Russia and its inablility to cope with losses

[Cybvep]

The USSR had hardly a non-industrial economy. They actually outproduced the Germans during the war and became the superpower after its end. What you are describing sounds more like WWII China.

Also, it is not true that you do not need industry to fight wars. How are you gonna get weapons and ammunition without it? You either has to produce them or someone has to produce them for you so that you can buy them. Either way, production capability is needed.

It should also be noted that the Chinese had trouble even feeding its own army and it's economy was mostly agricultural. Their offensive capabilities were very small. They had millions of men, but the army was plagued with corruption, poor training and lack of supplies. IRL terrain, poor infrastructure and partisan activity probably saved them.

 

[1alexey]

IMO the USSR ability to cope with losses is not only problem limited to the USSR. Basically alll countries that, like the Soviet Union, forged huge low quality armies is not easily reflected in the HOI engine. You simply cannot build anything withour industry, and that is exactly what they lacked. Ironiocally, what made up for this lack of industry (that could produce quality) was huge armies deployed en masse on the battlefield.

The problem will be even more visible as we enter the cold war period. How can post colonial states like Nigeria, Sudan and Vietnam ever produce the large armies they did historically, if they have some 4 IC each, which also is of course historical. The HOI engine reflects industial warfare. Unfortunately for HOI, history shows you don't need much of industry to create huge armies and hence win wars.

As Stalin said "quantity has a quality of its own". And the point with quantity is that it is not quality. However, in the HOI way of dealing with industry one cannot really compromise with quality at the benefit of quantity. Even producing 200 militia divisions at the same time requires an IC powerhouse available only to a few majors.

Countries that simply had no or ver little industry comes short. They can do nothing in HOI terms. Countries with much manpower and little industry can never make full use of that manpower in short amount of time. As thread sais, the problem for the Soviets is they cannot replace their losses in short time. They lack the industrial capacity. In real life the only limiting factor on how many and fast you can replace losses is the share quantity of men fit for service in your population.

I'd say DH economics fail to reflect non-industrial economies and developing economies. It fails to reflect these economies because they will always use quantity as their quality in war and use industry as the only limiting factor on number of men

If you look at the actual figures USSR was probably the second-third industrial economy of the world.

Their initial fast build up of militia was mostly thanks to a substantial cache of stockpiled, often civil-war time frame firearms, but the supply wouldn`t last long.
At the gates of Stalingrad soviet militias hardly had even 30% of needed rifles.
i.e. teoretically as long as you heve a stockpile of weapons and munitions you can trow your man with it, but sooner or later you will run out of stockpiles and the ability to produce weapons&munition(=industry) will limit you.

As for Vietnam it was very strongly backed by SU and China, Vietnamise army, by the end of the war, actually fielding modern aviation, SAM, tanks, and assault rifles(akka AK-47), not a tonne of bolt-action rifles of WW1.
Which was supplied by it`s bigger brothers, sometimes coupled with a cache of abled&trained bodies to man weapons.

 

[Easy1]

The USSR had hardly a non-industrial economy. They actually outproduced the Germans during the war and became the superpower after its end. What you are describing sounds more like WWII China.

Also, it is not true that you do not need industry to fight wars. How are you gonna get weapons and ammunition without it? You either has to produce them or someone has to produce them for you so that you can buy them. Either way, production capability is needed.

It should also be noted that the Chinese had trouble even feeding its own army and it's economy was mostly agricultural. Their offensive capabilities were very small. They had millions of men, but the army was plagued with corruption, poor training and lack of supplies. IRL terrain, poor infrastructure and partisan activity probably saved them.

If you look at the actual figures USSR was probably the second-third industrial economy of the world.

Their initial fast build up of militia was mostly thanks to a substantial cache of stockpiled, often civil-war time frame firearms, but the supply wouldn`t last long.
At the gates of Stalingrad soviet militias hardly had even 30% of needed rifles.
i.e. teoretically as long as you heve a stockpile of weapons and munitions you can trow your man with it, but sooner or later you will run out of stockpiles and the ability to produce weapons&munition(=industry) will limit you.

As for Vietnam it was very strongly backed by SU and China, Vietnamise army, by the end of the war, actually fielding modern aviation, SAM, tanks, and assault rifles(akka AK-47), not a tonne of bolt-action rifles of WW1.
Which was supplied by it`s bigger brothers, sometimes coupled with a cache of abled&trained bodies to man weapons.

USSR is what I would call a developing economy of the period. GDP per capita is very low compared to western countries and the economy is still more or less based on by agriculture and raw materials.

The point is they outproduced Germany, and exactly that was their intent. They needed more than Germany of everything for obvious reasons. However, this is more or less impossible as long as Germany has more IC.

The industry you need for fighting a war is minimal. Bullets and rifles are basically all you need to figh, and that is extremely accessible on the world market and easy to produce. Guerrillas around the world are armed to the teeth. The IRL industrial capacity that equals 1 IC would probably be enough to produce millions of rifles and bullets.

Point is, if the Soviet Union want to create a 5 mil strong army in 3 months, they can do it. And they can do it with very little industry, but of course at the cost of the quality of this 5 mil strong army. In HOI, they cannot do it because they lack the industry.

I might agree that IC should be a limiting factor on the quantity of an armed force, but I think it is too much of a limiting factor.

 

[unmerged(276427)]

Can't you just have a trigger that when the USSR is invaded by Germany, it devotes all IC into building/reinforcing infantry divisions? Their industry level is fine, they should be able to build plenty of infantry.

 

[Cybvep]

The point is they outproduced Germany, and exactly that was their intent. They needed more than Germany of everything for obvious reasons. However, this is more or less impossible as long as Germany has more IC.

Consider this:

1. The USSR went for full mobilisation right from the start (and central planning was well-suited for this, given the amount of power the government had). Germany didn't. When they did, their capabilities increased tremendously. This translates to in-game IC.
2. The USSR received tons of material from the USA and the UK as part of the Lend Lease program. Germany didn't. This translates to in-game IC and supplies.
3. Germany had to fight on more than one front. They couldn't use their full potential in the East - they had to keep units and aircraft in the West. They were also helping Italy in Africa and later they were fighting in Italy, too.

I think that a much more pressing problem is the inability of the USSR to produce units FAST at the expense of their quality. This concerns other countries as well - it didn't take much time to form Volkssturm or the Home Guard. DH's long unit buildtimes work well in most situations, but they cannot represent emergency situations. A "rush" button or sth like that would be needed for that purpose. It should also be possible to use it only during a war with a strong enemy, not Tibet or Ethiopia.

 

[DivineShadow]

Why not just add a trigger where if you lose xx% national you get a decision calling a state of emergency and militia build time goes down by 90% and you can just spam militia (the ai will have to be triggered to do that also) now militia alone shouldnt be enough to win the war but it SHOULD be enough to stall the enemy and force the enemy to spread thin and camp for winter.... allowing you time to produce some real men....

The AI soviet should should do everything possible to avoid encirclment (same for all ais) and it should retreat when divisons are going to be lost and allow them to recover etc....

The soviets tactics should be to pretty much slow the germans down as much as possible and spread them thinly and counter-attack where possible.

I cant see how an AI soviet can atually win tho since even if you get totally owned in russia you can still retreat to rivers and hold them for 5 years then nuke the shit into soviet union then walk up and get BP.... The ai needs to produce the units it needs to destroy you and it needs to USE them... this goes with coordinated air attacks....

One time in MP russia was just too strong and i held the rivers from poland to mountains in yugoslavia and the soviet player just could not get past it.... He tried for YEARS and it just not possible evenutally i nuked a bunch of his armies and moscow etc causing huge dissent and his army was unable to fight properly from like 60+ dissent then germany just swept over russia using armour, mech, inf, cas

Its pretty funny the how easy it is to hold rivers and mountains with brigaded inf, mountineers and brigaded armour with air support.

 

[Arturius]

Maybe infantry unit production shouldn't cost IC but supplies. So you are able to form infantry units either with weapons that you produced or with weapons you have imported. With current production model only the former is represented. So low IC nations would be able to bring their population to arms if they get weapons imported.

 

[Cybvep]

Maybe infantry unit production shouldn't cost IC but supplies. So you are able to form infantry units either with weapons that you produced or with weapons you have imported. With current production model only the former is represented. So low IC nations would be able to bring their population to arms if they get weapons imported.

This is interesting, but it would mean major changes to game balance, so I think that the idea needs to be carefully considered.

 

[DukoOsshiiKhan]

Maybe infantry unit production shouldn't cost IC but supplies. So you are able to form infantry units either with weapons that you produced or with weapons you have imported. With current production model only the former is represented. So low IC nations would be able to bring their population to arms if they get weapons imported.

That is a very good idea. Although if you do that for Infantry, then it would have to be done for every other land unit. Then for air and naval units in the game. Ships, of course, I do not see it happening as much as there would be no excuse for lowering IC cost (the ship has to be built, whereas actual men are not built) but the sailors onboard could still be account for in terms of supplies. The same would go for air units. Production to account for planes and supplies to account for pilot training.

 

[Arturius]

That is a very good idea. Although if you do that for Infantry, then it would have to be done for every other land unit. Then for air and naval units in the game. Ships, of course, I do not see it happening as much as there would be no excuse for lowering IC cost (the ship has to be built, whereas actual men are not built) but the sailors onboard could still be account for in terms of supplies. The same would go for air units. Production to account for planes and supplies to account for pilot training.

You're right, but if you produce tanks, ships and planes the supply for their crews is secondary. Crew is not that armed/supplied like an infantryman since its weapon is the tank etc. For infantry supply is essential because this represents its weapons. The supply to form tank units could be ignored IMHO because the tank itself is essential here.

 

[DukoOsshiiKhan]

You're right, but if you produce tanks, ships and planes the supply for their crews is secondary. Crew is not that armed/supplied like an infantryman since its weapon is the tank etc. For infantry supply is essential because this represents its weapons. The supply to form tank units could be ignored IMHO because the tank itself is essential here.

Yes but the crew for these were still given weapons, and I do believe training. So supplies would account for using ammunition during training (practising using the weapons of ships, planes and tanks) as well as actually using oil too (driving them during training).

 

[1alexey]

The industry you need for fighting a war is minimal. Bullets and rifles are basically all you need to figh, and that is extremely accessible on the world market and easy to produce. Guerrillas around the world are armed to the teeth. The IRL industrial capacity that equals 1 IC would probably be enough to produce millions of rifles and bullets.

Point is, if the Soviet Union want to create a 5 mil strong army in 3 months, they can do it. And they can do it with very little industry, but of course at the cost of the quality of this 5 mil strong army. In HOI, they cannot do it because they lack the industry.

I might agree that IC should be a limiting factor on the quantity of an armed force, but I think it is too much of a limiting factor.

You may want to rethink that statement ASAP. For every country in WW2, literally every MP was not a problem, neither run out of ability to reinforce troops. But the ability to field troops was very limited by the needed supplies and their transportation.

Also out of curiosity, how are you imagining the world market of weapons when all major producers of weapons in the world are at war with each other.

 

[Cybvep]

You may want to rethink that statement ASAP. For every country in WW2, literally every MP was not a problem, neither run out of ability to reinforce troops. But the ability to field troops was very limited by the needed supplies and their transportation.

Considering that Germany had to resort to formations like Volkssturm and that the Soviets were experiencing MP shortages during late-war, I don't think that it's true.

What happened IRL were the basic facts that you cannot conscript everyone and that you need people working in the factories or on the fields in order to continue the war effort. You can either send more people to the frontline or keep more people working. There were also groups which only fought in certain situations or were doing only non-combat related things like digging trenches (the elders, women, children) and those which managed to avoid conscription.

To put it simply, neither MP nor industrial capacity were unlimited.

 

[unmerged(276427)]

In fact Germany's main problem with regards to manpower was the sheer amount of steel they had to import from Sweden, which had to be paid for by German exports, which needed men in the factories to produce.
The Soviets didn't have such problems.

 

[D Inqu]

The industry you need for fighting a war is minimal. Bullets and rifles are basically all you need to figh, and that is extremely accessible on the world market and easy to produce. Guerrillas around the world are armed to the teeth. The IRL industrial capacity that equals 1 IC would probably be enough to produce millions of rifles and bullets.

But what about the tanks, aircraft, trucks, artillery, shells, bullets... The millions of tonnes of food, clothes, medicines, spare parts and other non-ammunition supply. The industry needed for fighting a war is enormous. A force with bullets and rifles alone is not even a decent guerilla and will be brushed aside with next to no effort by a real army. The reason the romanian and italian armies did not perform well in the war is prcisely their weak economies. And the VK, despite its large numbers and more than just bullets and rifles, did not rally have an impact in the war.

 

[D Inqu]

In fact Germany's main problem with regards to manpower was the sheer amount of steel they had to import from Sweden, which had to be paid for by German exports, which needed men in the factories to produce.
The Soviets didn't have such problems.

The soviets had a different problem. The abstract instant relocation of factories to siberia in the game was IRL a long and very difficult process with many factories not going at full capacity until end of 1942. + the loss of swathes of land in 1942 significanty reduced manpower availiable for recruitment.

 

[Eugenioso]

personally, i dont think russia has an inability to cope with losses, the problem is that it's IC is far too low. they have around, what, 500 by 41? they never ready their potential fast enough.

just a slight IC bonus would do it.

 

[Miihkali]

USSR is what I would call a developing economy of the period. GDP per capita is very low compared to western countries and the economy is still more or less based on by agriculture and raw materials.

The point is they outproduced Germany, and exactly that was their intent. They needed more than Germany of everything for obvious reasons. However, this is more or less impossible as long as Germany has more IC.

The industry you need for fighting a war is minimal. Bullets and rifles are basically all you need to figh, and that is extremely accessible on the world market and easy to produce. Guerrillas around the world are armed to the teeth. The IRL industrial capacity that equals 1 IC would probably be enough to produce millions of rifles and bullets.

Point is, if the Soviet Union want to create a 5 mil strong army in 3 months, they can do it. And they can do it with very little industry, but of course at the cost of the quality of this 5 mil strong army. In HOI, they cannot do it because they lack the industry.

I might agree that IC should be a limiting factor on the quantity of an armed force, but I think it is too much of a limiting factor.

Despite the low GDP per capita, the Soviet industrial output was HUGE. And still they really lacked weapons during the German main assaults of 1941 and 1942. If I recall correctly (I may not) they gave rifle for every two soldiers and told to pick up the rifle after the comrade fell.

Perhaps any player should have possibility to turn manpower and supplies to militia and dissent through decisions. There could be modifiers, for example, the more that nation had lost national provinces (for Soviets it should be probably set to keep account on major cities, as so many provinces lie in Siberia), the less dissent it would mean. Also, the more manpower, the cheaper price in dissent. For Soviets in conditions like Stalingrad battle, the price should be something like 0,5 dissent for one militia. This would also make Volkssturm possible.

 

[Limith]

Maybe infantry unit production shouldn't cost IC but supplies. So you are able to form infantry units either with weapons that you produced or with weapons you have imported. With current production model only the former is represented. So low IC nations would be able to bring their population to arms if they get weapons imported.

Infantry should cost supplies, not IC, I agree. The time is due to training.

_______
CHI did suffer from a lack of weapons, not manpower. Main reason why Northern China folded so fast was due to Chinese outdated pre-1900 guns + Dao swords + outdated artillery vs Tanks/Mortorcycles/Machineguns/Handgernades/Artillery/Planes. In Shangdong/Jinan province, there was a tv series about some historic factory that was set up by a rich family at the start of the war to produce weapons (he gave the local garrison leader tons of money to recruit essentially a meat wall to hold the line north of Shangdong) who blew the factory up when the garrison commander retreated instead with the money (he was executed for treason). Later battles at Changsa and those by Eighth Route Army partisans behind Japanese line succeeded partially due to stolen and new improvised weapons (makeshift handgernades, stolen Japanese machine guns and ammo, American imported rifles and pistols, makeshift artillery). The Infantry models themselves did not change, their weapons did.

In game though, it's hard to abstract this. (Also hard to abstract Japanese lack of supplies in Asia and downgrading of units in Manchuria/Northern China to supply it's Southeast Asian forces)

 

[1alexey]

Considering that Germany had to resort to formations like Volkssturm and that the Soviets were experiencing MP shortages during late-war, I don't think that it's true.

What happened IRL were the basic facts that you cannot conscript everyone and that you need people working in the factories or on the fields in order to continue the war effort. You can either send more people to the frontline or keep more people working. There were also groups which only fought in certain situations or were doing only non-combat related things like digging trenches (the elders, women, children) and those which managed to avoid conscription.

To put it simply, neither MP nor industrial capacity were unlimited.

They still had the man. Suppluing them with all nesesery is a different issue.

All i`m pointing out is the idea that you don`t need a large industry, "just" to make rigles&bullets is plain wrong for WW2 time frame.