Is the "strengthen Germany" setting more fun?

[TheRomanRuler]

In absolute numbers, the Wehrmacht peaked in 43.

In absolute numbers Wehrmacht peaked in 1944 if we include everyone and SS. But most of them could not really achieve anything since it is really hard to fight war without officers, weapons, supplies, communication, organization etc etc, what ever units were lacking at the moment. Often units assigned to operations were best part of German armed forces, while rest were far inferior. In battle of Bulge Allies beat back best Germany had left, other units were mostly inferior.

18 million was total number of troopers who served for Germany.

Germany in WW2 was brilliant example of how to fight with ad hoc. Germans did mistakes no doubt, but it was great achievement to keep fighting as long as they did. Germany was not ready for long war, and neither were none of Germany's allies. And Germany found herself in middle of long war of attrition.


Very best of the best Germany had was often superior to what others had. But they had so very little of it that most of the time German equipment certainly not superior.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Worthy of note is that the German went for the Caucasus oil fields *because* the war with the West was going to be a long one. They wanted these resources to fight the American (before they got sidetracked and piled their troops in Stalingrad, that is).

If the US were completely isolationnist, it would be a very different 1942. Germany would still be unlikely to achieve complete victory, but even in the "real" 1942, its primary goal was to get land and resources for a long war, not to destroy the USSR in the sense the 1941 campaign was. Some sort of stalemate favoring the German is at least conceivable.

Or possible Soviet collapse. Many hated Soviets, and Germans could have done things differently and been welcomed as liberators by far more people. As it happened, Germany itself united Soviet people to fight for Soviet Union they hated.

 

[Skjuld]

Such a course of events would require a non-nazi Germany...

 

[Micky Luv]

Oh, I DO agree with your conclusions. What I didn't agree with was expressing it as "not close to evenly matched". I took that as an expression of a force ratio, which is what it sounds like.
It seems we agree on the situation and probable outcome, but I tend to see it more as a matter of strategy. The Germans were not really thinking strategically (beyond clauzewitzian "decisive" battles), whereas the Soviets, after the initial shocks, were able to apply good strategic planning. And given the difference in potential, that sealed Barbarossa's outcome.

About lend-lease, I don't see how the UK would not have done it. US contribution, while extremely substantial, came mostly after the strategic initiative had shifted. Without US Lend-Lease, I don't think Germany would have won, but the war would have been even more of a bloodbath and left the USSR bled dry. But that's just an opinion.

OK, fair enough.

Or possible Soviet collapse. Many hated Soviets, and Germans could have done things differently and been welcomed as liberators by far more people. As it happened, Germany itself united Soviet people to fight for Soviet Union they hated.

They couldn't. It was Nazi Germany doing its Nazi Germany thing.

 

[PanzerMan7]

If I was gonna play 'murrika against the AI, I would definitely want Germany to crush the Soviets

 

[King of Nords]

Germany could not have won, not because the critical resources to beat the Soviets didn't exist in Europe at the time but because the Nazis were entirely incapable of being able to exploit them due to the racial and occupation policies of the Nazis. Whatever you might say about the vastness of Russia and the size of its population, it's very easy to forget that the combined population and industrial might of Continental Europe was larger even without taking into account things like the colonies of Italy and France.

The Nazis shot themselves in the foot at every possible turn. Occupation policy towards Poland and Czechoslovakia, everything they did with France, the huge waste of resources on hunting down and killing Jews, tolerating Mussolini's nonsense, promoting lebenstraum rather than an anti-communist union of European states, declaring war on the United States without receiving a direct declaration of war on the Soviet Union by Japan, pissing away resources on uberweapon projects and pipe dreams like nuclear weapons... Almost all of this goes back straight to Hitler's own attitudes and decisions to boot. Not unlike the Confederate States in the American Civil War, whatever dark horse chances of victory were burned on the pyre of ideology.

I feel like Germany as a Nazi state should get modifiers that reflect this, and Germany as a Prussian revanchist state should get others. But that would hardly solve the problem of the Soviets winning too easily. Rather, I think the Soviets should probably get more extensive military debuffs that are only very gradually removed, especially to organisation and attack. It took what, three years for the Soviet deep battle idea to mature?

 

[TheRomanRuler]

They couldn't. It was Nazi Germany doing its Nazi Germany thing.

Alternate history means things could be done differently. In other words, it is not inherently impossible.

 

[Skjuld]

I feel like Germany as a Nazi state should get modifiers that reflect this, and Germany as a Prussian revanchist state should get others. But that would hardly solve the problem of the Soviets winning too easily. Rather, I think the Soviets should probably get more extensive military debuffs that are only very gradually removed, especially to organisation and attack. It took what, three years for the Soviet deep battle idea to mature?

Yes, both should get more specific debuffs/limitations, if you wanted to portray things more accurately. But I think it's more likely to see that in mods than in the game.

 

[Micky Luv]

Alternate history means things could be done differently. In other words, it is not inherently impossible.

True enough. As was pointed out though, that particular alternate branch of history would require a non-Nazi Germany.

 

[joreri508]

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?

I don't think it would help, as it does not change the AI logic.

Competent AI engines provides different levels of Ai computation for different difficulty levels, in order to hold back or boost the AI depending on the players experience and own competence level. However the approach Paradox has taken is to let difficulty levels affect factor and resource parameters. It does not make the AI smarter.

 

[sofield]

One of Germany's strategic blunders was how they treated the Ukrainians when they invaded. Without getting into specifics, they treated them even worse than the Russians and the Russians treated them pretty damn badly.

As a Ukrainian, I can only smile at these strong statements. Believe me, across 600mil square kilometers and 40mil population of Ukraine there was a whole spectre of relationships between local population, Germans and Russians. The absolutely vast majority though was pro-soviet, but reasonably patient. Germans conflict with occupied population escalated due to both sides' goverments encouraging this (all this commissar order stuff etc), which was barely understood and supported by common people.

 

[Skjuld]

From a historical point of view, not only were the nazis ideologically motivated to treat eastern europeans "badly", but they needed to pillage them for food. They already were draining resources from most of occupied Europe, but it was worse in the East. Hitler wanted Ukraine for its resources and primarily food.

Further, even if Germany had wanted to arm sympathizers, they would have been unable to. They were already not supplying their allies (Hungary and Romania primarily) with the equipment they'd promised. (which ended up badly for them in Stalingrad, as we all know)

From the game's point of view, we are already in alernate history. For perfectly understandable reasons, HOI4 skirts away from the ideological reasons for WW2 and especially Barbarossa. Which makes the in-game Nazis... Not really Nazi.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

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.

Depends on how you define "Intervention".
Going through the numbers, 90% of the food rations for sovjet soldiers came from the US. Nearly 100% of the wheeled Transports were produced in the US. This frees up ALOT of resources and Manpower to relocate elsewhere (as well as having the possibility to relocate faster).
So the lets say "logistical intervention" was enormous. Being dependent in capitalistic fools just doesn't go well with "Mother Russia"
Whatever the reasons, we'll never know.
In the end, if you want a Challenge and do have a little experience, pimp up the sliders for the Axis. Or try another nation and help Germany. If done right (aaaaaand going a little ahistoric), Germany is an incredible Powerhouse. The AI cannot manage it.
Try Japan for instance, that really was a Challenge for me the first five or six tries.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

True enough. As was pointed out though, that particular alternate branch of history would require a non-Nazi Germany.

Since HOI4 only has very simplistic democratic vs neutral vs fascist vs communist ideologies, more moderate version of fascism would still in HOI4 count as fascist i think.

And since real life politics are hugely complex, i guess it is good to have somewhat simplistic politics in HOI4. Russia had Communist-Nationalist union after Soviet Union fell. That is literally internationalism and nationalism united under same party. And it is perhaps not weirdest thing that has happened in politics. So it is quite possible to have more moderate party that in HOI4 would count as fascist.