Industrial potential.

[shri]

The North African idea is bunk has already been proven in this old thread -
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...nt-in-the-game-as-it-was-historically.871769/

The AXIS did not have the ports, the shipping, the ships, the logistics abilities etc etc to support a huge mobile army in North Africa. Neither did they have an abundance of OIL and TRUCKS to waste in a futile campaign with no chances of gaining resources.
There was no OIL in Saudi Arabia or Libya or most of the Gulf States (except Persia) in the 1930s and 1940s and you cannot imagine that this place will have Oil and then attack these places.
Additionally, the low port capacity, shi**y infrastructure and lack of railways (esp. on AXIS side) meant that - Logistics was becoming a "zero sum game".
The British Empire could easily have burnt the Oil infra in Persia and destroyed the pipelines and sabotaged the ports (if it came to that) and still have had no problems as the USA was in favor of the Allies and USA controlled over 1/3rd of the total world Oil Production.

 

[keynes2.0]

As I said I read Speer's book. I fail to see there what Tooze is saying.

Tooze wrote 60 years later. His words wouldn't be in Speers book. You can quote Speer if you want, it's a free internet.

 

[Count Drew]

I think that people are jumping... Another what if thread.(We have no clue of any actual historical outcome of anything or precise alteration as so many factors are at play that we're all guessing as are a great deal of Historians that write wonderful books and never actually were there and did it..figures and numbers and everything else..what about luck.. What about just about any number of unseen or unknowing items) I think we all may be right "SOME" and all "WRONG" some...

Back to the primary subject ... sure some nations shouldn't build much industry but the joy of Hearts of Iron in my mind is the fact that you are not really playing a Matrix Games. If I want that I can go there. Very little variation is possible from the outline of which those people outline in industrial development for secondary powers.

If we expand this game via mods to say 1930 to 1950 who wouldn't want to build an Industrial Super Power in China even if it's a Fantasy. I do not really think that Tibet is a playable nation....but medium powers, i.e. Spain, Italy, A Greater Balkan Unified Empire..Turkey, SouthEast Asian Empire..Unified India... South American Empire(which actually has the most potential for the time period I am guessing they had a super high powered period of wealth back in the day squandered, wasn't Argentina considered at some point the next United States but of South America) ~By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita.

Why not have these as a playable possibility. Or are we avoiding the Vicky situation all together?

 

[tommylotto]

As I said I read Speer's book. I fail to see there what Tooze is saying. Do you mind please to quote Speer directly?

I have not read Speer's book, but I have read Tooze. Not only is much of the increase in production due to long term investments made prior to Speer's tenure but the increased output was mostly a function of resource allocation. So, increases in one area (where resources were prioritized) would have been countered by decreases in output in other areas (with lower priority claim to resources). Tooze's analysis seems to be a persuasive case that Speer's impact was mostly hype.

I think that you missed what I said: Raeder had the strategic view. Rommel, as commander on the spot, could see that with 2/3 additional mobile divisions in 1940-41 the Axis could get not only north Africa but also east Africa and the whole middle east (Persia included). Bear in mind that the strength of the British empire was the empire. Once more that was the only strategic opportunity to win the war.

I agree. The opening of the war in Africa and the Middle East did present an opportunity to knock out the UK. However, that would have required close coordination and cooperation between the Axis partners which was in very short supply as the two dictators tried to fight their parallel wars. The port capacity and infrastructure in Libya and Egypt was such that the Axis was already doomed by the time Rommel showed up with his blocking force. But that was not the case in mid-1940, when the British were dazed, and before Graziani first crossed the Egyptian border with his poorly equipped foot infantry army and made those stupid camps. Remember, Italy joined the war at the time of their choosing but they were still woefully unprepared. If the Axis partners had approached the war collectively and strategically, Germany could have supplied the Italians with sufficient medium tanks and AT weapons that would have stood a chance against the Matilda. Then the Italians could have, at their leisure and without sea lane interdiction, accumulated enough men, equipment and supplies to sustain the offensive crossing of the Egyptian desert. Then they could have relatively easily swept to the canal, and possibly beyond. But the Axis would need to have struck hard and fast, and not have Italy blunder into the war. The war preparation in Libya needed to be made before the start of the war and before the central Mediterranean became contested by the RN.

But Adolph and Benito could not cooperate at this stage of their relationship, and Hitler clearly had ADD in that he had to start a new war against Stalin before he finished his first war against Churchill.

 

[Cardus]

The North African idea is bunk has already been proven in this old thread -
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...nt-in-the-game-as-it-was-historically.871769/

The AXIS did not have the ports, the shipping, the ships, the logistics abilities etc etc to support a huge mobile army in North Africa. Neither did they have an abundance of OIL and TRUCKS to waste in a futile campaign with no chances of gaining resources.
There was no OIL in Saudi Arabia or Libya or most of the Gulf States (except Persia) in the 1930s and 1940s and you cannot imagine that this place will have Oil and then attack these places.
Additionally, the low port capacity, shi**y infrastructure and lack of railways (esp. on AXIS side) meant that - Logistics was becoming a "zero sum game".
The British Empire could easily have burnt the Oil infra in Persia and destroyed the pipelines and sabotaged the ports (if it came to that) and still have had no problems as the USA was in favor of the Allies and USA controlled over 1/3rd of the total world Oil Production.

I think you can't read. Rommel said that a very limited effort (not just a stop gap) would have given to the Axis the opportunity to conquer Alexandria and then to link up with the Italians on the horn of Africa and then to get the hands on the middle east (INCLUDING PERSIA). This could have given, also the opportunity to link up with the Japanese in India and to put pressure on Turkey to join the Axis and then....
This was the ONLY strategic opportunity that the Axis had to win the war.

Regarding the British they where not able of an effective sea lane interdiction thorough the war (the interdiction was sometimes poor sometimes good) despite huge superiority in material and technology. Overall:

Italian vessels completed 6,137 escort missions with 4,385 convoys, averaging 1.8 ships each. The Italians kept an average of seven merchantmen at sea daily, and delivered 4.5 million tons of material and 1.3 million men, with losses of 9.5 percent and 4.0 percent respectively—a superb performance, especially given that only forty-three of eighty-six ships dispatched by the British to Malta reached the island.

Sadkovich,The Italian Navy in World War

Regarding the ports

Adolf Hitler's failure to appreciate the importance of the Middle Sea and his obsession with Russia not only led to shortages of all sorts, but probably cost the Axis the war in the Mediterranean. The Nazi dictator blocked Italian efforts to obtain Tunisian bases and precluded the invasion of Malta in 1942 by approving Rommel's drive on Egypt. He thus condemned the Italian navy to using long convoy routes that were vulnerable to attack from Malta, delayed the arrival of supplies to Africa, took a heavy toll in wear and tear on Italian naval and merchant vessels, and used up large amounts of naphtha.That the Italians had too few cargo ships and tankers aggravated matters.

Sadkovich,The Italian Navy in World War

Tooze wrote 60 years later. His words wouldn't be in Speers book. You can quote Speer if you want, it's a free internet.

Yes, so please post Speer's supposed blow in the trumpet.

 

[Cardus]

I have not read Speer's book, but I have read Tooze. Not only is much of the increase in production due to long term investments made prior to Speer's tenure but the increased output was mostly a function of resource allocation. So, increases in one area (where resources were prioritized) would have been countered by decreases in output in other areas (with lower priority claim to resources). Tooze's analysis seems to be a persuasive case that Speer's impact was mostly hype.

For what I have read Speer says exactly the opposite: the mobilization of Germany in WWII was less effective than German mobilization in WWI.

I agree. The opening of the war in Africa and the Middle East did present an opportunity to knock out the UK. However, that would have required close coordination and cooperation between the Axis partners which was in very short supply as the two dictators tried to fight their parallel wars. The port capacity and infrastructure in Libya and Egypt was such that the Axis was already doomed by the time Rommel showed up with his blocking force. But that was not the case in mid-1940, when the British were dazed, and before Graziani first crossed the Egyptian border with his poorly equipped foot infantry army and made those stupid camps. Remember, Italy joined the war at the time of their choosing but they were still woefully unprepared. If the Axis partners had approached the war collectively and strategically, Germany could have supplied the Italians with sufficient medium tanks and AT weapons that would have stood a chance against the Matilda. Then the Italians could have, at their leisure and without sea lane interdiction, accumulated enough men, equipment and supplies to sustain the offensive crossing of the Egyptian desert. Then they could have relatively easily swept to the canal, and possibly beyond. But the Axis would need to have struck hard and fast, and not have Italy blunder into the war. The war preparation in Libya needed to be made before the start of the war and before the central Mediterranean became contested by the RN.

But Adolph and Benito could not cooperate at this stage of their relationship, and Hitler clearly had ADD in that he had to start a new war against Stalin before he finished his first war against Churchill.

Right. When the Italians asked to buy French tanks the Germans refused, when Italians asked access to Tunisian ports Germans refused, etc. But obviously the blame is to put on both: Hitler and Mussolini

German distrust of the Italians, and Mussolini's efforts to keep his domineering ally out of Italy's Mare Nostrum by waging a purely Italian "parallel war," precluded any real Axis collaboration. Indeed, two years elapsed between the meetings of German and Italian naval chiefs at Friedrichshaven in 1939 and Merano in 1941. The Italians generally ignored the German naval liaison officer in Rome, and the Germans ignored Italian requests for naphtha and raw materials,preferring to dominate rather than cooperate

Sadkovich,The Italian Navy in World War

 

[keynes2.0]

For what I have read Speer says exactly the opposite: the mobilization of Germany in WWII was less effective than German mobilization in WWI.

That is not the opposite of what tommylotto said. The opposite of what tommolotto said would be that german production rose in 1944 due to an increase in efficiency, there was no shifting between sectors and allocation of input resources was not the thing that lead some forms of output to rise.

 

[Axe99]

If we expand this game via mods to say 1930 to 1950 who wouldn't want to build an Industrial Super Power in China even if it's a Fantasy. I do not really think that Tibet is a playable nation....but medium powers, i.e. Spain, Italy, A Greater Balkan Unified Empire..Turkey, SouthEast Asian Empire..Unified India... South American Empire(which actually has the most potential for the time period I am guessing they had a super high powered period of wealth back in the day squandered, wasn't Argentina considered at some point the next United States but of South America) ~By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita.

Why not have these as a playable possibility. Or are we avoiding the Vicky situation all together?

The trick is what gameplay would we need to do this right? If everyone can just build up, then we have a game starting in the 20s that by WW2 every nation is uber-industrially built-up, and it becomes a 'balanced start' mod. If we have something that actually models economic development, we need a whole new layer of (quite different) gameplay that a lot of people who are coming to HoI4 to play WW2 or similar aren't really looking for. Don't get me wrong, I'd personally love a layer of complex economic gameplay, but without that, you either have industry limited to the region limits for industry a la HoI4, or you have a free-for-all where everything looks pretty wonky*. Unless we can bring Vicky-esque gameplay into HoI, I think it's always got to be a bit limited. That said, maybe with the different types of factories and resources, there's a bit more room to mod in some kind of economics this time around?

* Unless the AI's nerfed, but that hardly makes for good longevity of any game.

 

[Cardus]

That is not the opposite of what tommylotto said. The opposite of what tommolotto said would be that german production rose in 1944 due to an increase in efficiency, there was no shifting between sectors and allocation of input resources was not the thing that lead some forms of output to rise.

If you mind to read Speer, he said that the increase in production was due to a more efficient organization AND a different allocation but even so he said that WWII German mobilization was not as efficient as WWI mobilization. I can't see any hype in this.

 

[keynes2.0]

If you mind to read Speer, he said that the increase in production was due to a more efficient organization AND a different allocation but even so he said that WWII German mobilization was not as efficient as WWI mobilization. I can't see any hype in this.

1) My post was about the content of tommy's post and correctly interpreting what tommy said.
2) Tooze's work is in part a rebuttal of what Speer says. So we are kinda aware of what Speer said since we are referencing a rebuttal to that exact claim.

 

[Cardus]

1) My post was about the content of tommy's post and correctly interpreting what tommy said.
2) Tooze's work is in part a rebuttal of what Speer says. So we are kinda aware of what Speer said since we are referencing a rebuttal to that exact claim.

Maybe you missed the beginning of the discussion. It has been said that Speer blew in a trumpet his successes. As I read Speer (and not relied on what Tooze said that Speer said) I asked anyone to show where and what Speer was blowing his trumpet. You are just mixing things again and again.

PS
If you have evidences please feel free to post them otherwise I would suggest to stop this unfruitful discussion.

 

[keynes2.0]

As I read Speer (and not relied on what Tooze said that Speer said) I asked anyone to show where and what Speer was blowing his trumpet.

Yes and that was provided to you. Speer took credit for increases that weren't in any way shape or form due to efficiency.

Not only is much of the increase in production due to long term investments made prior to Speer's tenure but the increased output was mostly a function of resource allocation.

 

[shri]

I think you can't read. Rommel said that a very limited effort (not just a stop gap) would have given to the Axis the opportunity to conquer Alexandria and then to link up with the Italians on the horn of Africa and then to get the hands on the middle east (INCLUDING PERSIA). This could have given, also the opportunity to link up with the Japanese in India and to put pressure on Turkey to join the Axis and then....
This was the ONLY strategic opportunity that the Axis had to win the war.

Rommel was day-dreaming and you are being obtuse.
Rommel had no idea of logistics and distances. Eg: Tripoli (the main Italian port in North Africa) to the Persian Refinery in Abadan is 4500 KM, that is nearly 3 times the distance of Berlin to Moscow. If the AXIS couldn't supply their armies from Warsaw/Koenigsberg to Moscow despite having decent quality roads and good rails how will they supply with shi**y quality roads and "0 railways?".
The AXIS laced the Trucks, and also the Oil to supply those trucks to get a "Red ball Express" moving from Tripoli to Alexandria and beyond. Franz Halder had his staff conduct a study before they sent Rommel to North Africa and considering the "limited Trucks and Oil supplies", 3-4 mobile divisions i.e. 2 tanks + 2 motor infantry divisions is all that Germany could afford to support and field in the North African region. As was seen, this was not enough.

The British had infinite access to Oil via their own supplies and via Iran, further they had infinite access to Rubber, required for Trucks via Sri-Lanka, India and Malaya.
The Royal Navy was no longer the pre-eminent Navy in the world but had enough ships and shipping to transport men and material on a worldwide basis.
The same Italian Navy whom you have glorified refused to send its Capital ships out to Sea most times because it sorely lacked the Oil.
Just the distance from Suez to Tripoli is over 2000km, that is more than Stalingrad to Warsaw distance.
Every single battle in North Africa before the Americans arrived depended on the "Logistics chain" for victory or defeat, when the British Over-extended, Rommel cut them off and defeated them and he was repaid in the same way whenever he over-extended.

Historical example: for nearly 6 months the Oil fields of Grozny and Maikop (relatively large ones though not as big as BAKU or ABADAN) they could not extract any Oil as the Russians had already destroyed the machinery and put the wells on fire rather than allow the Germans the chance to profit, why will British Intelligence/SAS not do the same?
Port of Alexandria can be totally gutted, all the air-fields destroyed, the entire Railway line from Alexandria inward and outward destroyed and the Suez canal mined and silted making it useless for everyone.
Germany did not have the naval capacity to transport entire Railways, Heavy Machinery etc from their homeland via Sea to North Africa.
Further the entire Pipeline structure can be blown or sabotaged, even Abadan itself - the machinery can be destroyed and the wells be turned into flaming infernos. All this happened even in the "Iraqi retreat from Kuwait" - Scorched Earth Policy is Old and New.

For the AXIS, War against USSR was inevitable - sooner the better, if they would have waited by 1942/43 the USSR would have launched its own offensives into Germany.
It is relatively straightforward- to win the War crush the USSR and then you can do anything you want or else anyway the War is lost.

P.S.: It was calculated that an PanzerCorps of 2 Panzer + 1 Mot will consume close to 40000-50000 Tons of Supplies (of all kinds including Fuel, Water etc) per month.
The Ports in North Africa could support only 100000 Tons (Tripoli had 50000, Benghasi had 25000-30000 and Tobruk had theoretically 30000 but did more like 15000) so, all the 8 or so Italian divisions including 2 light Panzer and 2 Motorised will have to subsist on only 50000+ tons of supply per month.
Again the single coastal road in Libya was so poor for transportation that even the supplies that actually reached the docks stayed put for several weeks before reaching the front.

 

[SIRMER]

Problem is supply system doesn t need manpower to operate efficiently. Allies had to spend a lot of men in logistics. This isn t represented in the game.This bothers me a lot because distant wars should be quite penalty to attacker.

Fuel usage should be introduced but not so detailed as Hoi 3. I think if supplies are met fuel,eq and ammo,food,other is supplied to divisions and this is done from state capitals.It should be some aproximation to real usage and to lesser load to cpu. I think they scraped fuel usage because of this. I think in future they should introduce development of resources.Provinces would have maximum production(potential) and current production.Development should cost some civilian factories for some time.

 

[Cardus]

Rommel was day-dreaming and you are being obtuse.
Rommel had no idea of logistics and distances. Eg: Tripoli (the main Italian port in North Africa) to the Persian Refinery in Abadan is 4500 KM, that is nearly 3 times the distance of Berlin to Moscow. If the AXIS couldn't supply their armies from Warsaw/Koenigsberg to Moscow despite having decent quality roads and good rails how will they supply with shi**y quality roads and "0 railways?".
The AXIS laced the Trucks, and also the Oil to supply those trucks to get a "Red ball Express" moving from Tripoli to Alexandria and beyond. Franz Halder had his staff conduct a study before they sent Rommel to North Africa and considering the "limited Trucks and Oil supplies", 3-4 mobile divisions i.e. 2 tanks + 2 motor infantry divisions is all that Germany could afford to support and field in the North African region. As was seen, this was not enough.

The British had infinite access to Oil via their own supplies and via Iran, further they had infinite access to Rubber, required for Trucks via Sri-Lanka, India and Malaya.
The Royal Navy was no longer the pre-eminent Navy in the world but had enough ships and shipping to transport men and material on a worldwide basis.
The same Italian Navy whom you have glorified refused to send its Capital ships out to Sea most times because it sorely lacked the Oil.
Just the distance from Suez to Tripoli is over 2000km, that is more than Stalingrad to Warsaw distance.
Every single battle in North Africa before the Americans arrived depended on the "Logistics chain" for victory or defeat, when the British Over-extended, Rommel cut them off and defeated them and he was repaid in the same way whenever he over-extended.

Historical example: for nearly 6 months the Oil fields of Grozny and Maikop (relatively large ones though not as big as BAKU or ABADAN) they could not extract any Oil as the Russians had already destroyed the machinery and put the wells on fire rather than allow the Germans the chance to profit, why will British Intelligence/SAS not do the same?
Port of Alexandria can be totally gutted, all the air-fields destroyed, the entire Railway line from Alexandria inward and outward destroyed and the Suez canal mined and silted making it useless for everyone.
Germany did not have the naval capacity to transport entire Railways, Heavy Machinery etc from their homeland via Sea to North Africa.
Further the entire Pipeline structure can be blown or sabotaged, even Abadan itself - the machinery can be destroyed and the wells be turned into flaming infernos. All this happened even in the "Iraqi retreat from Kuwait" - Scorched Earth Policy is Old and New.

For the AXIS, War against USSR was inevitable - sooner the better, if they would have waited by 1942/43 the USSR would have launched its own offensives into Germany.
It is relatively straightforward- to win the War crush the USSR and then you can do anything you want or else anyway the War is lost.

P.S.: It was calculated that an PanzerCorps of 2 Panzer + 1 Mot will consume close to 40000-50000 Tons of Supplies (of all kinds including Fuel, Water etc) per month.
The Ports in North Africa could support only 100000 Tons (Tripoli had 50000, Benghasi had 25000-30000 and Tobruk had theoretically 30000 but did more like 15000) so, all the 8 or so Italian divisions including 2 light Panzer and 2 Motorised will have to subsist on only 50000+ tons of supply per month.
Again the single coastal road in Libya was so poor for transportation that even the supplies that actually reached the docks stayed put for several weeks before reaching the front.

I quoted you things you didn't dare to read or you could not understand. I am sorry for you but I can't help anymore.

PS
What is the distance between ABADAN and London?

 

[Cardus]

Yes and that was provided to you. Speer took credit for increases that weren't in any way shape or form due to efficiency.

I have asked you repeatedly to quote Speer (not what Tooze said of what Speer said). I repeatedly told you that I read Speer and for what I could see he didn't mention that he did wonders. In fact he is not discounting the work done by his predecessor nor the capital Germany had accumulated. He only mentioned some changes in the allocation of material and the organization of production (e.g. submarines produced with similar techniques adopted in the USA for cargo ships). In addition he says that what he achieved was less than what Germany achieved in WWI. I see, instead, that you rely on second hand information and you can't contribute to the discussion.

 

[Count Drew]

You definitely make the point this is a WW2 game and the timeframe is limiting. 90% of the fighting will happen between 39 and 45. 6 years... If a miracle happens it may in fact spread beyond that. That is a tiny portion of history and really nothing should be changed too too much in such a short time frame. I think the 1936 start gives an opportunity for Majors, not Medium Powers to change their fortunes. France/China/Italy would be very playable. No other nation though really would be except to lose. Unless of course you include the dynamic of Politics and a massive multiplayer group. Since this is not a History game aside from the cosmetics it's a multiplayer game(that's why it's so streamlined) the end result is Poland may Partition Germany with France and Italy by a preemptive DOW early before she has a large Military and perhaps with backing by the British. Japan and China may work together to Partition Soviet/French/British Colonies.

Soooo rethinking everything you just said is what I am saying so far flung? Of course a lot of that stuff is impossible in history but a little capacity play a Medium Power now becomes a very real reality and I'm sure the Devs have thought about this "A Little" I certainly have seen such outcomes in EU games!

Industry is a vital component now cause you just transferred a Lion Share from one nation to another. Poland and Germany could even work together to divy up The Balkans and USSR...Anything is possible in a 100 games (This is not Vicky that's true but a little bit of open possibilities would be nice) even in a short time frame which will no doubt be edited to a longer time frame in HOI4 Mods/Expansions

The trick is what gameplay would we need to do this right? If everyone can just build up, then we have a game starting in the 20s that by WW2 every nation is uber-industrially built-up, and it becomes a 'balanced start' mod. If we have something that actually models economic development, we need a whole new layer of (quite different) gameplay that a lot of people who are coming to HoI4 to play WW2 or similar aren't really looking for. Don't get me wrong, I'd personally love a layer of complex economic gameplay, but without that, you either have industry limited to the region limits for industry a la HoI4, or you have a free-for-all where everything looks pretty wonky*. Unless we can bring Vicky-esque gameplay into HoI, I think it's always got to be a bit limited. That said, maybe with the different types of factories and resources, there's a bit more room to mod in some kind of economics this time around?

* Unless the AI's nerfed, but that hardly makes for good longevity of any game.

 

[Axe99]

You definitely make the point this is a WW2 game and the timeframe is limiting. 90% of the fighting will happen between 39 and 45. 6 years... If a miracle happens it may in fact spread beyond that. That is a tiny portion of history and really nothing should be changed too too much in such a short time frame. I think the 1936 start gives an opportunity for Majors, not Medium Powers to change their fortunes. France/China/Italy would be very playable. No other nation though really would be except to lose. Unless of course you include the dynamic of Politics and a massive multiplayer group. Since this is not a History game aside from the cosmetics it's a multiplayer game(that's why it's so streamlined) the end result is Poland may Partition Germany with France and Italy by a preemptive DOW early before she has a large Military and perhaps with backing by the British. Japan and China may work together to Partition Soviet/French/British Colonies.

Soooo rethinking everything you just said is what I am saying so far flung? Of course a lot of that stuff is impossible in history but a little capacity play a Medium Power now becomes a very real reality and I'm sure the Devs have thought about this "A Little" I certainly have seen such outcomes in EU games!

It's worth keeping in mind EU covers nearly 400 years - so the large changes in power of smaller countries there is both reasonable and historically plausible. In a HoI4 context, what you describe (basically smaller powers benefiting from larger powers doing the heavy lifting) was a common way that players exploited the AI and the wargoal system in HoI3 to grow ridiculously. I personally didn't mind this, as it was a cheesy exploit that the AI didn't use and I could ignore, and I've got no issue with players cheesing their way to that kind of thing, just so long as it's not part of 'normal' gameplay. That said, with the new peace conference system, Poland would need to do fifty per cent of the heavy lifting partitioning Germany to get fifty per cent of the land (or so) in a peace deal, so it may be harder to cheese your way to victory in single player than it was in the past (although I'm sure someone will find a way). In MP, of course, anything's possible if you can convince your fellow players to prop up smaller countries by foregoing rewards in a peace conference.

My argument was more against allowing the industrial development of a nation to go crazy (keep in mind this is the general topic of this thread), which I thought was what you were suggesting. I'm not anti-cheese per se, as long as I don't have to deal with it (and, to be fair, I read a very enjoyable HoI3 Albanian AAR that relied on this cheesiness to work) .

 

[Count Drew]

I think you're going a little over the top with the statement about cheesy gamy Minor Expansion. Remember Poland defeated Russia(Germany and France couldn't accomplish the same feat..Germany had to use Lenin) :/ and heavy lifting by 1939 but wars can start the minute you load up the game. Multiplayer sometimes is vicious. I didn't play 400 years in EU and then suddenly get big or lost entirely. I usually managed to defeat France and Conquer Spain in 15 to 25 years. I was a clever diplomat, just because you didn't use your brain and words to achieve such a great goal, doesn't mean it was an impossible goal. Spain wanted to give me her territories in Mexico and France was run by a fool. They caved. You're talking way way too much AI(for that I totally agree, keep the game balance) but most people are more interested in what happens in Multiplayer and if you want to avoid cheesy gamy qualities, just have it agreed upon by house rules why strap a dude on the hands with in game rules that aren't making the game more interesting.

Industry has a huge factor as it will matter for production. China taking Manchuria/SU Far East/Korea/SouthEast Asia may not be very Industrial but she certainly will be a power to be contended with. Also she could choke British Oil in Persia that or join in an Alliance with the Soviet Union to achieve all this. So she should never be able to outproduce Italy after all that as far as Tanks are concerned or achieve Industrial output more than Mexico? Hmm Boring to me

I think people are afraid they're going to make a game that lacks historical accuracy. You choose the pathway you take. There is always a way to break the system. Industry in a location with infrastructure/invest/population and technology should be possible.

Yes the time frame is short, but if the game does encompass a larger time frame and I hope it does, highly successful Medium Powers should have abilities. That or ONLY ever play Germany-UK-USSR-USA-Japan like all major war games as every other game building a tank will take you 3 months. Oh and an airplane will be impossible.

It's worth keeping in mind EU covers nearly 400 years - so the large changes in power of smaller countries there is both reasonable and historically plausible. In a HoI4 context, what you describe (basically smaller powers benefiting from larger powers doing the heavy lifting) was a common way that players exploited the AI and the wargoal system in HoI3 to grow ridiculously. I personally didn't mind this, as it was a cheesy exploit that the AI didn't use and I could ignore, and I've got no issue with players cheesing their way to that kind of thing, just so long as it's not part of 'normal' gameplay. That said, with the new peace conference system, Poland would need to do fifty per cent of the heavy lifting partitioning Germany to get fifty per cent of the land (or so) in a peace deal, so it may be harder to cheese your way to victory in single player than it was in the past (although I'm sure someone will find a way). In MP, of course, anything's possible if you can convince your fellow players to prop up smaller countries by foregoing rewards in a peace conference.

My argument was more against allowing the industrial development of a nation to go crazy (keep in mind this is the general topic of this thread), which I thought was what you were suggesting. I'm not anti-cheese per se, as long as I don't have to deal with it (and, to be fair, I read a very enjoyable HoI3 Albanian AAR that relied on this cheesiness to work) .

 

[Axe99]

I think you're going a little over the top with the statement about cheesy gamy Minor Expansion. Remember Poland defeated Russia(Germany and France couldn't accomplish the same feat..Germany had to use Lenin) :/ and heavy lifting by 1939 but wars can start the minute you load up the game. Multiplayer sometimes is vicious. I didn't play 400 years in EU and then suddenly get big or lost entirely. I usually managed to defeat France and Conquer Spain in 15 to 25 years. I was a clever diplomat, just because you didn't use your brain and words to achieve such a great goal, doesn't mean it was an impossible goal. Spain wanted to give me her territories in Mexico and France was run by a fool. They caved. You're talking way way too much AI(for that I totally agree, keep the game balance) but most people are more interested in what happens in Multiplayer and if you want to avoid cheesy gamy qualities, just have it agreed upon by house rules why strap a dude on the hands with in game rules that aren't making the game more interesting.

Apologies in advance if I sound short - I'm a bit rough at the moment, it's not you .

The majority of PDS games are played single-player, so I'm not sure the argument that "most are interested in what happens in multiplayer". Further, Multiplayer already covers off your concerns, so you've got what you want here in terms of the capacity to partition countries, and I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have it, so I'm not sure what you're arguing? As for Poland beating the Soviets in 1922, it was a very different story in 1936, that example doesn't really help your cause.

Industry has a huge factor as it will matter for production. China taking Manchuria/SU Far East/Korea/SouthEast Asia may not be very Industrial but she certainly will be a power to be contended with. Also she could choke British Oil in Persia that or join in an Alliance with the Soviet Union to achieve all this. So she should never be able to outproduce Italy after all that as far as Tanks are concerned or achieve Industrial output more than Mexico? Hmm Boring to me

No-one suggested this should be the case. This thread is about whether China and India can develop their industry to be competitive with the major powers, not whether they can conquer their way to industrial capacity. I'm personally arguing that in the timeframe of the game (1936-48), if we want plausible mechanics, China and India shouldn't have the capacity to domestically develop their industry to be competitive with the US, Soviets, UK, Germany or the like. As far as I can recall, no-one here has suggested that what you outline above shouldn't be possible, and there's no suggestion from the gameplay we've seen that it shouldn't be possible, so again I don't think you have a reason to be concerned.

I think people are afraid they're going to make a game that lacks historical accuracy. You choose the pathway you take. There is always a way to break the system. Industry in a location with infrastructure/invest/population and technology should be possible.

Again, no-one said this shouldn't be possible - just that in the case of China and India, the infrastructure/investment/technology shouldn't be there to enable a level of industrialisation between 1936 and 1948 to compete with the largest powers.

Yes the time frame is short, but if the game does encompass a larger time frame and I hope it does, highly successful Medium Powers should have abilities. That or ONLY ever play Germany-UK-USSR-USA-Japan like all major war games as every other game building a tank will take you 3 months. Oh and an airplane will be impossible.

Of course, the longer the timeframe goes out, the greater the potential for longer-term industrial development to deviate from history, but no-one here was arguing that "an extended timeline should mean smaller nations can't develop industrially" (in fact many were arguing the opposite).

As an aside, I've been able to build armoured divisions and aircraft as minor nations in every HoI to date (and other WW2 strategy games, computer and board). That said, when I play a smaller nation, I want to face the challenges that nation faced historically. Taking away those challenges makes the gameplay far more shallow, as every nation plays more like each other. There's no benefit in playing a smaller nation, because after five years on speed five building up your industry, it's just the same as playing a larger nation. If that's the case, then every nation plays like Germany-UK-USSR-USA-Japan, even if it has a different name and flag. As always, these are just my views - if you're looking for a 'balanced start' style HoI, you're very much entitled to want and ask for such a thing .