly centralized nature of the Soviet Union

You see, the centralised nature of the apparatus is exactly what would (in my opinion) backfire the moment the "Centre" were overrun/incapacitated/lost-its-credibility. Stalin did not deport half of the Caucasus peoples to Siberia/Kazakhstan for no reason. They were deemed unreliable, as the "Centre" was weakening (even if only in its own perception). But I guess I am sadly repeating myself here.
The stronger the centralisation, the stronger the notion of those "being centralised" to split. Should Moscow fall, many a skeleton would leave its wardrobe. The "Union" was weakening and particularly the elements who were not all too happy to be a part of it to begin with could behave in many an interesting way. Mind you, Ukraine provided der Wehrmacht with a great lot of hiwis, some of what we call Baltic States a divisional-size force of Freiwilligen Waffen SS each, Russia itself (!) a division and a half... and all of that when it was already clear the Barbarossa had failed and both Moscow and the "system" were saved allright!
How would this particular "highly centralised state" look once you cut off the head was never seen in this case. But I would like to hear your opinion on a USSR post "Moscow has Fallen"...

2) The extreme underpopulation of the land west of the Urals

Not willing to get into the numbers game, I will only ask this: how much willing population does it take to sabotage a single rail going over 7000km of Taiga wild forest?
[Just to help you a bit: no, there was nothing else linking Moscow to the Soviet Far East, the first hard-top road came a while after the war.]