oh no, oh nononono

[Magnificent Genius]

Because operation Barbarossa was the defining point when Germany overextended, failed to crush Soviet and then lost. Like there's no more important operation in the entire WW2.

"


"

I would suggest deleting this post. These are things that cannot be discussed.

EDIT: Since I'm being barraged by disagrees for some inexplicable reason, I'm referring to the part of the post that I removed from the quote.

 

[Harin]

It is likely that the fate of the Allies was not centered around the Suez Canal. But again, the very course of the war would be catastrophic. Whether or not the United States would have made up for the losses is a highly controversial issue, especially considering that they entered the war in 41. The role of Italians could have been better, or it could have been purely administrative. Victory in Africa could mean a delayed beginning of Barbarossa, or generally postponing for better times, or a complete victory. (There were plans for the transfer of troops from Central Asia to India)

I can agree with some of this. The Axis taking the Suez Canal, parts of North Africa, and the Middle East would have been a great victory for them. It would have been a major blow to the UK's morale as it was the only major power still resisting the Germans. The Italians could have done a better job. The individual soldiers on the front won praise from Rommel. The problem was the Italian political leaders did a lousy job preparing for a war they had every intention of starting themselves. Such foolishness was almost impossible for the Italian military to make up for on the front.

The biggest question mark is just how much America would have helped before December 7th, 1941. I believe, my personal opinion, that the US would have helped as much as it took to ensure Britain did not fall. In 1939, the American population could not envision the Germans winning like they did, so the Americans did not support getting involved. Those crazy Europeans are killing each other again, let them do it without us, this time.

By 1940 US sentiment was beginning to slowly change. Letting the Europeans kill each other was one thing, letting a dictatorship defeat free Britain and seal the fate of all free European nations was entirely another. The US rarely, if ever, fights a free nation, but is quick to anger when an established free nation faces an existential threat.

The catastrophe you describe, would very much look like such a threat. The US would most likely have started mobilizing sooner. The US started up the draft (conscription) on September 16th, 1940. That is a huge step in a democracy that is not at war, nor can be touched by war with oceans protecting it from invasion. That draft was for one thing only. Not self defense, but the defense of the UK and free nations. Even in 1940, the US had no intention of letting the free world lose. Still, since the European war was not a US war, the US people did not want to get involved until it was absolutely necessary. The UK losing so badly would most likely make it absolutely necessary.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Which core mechanics?

War score, peace conferences, front line shuffling distances, what happens when you click "execute plan" vs what is represented beforehand, interruptions of strategic redeployment in non-combat scenarios, who gets control of territory during a war (and thus the production) and why.

Fixing AI teamkilling its own faction members with supply trolling would be useful, too.

 

[colonel Oink]

I can agree with some of this. The Axis taking the Suez Canal, parts of North Africa, and the Middle East would have been a great victory for them. It would have been a major blow to the UK's morale as it was the only major power still resisting the Germans. The Italians could have done a better job. The individual soldiers on the front won praise from Rommel. The problem was the Italian political leaders did a lousy job preparing for a war they had every intention of starting themselves. Such foolishness was almost impossible for the Italian military to make up for on the front.

The biggest question mark is just how much America would have helped before December 7th, 1941. I believe, my personal opinion, that the US would have helped as much as it took to ensure Britain did not fall. In 1939, the American population could not envision the Germans winning like they did, so the Americans did not support getting involved. Those crazy Europeans are killing each other again, let them do it without us, this time.

By 1940 US sentiment was beginning to slowly change. Letting the Europeans kill each other was one thing, letting a dictatorship defeat free Britain and seal the fate of all free European nations was entirely another. The US rarely, if ever, fights a free nation, but is quick to anger when an established free nation faces an existential threat.

The catastrophe you describe, would very much look like such a threat. The US would most likely have started mobilizing sooner. The US started up the draft (conscription) on September 16th, 1940. That is a huge step in a democracy that is not at war, nor can be touched by war with oceans protecting it from invasion. That draft was for one thing only. Not self defense, but the defense of the UK and free nations. Even in 1940, the US had no intention of letting the free world lose. Still, since the European war was not a US war, the US people did not want to get involved until it was absolutely necessary. The UK losing so badly would most likely make it absolutely necessary.

I think so too. Already the aggressive policy of Italy in relation to caused some debate. The Americans have imposed some of the most extensive sanctions on Italy. I believe that such an event, but multiplied hundreds of times and supported by Japanese aggression, would not leave anyone indifferent.

 

[GianpietroU90]

Which core mechanics?

Peace conference above all the others in my opinion

 

[noobermenschen]

This is all very touching, but it smacks of ideological propaganda. I do not deny the importance of the events on the Eastern Front, but I believe that the collapse of Britain in the Middle East and Africa would have more serious consequences than the Wehrmacht's entry into the A – A line.
Loss of Middle Eastern oil, minerals in Africa, access to the eastern colonies, China and the Pacific dominions. All this would obviously be the complete collapse of the free world. And the Soviet Union lost at the beginning of the war anyway.

Wellll... Intriguing, but the Free World was unlikely to collapse of the Axis took Malta and Suez. Rommel got into logistical trouble whenever he went past Sidi Barini. I don't see the panzers driving on Baghdad and Khartoum. If the Axis had conquered the Med, focused a bit more on sea/land supply and fuel movement (Italian lorries were greatly prized by the British Army), if the Italian Army had whipped itself into shape a bit faster (performance had improved greatly before morale collapsed in 1943) AND Japan had obliged by taking Ceylon in 1942 it it possible India and the Middle East could have been lost, with Stalin pointedly complaining that the Germans opened a Second Front before the Allies. But the United Nations had already suffered a long string of devastating and humiliating defeats, I don't think a few more on the far side of the world would have made them throw in the towel. And it could be open for debate whether losing India and leaving China isolated would have been a huge net loss for the Allies, given the resources that were committed to the theater.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: India

pwencycl.kgbudge.com

The axis I think, lost due to bad luck. But he lost more to the fault of Italy: he opened a front to the south (African first and Greek / Yugoslav later) which postponed the attack on the USSR. A month earlier (or even 2 weeks) they would have done a lot may not seem like it but in WW2 often timing did not win the axis. In addition to the attack on the USSR (postponed by a month) there was the fact that Italy after the DOW did not move for 4 months, I REPEAT: STAY STOPS FOUR MONTHS! If Italy had attacked immediately (as Balbo wanted to do) the British would have been overwhelmed, Graziani, to move he had to be threatened with being sent to court martial! It must be said that Italy entered the war not only unprepared, but because Churchill seized (when Italy was still neutral) all the Italian shipping present in the UK and colonies, obviously causing Italian anger, in addition to coal embargo. So either Italy joined the Allies for British coal or joined the German coal axis. In any case, churchill would have had his secondary front which would have forced Germany to move troops.

An earlier Barbarossa and an earlier Typhoon (the drive on Moscow) would have put Fritz right in the middle of Stalingrad type battles in Moscow and Leningrad when the mud and frost hit. True the Red Army did not have the mobile resources they had a year later so the Heer would probably not have had an army pocketed but they still would have paid a dear price and they still were not likely to win, even if Moscow (a major transportation hub, especially north-south) had been captured as a burnt husk.

And don't be too hard on Graziani, the British were hoping he would lunge forward and overextend himself. He was no ball of fire, but a man's got to know his limitations. . Interesting info on UK treatment of Italian interests during the Phony war, I will need to read up more on this.

 

[Vlad123]

Wellll... Intriguing, but the Free World was unlikely to collapse of the Axis took Malta and Suez. Rommel got into logistical trouble whenever he went past Sidi Barini. I don't see the panzers driving on Baghdad and Khartoum. If the Axis had conquered the Med, focused a bit more on sea/land supply and fuel movement (Italian lorries were greatly prized by the British Army), if the Italian Army had whipped itself into shape a bit faster (performance had improved greatly before morale collapsed in 1943) AND Japan had obliged by taking Ceylon in 1942 it it possible India and the Middle East could have been lost, with Stalin pointedly complaining that the Germans opened a Second Front before the Allies. But the United Nations had already suffered a long string of devastating and humiliating defeats, I don't think a few more on the far side of the world would have made them throw in the towel. And it could be open for debate whether losing India and leaving China isolated would have been a huge net loss for the Allies, given the resources that were committed to the theater.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: India

pwencycl.kgbudge.com

An earlier Barbarossa and an earlier Typhoon (the drive on Moscow) would have put Fritz right in the middle of Stalingrad type battles in Moscow and Leningrad when the mud and frost hit. True the Red Army did not have the mobile resources they had a year later so the Heer would probably not have had an army pocketed but they still would have paid a dear price and they still were not likely to win, even if Moscow (a major transportation hub, especially north-south) had been captured as a burnt husk.

And don't be too hard on Graziani, the British were hoping he would lunge forward and overextend himself. He was no ball of fire, but a man's got to know his limitations. . Interesting info on UK treatment of Italian interests during the Phony war, I will need to read up more on this.

error british leave malta and are scared of italian in egypt. They think we do a Blitzkreig like in france. But Graziani,the idiot,wait 4 month allow british to reinforce. Hoi4 ironically make perfect this thing: if you attaccack soon english are defeat. If you wait too much english reinforce their position and are very hard kick off

 

[Akaoni]

Reading the dev diary about Greece, the content designer wrote: "So we have decided to bring back the idea of a Country Pack, a smaller expansion that focuses on a specific part of the world and covering 3-4 minor nations."
So, trusting him, only minors will be involved in this update/DLC: not USSR, neither Italy.
Which other countries will be updated, besides Greece?
Turkey, I guess, Persia and maybe the 4th could be Bulgaria? (just to remain in the same 'specific part of the world'). What do you think?

 

[Razmorg]

I would suggest deleting this post. These are things that cannot be discussed.

EDIT: Since I'm being barraged by disagrees for some inexplicable reason, I'm referring to the part of the post that I removed from the quote.

Yeah, if people wonder, I was linking to a large snippet about Barbarossa on wikipedia that overall went into how it was one of the largest most defining fronts but it also included some specifics to topics that are banned for discussion here and a mod cleaned out the large wiki quote.

 

[Dsingis]

For the love of god, I hope this isn't an update with new focus trees to greece, italy and turkey. WE NEED ONE NOW FOR THE USSR. PLEASE PARADOX. TELL ME THIS UPDATE WILL HAVE AND UPDATE TO THE USSR FOCUS TREE!

Everyone who reads the dev diaries knows, that it is already confirmed that the NEXT patch, the one after this one is called Barbarossa and therefore will very likely be focused on the USSR.
So take a chillpill and go relax a bit.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The game needs to support both historical and good ahistorical paths.

Historically, the Mediterranean theatre WAS secondary for all major powers except Italy. But it could have become far more important if instead of attacking the Soviets the Axis had focused on defeating the Allies in North Africa and take Gibraltar, Malta and Suez and either allied or invaded Turkey to get middle eastern oil.

The Greek focus tree adresses the latter and looks good. If the other countries include Turkey and Egypt, the DLC for 1.10 will be a must-have for everyone playing in the Med and 1.11 for the eastern front.

 

[safe-keeper]

Everyone who reads the dev diaries knows, that it is already confirmed that the NEXT patch, the one after this one is called Barbarossa and therefore will very likely be focused on the USSR.
So take a chillpill and go relax a bit.

They have also told us, and demonstrated, that patch/DLC names do not correspond with actual content.
Then again Barbarossa is just a little bit too obvious. Like saying they're working on a new game code-named "Victoria".
It's the perfect troll, in other words .

 

[Duke_Dave]

I prefer the USSR later but with the biggest focus tree in HoI4 no matter what path I go down I want content till 1950

 

[him_15]

The importance of the Eastern warfare in WW2 has nothing to do with the sequence of HOI DLC. In fact, sometimes the gaming development team tend to leave the big gun content until the last.

 

[Haresus]

They have also told us, and demonstrated, that patch/DLC names do not correspond with actual content.

A lot of the patch/DLC names can be interpreted as corresponding with the content, if you take a slightly more open view to the connections.

Ironclad, for example, was Man the Guns. I don't think I need to explain that connection.

La Resistance was originally supposed to include Italy, I hear, and the patch is Husky. Also not entirely unrelated to spy operations, see Operation Barclay and the "fake divisions" in LaR.

Waking the Tiger was Cornflakes, which was a propaganda operation to make Germans lose faith in Hitler... WtT also included the anti-Hitler path for Germany.

Before that, yeah, I agree that there's essentially no connection between patch names and content.

 

[Iskulya]

Reading the dev diary about Greece, the content designer wrote: "So we have decided to bring back the idea of a Country Pack, a smaller expansion that focuses on a specific part of the world and covering 3-4 minor nations."
So, trusting him, only minors will be involved in this update/DLC: not USSR, neither Italy.
Which other countries will be updated, besides Greece?
Turkey, I guess, Persia and maybe the 4th could be Bulgaria? (just to remain in the same 'specific part of the world'). What do you think?

I think we're unlikely to see Iran until a Soviet rework.. really depends. They might do the Scandinavian countries alongside the Soviet Union, but probably what I'd most like to see with the Soviet rework is a new rework of the Polish tree(since we all got the original polish tree free I think the "no DLC for DLC" clause doesn't apply here), Finland, and Iran.

Poland is a country with an awful lot of potential. It's uniquely a bit screwed being between Germany and the Soviet Union, but there should be a lot of ways that can play out. I'd like to see them give it another go at a Polish tree with all the experience they've gained in the past 4+ years.

One might think that all the Scandinavian countries should come together, but how much interaction would Finland actually really have with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway? Seems like the latter three are all much more connected to each other than any of them are to Finland.

 

[noobermenschen]

I prefer the USSR later but with the biggest focus tree in HoI4 no matter what path I go down I want content till 1950

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

 

[Duke_Dave]

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

It does. Also because if the Soviet AI keeps getting stuff to do that makes the game more interesting overall.

 

[noobermenschen]

It does. Also because if the Soviet AI keeps getting stuff to do that makes the game more interesting overall.

I do find that a bit immersion breaking as the SU was too busy clearing the wreckage and consolidating their new Eastern European empire to start wars with Turkey, Iran, etc. I have to admit with all the new focus trees the Soviet tree looks tiny.