The main problem was precisely counterstrikes, the Allies inflicted them late, then when the Germans were already pulling up the main forces, and in most cases these counterstrikes had no consequences. On the contrary, the Soviets counterattacked very actively. I will repeat my idea again. Soviet infantry divisions had really good artillery capabilities: 37-mm and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns, 122-mm M-30 howitzers which (even at the end of the war the infantry division could not fully have as many guns as at the beginning of the war) had to be abandoned in the chaos of retreat and surroundings. If all the infantry divisions were from spring to the borders and prepared defensive positions (as in the game), the German troops would not have been sweet. Add to this the tank corps, which will immediately counter attack in any breakthrough of German tanks.
The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history
- Thread starter fuser312
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Yes but in-game Russia is much weaker than the real one so they deserve the prenotice
Yeah, just no. You are basically taking all the excuses some German generals came up with after the war to shift the blame from their own failures onto Hitler, regardless of whether those claims make any sense or not.
Stalingrad didn't lead to "millions of soldiers getting killed or captured". The number wasn't anywhere near that high. The decision not to retreat didn't come out of nowhere either, nor was it just a mad decision. It was based on the experiences during the winter of 1941, where the order to stand fast and work with strongpoints that the enemy might be able to bypass but not get any supplies past ended up working out. It might actually have saved the front from collapsing. Granted, it wouldn't have come to that situation if they had stopped the advance earlier, but it is still a mixed bag of decisions. Being able to halt the Soviet winter offensive, cutting off Soviet troops that got past the strongpoints, and supplying and keeping the Demjansk pocket alive where seen as proof that this could work in future situations as well. Which ignored that the losses, especially in terms of transports, weren't really sustainable, but still, there were arguments for that strategy to work. An additional problem in Stalingrad was that most ofthe horses had been pulled back to improve the supply situation. There wasn't really a need to keep all the horses around for what was mostly static street-fighting. That meant that when a breakout was necessary, the necessary mobility just wasn't there. Now this is obviously a flaw, but then again, keeping the horses at the front would have meant far less supplies at the front, which in turn wouldn't have been any better either.
The real problem came from 4th Panzer Army being pulled from the approach to Stalingrad to support the breakthrough at Rostov, only to be order back a short while later. This back and forth kept the army from doing anything useful for two weeks, which in turn caused the planned encirclement and destruction of all Soviet armies in the Don area to fail. That was actually the main goal of the push towards Stalingrad, to destroy the armies. If that had succeeded, the whole operation towards Stalingrad might actually have taken the city without prolonged fighting.
Halder was hardly a great strategist, and he most definately was one of the most guilty ones in terms of whitewashing his own failures. To act as if the military was one coherent force that all agreed on what would be best, while Hitler just ignored that, is simply not true either. There were vastly different approaches among the military leaders. Some thought taking Moscow should have been the main goal, some though Moscow was entirely irrelevant, destroying the army was that mattered. Some thought attacking in the first place would be a mistake. Not once was there a time when everyone agreed on what would be the best plan. Needless to say, without Hitler you also don't have the Sichelschnittplan that leads to the collapse of the western allies. At that point, he was the one who opted for such an approach, even when some military leaders tried to push that idea aside. It was also von Rundstedt who stopped the advance towards Dunkirk. Hitler just ended up backing that order after being angry about not being informed about the decision made by OKH. This was mostly a case of OKH not being able to inform him as he was travelling, and von Rundstedt getting to him first.
There were countless decisions by Hitler that that were highly questionable to downright bad for the German army, but also plenty of times where he was right and generals who argued against him weren't. Just like some generals didn't think at all about what it actually takes to fight a war on an industrial basis. Hitler did end up taking more and more control in the later stags of the war, which ended up sabotaging the capabilities of his armies due to removing the decison-making from those right at the front, which had been a strength of the army, but to act as if he was some bumbling fool who kept his brilliant generals from being successful just doesn't line up with actual history.
There also was absolutely nothing predictable about Hitler. If anything, he was the exact opposite.
- 4
- 3
The big problem with 'realistic alternative history' is that they will only result in a quicker game over for one side. Any history where or the USSR would join the allies or that Germany would overextend more/quicker, just means that Germany loses faster, and stuff like UK capitulating with the fall of France (this was a real option if it wasn't for Churchill) would just mean a very quick/easy victory for Germany...
Anyway, imho any alt-history done in the timeframe of the game will result in absurdity or in the war not happing / ending too quickly, which kind of breaks the purpose of the game, so I understand why they choose then for the absurd alt-history, because at least it keeps the gameplay itself kind of 'balanced'.
Imho if they wanted real plausable alt-history they would need to make previous events have been diferent, like in the Kaiserreich mod or stuff like that (like a total 'alt history' overhaul)... imho the timeframe (before the war) of the game is too sort and the political situation was already too defined to still have realistic alternative history that ALSO still results in a fun/challenging/balanced war.. Sure, Hitler COULD have been assassinated at some point, but if that would mean just Germany capitulating / ending the war, then what fun is that? And if the new leader would just continue the same path, then what diference is it really? (in gameplay perspective)
Anyway, imho any alt-history done in the timeframe of the game will result in absurdity or in the war not happing / ending too quickly, which kind of breaks the purpose of the game, so I understand why they choose then for the absurd alt-history, because at least it keeps the gameplay itself kind of 'balanced'.
Imho if they wanted real plausable alt-history they would need to make previous events have been diferent, like in the Kaiserreich mod or stuff like that (like a total 'alt history' overhaul)... imho the timeframe (before the war) of the game is too sort and the political situation was already too defined to still have realistic alternative history that ALSO still results in a fun/challenging/balanced war.. Sure, Hitler COULD have been assassinated at some point, but if that would mean just Germany capitulating / ending the war, then what fun is that? And if the new leader would just continue the same path, then what diference is it really? (in gameplay perspective)
- 3
That's not the point.
If the USSR collapses in 1942, new possibilities open :
The Germans can pressure Turkey to join the axis, and they open another front in the Middle East, linking up with Rommel. They also have access to the Indian Ocean an can link up with the Japanese. British rule of India collapses and an Indian nationalist government takes power with Axis help. Big loss of prestige and morale for the British.
They can put more resources in the Battle of the Atlantic : historically during the spring of 1943 the convoy losses were unsustainable and the Allies considered stopping convoys. What could happen if the Germans have significantly more U-boats ? big economic trouble for the British.
The Germans put more resources in the Air War as well, even resuming strategic bombing over Britain. With the resources of the USSR their economy and industry is much stronger.
All in all, with a string of defeats and economic hardship, and no apparent path to victory, Britain sues for peace well before the summer of 1945.
- 1
There's a lot of interesting scenarios that would not make war 'not happening' or 'shorter'. OP mentioned Khalkin Gol and potential for full scale Soviet - Japanese war. Now there's that path in Japanese NF tree, but it's extremely rare that AI pursues it (as opposed to British decolonization for example, which I see a lot for some reason). It seems Purge the Kodoha is heavily favored. Early Japanese - Soviet conflict creates a very interesting, different landscape, without ruining the game as you suggest.
When it comes to Hitler's assassination, I do not think anybody believes Germany would just capitulate. The 'meaty' part of this scenario is some sort of negotiated solution to the conflict with Western allies. Now, leaving aside the discussion of chances that would happen, it does change the dynamic completely. IRL Stalin was constantly suspicious that would happen and if you played the Soviet SP campaign, once you defeated Germany in the field and march towards Berlin, this would really make the game harder and interesting again. Certainly more than fighting Napoleon or Hellenic empire
Well, that's a lot of wishful thinking for the Germans there. To think the occupied part of the Soviet Union would be pacified and their industry a) in German hands and b) working and c) actually adding to the war effort would presuppose that there was no resistance movement, that slave labour was actually effective, that millions of troops were actually free to pursue other goals etc.
Not to forget that by late 42, the north Africa theatre was pretty much done for and Panzerarmee afrika was fighting a desperate defence, so linking up with Rommel is fantasy.
Also there would be no way to win the battle in the Atlantic, because what U-boat production capacities would actually be gained? None. The Atlantic battle would have played out the same, maybe even better for the allies as the convoys to Murmansk and Archangelsk were not needed, freeing up valuable ship capacity for Africa and UK proper.
That's an overoptimistic vision from Axis side.
Garrisoning the USSR itself is a huge task. Partisan activity will not just stop. Former Red Army soldiers will continue as partisans bringing as much equipment from the Army as possible. And we talk about millions here.
Also resource infrastructure will be pretty much destroyed so it will take months until Germany can get any meaningful supply from there.
But you're right in that Germany will try to regain air superiority from the RAF and USAF over their own territory or maybe not even losing that in the first place in this timeline. IIRC Germany lost air superiority in 1943 IRL so maybe they can contest the air in this case, making any later landings very difficult even with nukes.
But the Luftwaffe overwhelming the RAF and USAF over Britain seems a bit too far fetched for me.
The Atlantic war would indeed be really interesting but i don't think the U-Boats could overcome the advanced ASW techniques developed against them using airplanes and sonars. But who knows.
Britain suing for peace doesn't make much sense though unless a Seelöwe is underway without any realistic chance to oppose that but this is again very far fetched.
Also infrastructure in the Middle East are so bad in this time that invading India from there isn't really an option i think. Sure infrastructure in Western India isn't particularly shining either but it's still better than Iran and Iraq. I'd anticipate more a battleground in the Iranian mountains in case the Axis tried to invade via Iraq and Iran.
Some land connection between the Reich and Japan would certainly be established in this case though indeed.
Last edited:
- 1
I didn't say the Germans use soviet industry, just that they take the resources needed (... oil)
If the Red Army collapses garrisonning the conquered territories is trivial, the Axis has plenty of manpower. Battle hardened divisions can go fight elsewhere.
lf by mid 42 the germans can pressure Turkey (they don't even need to go through the caucasus, they are in Greece/Bulgaria), the mediterannean theater is ripe for the taking. Remember this is the time of the Axis victory at Tobruk and the german-italian forces much closer to Alexandria.
Uboat capacities ? of course yes, they have more steel to build them and fuel to use them...
- 1
- 2
they just need to occupy part of the Volga region and the Caucasus. Not much more territory than what they occupied historically
- 1
Yes and this will make everything beyond the Urals (Siberia) turn into Free Russia (after Free France) as there's just no way to occupy that. Axis core territories are way too far and the territory size is enormous. Also Japan has no spare manpower for it, fighting in China and South-East Asia. And the USA can't do it either as it's too close to Japan to achieve naval supremacy. So that on top of vast garrisons until the Urals the Axis will also need a sizeable armed force at their occupation limits to defend against Free Russia. Not as trivial as you make it to be
- 1
Yes and this will make everything beyond the Urals (Siberia) turn into Free Russia (after Free France) as there's just no way to occupy that. Axis core territories are way too far and the territory size is enormous. Also Japan has no spare manpower for it, fighting in China and South-East Asia. And the USA can't do it either as it's too close to Japan to achieve naval supremacy. So that on top of vast garrisons until the Urals the Axis will also need a sizeable armed force at their occupation limits to defend against Free Russia. Not as trivial as you make it to be
historically the german plan was only to occupy the territory between Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan
Yes. That plan also included not going after India.
Because in Hitler's mind, the Western part of Russia was all he needed for the next 1000 years.
I know but this leaves a rather huge enemy entity at their Eastern border still so you can't just pull most troops out of Russia. You're right the best fighting units will be called back of course as now they only have to contain Free Russia and these elite units (and maybe more importantly airforce) can be used elsewhere but you can't expect a massive amount of manpower released.
- 1
no, because the eastern part of Russia would likely be in turmoil (population revolt against the communists, maybe a new civil war etc...) and they would lack the resources and industrial capacity to do much anyway.
That's certainly not happen. Free Russia will probably not be stalinist in nature indeed but the will to resist will not dwindle as it's a fight for existence basically. Probably much former Red Army members would slip through to fight with them too.
- 1
- 1
Now there's a lot of conjecture here. Assume there is a power vacuum, who is stepping forward to fill it?
Central Asian people and other nationalities would likely secede from the rest of what's left of the country. All the people who hated the soviet regime would revolt
- Status