Italy or Soviets, which do you think is coming first?

[Supermouser]

I've had a hard time deciding which major is most deserving of the next overhaul. I can think of strong balance and historical reasons why either should get a new focus tree treatment first. Now that the Devs have started work on the next big expansion, I'd be curious to hear what people think will get prioritised (and most importantly, why)

Personally I'm leaning towards an Italy revamp, but I'm afraid my personal preferences are screwing with my judgment
(side note: maybe you think we're all wrong and the next expansion is a massive overhaul of Austria/Albania/Tuva! I don't want to assume it's just these two so by all means pitch your out of the park ideas)

 

[LeLiègeois]

They could probably do both in the same DLC just like they did with Germany and Japan or UK and US.

 

[Lawsford_Soren]

Both, politics could use a bit of a revamp, Italy and the U.S.S.R. were both founders of two of the ideologies represented in the game. Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, revamped Poland, and a communist path for the German Reich are likely to be focuses for such an expansion. Land warfare also needs some work, especially in the terrain and weather departments.

 

[MattZed]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks they could be in the same DLC.

But if it had to be one, I'd hope it'd be the Soviets. The "Eastern Front" was the bloodiest theater of combat in history and deserves to have its two major players, the USSR and Germany, done well.

 

[coffeelingfine]

There will be riots in the streets if Soviets are not next.

 

[RolandRahn]

They could probably do both in the same DLC just like they did with Germany and Japan or UK and US.

I would prefer two different DLCs for that.

The USSR rework should come with a rework of the entire Eastern Front - I would like to see a motivation for the Axis to cut the Murmansk Railroad, I would like to see the need to occupy Persia to secure another route for LL, and the need for the Soviets being at peace with Japan (otherwise, there goes another route for LL from the US).

And, of course, a rework of Finland and Scandinavia - which would fit perfectly into an USSR themed DLC.


Italy should come with changes in the Mediterranean sea.
Turkey & Greece could get their own focus trees, with a lot of interaction with Italy.

Expanding the timeline to 1935 is an unrealistic wish...but maybe an alternate 1/1/1936 start where Italy is NOT at war with Ethiopia?
Which would open some VERY interesting alternate paths for Italy....

Just my $0.02.

 

[Riekopo]

Whatever they do next they should gather all the suggestions and ideas from the forum because there are a lot of great ones. People spend a lot of time playing and thinking about the game.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

I think Soviet Union will be the next DLC focus, but I would prefer Italy. I could careless about the eastern front for me. I would prefer Italy. Several alt-history options are available to Italy. Would be nice to get a Italian Africa tree. Like if you control Africa you can build alot of stuff in there and make it nice? I dunno. Would be neat.

 

[Vlad123]

Italy have a lot of possibility exemple Purge the traitor and make the army/air/navy more efficent,Joint in the Allies in exchange of a great "territory"...etc italy are a fantastic alt-hystori scenario but if are do like french focus three is better the now focus three. If the new Focus three turn italy in a nation with great malus can you can remove only in end game you break the italian gameplay

 

[Dlin369]

I think they’ve been saving the USSR till have the necessary infrastructure for it and the Eastern front. So far they’ve added lendlease, resistance, autonomy levels, decisions, volunteer air, and espionage.

So the USSR should be good to go next dlc, unless they want to make a smaller dlc with Italy and the Balkans and save USSR for last. The USSR would probably come with a land combat rework and alter the balance of the game a lot, so I imagine it’ll come with a relatively long development time. With corona disrupting industries I wouldn’t be surprised if they went with a shorter/smaller dlc to secure their profits in the near term

 

[valentin4]

I don't think they will do Italy and Ussr in the same dlc, Ussr will need Finland and a Poland rework at least and Italy will need Greece, that's too much for one dlc

 

[valentin4]

I think Soviet Union will be the next DLC focus, but I would prefer Italy. I could careless about the eastern front for me. I would prefer Italy. Several alt-history options are available to Italy. Would be nice to get a Italian Africa tree. Like if you control Africa you can build alot of stuff in there and make it nice? I dunno. Would be neat.

You don't care about the eastern front in a ww2 centered game?

 

[TheKillingJoke]

You don't care about the eastern front in a ww2 centered game?

So? Not everyone has to enjoy the entirety of WW2 to enjoy teh game. I also didn't care much about the Eastern Front when I did learn about WW2 in my World History Class. I preferred the Pacific Front as well as learning about the weapons and vehicles of the war, mainly the Germans. I had little knowledge of the Eastern Front except Hitler made a boo-boo in attacking Russia.

 

[coffeelingfine]

You don't care about the eastern front in a ww2 centered game?

I can't speak for him, but I at least don't, since I rarely play Germany or the Soviets.

 

[Harin]

After reading these forums for the last several months, I think there are many who are hoping land combat and everything supporting it gets a lot of attention in the next DLC. Updating the USSR may have the best chance for that to happen.

 

[him_15]

As long as they add some more general to Italy I am OK to have a Soviet DLC first.

 

[Col.Klink]

So? Not everyone has to enjoy the entirety of WW2 to enjoy teh game. I also didn't care much about the Eastern Front when I did learn about WW2 in my World History Class. I preferred the Pacific Front as well as learning about the weapons and vehicles of the war, mainly the Germans. I had little knowledge of the Eastern Front except Hitler made a boo-boo in attacking Russia.

What makes it interesting is that the the truth goes against everything we grew up culturally "knowing" AKA "Hitler made a boo boo."

It's more like, Hitler was running out of oil because the UK refused a white peace so he *HAD* to invade the Soviet Union to take their oil. The population of occupied Europe was also starving so he desperately needed the incredible farmland of the southern Soviet Union. When he attacked in 1941 it was the last moment he would have enough fuel to launch such an attack. It was now or never.

And as it turned out it was the perfect time to attack the Soviets who were in full military restructuring. Hardly any anti tank guns were issued, whole tank divisions with no trucks for supplies OR to transport supporting infantry ect.

It's also fascinating because it can be argued that Hitler lost because a man named Franz Halder hated taking orders from Hitler who was nothing more than a corporal in ww1. Franz managed to successfully divert the intent of the attack from the Russian food and oil supply to the north where Moscow sits, believing for some ludicrous reason the Soviets would surrender if Moscow fell, completely ignoring like 400 years of Russian defensive strategy that subsidized and built up the east so that they could retreat from even Moscow and continue resisting until invaders exhausted themselves. So as it turns out the Germans didn't even reach Moscow and in 1942 they had so few resources left they couldn't even get the oil.

The icing on the cake is Franz Halder survived the war, was largely responsible for Germany's loss in it and was given the meritorious civilian service award by the US Government for writing down a bunch of lies about how superior Germans are and how inferior Russians are in reference to how the eastern front war was fought. If we acted on that information and fought the soviets in 1940s we would have lost BADLY lol.

 

[Harin]

If we acted on that information and fought the soviets in 1940s we would have lost BADLY lol.

I do not even want to think about fighting the Soviets in 1940's. The US had 62 divisions in Europe, thousands of miles from home and only 91 total in the entire world. The Soviets had over 500, close to home, and were not afraid of casualties. People can discuss how one division is different than another, but when you are outnumber almost 9 to 1 in divisions, the day is not going to end well for you.

 

[Col.Klink]

I think Italy is a fascinating but under studied power in the war. Weak, yet powerful.

Yet, I think I would love to see a deeper story told for the soviet union. I think people are enamored by it, it's complexities and further focuses ect really would be a crowd pleaser.

I do not even want to think about fighting the Soviets in 1940's. The US had 62 divisions in Europe, thousands of miles from home and only 91 total in the entire world. The Soviets had over 500, close to home, and were not afraid of casualties. People can discuss how one division is different than another, but when you are outnumber almost 9 to 1 in divisions, the day is not going to end well for you.

One thing to bear in mind is that Soviet divisional strength and US divisional strength weren't really the same. The US total came out to be about 8.5 million and in 1945 the soviet somewhere around 12 million fighting men. Essentially in the darkest days of the war the Soviets kept shrinking divisional size and pouring out new units. Their reserve system allowed them the NCO and officer corps to make it happen (Germany had the opposite problem.)

What is really a hard pill to swallow is that the Soviets were by 1945 factually good at fighting war. They were in fact GREAT at it. So they outnumbered us, were factually great at war and as you mentioned everything the usa used had to be shipped across the sea. Simply supplying our army in Europe was a daily struggle simply because of that. It wasn't until the 1970s that shipping container technology came out which would have made such a war so much more feasible.

 

[Ivankovsky]

If they both can be in the same dlc/update, great! If not, Soviets obviously, not even a contest.

And if you think otherwise your opinion is just wrong and I don't know what to do to help you, besides telling you to choose the obvious, factual and undeniable right answer; The USSR.