german org should be higher, its unrealistic as hell, because german army was best in the world at that time.
-
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.
Effective German org is higher than that of any other country. Also, your statement that "the German army was best in the world" is just plain wrong as the Red Army thrashed them.
Organisation is NOT the only statistic that matters. There is another stat that is arguably more important - Ground Defense Efficiency. This is a percentage - doctrines like Manpower get about 40% to 50%, while Mobility starts at 100% and stays there (as far as I can remember, anyway).
To find out the "effective" organisation, you have to multiply the amount of organisation the unit has by the Ground Defense Efficiency it has. So a Mobility doctrine marine with 60 org would be equivalent to a Manpower doctrine marine with 120 org. GDE also affects how many casualties you take in a battle, so you'll find that Mobility doctrine causes you to take significantly fewer casualties than Manpower doctrine, so you burn through less manpower and you need to spend less IC reinforcing your units.
I'm sure I've said this already.
The problem for most of the people who are complaining about this are those who are used 10years of German by the time the war starts having 100+ org and are having a hard time wrapping there brain around darkest hours new combat system.
i understand that with effective org. but this new system has the problem that the small amount of org you have is very fast gone, ecspecially if you move through provinces with low infr.
you are right, soviet beat germany but only because they were numerous superior and germany had to fight a 2 and in the end a 3 front war. its not so easy to fight against 3 world powers + there allys at the same time.
only after losing 9 million soldiers
I'd like to see the soviet union survive british and american heavy bombardment.
Also i'd like to see how the soviets can match up on fighting the entire world
That's half the point. The Red Army was a better army than the Wehrmacht because they could actually absorb casualties of that scale. Maybe you also think the USA won Vietnam because they caused more casualties than they took?
The trick is to not make a bunch of moronic decisions that place you under British and American "heavy bombardment".
The trick is to not make a bunch of moronic decisions that cause you to fight the entire world and lose ignominiously.
That's a bit like saying, "Germany would never have beaten France if they didn't have rifles and food". Are we discussing what actually happened, or some fantasy world where the Germans didn't get defeated?
Ehh... no. You are talking about manpower of various countries, while he was referring to the quality of the army. Also, the Soviets did not exactly "planned" to lose so many soldiers as they did, especially in 1941, when they were basically forced to improvise.
The Chinese took many more casualties than they inflicted, too. How does that relate to the quality of their army?
Those were political/strategic decisions. Again, not directly related to the quality of the army.
Last edited:
The decision that war comes was not made in germany. thats my opinion. its simple, because it would be very idiotic to plan a worldwar with germany in the center of activity against all other great powers with nearly no realistic chance of victory. the decision of war or not was made elsewhere, but thats maybe not the topic of this thread.
Last edited:
I think we're getting into semantics here. I would say that the best army is the one most suited to winning wars. Therefore, manpower and political decisions that either interfere with the operation of the army or place it in situations that lead to defeat are all relevant. An army hamstrung by its politicians is not a good army.
If all you mean to say is, "German soldiers were well trained", I'd have no issue - that's fact. But if you want to talk about their army being the best in the world you run into the problem where it lost the war decisively to what turned out to be a more powerful army.
The quality of the army is determined by their successes/failures and overall performance on the battlefield. You can have a very good army but insufficient resources/manpower/whatever and lose due to the economic superiority of your enemies or bad political decisions. I think that what you are talking about is the war making potential of a given country - in that case, the USA was the best.
However, this is hardly relevant to the thread.
Last edited:
The Wehrmacht at its peak - 1940-41 was the best army in the world, few at the time would argue this. By the later years of the war, due to a variety of factors (which the player has a good deal of control over) they were not.
Yes the US Army was (far) better than the Vietnamese Army, the US "loss" in that war was not of a military nature but of a political one. Again really don't want to get into it here as it's way off topic but in a purely military perspective the US army thrashed the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese engaged in unconventional guerrilla warfare operations, yes were tough but the crucial factor in their out-lasting the Americans was political.
What seems to be getting confused here is successful invading/occupying of whole countries vs the simpler question of who had the better army on the battlefield , all things being equal.
The two are hardly the same thing.
The Romans discovered that in Germania, Napoleon discovered that in Russia, as did the Wehrmacht and the US Army found that out in Vietnam.
BUT to somehow conclude from all this that the inability of those qualitatively superior armies to successfully occupy and subdue a country = an inferior army is simplistic and in many cases flat out wrong.
Yes the US Army was (far) better than the Vietnamese Army, the US "loss" in that war was not of a military nature but of a political one. Again really don't want to get into it here as it's way off topic but in a purely military perspective the US army thrashed the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese engaged in unconventional guerrilla warfare operations, yes were tough but the crucial factor in their out-lasting the Americans was political.
What seems to be getting confused here is successful invading/occupying of whole countries vs the simpler question of who had the better army on the battlefield , all things being equal.
The two are hardly the same thing.
The Romans discovered that in Germania, Napoleon discovered that in Russia, as did the Wehrmacht and the US Army found that out in Vietnam.
BUT to somehow conclude from all this that the inability of those qualitatively superior armies to successfully occupy and subdue a country = an inferior army is simplistic and in many cases flat out wrong.