The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history

[qer]

The "Requetés" were Carlist militias. At the war start they were more numerous then fascists. I don't see why they couldn't take power if they had a good charismatic military leader. If Franco was Carlist that would have sufficed probably. They would make the fascists junior partners. In reality the opposite happened. Carlists were on the winning side as junior partners without decision power.

The requetes however couldn't stand against the nationalist army. They made an important part of the nationalist army at 1936,but by the end of the war they were an almost insignificant part. The main reason I stated however that they had a close to zero chance of ending the war as the absolute victors was because they were a regional movement, not a national one. Of course with the state of the game AI a player could probably win with only the northern regions as theirs cores.

 

[1 Star General]

There was a series of interferences from Hitler that simply delayed the takeover of Moscow, the great Achilles' heel of Germany was Hitler.

In North Africa Romel didn't receive enough divisions, Hitler didn't give him the necessary divisions, so I don't know what the result would be if Romel had all the resources he needed. Even with few resources he was brilliant in saving the Italians from a certain defeat in the first half of that battle.

This whole thing - Hitler interfered too much - is a legend.
Taking Moscow wouldn't change the outcome of the war. Napoleon took Moscow, so did the Poles in 1610. They still lost the war. Arguably the city was a super important transportation hub and industrial center, but even if Germans would take it at the end of 1941, they would be exhausted and beyond the range of their logistical capabilities, so they'd be thrown out of there soon anyway, same as they were thrown out of the areas in its vicinity IRL. Hitler was correct paying more attention to the Ukraine as the bread basket - taking it created a massive food shortage for the Soviets, also very important resource and industrial center (Donetsk), and last but not least, gateway to the Caucasus and its oil - the only thing that could've save the Germans in the long run.
In North Africa Rommel didn't get more divisions, cause there was no way to supply them anyway. He had enough logistical problems with what he had already. Sending more tanks to run out of fuel and rust in the deserts wasn't a great idea, so Hitler was correct here again.

 

[Vlad123]

I understand what you are saying but still I mostly disagree. For example the same fascist Italy puppet of Communist USSR was not a problem in HOI2 or HOI3, may be I am wrong but in my mind it's clear that they are doing something wrong with this one.

The problem imo is when you look at other paradox grand strategy games like CK EU, the latest games build upon what was previously successful while HOI in its each iteration completely discarded things that were working perfectly and thus the problems that shouldn't exist at all still exist after 4 years like teleporting planes or ludicrous amounts of fielded divisions. They were not an issu in previous iteration, so why are they now.

Not really CK3: they removed the ships that were working fine (at most some adjustments) but paradox removed them, it seems, that perhaps the paradox changed the CEO and therefore make absurd "mistakes" (to say the least)

 

[sekelsenmat]

The requetes however couldn't stand against the nationalist army. They made an important part of the nationalist army at 1936,but by the end of the war they were an almost insignificant part. The main reason I stated however that they had a close to zero chance of ending the war as the absolute victors was because they were a regional movement, not a national one. Of course with the state of the game AI a player could probably win with only the northern regions as theirs cores.

I didn't say they could win a civil war inside the civil war like hoi4 shows it. But that politically they could have dominated, without infighting. But hoi4 is a war game so the political fight is abstracted as real fight.

 

[kettyo]

I regularly use this so that the UK doesn't choose decolonization in ahistorical so that it doesn't slow the game too much and always worked. But I have no idea why, sometimes (like in this UK alliance with Germany), it would simply refuse to choose a different focus, no idea why. It also happened in other cases.

Okay so you're right i've checked the files and Britain can go edwardist only after a marriage crisis and it will enable an AI strategy plan forcing Britain to ally with Germany.

 

[Vlad123]

On February 12, 1942, six Fairey Swordfish of Fleet Air Arm Squadron 825 took off from RAF Manston to attack Kriegsmarine ships engaged in what will go down in history as the Channel Dash (Operation Cerberus).
All the Swordfish were wiped out by the Fw190s protecting the German units (Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen and other smaller units) and anti-aircraft.
Only 5 of the 18 FAA men survived.As usual when they couldn't eavesdrop with Ultra, the British got kicked in the face. Proof that the British were good with stationary ships, at night or outnumbered. A mission "Assassinate Turing" or Assassinate Churchill?Historically Hitler, he received many attacks. Tito received many from Stalin. Tito; He replied to Stalin "If you don't stop sending me murderers, I'll send you ... and I will only need ONE!" What if killing Churchill sent the UK into chaos? A blow to the heart would destabilize the nation far more than the collapse of France.

 

[Fulmen]

they would be exhausted and beyond the range of their logistical capabilities, so they'd be thrown out of there soon anyway, same as they were thrown out of the areas in its vicinity IRL.

Just going to drop these here, they're some of Nigel Askey's thoughts on the matter:



EDIT: Just for clarification: the person Askey is addressing is not me. This segment is from one of his e-mail replies to another professional military historian, the contents of which he gives the receiver permission to share in whatever manner of his choosing, including on platforms where it is likely to be shared by third parties, and has himself also shared it to third parties. It should therefore be OK to share this in my opinion highly interesting segment of the e-mail here.

EDIT2: Turned out the images were huge on the PC (posted them on the phone). Switched them to thumbnails now.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Just going to drop these here, they're some of Nigel Askey's thoughts on the matter:...

From a game perspective, there should be something in the game that says if Germany captures the Moscow-Gorky=Kalinin-Tula region and holds it during the 1941-42 Winter, the Soviet Union would collapse. It's what Germany believed and would pressure the German player to accomplish it before the deadline. Assumes a Barbarossa start in June '41. Would also require the Soviets to have some form of "Emergency Conscription", allowing them to try and stop the German advance with masses of men. Like they did in real life.

 

[fuser312]

That should be ideal but right now the problem is two fold with that :

1. Everyone can just build so many divisions that it's ridiculous. When Romania can field 100+ division and Germany 400+ divisions, manpower is never relly an issue for axis. This stupendous amount of divisions running around is a problem that should be fixed asap. May be bring back supplies for each artilley needs shell, each planes needs rockets etc. Just like fuel they may be added to the game and can put a brake to the ridiculous amount of divisions.

2. The German advantage in Industry is so ridiculous that it doesn't matter. Theoretically USSR can pump up 200+ barely trained divisions between June and December but they just don't have the industrial capacity to barely equip them.

Without fixing these issues, I don't think eastern front can work.


And bonus point the LL system is just broken, USSR gets barely any help from the western allies in the form of LL.

 

[Fulmen]

if Germany captures the Moscow-Gorky=Kalinin-Tula region and holds it during the 1941-42 Winter, the Soviet Union would collapse.

From what I understand Askey does not believe it necessarily would have caused a Soviet collapse, and therefore a German victory in the East, but it certainly would have made Russia's position a lot weaker. That's where I'm standing right now as well.

I think what is quite clear however is that without the Western Allies Russia would have definitely and definitively lost the war. I'll quote Askey again:



I know it's a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd share this segment as well whilst talking about a possible Russian collapse.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

1. Everyone can just build so many divisions that it's ridiculous. When Romania can field 100+ division and Germany 400+ divisions, manpower is never relly an issue for axis. This stupendous amount of divisions running around is a problem that should be fixed asap. May be bring back supplies for each artilley needs shell, each planes needs rockets etc. Just like fuel they may be added to the game and can put a brake to the ridiculous amount of divisions.

Agree. But I think the only solution for this is mods. Don't believe Paradox will correct this for many reasons (nor are they wrong for not correcting them).

2. The German advantage in Industry is so ridiculous that it doesn't matter. Theoretically USSR can pump up 200+ barely trained divisions between June and December but they just don't have the industrial capacity to barely equip them.

Agree that Industry in general is out of control. But for many of the reasons that Division Spam exists, this exists.

And bonus point the LL system is just broken, USSR gets barely any help from the western allies in the form of LL.

Yep, true also. We'll see if the Barbarossa upgrade addresses this. Otherwise, some creative solutions have already been applied in various mods.

Without fixing these issues, I don't think eastern front can work.

Would amend that to ... "Without fixing these issues, i don't think a "historical" Eastern Front can work".

 

[Simon Marques]

This whole thing - Hitler interfered too much - is a legend.
Taking Moscow wouldn't change the outcome of the war. Napoleon took Moscow, so did the Poles in 1610. They still lost the war. Arguably the city was a super important transportation hub and industrial center, but even if Germans would take it at the end of 1941, they would be exhausted and beyond the range of their logistical capabilities, so they'd be thrown out of there soon anyway, same as they were thrown out of the areas in its vicinity IRL. Hitler was correct paying more attention to the Ukraine as the bread basket - taking it created a massive food shortage for the Soviets, also very important resource and industrial center (Donetsk), and last but not least, gateway to the Caucasus and its oil - the only thing that could've save the Germans in the long run.
In North Africa Rommel didn't get more divisions, cause there was no way to supply them anyway. He had enough logistical problems with what he had already. Sending more tanks to run out of fuel and rust in the deserts wasn't a great idea, so Hitler was correct here again.

I respect your opinion, but I prefer mine.

For example, the southern group of armies originally had the goal of advancing toward the Caucasus and conquering it as quickly as possible, and it was there that Hitler had the brilliant idea of dividing this force, moving a significant part of it to occupy Stalingrad. At this time the logistics would have been overloaded, since now these two forces were advancing on opposite fronts, this causes further delays in the advance, remaining in complete stagnation on both fronts of advance.

What you said about Rommel bordering on insanity, Hitler did not give the divisions Rommel asked for precisely why he was planning the Barbarossa operation. If with one Rommel Division he did so much damage against the British, think what he would not have done in possession of two or three others. The logistics for Africa at that time was not a problem since at that point the Italians still had occupied territories in Africa and were still able to send supplies by sea without many losses in the Mediterranean.

Didn't Rommel, an experienced general and academic, have in mind the logistical difficulties when he requested more divisions? If he asked for more divisions it's because he really could have made more progress with this.

Above all, the British and the Russians were lucky enough to be facing an extremely dumb and previsible enemy called Hitler. Based on Sun Tsu, Hitler would be the ideal opponent for any defending nation. Hitler's interference during the first invasions was minimal, the most important interference from Hitler was in the decision not to destroy the allied forces in Dunkirk. Had he not interfered, the German military command would have captured and destroyed the same British forces that later would have landed in Normandy.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Askey, nor I, believe that it necessarily would have won the war for Germany, but it certainly would have made Russia's position a lot weaker.

Nor I. Hence "from a game perspective". Simply a design for effect.

 

[valentin4]

Nor I. Hence "from a game perspective". Simply a design for effect.

well, Asley thinks that losing the Moscow region would have made very difficult to supply Leningrad (along other crippling consequences), so the North West collapses as well, then Germany can finish the Caucasus without too much problem in 1942. After that I don't see how the Western Allies can pull off a D-Day in 1944 or ever, because Germany would have decisively solved her strategic problems (no ennemy standing on the continent, oil). But that's another discussion

 

[valentin4]

From what I understand Askey does not believe it necessarily would have caused a Soviet collapse, and therefore a German victory in the East, but it certainly would have made Russia's position a lot weaker. That's where I'm standing right now as well.

I think what is quite clear however is that without the Western Allies Russia would have definitely and definitively lost the war. I'll quote Askey again:



I know it's a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd share this segment as well whilst talking about a possible Russian collapse.

is there more to the email ? is it possible that you share the source ? it's interesting

 

[Fulmen]

is there more to the email ? is it possible that you share the source ? it's interesting

I would, and I'm sure Askey would be fine with it. Unfortunately the person I got it from didn't feel comfortable with me sharing the e-mail in its entirety on public forums, and only gave me permission to share parts of it, and I feel obliged to honour that wish. Not only out of courtesy and respect, but because he, without any obligation to do so, sent me this e-mail that I found to be extremely interesting, and a fresh breeze from all the fatalistic "Germany was always doomed to lose" narration that's been going on a lot these past 10-20 years.

You could always e-mail Askey himself for any questions, or better yet, buy his book series on Operation Barbarossa. I haven't yet bought them myself, but I intend on doing so soon. As a little tip for you and anyone interested, I was told the Book Depository website is a good place to order books from due to there being no delivery costs.

 

[1 Star General]

From what I understand Askey does not believe it necessarily would have caused a Soviet collapse, and therefore a German victory in the East, but it certainly would have made Russia's position a lot weaker. That's where I'm standing right now as well.

I understand your position. Thank you for sharing Askey's insights. However, I do not understand his rather optimistic assessment of the German logistical situation post hypothetical taking of Moscow region. Yes, the transportation network favored the line from Poland, north of the Prypet marshes, straight towards Moscow. But the issues they faced were of such a nature, that using existing Soviet infrastructure to full extent was impossible. Lack of fuel and poor road quality doomed any hopes for long distance motorized transport, while the main system, the railways, turned out to be extremely difficult due to slow progress on extending western gauge rail and relative lack of russian locomotives. I did not see anything in otherwise informative and interesting emails you've shared that would contradict that, except of loose reference to wargaming. But it is my understanding, that Germany's own assessments were rather pessimistic in comparison to Askey's.
Everything I read seems to be suggesting that the Germans started the war fully conscious of the fact that they'll get into massive logistical troubles once they get beyond 500 km away from their supply dumps (that's still not covering the distance to Moscow), and hoped to achieve victory within that range. The plan failed, the SU turned out to be not as 'rotten' a structure as Hitler boasted, indeed showed itself to be much more robust and resilient than all the top German brass predicted. By late August they started realizing the plan is not working, they were getting increasingly worried, as they realized they're not ready for a prolonged deep total war, there was a heated argument what to do, generals favored northern thrust, partially as a last gamble on 'the collapse' theory believing taking Moscow might just save the day, and partially because infrastructure indicated that direction. Hitler, on the other hand, felt this won't end soon, already, therefore emphesized south for strategic reasons looking at a potentially long conflict. Leaving aside who was right here , German logisticians own assessments, about the radius of operations they're able to supply, turned out to be largely correct. Moscow was way way beyond it. So the vision of German troops spending a cozy winter in Moscow, warm and supplied, that Askey seems to be sketching seems a bit far fetched.

 

[1 Star General]

What you said about Rommel bordering on insanity, Hitler did not give the divisions Rommel asked for precisely why he was planning the Barbarossa operation. If with one Rommel Division he did so much damage against the British, think what he would not have done in possession of two or three others. The logistics for Africa at that time was not a problem since at that point the Italians still had occupied territories in Africa and were still able to send supplies by sea without many losses in the Mediterranean.

Now here's where we differ. The logistics in Africa was a massive problem. It's not just about interdicting shipping. There was ebb and flow kind of a pattern there throughout the war years, and yes, there were periods when up to 90% of axis convoys were reaching destinations. On the other hand, there were periods when less than 20% did. But leaving that aside - there was no infrastructure there. Everything had to be transported by trucks and distances were punishing. Ports were few and far between. So what if the Germans could deliver more equipment and supplies to Libya, if moving it all afterwards would require huge quantities of oil? Oil that they did not have enough. And using more oil for ships, to move more oil to North Africa, to power trucks, to move more oil for tanks to the front lines...Logistical nightmare. And logistical problems were not plaguing only the axis. The Brits had massive problems too. The whole 'pendulum' like nature of axis and allies offensives and counteroffensives in that theater was due to each side reaching the farthest limits from their supply dumps and getting stuck and pushed back. So, nah, disagree, respectfully though

 

[Fulmen]

Sorry, the images I posted came out huge when viewing on the PC. It's fixed now.

I understand your position. Thank you for sharing Askey's insights. However, I do not understand his rather optimistic assessment of the German logistical situation post hypothetical taking of Moscow region. Yes, the transportation network favored the line from Poland, north of the Prypet marshes, straight towards Moscow. But the issues they faced were of such a nature, that using existing Soviet infrastructure to full extent was impossible. Lack of fuel and poor road quality doomed any hopes for long distance motorized transport, while the main system, the railways, turned out to be extremely difficult due to slow progress on extending western gauge rail and relative lack of russian locomotives. I did not see anything in otherwise informative and interesting emails you've shared that would contradict that, except of loose reference to wargaming. But it is my understanding, that Germany's own assessments were rather pessimistic in comparison to Askey's.
Everything I read seems to be suggesting that the Germans started the war fully conscious of the fact that they'll get into massive logistical troubles once they get beyond 500 km away from their supply dumps (that's still not covering the distance to Moscow), and hoped to achieve victory within that range. The plan failed, the SU turned out to be not as 'rotten' a structure as Hitler boasted, indeed showed itself to be much more robust and resilient than all the top German brass predicted. By late August they started realizing the plan is not working, they were getting increasingly worried, as they realized they're not ready for a prolonged deep total war, there was a heated argument what to do, generals favored northern thrust, partially as a last gamble on 'the collapse' theory believing taking Moscow might just save the day, and partially because infrastructure indicated that direction. Hitler, on the other hand, felt this won't end soon, already, therefore emphesized south for strategic reasons looking at a potentially long conflict. Leaving aside who was right here , German logisticians own assessments, about the radius of operations they're able to supply, turned out to be largely correct. Moscow was way way beyond it. So the vision of German troops spending a cozy winter in Moscow, warm and supplied, that Askey seems to be sketching seems a bit far fetched.

I think the answer lies in what you already read (namely that loose reference to wargaming):

The idea isn't so much the Germans spending a cozy winter in Moscow, warm and supplied, than it is the Russians being crippled enough by the loss of the Moscow-Gorky-Kalinin-Tula region in September-October, that they would've been unable to retake Moscow come winter.

 

[Crecer13]

I think that Germany is very lucky with Barbarossa. The winner is the one who makes fewer mistakes, and the USSR made many critical mistakes at the beginning of the war. So much so that Germany found the USSR without pants, if the USSR concentrated its troops on the border, as does all the AI in the game, Germany would not have gone far, but real life is not a game, the concentration of the entire army on the border is a clear threat and this is done only in emergency situation. In order to fundamentally change the "Barbarossa" situation, it was required to begin the concentration of Soviet troops in the spring, when all the troops would have managed to arrive at the border and built defensive positions. But it turned out that Germany attacked when the USSR moved its troops to the border.