Doesn't that somewhat depend on what you think the game is about? As a game I tend to agree - the major factions should be balanced. However HOI is really a WWII simulation - in which case the allies ought to win most games, with the USSR winning more often than the Axis. That would be closer to the historical reality.
-
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.
Doesn't that somewhat depend on what you think the game is about? As a game I tend to agree - the major factions should be balanced. However HOI is really a WWII simulation - in which case the allies ought to win most games, with the USSR winning more often than the Axis. That would be closer to the historical reality.
It was actually so close to going the other way, at several points. Based on RL, I would say 50-50 Allies (with the SU onboard) or Axis. In the time period of the game, the Comintern was not yet in a position to be able to launch a campaign of world conquest.
In my last game I loaded a save as the SU because they were getting crushed. I wanted to see what was wrong. The main things I noticed was they had the front divided between "Moscow HQ" and "Kiev HQ" theatres, with not nearly enough troops in the Moscow Theatre, which caused Leningrad to fall very quickly and let the Germans outflank the Kiev Theatre's forces. The other thing was that many of their higher level HQs had no commanders.
I combined the two western theatres, assigned generals to their HQs, attached a couple of armies from the Far East and then reloaded as the UK. They started holding back the Germans instantly and within a few months were regaining ground. I think this is the main reasons the SU crumbles so easily.
I combined the two western theatres, assigned generals to their HQs, attached a couple of armies from the Far East and then reloaded as the UK. They started holding back the Germans instantly and within a few months were regaining ground. I think this is the main reasons the SU crumbles so easily.
- 1
Well we can argue the "what if's" for ever... once the US was the in war I personally don't believe the Axis had a chance. The US economy was just too big - they could have beaten the Axis on their own. Also its not too difficult to argue that in 42/43 the USSR did basically defeat Germany single handed. Earlier than that if Moscow had fallen in late '41 would the USSR have surrendered? In 1812 Russia kept on fighting after Napoleon took Moscow - so there is a national precedent for them to continue fighting. Going back to '40 could Hitler have forced the UK to surrender? Without being able to land in Britain it would have been difficult and the Luftwaffe may have struggled to stop the Royal Navy crippling any invasion force. No disrespect to Japan, but they had no chance against the US - Yamamoto thought as much and their strategy was to make the inevitable US reconquest so costly they'd give up. So they best they hoped for was a "winning" draw where they'd end up with more territory than they started with.
Regardless I'm glad the allies did win.. liberal democracy is so much nicer to live in than any sort of totalitarian dictatorship
I had a "fully-automated" game as Germany, i.e., automated just about everything and pointed the Army HQs to specific goals (didn't have much time ).
The Germans overran the SU like it was nothing. Luckily, the SU was fighting Japan as well, so they did it on 2 fronts, but SU never put in more than 700K soldiers (which is far from what they actually brought forward at the time). Japan lost terribly there, but it kept Ivan busy.
Germany took Turkey too easily, and advanced to Baku from Turkey. Baku was shamelessly unprotected by the Soviets (who had almost all their soldiers on the Polish front fighting my East HQ).
South HQ took Baku, and then I just mopped the floor with them - they surrendered pretty quickly afterwards (1942, I started the invasion in 1940). During all those times, Allies did just about nothing. They just let the Red Giant die. I am now pretty powerful and about to perform Operation Sealion. North Africa is almost mine, hardly any resistance in that part. So it's pretty easy, I guess.
).The Germans overran the SU like it was nothing. Luckily, the SU was fighting Japan as well, so they did it on 2 fronts, but SU never put in more than 700K soldiers (which is far from what they actually brought forward at the time). Japan lost terribly there, but it kept Ivan busy.
Germany took Turkey too easily, and advanced to Baku from Turkey. Baku was shamelessly unprotected by the Soviets (who had almost all their soldiers on the Polish front fighting my East HQ).
South HQ took Baku, and then I just mopped the floor with them - they surrendered pretty quickly afterwards (1942, I started the invasion in 1940). During all those times, Allies did just about nothing. They just let the Red Giant die. I am now pretty powerful and about to perform Operation Sealion. North Africa is almost mine, hardly any resistance in that part. So it's pretty easy, I guess.
Well we can argue the "what if's" for ever... once the US was the in war I personally don't believe the Axis had a chance. The US economy was just too big - they could have beaten the Axis on their own. Also its not too difficult to argue that in 42/43 the USSR did basically defeat Germany single handed. Earlier than that if Moscow had fallen in late '41 would the USSR have surrendered? In 1812 Russia kept on fighting after Napoleon took Moscow - so there is a national precedent for them to continue fighting. Going back to '40 could Hitler have forced the UK to surrender? Without being able to land in Britain it would have been difficult and the Luftwaffe may have struggled to stop the Royal Navy crippling any invasion force. No disrespect to Japan, but they had no chance against the US - Yamamoto thought as much and their strategy was to make the inevitable US reconquest so costly they'd give up. So they best they hoped for was a "winning" draw where they'd end up with more territory than they started with.
Regardless I'm glad the allies did win.. liberal democracy is so much nicer to live in than any sort of totalitarian dictatorship
I would say one of the key errors was the error in prioritizing bombers over fighters...which was Goering and Hitler. Russia was very close to the wall in '41. All Japan had to do was just make alot of noise on the Siberian border, and pin the Soviet reserves in place.......no Dec counterattack.
It is true that 70% win rates (when they fight) is a little high. But this reflects how the fight actually goes. Germany will either win in 1941 or early 1942 or the SU ends up winning in 1943/44 timeframe. Here is my thought on why the percentage is 70% wins for Germany.
See in about 30% of the games Germany never does a DOW against the SU. That means the AI feels it does not have the odds or strength to win. Based on this Germany will only DOW if it feels it has the strength to win, hence the larger percentage of wins. It is very rare when SU will DOW Germany. I have never seen it but did read an AAR where that happened.
So what can be done? Maybe force the SU to DOW Germany if they don't, by 1942 or so? I have a feeling that if Germany and the SU were forced to fight in the 30% or so of games where they don't now fight the SU would win the vast majority of those wars. If that actually happened then the fight between Germany and SU would end up very close to 50/50 chances for both sides.
And for the allies to have a chance Germany either has to be losing or at least still fighting in 1943. It takes this long for the allies to get the proper armies together to actually do something. And if the allies and SU are fighting Germany in 1943 I bet it will end up 99% of the time in a German loss.
I'm just trying to point out my observastions from playing way too many games.
Hi! I'm relatively new to this game but not the genre. Just played through as the USSR. Decided to face off against the Axis rather late in the game, by 47 or so. I came all the way to Berlin and I nuked it. On the west coast the US was invading(which was repelled rather quick). However, ALL europe provinces had been bombed to smitherines by the british. Still they managed to turn things around on me. They pushed me back 1/3 through the whole of Russia. ( I would've been able to push back again if not for the time running out, because I got super buffed as I lost provinces ). Anyways, this whole IC thing really confuses me. How can they still cope so well after being totally blasted? None of the GER and CO provinces had more than 1 point in infrastructure/IC.
Also, Controlling such large armies is really a struggle. I'd prefere to let the AI handle it but they often coordinate really stupidly, and a "controlled" advance would be much better. Just CBA to do it on such a large scale. You guys got any tips on this stuff? Ai control, and perhaps you can enlighten me as to why they are seemingly inexhaustable when invading from the east. (I know about the theatre system. Was thinking I'd try smaller and more focused theatres, and some key "elite" human controlled corps here and there to push through enemy lines)
Also, Controlling such large armies is really a struggle. I'd prefere to let the AI handle it but they often coordinate really stupidly, and a "controlled" advance would be much better. Just CBA to do it on such a large scale. You guys got any tips on this stuff? Ai control, and perhaps you can enlighten me as to why they are seemingly inexhaustable when invading from the east. (I know about the theatre system. Was thinking I'd try smaller and more focused theatres, and some key "elite" human controlled corps here and there to push through enemy lines)
Not to be a dick, but you probably should have made your own thread rather than necroing a thread from 2010 for that.
Infrastructure regenerates and IC from captured provinces isn't really that important when you have IC back home.
Infrastructure regenerates and IC from captured provinces isn't really that important when you have IC back home.