Does Germany Always Win?

[Ceorl]

I've got about 200 hours of gametime (at least according to Steam) and through my playthroughs and the patches, were I let the AI control the major factions, I have consistently seen the Axis win. Either because they and the Soviets do not declare war and the Allies lacks never ever launch a concentrated amphib invasion. Or because the Axis do declare war on the Soviets and steamroll them in about a year.

The problems with the Allied AI are already well discussed, but the Soviet AI's inability to fight, very likely do the AI's inability to understand the large space dimensions involved in Eastern Front fighting (as other's have mentioned), is disheartening and I believe prevents it from effectively fighting the Axis.

Do other people regularly encounter Axis world domination?

 

[unmerged(56084)]

I've got about 200 hours of gametime (at least according to Steam) and through my playthroughs and the patches, were I let the AI control the major factions, I have consistently seen the Axis win. Either because they and the Soviets do not declare war and the Allies lacks never ever launch a concentrated amphib invasion. Or because the Axis do declare war on the Soviets and steamroll them in about a year.

The problems with the Allied AI are already well discussed, but the Soviet AI's inability to fight, very likely do the AI's inability to understand the large space dimensions involved in Eastern Front fighting (as other's have mentioned), is disheartening and I believe prevents it from effectively fighting the Axis.

Do other people regularly encounter Axis world domination?

Since I usually play as the Axis, I am.....comfortable, with these results.

 

[unmerged(169253)]

when the soviet surrender it is hard to win for the allied army

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Since I usually play as the Axis, I am.....comfortable, with these results.

However, the fact that the AI consistently achieves similar results puts it on par with you.

Are you as comfortable at being compared with the AI?


Edit: (The one doing the attacking of course, i wouldn't be so rude as to compare you with the Allied AI!)

 

[unmerged(56084)]

However, the fact that the AI consistently achieves similar results puts it on par with you.

Are you as comfortable at being compared with the AI?


Edit: (The one doing the attacking of course, i wouldn't be so rude as to compare you with the Allied AI!)

Thank you...comrade. We all have our own personal opinions concerning the ai....which will not be made public, in this family friendly forum. Do have a good day.

 

[otester]

I even struggle on 1943 as the USSR.

Only on 1944 that I managed to cover come the Axis.

When the Axis fights by doctrine (war of manoeuvre not attrition) it becomes very difficult, the mishaps they had in WW2 (Stalingrad, Kursk) are hard to re-inact in HOI3.

 

[Ceorl]

So if the Axis are OP, what is the solution? I'm thinking it could be as simple as significantly reducing the resources acquired from occupied terrorities, because the big problem is once Germany defeats France and Poland its Fortress Europe position is too secure in terms of research, IC and MP. In contrast when under AI control, the Allies rarely utilize occupied terrority and the Soviets high neutrality and poor resource IC/MP neighbors means they cannot match Germany's expansion.

 

[oribiasi]

So if the Axis are OP, what is the solution? I'm thinking it could be as simple as significantly reducing the resources acquired from occupied terrorities, because the big problem is once Germany defeats France and Poland its Fortress Europe position is too secure in terms of research, IC and MP. In contrast when under AI control, the Allies rarely utilize occupied terrority and the Soviets high neutrality and poor resource IC/MP neighbors means they cannot match Germany's expansion.

Depends, man. Think about it this way: there is a reason Germany was able to take on the WORLD and still stay in the fight for as long as they did. They were terrific soldiers using state-of-the-art machines (for their time) with competent, for the most part, leadership. The AI has to make a concentrated land invasion with a planned order of battle and enough intelligence to know where to land. This is not an easy thing so unless you're very dumb holding France while you mess up the USSR is not hard to do.

I should say though that cracking the USSR is difficult. After 2.03b I have lost there more times than I have won, and I am now experimenting with different unit make up (i.e., 2 INF, 2 AT as my main divisions). I almost always run out of MP which is seriously terrible on the Eastern Front. What's your strategy?

 

[Traks]

Russia is still easy to take on.
I am not talking VH here, though.

Key to winning SU is to breakthrough using panzers, and just encircle enemy.
I always keep 400-500manpower to cover losses.

As for reason why - Cerol is partially right. Germany gets much more resources when controlling most of Europe, especially manpower. Also Germany can techrush well all manpower/loss reduction techs.

 

[oribiasi]

Also Germany can techrush well all manpower/loss reduction techs.

Besides Agriculture and First Aid, etc., what other loss reduction technologies are there? I always keep Agriculture going from day 1 on but First Aid and the Casualty trickle-back modifier seem small. Is there much difference between 0.10 and 0.20 trickle back?

 

[Traks]

Trickleback modifier is not providing much.
Smaller attrition is good, and supply techs.

Honestly at the moment I do not rush even agriculture tech, because SU is easy to break. Especially in 1936 scenario,
just have good supply techs, proper chain of command and 200% officer rate. Officer rate = win without breaking sweat, as
SU always have much lower. 100-110%.

 

[oribiasi]

Officer rate = win without breaking sweat, as SU always have much lower. 100-110%.

I was under the impression that officer rate benefits cap at a certain amount. i.e., that 150% officer rate is not significantly, if at all, better than sat, 175%. What does this rate really do for keeping a unit together, not losing manpower, winning battles faster, etc.?

 

[Austerlitz]

A very good way of boosting mp is to use collaboration govt everywhere,u won't need the extra ic anyway until ur building carriers.

 

[oribiasi]

A very good way of boosting mp is to use collaboration govt everywhere,u won't need the extra ic anyway until ur building carriers.

I always do this, but thanks.

 

[Traks]

I was under the impression that officer rate benefits cap at a certain amount. i.e., that 150% officer rate is not significantly, if at all, better than sat, 175%. What does this rate really do for keeping a unit together, not losing manpower, winning battles faster, etc.?

It does all that and so much more.

Essentially officer rate caps at 200%. You can get more officers, but it does not increase efficiency.
High officer rate has three significant benefits - bigger maximum organisation, so you can keep fighting longer. Faster organisation regain. SO you can attack with full organisation, while enemy has regained only half organisation. And Attack delay is reduced. So you can outmaneuver enemy while he regroups.

Basically as enemy is out of org and starts falling back, he is doomed.
Only way how SU *could* fight back is with having at least 2x numerical superiority, but in vanilla it is not possible.
Or if they have, officer rate will be below 90%.

 

[oribiasi]

It does all that and so much more.

Essentially officer rate caps at 200%. You can get more officers, but it does not increase efficiency.
High officer rate has three significant benefits - bigger maximum organisation, so you can keep fighting longer. Faster organisation regain. SO you can attack with full organisation, while enemy has regained only half organisation. And Attack delay is reduced. So you can outmaneuver enemy while he regroups.

Basically as enemy is out of org and starts falling back, he is doomed.
Only way how SU *could* fight back is with having at least 2x numerical superiority, but in vanilla it is not possible.
Or if they have, officer rate will be below 90%.

I'd say my officer rate throughout the entire invasion of the USSR is at 130/145%. I have not seen it help too much but when I replay the 36 campaign I will be sure to hella-focus on this I guess. One less tech. for me!

 

[jju_57]

First off Germany doesn't 'always' win. I would guess that in my games as a 'minor' they win the war against the SU about 70% of the time when they fight. Of course if there is no war then the allies are toast. Germany in the game is tuned to fight both sides so if only fighting UK then the allies should lose. But here are some of the many and varied results that I've seen.

1) Nat Spain wins about 85% of the time.
2) Rep. Spain wins about 14% of the time.
3) Stalemate in Spain about 1% of the time.
4) Japan defeats China about 70% of the time.
5) China defeats Japan about 25% of the time.
6) The war goes on about 5% of the time.
7) Germany defeats SU about 50% of the time.
8) SU defeats Germany about 20% of the time.
9) Germany and SU never fight about 30% of the time.
10) France is defeated about 98% of the time.
11) France survives about 2% of the time.

So I have seen tons of different outcomes and there is a chance for just about anything to happen.

 

[nestorius]

Think a general buff to the USSR is in order I dont know what but something to change it from the trivial thing it is now.

I have to admit thouhg that I play the game on normal and I do use volunteer army to quickly build up a large land force. Still using theater ai control only (no manual control) The USSR is a complete walkover. It doesnt surprise me that the Axis always wins as frankly it is at present hard to loose.

I think in general both the allies and comintern need buffing even if it may make the game a little unrealistic, or possibly do something to decrease the power of Germany specifically regarding total economic mobilisation (something which nazi germany was reluctant to do).

I am not sure if HOI2 wasnt better here, where the axis invasion of the USSR seemed quite hard to pull off.

 

[jju_57]

Think a general buff to the USSR is in order I dont know what but something to change it from the trivial thing it is now.

I have to admit thouhg that I play the game on normal and I do use volunteer army to quickly build up a large land force. Still using theater ai control only (no manual control) The USSR is a complete walkover. It doesnt surprise me that the Axis always wins as frankly it is at present hard to loose.

I think in general both the allies and comintern need buffing even if it may make the game a little unrealistic, or possibly do something to decrease the power of Germany specifically regarding total economic mobilisation (something which nazi germany was reluctant to do).

I am not sure if HOI2 wasnt better here, where the axis invasion of the USSR seemed quite hard to pull off.

Only when playing against a human Germany. I think events are the answer to have units 'popup' as speedbumps and then these same events SR front line troops back to defensive lines. The issue is that the AI gets caught in encirclements and too many of its troops destroyed, especially against human player. If they were 'event' withdrawn to a defensive line this makes the fight last much longer. Trading space for time while keeping most of your army to fight another day.

 

[Ceorl]

I almost always run out of MP which is seriously terrible on the Eastern Front. What's your strategy?

Don't do invade Russia. Long term I've already won the game if I can hold on to the Europe VPs and ally with Japan. Short/Mid term I have a significant tech and IC advantage over Russia so why attack when the disparity is still relatively equal? In a few years I can be fielding massively superior armies against Russia and then crush them by blitzing through the AIs numerous but poorly researched troops. However, I was talking about AI controlled major powers which bring me to JJu's point.

By your own facts, the Axis win a preponderance of the time. The disparity is so large that I've found it frustrating to play a minor power because I have no meaningful way to impact the game short of going for world conquest. Ideally the game should be balanced enough that all three factions have an equal chance of winning without human intervention. With a human player, the outcome should tilt based on difficulty and the faction played. Crushing victory if the human plays a major, significant tactical shift if the human plays a minor.

Right now a human playing a minor, again assuming you don't try and conquer the world which I don't enjoy doing since I want to remain within the realm of possibility when I play, can either ride the Axis the coatails, go down in flames with the Allies, or pray that the Russians get that 30% chance of getting their act together. Case in point, in a recent game as Sweden I joined the Allies and bled significant German MP, say 75. My hope was either that Sweden and Denmark could be used as an invasion platform, didn't happen, or that I could indirectly help the Soviets. Problem was the Allies are too dumb and the Soviets lost the war before 1941 ended.