When one has many upgrades, to apply, and one is in combat, keep the prepare stance mode. this might make the upgrades be applied more quickly, than if one is in combat stance, or even in defensive stance.
-
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
Well, Red Army in 1920-ies and Red Army in 1940-ies are utterly different things. Army was reformed from head to toe.
And it is not correct to make even nobility and communists. Firstly, almost every man was able to become communist if he wished. Secondly, there was many officers, who wasn't in communist party, it wasn't mandatory (well, except for a highest ranks).
On the contrary, equipment, supply and training was imroved greatly. Still, not enough.
Purges was also a fight with corruption, among other things.
And most of the "five year plans" before the war were accomplished. But i admit, it still wasn't enough.
There were problems with education, but you are exagerrating too much. Universal primary education was implemented since midle twenties and it was mandatory.
It wasn't planned to give up territories. On contrary, soviet pre-war plans were no different with the plans of any other major country - to beat the enemy on his territory.
Stalin can't be good, al well as every high politician came to power. They always should think of country needs, they think of single man needs only when they need to. Every soviet republic had it's own goverment, it's own executive power, etc, except military. So Stalin can be blaimed only he didn't change ukrain government, so allowed some of them to plunder their own people during natural disaster times.
Many of them were later killed or prisoned (Gulag, yeah?) during so called "purges". So I can't say Stalin was good or bad. He made his work surrounded by other people, who had their own interests.
Many of them were later killed or prisoned (Gulag, yeah?) during so called "purges". So I can't say Stalin was good or bad. He made his work surrounded by other people, who had their own interests.
My dear friends, if there was no Stalin, there would be no unified Russia, today. In Hinduism, we say that God is the doer. He is the director of every act, whether of Gabriel, or of Satan. If Stalin had been soft on his people, Hitler would have been the only ruler of Europe. The difference between Gabriel and Satan, is that Satan being in Heaven, thought he was in Hell. But that did not stop him from being in Heaven. Who know's he might still be in Heaven, if God is truly the director of every act. I cannot say, I believe this saying, but if one truly believes in God, then that person says that God is the director of every act. Jesus Christ on the Cross, was an example of such a person, but then, he was not just a person.
What is amusing, is that when the Mongol invasion of Japan was ended by probably a Tsunami, the Japanese claimed it was the 'Divine wind', or Kamekazi. The Japanese are the race among the most proud of all, who believe in their warriors, but they were pretty scared of the Mongols.
What is amusing, is that when the Mongol invasion of Japan was ended by probably a Tsunami, the Japanese claimed it was the 'Divine wind', or Kamekazi. The Japanese are the race among the most proud of all, who believe in their warriors, but they were pretty scared of the Mongols.
Question: What do the scale of Holodomor and who was responsible for it have to do with whether or not Paradox' representation of the Red Army is correct from a historical perspective and/or give the intended game balance?
Answer: not a whole lot.
Question: But what then do I do when I want to discuss those?
Answer: If you can keep the discussion compliant with forum rules, you can try the history forum.
Question: what happens if I don't follow the rules, and post off-topic messages in a thread?
Answer: At best, you get an angry message in-thread warning you to stop it. You might be warned or infracted, and in severe cases banned.
tl;dr: Stay on topic, or don't bother to post.
Answer: not a whole lot.
Question: But what then do I do when I want to discuss those?
Answer: If you can keep the discussion compliant with forum rules, you can try the history forum.
Question: what happens if I don't follow the rules, and post off-topic messages in a thread?
Answer: At best, you get an angry message in-thread warning you to stop it. You might be warned or infracted, and in severe cases banned.
tl;dr: Stay on topic, or don't bother to post.
I don’t wanna be rude or insult you in any way Loyt, but from your reply I more or less gather that you probably are from Russia or the former Soviet Union. If that’s the case don’t take what is below personal or as an attack on your national pride or history. I could be wrong, but you replies do seem a bit tainted with Soviet propaganda.
Furthermore with membership of the communist party being mandatory for the higher officer levels, it doesn’t really matter how capable the lower officer levels are. At the end of the day it’s the (in)competence of the commander who decides what the strategy is and the lower levels live or die because of it.
Research and early prototype development was in much cases started a lot earlier (i.e. T-34)
Yes there were reforms but in this case it is. As you posted only a communist, could make a career in the Red Army. Skills were of no importance. But to really make a career you needed influence within the CP as well. So in that respect there is no real difference between the Tsarist and Red Army (This was also the case in England at the start of the war where nobility was still an important factor for a career in the army). Besides that, under Stalin it was also important that the officer in question wasn’t perceived as a threat by Stalin (i.e. Zhukov after the war). So for Stalin skill was certainly not a necessity
Furthermore with membership of the communist party being mandatory for the higher officer levels, it doesn’t really matter how capable the lower officer levels are. At the end of the day it’s the (in)competence of the commander who decides what the strategy is and the lower levels live or die because of it.
The purges had nothing to do with corruption though they were portrayed like that during the show trials of the thirties. The only thing on Stalin’s mind was to take out anyone who was or could be a threat to him personally and his rule. Capable generals like Rokossovsky were deported because of that and in his case also his Polish origin.
Supply and training were only improved at the end of the thirties when the threat of war became more apparent (i.e. the Russian-Japanese border war and the threat posed by the Nazi’s) and when the Russian industry could actually handle it. The failure of the five year plans in the twenties and early thirties made sure of this. Though the Soviets said they were a great success!
Research and early prototype development was in much cases started a lot earlier (i.e. T-34)
I am not. There is a real difference between practice, theory and propaganda. Though plans to improve education were implemented, there were only few people who could actually benefit from those plans. Check out “Berlin; the downfall in 1945” by Antony Beavor if you don’t believe me.
That’s not what I am saying. Russia can afford to lose territory while other countries can’t. So yes, after the German attack, territory was defended but this was because of main two reasons, too slow down the German army to set up proper defensive lines and to be able to relocate the heavy industry in the west to the east.
In regards to how the RA is represented...
While it is not a decision that I support, PIs design intent (per posts in other threads many moons ago) is that an Infantry Regiment/Brigade (both mean the same thing in the game) already includes its pro-rata share of any and all divisional assets like Artillery, Rocket Artillery, Engineers, Bridging Equipment, etc. Therefore a division with 3 Inf is considered a complete unit. Any Artillery, Engineers, etc. that are added represent additional non-divisional assets attached to the division. I would rather have a Batallion based design where we built the division even more from the ground up, but that is not what we have.
While it is not a decision that I support, PIs design intent (per posts in other threads many moons ago) is that an Infantry Regiment/Brigade (both mean the same thing in the game) already includes its pro-rata share of any and all divisional assets like Artillery, Rocket Artillery, Engineers, Bridging Equipment, etc. Therefore a division with 3 Inf is considered a complete unit. Any Artillery, Engineers, etc. that are added represent additional non-divisional assets attached to the division. I would rather have a Batallion based design where we built the division even more from the ground up, but that is not what we have.
Sorry for trying to come back on topic here...
From what I gather, the Red Army infantry divisions were called Rifle divisions. The infantry regiments were accordingly called rifle regiment, abbreviated in english literature by RR. I saw an online OoB for the Winter war and most Rifle divisions seem to have been triangular plus one or two combat support regiments and smaller (batallion and smaller) support units, eg military police, administrative staffe, logistics etc.
The artillery regiments were abbreviated by AR but sometimes there also were regiments with the description HR. Don't know what that means but it seems unlikely that any rocket artillery was attached to any of the participating units during the winter war. Neither of the Soviet armies had something like that at their disposal (Soviet 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th armies).
From what I gather, the Red Army infantry divisions were called Rifle divisions. The infantry regiments were accordingly called rifle regiment, abbreviated in english literature by RR. I saw an online OoB for the Winter war and most Rifle divisions seem to have been triangular plus one or two combat support regiments and smaller (batallion and smaller) support units, eg military police, administrative staffe, logistics etc.
The artillery regiments were abbreviated by AR but sometimes there also were regiments with the description HR. Don't know what that means but it seems unlikely that any rocket artillery was attached to any of the participating units during the winter war. Neither of the Soviet armies had something like that at their disposal (Soviet 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th armies).
I'm not sure that this is the case. There are differences between regimental artillery and divisional artillery. In most cases, the latter is of a heavier calibre.
That about sums it up pretty well. Any Nazi or Stalinism apologism will see you infracted or banned pretty quickly.
This thread from now on should be about the Red Army and just that or it can be closed.
Except you are talking BS. Stalin was nothing but the average totalitarian dictator, in terms of brutality though he was quite intelligent and arguably was the main reason the USSR survived WW2, as it was Stalin who proposed and went thru the programs of industrialization with focus on heavy industry. The reason for the 2 million directly dead (1,7 in GULAG, rest directly executed) was due to the huge size of the USSR. If we take into account all the peasents who died in famines and if we put the blame on him, then the toll rises to roughly 10 million. During a period of 30 years.
Compare that to Hitler's 35 million death-toll in 4 years.
Anyway: stop defending yourself and your opinion. It is wrong.
BiB: "Stalinism apologism"? Not only is that word utterly stupid, it is also a major grammar-fail
Oof: Why are you spamming? Who cares what Beevor thinks (he is a well known falsifier)? Fact is, under Stalin education was made compulsory and the program was very successful. The USSR became a scientific super-power during the 50's and 60's.
- Status