I see the Nazis lose to the Soviets badly all the time, so I'm thinking of taking that setting and see how it goes. Anyone tried this already?
Is the "strengthen Germany" setting more fun?
- Thread starter Vampiresoap
- Start date
-
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.
If you're playing Germany? You shouldn't need it.
If you're opposing Germany, then probably.
If you're opposing Germany, then probably.
I bumped them 12.5% in my last game as the USA, and they barely did any better against the Soviets than usual. I'm afraid to go 25% because it's kind of a delicate balance with Germany to keep them from sucking up all of Eurasia and becoming uber, but I'll try that next anyway.
The only game I've seen where AI Germany actually defeated the USSR was without strengthening.
The only game I've seen where AI Germany actually defeated the USSR was without strengthening.
I mean, they were supposed to conquer all of Eurasia if the Americans never intervened. So it's realistic...I guess?
I usually give them the maximum boost and they still get bogged down.
That, or I play France and beat them despite the boosts.
That, or I play France and beat them despite the boosts.
The only problem with maxxing out nations is late game the game bogs down even more from the huge amounts of divisions the AI spams.
Aw man, I totally didn't think of that. Is it a lot worse after strengthening?
It's not the lag for me it is other things. A maxed out UK can have 10k fighters by 1942 or US navy can have 25 CV's with 300 other ships all clumped into one deathball. The latter really annoys me, seems like fleets should have a max fleet size cap to it. Still, playing a land power like Germany or the USSR with maxed slider settings for your enemies provides me with a decent level of compitetion from the AI.
Says who exactly? Even the most ambitious nazi general probably didn't expect that Germany could conquer and rule all of the Soviet Union, let alone eurasia.
Without the US, only the UK would be left to challenge them, and that wouldn't have lasted too long. They would eventually win the war against the Soviet Union if they didn't have to protect the westfront.
The Germans never had a chance against the USSR with or without USA's help. There is no historical proof that the Germans were ever winning the war or ever could have won in the east. By the time the Normandy landings occured, Germany was already retreating from Soviet attacks all across the Eastern Front.
I'd like to think that if the US didn't invade Normandy, the Germans could've mounted a counter attack and defeated the Soviets once and for all. I guess we'll never know.
Any chance Germany had at all of winning in the East (basically none to very slim) evaporated on Dec 5th 1941. Hitler declaring war on the USA a week later only served to confirm the inevitable. Would have looked different at the time of course, and we operate with 20/20 hindsight, but the Barbarossa plan was almost ridiculously optimistic.
Edit: Kursk was the last major offensive they mounted in the East. It was a year before D-Day and didn't go so well. Allied operations in Italy were a factor in the shutting down of Citadel, but ultimately made little difference. That offensive was doomed from day 1. There was no offensive at all in 1944 and I don't think a lack of D-Day would have made much difference to Operation Bagration.
Uhm no. Read about Operation Bagration. Soviet offensive that destroyed army group center. Most of the German command that survived the war said that Operation Bagration was the single most devestating offensive performed against the Reich. The Germans fate was sealed when they attacked the USSR. There is no "we will never know." We do know, for a fact, without a doubt. USA made the war end faster. Germany was going to lose regardless.
Last edited:
You're right, we will never know. However its my opinion that the US not intervening would only result in a slower defeat of Germany at the hands of the Soviets, and then a Communist Europe in the aftermath.
Again though anything we say is just speculation.
Again though anything we say is just speculation.
But only if we assume nothing unexpected happens. And with humans, unexpected is always possibility. Its very unlikely that Germany would have won the war, but there are simply so many variable that it is possible. Very, very unlikely. But what would have been possible to actually happen is negotiated peace of some sort. Again that requires something bit unexpected. But what Germany did in 1939 was already very unexpected. It should not have been possible. But due to multiple causes, it happened.
Remember that way it went historically is that western allies naively believed Soviet Union would keep it's word. Had history been different, they would have realized Poland would never become independent. And that opens up lot of possibilities.
Only thing that does not happen is Axis world conquest. In theory that could have happened had every axis nation punched above their weight like Germany did and allies would have become hostile with Soviet Union or something.
Read about war history in general, and you will notice that anything is possible. Not necessarily likely, but one time out of 100 something goes way it should not. Any allied-comintern conflict had potential to change things a lot.
Reason why i am interested in something like 1943 or 44 start is to see how long i could hold. How epic i could make that last stand.
By June 1944, the Red Army has reconquered Ukraine, penetrated into northern Romania and are on the border of the Carpathian mountains / Hungary. They are just starting Operation Bagration, an offensive that would push the Germans out of Belarus, and put the Baltic forces in danger of imminent encirclement. Although the Germans do still hold the Baltic states and most of Belarus, the force ratios in the East are quite heavily skewed in the Soviet Union's favor.
The resources that were given to Wacht am Rhein (Battle of the Bulge) certainly could have been redirected East in the absence of a landing in Normandy. The Germans would have access to a few more formations that were lost already up to that point, too. But prior to the landing, the Germans were already facing the Soviets in a 1:1 (or perhaps 6:1 depending on if you want to count the minor axis nations or not) and being driven back consistently. Perhaps a tactical or operational victory may be achieved with the resources that were tied up delaying and counterattacking the Western Allies, but total victory against the Soviets feels like an exceptionally remote possibility even in late 1943, let alone 1944.
I would be even more severe. I believe from all the history and military analysis books I read that the failure to take Moscow in 1941 or shortly afterwards was already sufficient to make German victory extremely unlikely. Any thoughts for total victory, however, are ridiculous after Stalingrad. 1942 was the last year USSR and Germany could be considered as "evenly matched". Then it tipped over more and more to the advantage of USSR. Had US not intervened, whole German occupied Europe would be Communist, the war might just have lasted a few years longer. It is a testament to German army that they "almost" defeated the USSR. It is a testament to Russian tenacity and fanaticism that they were, despite stupid communist leadership that torpedoed the war effort, able to still achieve victory. Russia, as was usually the case in history, prospers despite its leadership, not thanks to it.