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

[Ketchup & friends]

Squeezing both Italy and USSR into one patch and DLC seems like a bad idea. It would most likely result in both being done unsatisfactory. Ultimaely the devs can decide which one they can do first, but we think they should be two separate DLC, one for each of them.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

Sure both on the next expansion would be great, but think about it the major trees won't come alone. Italy would come with Greece + Turkey; USSR with Finland + [unknown minor]. Focus trees have also been getting progressively bigger and more complex, just take a peek at the Spanish tree, it's astounding. So the real question is, could they really manage about six of those at the same time?

I don't think so.

Someone is going to be disappointed come next expansion.

 

[Krey_Lollipop]

Preferably both, although if I had to pick I'd go for the Soviet Union.

The thing is that Italy was planned for La Resistance, but was later shelved due to other countries taking up the time. I don't know how much work has been put into Italy, but continuing with that might be the way to go.

As such I think it would be sweet with a smaller expansion themed around Italy to keep us busy while Paradox reworks everything related to the eastern front.

 

[mursolini]

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.

If we talk about 1945 war, it is not that clear cut because:
1. Soviets were largely tapped out in manpower, there was no real reserve to draw upon, while USA, UK, France and other allied nations had their manpower barely touched.
2. Soviet supply lines were also pretty long, and quite vulnerable.
3. Allied air superiority would deplete Soviet vehicle and rail pool very quickly, Soviets being particularly vulnerable due to being already reliant on Allied supply of trucks and aviation fuel, and them having fewer planes and fewer well trained pilots.
4. Soviet oil production being in range of allied strategic bombers.
5. Soviet civilian economy was in very bad shape, with wide scale starvation and reliance on Allied food supply to plug in the gaps.
6. Nukes could make Soviet situation untenable quckly, if Allies manage to nuke large targets like Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad.

Overall, it was largely a question of allied ability to hold off the initial Soviet blow, or Soviets manage to dislodge Allies out of France, and Italy.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

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.

Is this is true... wow. I appreciate all of this! That was a really good read!

 

[Harin]

If we talk about 1945 war, it is not that clear cut because:
1. Soviets were largely tapped out in manpower, there was no real reserve to draw upon, while USA, UK, France and other allied nations had their manpower barely touched.
2. Soviet supply lines were also pretty long, and quite vulnerable.
3. Allied air superiority would deplete Soviet vehicle and rail pool very quickly, Soviets being particularly vulnerable due to being already reliant on Allied supply of trucks and aviation fuel, and them having fewer planes and fewer well trained pilots.
4. Soviet oil production being in range of allied strategic bombers.
5. Soviet civilian economy was in very bad shape, with wide scale starvation and reliance on Allied food supply to plug in the gaps.
6. Nukes could make Soviet situation untenable quckly, if Allies manage to nuke large targets like Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad.

Overall, it was largely a question of allied ability to hold off the initial Soviet blow, or Soviets manage to dislodge Allies out of France, and Italy.

You make some good points. The fight would most likely rest on the Allies ability to take that initial blow. Sounds like a great DLC or mod.

 

[Col.Klink]

If we talk about 1945 war, it is not that clear cut because:
1. Soviets were largely tapped out in manpower, there was no real reserve to draw upon, while USA, UK, France and other allied nations had their manpower barely touched.
2. Soviet supply lines were also pretty long, and quite vulnerable.
3. Allied air superiority would deplete Soviet vehicle and rail pool very quickly, Soviets being particularly vulnerable due to being already reliant on Allied supply of trucks and aviation fuel, and them having fewer planes and fewer well trained pilots.
4. Soviet oil production being in range of allied strategic bombers.
5. Soviet civilian economy was in very bad shape, with wide scale starvation and reliance on Allied food supply to plug in the gaps.
6. Nukes could make Soviet situation untenable quckly, if Allies manage to nuke large targets like Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad.

Overall, it was largely a question of allied ability to hold off the initial Soviet blow, or Soviets manage to dislodge Allies out of France, and Italy.

Strat bombers at the time could fly from west Germany to Azerbaijan? I didn't know that! Lol I would have thought they would be lucky to have half that range....

But tbh there is no way they would have a fighter escort that far right?

And the USA was supplying everything by sea through ports. The distance wasn't as bad of a problem once you get the ship to sea but the bottleneck is the port capacity. With technology at the time it can take a stunning volume of time to unload a ship! That's why I stressed what an important invention shipping containers were.

The sea supply problem was so substantial that it explains the very conservative development of us tanks. The command knew tanks couldn't be shipped back to the factory and parts were going to be difficult to come by so reliability was more important than any other factor.

I think we all have come to the conclusion that the war would be decided quickly like... months which would mean the manpower difference really doesn't matter. And tbh neither would lend lease. The soviets already had all the trucks and locomotives from the USA they wanted. The biggest issue I agree has to be the fuel. The captured Romanian oil fields I don't think were intact. So again another factor meaning the war would be effectively won or lost in months.

The only caveat is if the soviets simply refuse to cave. Then the USA has the duel problem of those port bottlenecks AND the long supply lines into russia...

 

[Sighfer]

The thing is that Italy was planned for La Resistance, but was later shelved due to other countries taking up the time. I don't know how much work has been put into Italy, but continuing with that might be the way to go.

That's because reworking Italy requires reworking Greece, and tweaking the entire Balkans where Benny had all those designs, if he was successful. And there's also the matter of balancing history versus multiplayer, because Italian fuck-ups never end. Mass illiteracy, stagnant economy, adventurism that turned the Italian army into a paper tiger, a high military official being western intelligence agency asset and hiding the oil reserves so the fleets idle in port. Don't believe that 75% Stab/75% War Sup., Italy had labour strikes during the war, and the government collapsed the day the Allies set foot on mainland, to become a German puppet 11 days later. So it's like China/Manchuria with its debuffs and Canada in that the ruling Fascist+Monarchist+Democratic coalition can resolve only most of them vs. a Communist path that can resolve all of them, but involves dangling the rest upside down.

Reworking Italy and Soviet Union together is feasible, because what they have in common is Italian experience in inland seas shipbuilding, which Soviets had an interest in, because the Black Sea, because warm water ports. So the naval combat and naval tiles would probably be overhauled, and some ports would freeze. There's also the question what Soviet WW2 carriers would look like, because of the Montreux Convention, which resulted in Kiev-class aircraft carriers decades later. There's also the demobilization mechanic that needs to come back... and replacing the "Design bureaus" with industry statuses to simulate Soviet streamlining, British aircraft building and German overengineering.

Hmm, okay maybe it does need to be two DLC's, because the Winter War is everything. It is the reason Germans decided to break Molotov-Ribbentrop, it got Soviets written off by most Western Allies, and nearly resulted in Operation Pike. A lot of stuff needs to change to simulate this.

 

[Col.Klink]

That's because reworking Italy requires reworking Greece, and tweaking the entire Balkans where Benny had all those designs, if he was successful. And there's also the matter of balancing history versus multiplayer, because Italian fuck-ups never end. Mass illiteracy, stagnant economy, adventurism that turned the Italian army into a paper tiger, a high military official being western intelligence agency asset and hiding the oil reserves so the fleets idle in port. Don't believe that 75% Stab/75% War Sup., Italy had labour strikes during the war, and the government collapsed the day the Allies set foot on mainland, to become a German puppet 11 days later. So it's like China/Manchuria with its debuffs and Canada in that the ruling Fascist+Monarchist+Democratic coalition can resolve only most of them vs. a Communist path that can resolve all of them, but involves dangling the rest upside down.

Reworking Italy and Soviet Union together is feasible, because what they have in common is Italian experience in inland seas shipbuilding, which Soviets had an interest in, because the Black Sea, because warm water ports. So the naval combat and naval tiles would probably be overhauled, and some ports would freeze. There's also the question what Soviet WW2 carriers would look like, because of the Montreux Convention, which resulted in Kiev-class aircraft carriers decades later. There's also the demobilization mechanic that needs to come back... and replacing the "Design bureaus" with industry statuses to simulate Soviet streamlining, British aircraft building and German overengineering.

Hmm, okay maybe it does need to be two DLC's, because the Winter War is everything. It is the reason Germans decided to break Molotov-Ribbentrop, it got Soviets written off by most Western Allies, and nearly resulted in Operation Pike. A lot of stuff needs to change to simulate this.

I didn't even think that Ethiopia turned Italy into a paper tiger. It REVEALED the truth. They simply could not manufacture enough weapons for their army as a start. Like I remember reading that they just couldn't even produce enough artillery pieces all the way from 1936 to 45.

Shortages like this were why small arms like the bodeo 1886 served until the 1960s...

I've been hearing that mussolini only joined the war because he thought he had to. The blockading allies really sent the message that he had to pick sides.

I hadn't realized btw that the oil shortage was worsened by a spy in the italian government...

And the collapse of Italy once the allies landed i wonder if is the result of Italy getting trounced constantly. The losses are staggering because mussolini in all of his genius tried to make a large army with a country with limited productive potential instead of a small but elite force.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

That's because reworking Italy requires reworking Greece, and tweaking the entire Balkans where Benny had all those designs, if he was successful. And there's also the matter of balancing history versus multiplayer, because Italian fuck-ups never end. Mass illiteracy, stagnant economy, adventurism that turned the Italian army into a paper tiger, a high military official being western intelligence agency asset and hiding the oil reserves so the fleets idle in port. Don't believe that 75% Stab/75% War Sup., Italy had labour strikes during the war, and the government collapsed the day the Allies set foot on mainland, to become a German puppet 11 days later. So it's like China/Manchuria with its debuffs and Canada in that the ruling Fascist+Monarchist+Democratic coalition can resolve only most of them vs. a Communist path that can resolve all of them, but involves dangling the rest upside down.

Reworking Italy and Soviet Union together is feasible, because what they have in common is Italian experience in inland seas shipbuilding, which Soviets had an interest in, because the Black Sea, because warm water ports. So the naval combat and naval tiles would probably be overhauled, and some ports would freeze. There's also the question what Soviet WW2 carriers would look like, because of the Montreux Convention, which resulted in Kiev-class aircraft carriers decades later. There's also the demobilization mechanic that needs to come back... and replacing the "Design bureaus" with industry statuses to simulate Soviet streamlining, British aircraft building and German overengineering.

Hmm, okay maybe it does need to be two DLC's, because the Winter War is everything. It is the reason Germans decided to break Molotov-Ribbentrop, it got Soviets written off by most Western Allies, and nearly resulted in Operation Pike. A lot of stuff needs to change to simulate this.

The devs would make a huge mistake if they actualyl make Italy THAT terrible in game. I dont think anyone but the most masochistic will wanna play Italy unless they made it EASY to remove your debuffs in MP but the AI on historical mode would take a wjhile to do so. Eh, We'll see.

I just fear Italy being made worse than it already is.

 

[mursolini]

Strat bombers at the time could fly from west Germany to Azerbaijan? I didn't know that! Lol I would have thought they would be lucky to have half that range....

But tbh there is no way they would have a fighter escort that far right?

From Syria and Iraq, it is less then 1.0-1.5k km to Baku, depending on where your air base is, exactly, so doable for both strategic bombers and P-38, Mustang probably was a bit short, but then it depends on whom got upper hand in occupied Iran, maybe allies would have even closer bases.

And the USA was supplying everything by sea through ports. The distance wasn't as bad of a problem once you get the ship to sea but the bottleneck is the port capacity. With technology at the time it can take a stunning volume of time to unload a ship! That's why I stressed what an important invention shipping containers were.

The sea supply problem was so substantial that it explains the very conservative development of us tanks. The command knew tanks couldn't be shipped back to the factory and parts were going to be difficult to come by so reliability was more important than any other factor.

It isn`t as huge of a problem, if war is already going on, and there are troops and supplies on the way to Europe. In cold war, yes, Soviet surprise attack was a huge factor, because it would take a week or more for any shipping from US to even make it into port in Europe. But in 1945, plenty of ships are on the way, and army is already there.

I think we all have come to the conclusion that the war would be decided quickly like... months which would mean the manpower difference really doesn't matter. And tbh neither would lend lease. The soviets already had all the trucks and locomotives from the USA they wanted. The biggest issue I agree has to be the fuel. The captured Romanian oil fields I don't think were intact. So again another factor meaning the war would be effectively won or lost in months.

I don`t see any reason to believe that war will be done in a months. US and UK were far better motorized, which makes large scale soviet encirclement unlikely. Soviets would have to push far greater distance than historically Germans have in fall Gelb, under heavily contested air, and also into rough terrain in Italy, against already highly mobilized and battle ready troops. If they would be done in a year, I would be surprised.

The only caveat is if the soviets simply refuse to cave. Then the USA has the duel problem of those port bottlenecks AND the long supply lines into russia...

Soviets refuse to cave, so what? You occupy up to Polish-Soviet border, then, if needed, continue small scale advances, while mobilizing your European allies army, and using UK, France and Germany for support and initial repairs, replenishment and so on.

In the end, Soviet army just collapses, from lack of bodies, and food, munitions, fuel ex. In the end, you don`t have to occupy deep, you can get plenty of local support in occupied areas. Once you manage to create local goverments in Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states, ex, US and western allies only need to run relatively small force.

Also, Russians refusing to cave, is just a stereotype. They were smart to not cave when they had more resources and would win long term, but also accepted defeat in case they had to advantage in long term.

 

[Col.Klink]

From Syria and Iraq, it is less then 1.0-1.5k km to Baku, depending on where your air base is, exactly, so doable for both strategic bombers and P-38, Mustang probably was a bit short, but then it depends on whom got upper hand in occupied Iran, maybe allies would have even closer bases.

It isn`t as huge of a problem, if war is already going on, and there are troops and supplies on the way to Europe. In cold war, yes, Soviet surprise attack was a huge factor, because it would take a week or more for any shipping from US to even make it into port in Europe. But in 1945, plenty of ships are on the way, and army is already there.

I don`t see any reason to believe that war will be done in a months. US and UK were far better motorized, which makes large scale soviet encirclement unlikely. Soviets would have to push far greater distance than historically Germans have in fall Gelb, under heavily contested air, and also into rough terrain in Italy, against already highly mobilized and battle ready troops. If they would be done in a year, I would be surprised.

Soviets refuse to cave, so what? You occupy up to Polish-Soviet border, then, if needed, continue small scale advances, while mobilizing your European allies army, and using UK, France and Germany for support and initial repairs, replenishment and so on.

In the end, Soviet army just collapses, from lack of bodies, and food, munitions, fuel ex. In the end, you don`t have to occupy deep, you can get plenty of local support in occupied areas. Once you manage to create local goverments in Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states, ex, US and western allies only need to run relatively small force.

Also, Russians refusing to cave, is just a stereotype. They were smart to not cave when they had more resources and would win long term, but also accepted defeat in case they had to advantage in long term.

I had forgotten about the Iranian vector! It's a defensible border for the soviets but only on land.

On the ships you don't seem to understand the problem. The ports can only handle so much supply. There is an absolute limit due to shipping technology at the time. You can have all the ships in the world but your limit is how mind numbingly exhaustive it is to load or unload anything. Ever see a movie set on the docks in the 1930s? Cargo nets of crates and such? It could take WEEKS.

This problem is why rommel in North Africa didn't just push on to the suez, he HAD to take Tobruk, his one port didn't allow him enough supply as it was and his supply chain was already exhaustively long by truck. This is also why in 1944 the allies were so dead set on getting the lowland naval bases. The entire advance was grinding to a halt because there physically was no way to get enough supplies in for everyone to attack at once. The allied army in Europe at the time had to choice who would get fuel or not. The supplies were that tight. This was not a problem of not enough ships, it literally was a problem of port capacity.

This makes allied motorization as much of a liability as an asset.

As for encirclement likelihood I'm not sure. The soviets were good at inflicting massive damage once the enemy front line had been broken in the east where there was much more space to cover. Meaning they had mobility. But the west is tighter which might make that much harder to do. I just don't know.

I wouldn't count on armies from the small eastern European states. Poland was depopulated by Germany. Both depopulated Ukraine and the northern Baltic states. They were ruins with little value at the time...

The US started to experience labor strikes and dissent from war exhaustion in 1945. Its willingness to prosecute another grueling long war really wasn't there... but the eastern European population under the soviet union had just been invaded by an enemy intent on literal extermination. I don't think surrender would come easily after that. And Russian defensive strategy for 400 years is built upon wearing down the invader.

I think the biggest factors you brought up. Can Russia protect its oil. How effective is the American airforce against an army that isn't in full collapse? Can the Americans keep their airforce size up against an actual opponent in europe considering the supply constraints?

 

[kimidf]

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

I think they do not have any logical sense that Italian and Soviet reworked nor historically have anything in common to justify both came in the same dlc neither commercially nor would it be intelligently and this was discarded by the developers themselves in an interview on Reddit following a question asked in that sense

 

[Beagá]

I would also like extra achievements for the soviets. Make the whole world communist!

 

[Secret Master]

If they do a rework of the Soviet Union, I hope it involves a rework of artillery and infantry mechanics.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

If they do a rework of the Soviet Union, I hope it involves a rework of artillery and infantry mechanics.

I would want more rework on air. It would be nice to build CAS that specifically target a specific thing. Like rockets attack tanks and bombs attack infantry. I think that would be cool. A way to make tactical bombers better and all.

Make it easier to get air exp maybe too. Would be nice.

 

[-=Cheburashka=-]

I prefer USSR the first. Seriosly, USSR must be revorked long time ago, because its focus tree is ... bad at least. I'd like to see some mechanic, for joining new Soviet Republics in USSR with adding soviet cores simular to anarchist Spain, resourses help, ideology change as war target. Or restoration of Russian Empire (non nazi), just as "return of the Caiser" for Germany. If small Portugal was reworked, why USSR waited so long? Does developers have some prejudice against it?

 

[walliart]

Well this is a game and PDX must make money. Would they make more money selling a DLC with USSR or selling a DLC with Italy. Becomes a balance on purchasing power and people interested in buying. Rest is bla-bla.

And btw:
1. German army reached about 30km of Moskow. We have to thank the bad palnning, '40-'45 coldest winters in 20th century and bad behavior which made them fail.
2. USSR during the war was constantly being supplied by US. As they well said "we gave the rifles and they gave the blood".
By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles. 350 locomotives, 1,640 flat cars, and close to half a million tons of rails and accessories, axles, and wheels. The Soviet Union also has received some 3,000,000 tons of food. In total were about 17.500.000 tone of shipment. Another 4.000.000 tone were sent by UK as aid. Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route. Generally speaking russians never mention the aid when they speak about WW2 (by no means they don't teach about it in schools) and struggle to keep alive the myth that they are invincible.
3. Of course in an eventual war US could ship towards western Europe and keep up a front against USSR. As they helped USSR during war they could now help western Europe and here were more, bigger and well developed ports.
4. US was pretty much the only country with enough heavy bombers at end of WW2 (about 30.000 were built by US and about 100 by USSR). And those could take off from pretty much all the lands around USSR. With their range nothing was untouchable. (B29 has a range of 5300 km while distance from Cyprus to Moskow is 2300 km...just to have a glimpse).
5. NO REPUBLIC joined willingly USSR. They were all conquered by force. So there is no need for a special game mechanic to join USSR. If you wish to have a new republic in USSR, do what they always did back then and now, conquer by force.

 

[-=Cheburashka=-]

Well this is a game and PDX must make money. Would they make more money selling a DLC with USSR or selling a DLC with Italy. Becomes a balance on purchasing power and people interested in buying. Rest is bla-bla.

2. USSR during the war was constantly being supplied by US. As they well said "we gave the rifles and they gave the blood".
By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles. 350 locomotives, 1,640 flat cars, and close to half a million tons of rails and accessories, axles, and wheels. The Soviet Union also has received some 3,000,000 tons of food. In total were about 17.500.000 tone of shipment. Another 4.000.000 tone were sent by UK as aid. Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route. Generally speaking russians never mention the aid when they speak about WW2 (by no means they don't teach about it in schools) and struggle to keep alive the myth that they are invincible.

5. NO REPUBLIC joined willingly USSR. They were all conquered by force. So there is no need for a special game mechanic to join USSR. If you wish to have a new republic in USSR, do what they always did back then and now, conquer by force.

2. "Fortifications, artillery, foreign aid - will be of no value, unless the ordinary soldier knows that it is HE guarding his country. Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim". You must be graitfull to soviet soldiers. You dont have to learn german because they died in WW2

5. Pal, seriosly? USSR was a confederation of republics. And each had its own government. Not mention that they where free to leave Union and it was wrote in it constitution. Show me where in USA constitution is mentioned that states can leave it? Last try ended in civil war! I knew that western propaganda tells USSR was the Red Russian Empire of Evil, but it is propaganda. The truth is - USSR stood agaist all Europe in WW2 and beat nazi monster in its lair.

 

[TheKillingJoke]

I prefer USSR the first. Seriosly, USSR must be revorked long time ago, because its focus tree is ... bad at least. I'd like to see some mechanic, for joining new Soviet Republics in USSR with adding soviet cores simular to anarchist Spain, resourses help, ideology change as war target. Or restoration of Russian Empire (non nazi), just as "return of the Caiser" for Germany. If small Portugal was reworked, why USSR waited so long? Does developers have some prejudice against it?

I mean... Italy's focus tree is argueably even worse...