How much of an advantage do the allies start with at the beginning of the game?

[1alexey]

Agreed that historical variations should be possible (and encouraged, the idea behind the game is to play your own way, after all ). That said, there's a decent chance that the US and UK could have out-produced Germany, Italy and Japan even if the USSR fell (as there would be a huge garrison requirement in a conquered USSR, and very little manpower and production advantage immediately following conquest) - the only real strategic long-term chance that the Axis had historically, outside of knocking the UK out early, was to get one of the powers to switch to their side (which I agree should be possible in-game).

That said, if it _doesn't_ happen in-game, and the powers line up the same way they did historically, then long-term, if the Allies want to fight until the end, even if the USSR goes under (which itself should be pretty unlikely) and aren't repeatedly completely incompetent, they will win, if the game has any sense of a historical strategic balance.

It is not just about "theoretically" being outproduced.

USA is on the other side of the planet, it`s logistics take a lot of man. It managed to produce a huge lot historically because other countries would fight for it.

Considering the loses that SU took and sustained, it is not even obvious USA and UK can put as many people in uniform, nit to mention supplying them. Historically US and UK were having problem reinforcing their armies in 1944.

If SU is out in 1942, the Allies probably need to draft at least another 15 million men, the men, they don`t have, not to mention the complication of landing against 5-6 millions of opposing troops.

I mean, let`s look at facts:
SU drafted 33 million man.
SU lost 8 millions killed, and probably many more wounded.
SU was maintaining 4-8 millions army in 1942-1945.

Considering the whole, can USA and UK supply about 4 times as many forces for battle of Europe, US only had 2,7m man in land forces in 1945, while, again, historically German Wermacht reached it`s peak at 11 millions in 1943, and allies would have take 5-10 millions of dead and keep fighting?
That is, questionable.

 

[Axe99]

It is not just about "theoretically" being outproduced.

USA is on the other side of the planet, it`s logistics take a lot of man. It managed to produce a huge lot historically because other countries would fight for it.

Considering the loses that SU took and sustained, it is not even obvious USA and UK can put as many people in uniform, nit to mention supplying them. Historically US and UK were having problem reinforcing their armies in 1944.

The obvious way to go if the SU did go down is to knock out Japan first (the only reason Japan took as long as it did was because the Allies focussed on Germany first) and then come back for Germany - it would have taken longer, but even if they didn't get the nukes first (which they did - don't forget that if Germany hasn't defeated, not just drawn, with the Allies by the end of 1945, it's game over). Remember, it's not as if Germany was rolling in manpower in 1944, and it needs to maintain millions of garrison troops in the ex-USSR or its conquests there wouldn't stay conquests for long. Yes, if the Allies didn't develop nukes first then Germany could likely force a draw in 1946 or 1947 when the UK and USA got tired of fighting, but they still wouldn't have 'won', they'd have just white peaced out.

And this is if the USSR goes down, which was very unlikely to happen in any case.

So balancing the game, work out the probability the UK folds (not huge, assuming we're not having an event that randomly concedes politically, which I don't think would be terribly popular, and is never going to happen in MP) and then the probability the USSR goes under. If those two events don't happen, then strategically speaking there's almost no way for the Axis to win in the long-term in an 'outright' sense - their best hope is to survive long enough to force a peace, white or otherwise but anything better than unconditional surrender. So, on balance, the Axis have lost. Of course, if in an MP or SP game the Axis have a sensational game and the Allies/USSR forget to turn up, then they should have a chance at an outright victory, but it has to be unlikely if the game is based on historical strategic conditions.

Don't get me wrong, I'd still enjoy the game if it was a 'war game with a WW2 flavour' rather than a wargame based on the strategic conditions leading up to and through WW2, but for a game that's as marketed around being a WW2 game as HoI, it'd be a shame not to at least try and get it somewhat close to historic circumstances.

Actually it ties in. This started because of an argument about France retaining HOI3 nerfs or being stronger. I said that Germany needs to defeat France in under 6 months (faster better) to stand a chance against SU and eventually USA. This led to discussion that France can't build it's OOB with led to mechs etc.

But it does tie back to strategic levels of how much can be produced and when.

But that's exactly my point and the thing I can't understand - we're all very motivated to want the small details of the war right, but there seems to be a lack of interest in the larger strategic picture being balanced, in a game that's primarily strategic.

 

[Zinegata]

The term "Mech" also depends on the real life term. AFAIK, the Soviet Mechanised divisions were actually Larm/3Mot.

There really is a bit of a problem regarding the progression of doctrine in the HOI series, as it implies a series of incremental improvements when in reality doctrine evolved (and sometimes devolved) into something different as opposed to just getting better.

German doctrine for instance actually devolved greatly throughout the war - you started with a Germany capable of fielding highly mobile Panzer Armies used for offensive operations and counter-attacks, to a 1944 Germany those Divisions had become mainly static defense units and where the Panzers were more like mobile pillboxes rather than a true mechanized force.

The French meanwhile, some (e.g. Showalter) have convincingly argued, actually had a doctrine too advanced for its time in 1940; but was the standard the Soviets used by 1943 to crush the Germans at Kursk.

 

[me987654]

From a purely "paper" standpoint, France looked to be a tough fight for Germany. FRA had considerably more tanks, many of them more powerful than the Germans had. France also had a large infantry force which should have been more than sufficient to stop Germany at the Maginot Line and at several of the rivers to the north.

In practice, German operational doctrines, combined arms tactics, and sheer speed of advance rendered most of the French advantages moot. France spread its armor out in direct support of its infantry, meaning that a German Armor Company frequently faced 2-3 French tanks at a time: a series of one-sided massacres. The French airforce was heavily damaged on the ground before it had a chance to fight. That gave German Stukas a free hand to shoot up or bomb anything that moved. If it had come down to a direct head-on confrontation between concentrated forces, that could have gone badly for Germany. There were several smaller clashes in which the French Army handled itself respectably well. Germany essentially won by NOT fighting most of the French army, but by maneuvering and cutting it off from supply and reinforcements. The French leadership was unable to to react in time, or in some cases failed to react at all. The French did not lose on the basis of being "outnumbered" or "outgunned", they lost by obsolete methodology and a few incompetent leaders at the top.

The French also didn't use radios NEARLY as much as germans; often relying on bicycle messengers. German spearheads were often 20+ miles from their last reported location by the time the French command found out about them

 

[me987654]

Contrary to the "myths", most of the Soviet T-34s were built with radios, although the reliability was so poor that it was rare to have more than one working radio for the command tank and another somewhere in the formation if you were lucky. I've seen photos of Soviet armor formations maneuvering via signal flags.

The big advantage that the German tanks had, besides officers at various levels in the command chain willing to take risks when opportunities presented themselves, was a turret ring design on the Panzer IIIs and IVs which was capable of supporting a 3-man turret. Instead of having the tank commander perform double duty as either gunner or loader, the German commanders could keep an eye on the "bigger picture" around them and react to events. In addition, the armored cupola design with view-slits allowed the commander a reasonable field of view even while "buttoned up". Once the shooting started, most French or Soviet tanks were in effect all but blind to anything not in the direct line of fire.

I recall reading that one senior French officer (Gamelin?), upon hearing that the cream of the French army had been cut off in Belgium, retired to his room with orders that he not be disturbed, where he remained for several days as the tragedy unfolded. There were no orders to deal with the problem on anything more than a local basis, because the senior officer responsible refused to accept that responsibility. To fail to act is to act to fail.

Stalin did that in 1941 also.... he broke down and basically hid in his dacha for 3 days

 

[Opanashc]

Stalin did that in 1941 also.... he broke down and basically hid in his dacha for 3 days

False. His visitor's log show, that he was working and having people come over.

 

[JDNIGHT]

Well, after reading all of this it really looks like Paradox has a decision to make. Do they make a game that is as historical as possible? Do they make one that is more balanced, yet not as historical? Or some combination?

I can tell you right now which one will be more interesting, and which one will sell more. And they aren't the same one.

Paradox has said it is trying to make the game more user friendly. They want a game that will be picked up by the more 'moderate' crowd. HOI has always been one of the (the best IMO) WW2 games/sims on the market. But it has been a 'fringe' game. Paradox is trying to break away from that I think.

I know that a truly historical game would be very interesting, but also very boring. In all likely hood, history played out the way it did because that was the most logical way that it could play out given the circumstances. Which means, to be truly historical, it should end the same almost every time. Some where right around September 2nd, 1945.

Fortunately for us, this game is not completely historical. Otherwise, there would be no game.

I suppose there are some who want everything to be completely historical except for the movement of units. The players want to do that for themselves, to see if they can 'move' them better than the generals did in the past. Well, that sounds really boring to me. I want a game with more options, more possible strategies, and more mechanisms for victory than just "I can move my troops better than you can." Sounds way too tactical for me. If I wanted that I would play CoH or DOTA2.

I am not looking for perfect historicality. I want a fun game for myself and my friends. I love the WW2 flavor and the depth that HOI3 brings, but I don't need it to be perfectly the way it was in 1939. Especially since that would include a whole lot of other crap I really don't want to think about.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

Well, after reading all of this it really looks like Paradox has a decision to make. Do they make a game that is as historical as possible? Do they make one that is more balanced, yet not as historical? Or some combination?

This is really a game question and the actual pickle. It's really how the pieces are set up and what rules you have on what you can and cannot do. Otherwise, everything else will play like every other Paradox-Clausewitz engine game in the sense that you have the sand box and make as you will with it. So, yes, Paradox can do both in being plausibly historical while allowing the player the freedom to do something different. How well that plays out is purely up to the player and what they expect to get out of the game.

 

[me987654]

No offense to MP folks... but Paradox could eliminate the MP features in HOI and it would not materially impact sales. The game is and should be designed for SP with MP as an afterthought when necessary (note, I have no issue with designs that address both crowds.... but Paradox would be crazy to ever make a choice to cater to MP over SP)

 

[me987654]

Honestly, people approach this from the wrong angle.

The number one problem with the game is that the resource disadvantage Germany had was so great that it can be argued that, with the historical setup of 1936, it was destined to lose. Therefore why even make a WW2 game at all?

That´s also the root of all weird design decisions made to allow Germany (at least as player) to win the war relatively easily.

That´s why the time frame of the game should be expanded, so that White Peace or minor defeat as Germany is acceptable. When you look things from that angle then suddenly allowing France to stop Germany for longer becomes MUCH less of na issue.

You have to remember that the German player typically will go VERY ahistorical on the economic front once the war starts. Germany was actually ramping DOWN production in 1941 and didn't reach full war production until 1943. I'm not saying they would have won, but things certainly may have gone differently with full war production much earlier.

 

[me987654]

This, this and this. If the HoI4's game systems are up to the task, it should be incredibly difficult for the Axis to win outright .

It depends what your definition of victory is. I've only managed to annex to SU in a HOI game once or twice (was probably HOI2 vanilla).

The vast majority of the time "victory" means a settlement in the east and a cold war type standoff with the rest of the Allies. I don't consider this ridiculously far fetched (I mean it's much less far fetched than actually pulling off Sea Lion in the early part of the war)

 

[Axe99]

I am not looking for perfect historicality. I want a fun game for myself and my friends. I love the WW2 flavor and the depth that HOI3 brings, but I don't need it to be perfectly the way it was in 1939. Especially since that would include a whole lot of other crap I really don't want to think about.

Are you talking here that you don't want decisions to be railroaded, or you don't want the strategic balance to be as it was, at the starting point of the game you choose (be it 1936, 1939, 1944 or what-have you). I don't think anyone's arguing for it to be railroaded outside of the 'France must lose in 1940 in a similar amount of time). On the other hand, the situation in 1939 (or 1936, or later, although obviously the later you go, the more of the diplomatic decisions are locked in), while not balanced between the two sides, is still just as open to moving into different situations. Every other PDS game (EU, CK, Vicky) is a lot of fun despite being completely unbalanced, so it's not as if we need both sides to both have the same probability of outright victory in 1939 to have any less fun than other PDS games (or other historical wargames).

It depends what your definition of victory is. I've only managed to annex to SU in a HOI game once or twice (was probably HOI2 vanilla).

The vast majority of the time "victory" means a settlement in the east and a cold war type standoff with the rest of the Allies. I don't consider this ridiculously far fetched (I mean it's much less far fetched than actually pulling off Sea Lion in the early part of the war)

Aye, this is fine - a settlement in the east, be it annexation of forcing a peace after a year or two (which was considered by the Soviets), and then being able to hold off the allies long enough to force a compromise peace in the west would be anything but far fetched. My issue is with the idea of the game being balanced to have an outright win by the Axis being as likely as an outright win by the Allies, given that the major powers lined up as they did historically.

 

[me987654]

I have a lot of doubt that democratic countries (esp the US) would accept anything close to the type of casualties that the Red Army incurred (or the German army for that matter).

Would they even attempt something like D-Day if a settlement had been reached in the east?

I also am not so sure about the Atomic Bomb angle... there would be a lot more public resistance to using it against Europe as opposed to Japan.

 

[me987654]

False. His visitor's log show, that he was working and having people come over.

I've seen at least 2 interviews with Soviet officials from the period that told the same story of Stalin having or coming close to having a nervous breakdown.

Why would they just make that up? Your claim of a visitor's log doesn't disprove anything.

There are way too many people on this board in general who think they 100% know all these different historical "facts" which are in reality clouded and uncertain

 

[Axe99]

I have a lot of doubt that democratic countries (esp the US) would accept anything close to the type of casualties that the Red Army incurred (or the German army for that matter).

Would they even attempt something like D-Day if a settlement had been reached in the east?

I also am not so sure about the Atomic Bomb angle... there would be a lot more public resistance to using it against Europe as opposed to Japan.

Indeed, but the Axis forcing a compromise peace in Europe (and still losing outright in the East) is hardly the game balanced for a 50/50 Axis/Allies victory. Even then, the historical evidence is such that Germany rolling over the SU given the historic strategic balance (obviously if the UK folds and the US joins the Axis, the USSR is likely done and dusted) was far from a 50/50 thing, so even the 'Germany beats USSR and gets compromise peace' isn't necessarily the appropriate strategic balance for an outcome 50% of the time.

 

[jdavis86]

Why can't we just have different scenarios?

A "1936 sandbox" start, and a "1938/9 historical" start.

A start date where balances aren't as important or set in stone, and then one that lets the player recreate WW2 historically. France could be gimped in the latter, for example, to ensure German victory.

 

[Zinegata]

You have to remember that the German player typically will go VERY ahistorical on the economic front once the war starts. Germany was actually ramping DOWN production in 1941 and didn't reach full war production until 1943. I'm not saying they would have won, but things certainly may have gone differently with full war production much earlier.

That's untrue; and not supported by the latest scholarship by Tooze in his authoratative work on the German economy - "The Wages of Destruction".

The German economy was always stepping on the gas pedal from start to finish. The numbers in 1941 are deceptive because this was a transition period from the time Germany didn't really believe in tanks and hence limited its production (they even failed to exempt craftsmen working in the Panzer factories from participating in Barbarossa), to the time they finally acknowledged that the tank was in fact a war-winner and they should ramp up production.

The thing is, you can't switch from making airplanes or ammunition to tanks with a wave of a wand, and the German economy had a dip in production precisely because it was struggling to realign. And in reality, the German economy was never really fully able to realign to making tanks - they had to rely on expedients like turning all spare parts into tanks just to increase production numbers (hence Nazi Germany's ridiculus spare parts situation. For instance - ten Tiger tanks had to share one spare transmission among themselves on average); all before we get to the bombing damage.

 

[jdavis86]

If I recall correctly, Hitler did disband a number of divisions after France?

 

[Axe99]

Why can't we just have different scenarios?

A "1936 sandbox" start, and a "1938/9 historical" start.

A start date where balances aren't as important or set in stone, and then one that lets the player recreate WW2 historically. France could be gimped in the latter, for example, to ensure German victory.

I'd be a fan of two different modes, but have all the different starts for all the different modes. A mode where the Axis were a 50/50 shot at winning the war, and then a historical mode where the strategic balance was closer to that historically, where the Axis could force a compromise peace, but most of the time would eventually be beaten, with victory conditions adjusted in both modes to suit. That'd suit both main types as players, as far as I can see, and it would be fairly easy to do by having two sets of IC/Manpower set-ups.

 

[Zinegata]

If I recall correctly, Hitler did disband a number of divisions after France?

Not really. Some units were disbanded but mainly because these were the "failed" experiments like the Light Divisions. The Wermacht ultimately expanded as they went from completing the French campaign to planning Barbarossa in a relatively short period of time.