Turing off the atomic bombs

[Commissar Yossarian]

Ahh nothing to do with the German player reenacting WWII. It's the issue of operational victory for the Axis vs guaranteed economic victory by the allies/Russia over time.

So as the Axis you've achieved operational victory by 43-44 or you'll be mashed by the allies in 45+.

Note this isn't assuming strict history, but it's assuming the majors still line up. So no unholy alliance, nor USA a neutral or against the Allies.

 

[kalauer]

Ahh nothing to do with the German player reenacting WWII. It's the issue of operational victory for the Axis vs guaranteed economic victory by the allies/Russia over time.

So as the Axis you've achieved operational victory by 43-44 or you'll be mashed by the allies in 45+.

Note this isn't assuming strict history, but it's assuming the majors still line up. So no unholy alliance, nor USA a neutral or against the Allies.

This is a more sensible statement, yet the assumption will not hold every time. And even if it does, there is no sharp border between operational vicotry and structural strategic superiority. A crippled (yet not defeated) SU and occupied main land Europe may just be enough to give Germany the industrial edge it needs to maybe not defeat USA and GB after 44 but to effectively avert or push back invasions. That's the point of the game; while it wants to create a plausible and credible historical world, the player most likely does not stick to history and has a huge influence. Enough to make any statements of the result or the state of the game useless; very fast after game start, in fact. If it wasn't so, I believe a lot less people would be interested in the game.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

This is a more sensible statement, yet the assumption will not hold every time. And even if it does, there is no sharp border between operational vicotry and structural strategic superiority. A crippled (yet not defeated) SU and occupied main land Europe may just be enough to give Germany the industrial edge it needs to maybe not defeat USA and GB after 44 but to effectively avert or push back invasions. That's the point of the game; while it wants to create a plausible and credible historical world, the player most likely does not stick to history and has a huge influence. Enough to make any statements of the result or the state of the game useless; very fast after game start, in fact. If it wasn't so, I believe a lot less people would be interested in the game.

*laughs* nope!

Germany doesn't have the manpower, nor the industry to fight a two front war. If they are still dicking around in Russia by late 43/early 44 they're screwed. Any component opponent won't piece meal into a strong land army. With the med secure and total Naval supremacy there's just too much coastline to defend. So if you cannot figure out in mid 42 to late 42 if you can capture Russia as Germany you're already in trouble, as a good player can.

This isn't too say that people cannot have fun playing the game as they don't know the outcome until much later, but very good players who understand the mechanics should be able to plan and see over a year out. You know your IC and your enemies IC, build times, operational tempo and distances involved. Hence the game is generally decided in late 42/early 43 when you achive necessary tactical victory at a local level to persevere your operational time table or you don't and face 3-5 more years of slow defeat.

 

[Sir Pellew]

Nobody posted it yet????? Then it's up to me

I am indecided about the nukes. Imo it's ok because they are not completely game breakers and they set a natural time barrier to MP games (A decision enhancer ).

Also there will be house rules I guess.

For single player. I don't know how keen the AI is to produce nukes.

 

[kalauer]

*laughs* nope!

Germany doesn't have the manpower, nor the industry to fight a two front war. If they are still dicking around in Russia by late 43/early 44 they're screwed. Any component opponent won't piece meal into a strong land army. With the med secure and total Naval supremacy there's just too much coastline to defend. So if you cannot figure out in mid 42 to late 42 if you can capture Russia as Germany you're already in trouble, as a good player can.

This isn't too say that people cannot have fun playing the game as they don't know the outcome until much later, but very good players who understand the mechanics should be able to plan and see over a year out. You know your IC and your enemies IC, build times, operational tempo and distances involved. Hence the game is generally decided in late 42/early 43 when you achive necessary tactical victory at a local level to persevere your operational time table or you don't and face 3-5 more years of slow defeat.

Unfortunately, the WWW we saw had a Manpower-bug, in which (I guess) Germany got the Manpower of all SU. But in General, Manpower should be an issue for Germany, that is true. On the other hand, in HoI4, occupiers are able to use the full extent of captured industry if they want to, so your point about the industry does not seem valid, as I introduced before. Additionally, the determinism you postulate does not fit the concept of the game, at least how I perceive it after playing some HoI3 and following the publications on HoI4.

And again, I kind of admire your self-confidence in which you take your own opinion for fact. But it doesn't make your points more valid nor yourself likeable.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

Unfortunately, the WWW we saw had a Manpower-bug, in which (I guess) Germany got the Manpower of all SU. But in General, Manpower should be an issue for Germany, that is true. On the other hand, in HoI4, occupiers are able to use the full extent of captured industry if they want to, so your point about the industry does not seem valid, as I introduced before. Additionally, the determinism you postulate does not fit the concept of the game, at least how I perceive it after playing some HoI3 and following the publications on HoI4.

And again, I kind of admire your self-confidence in which you take your own opinion for fact. But it doesn't make your points more valid nor yourself likeable.

So capturing all of the Soviets industry would define operational victory and end the two front war problem. So sure, per the discussion above Germany wins and does so early. If they take too long (late 44 into 45), then Germany will be bled out and won't have enough time to utilise the captured industry to stave off the allies.
No other industrial base is large enough to matter vs the USA.

Your insistence that the game is some mystery that rides on a knife edge, and that atomic weapons will end your chance at tactical genius where if you could have just had one more month fighting you'd surely snatched victory from the jaws of defeat is both ignorant and childish.

You conflate me pointing out mathematical inequities as opinion and retreat behind delusion to comfort yourself. I don't care who you are, or what you think. You put forth a position, I disagreed with it and substantiated my position. You don't have to like me, or my position. You don't have to agree with me either, but none of that will change that between two evenly matched players/sides that Nukes will have absolutely zero bearing on the outcome of the game.

 

[kalauer]

So capturing all of the Soviets industry would define operational victory and end the two front war problem. So sure, per the discussion above Germany wins and does so early. If they take too long (late 44 into 45), then Germany will be bled out and won't have enough time to utilise the captured industry to stave off the allies.
No other industrial base is large enough to matter vs the USA.

You do not know the industrial base of the USA, or of other nations, for that matter, in 44. Pretending you do is, how you put it, delusion.

Your insistence that the game is some mystery that rides on a knife edge, and that atomic weapons will end your chance at tactical genius where if you could have just had one more month fighting you'd surely snatched victory from the jaws of defeat is both ignorant and childish.

It is not a mystery, one can very well determine the result of a given Situation (assuming euqally skilled players etc.) when one has sufficient data on the important factors. Thing is, you don't have these data before you reach that situation or a given time frame before, which of course depends on the quality of the conclusion you may draw (for your Kind of quite General prediction, I would say one or two years in advance, it may be possible to see a clear trend in who will win; it is also possible that there is no trend until then). But the ability to assess your strategic Position is not related to your point, as you want to assess a strategic position of which you have 8 year old data. That's not planning, that's fortune telling.

I merely insist that you cannot have the Information you need to predict the outcome in 44 when you start the game in 36. You may say that Germay will have a hard time fighting two major powers that are still capable to do so in 44. But these are no news. And "hard time" does not equal "auto defeat".

Now without trying to weasel yourself out of your statement: "war will be long over by the end of 44", just sum up for me how this is determined already at the start of the game, without assuming that everything went historically and pretending to know the industrial and military strenght of the opposing sides in 44. Because you don't.

You conflate me pointing out mathematical inequities as opinion and retreat behind delusion to comfort yourself. I don't care who you are, or what you think. You put forth a position, I disagreed with it and substantiated my position. You don't have to like me, or my position.

I have yet to see any math in your reasoning. Besides, it would not help us here, since you a) do not have the Input and b) the equation needed to calculate this. Which is why HoI4 is no spreadsheet-delivery but a complex software product.

No, you did not "substantiate" your position. You argued that Germany will not be able to compete with industrial power of USA (not knowing what that power looks like in 44 for Germany or USA), as long as it did not defeat SU until then (of which we don't know the status, if not capitulated). If you showed me numbers on how the industrial and manpower base of Germany and USA/SU looked like in 44, you would have a point to make. But you didn't and you won't because it is just unknown and will change from game to game. I gave you the point of the manpower: we did not see realistic values for that and it should be a problem for Germany. But the claim that Germany has no way to do something against it, again shows a unreasonable thought of determinism which does not hold true. Neither for history nor (even less so) the game.

You don't have to agree with me either, but none of that will change that between two evenly matched players/sides that Nukes will have absolutely zero bearing on the outcome of the game.

Well thank you I don't have to agree. I appreciate that. And nice of you to go back to topic. I showed, (as I perceived it, in a competitive yet respectful and productive discussion with Zaku), that 50 civilian IC (from 43 til 45) are enough to get a nuke a month after 45. I also showed that a nuke can easily occupy more than these 50 IC of the enemy permanently, potentially being able to cripple his IC substantially. I used facts for this. Real data (as they were at the time of publication, of course) from the actual game. The impact on fighting forces was so obvious in the respective stream that I did not even got into detail there: Immediate retreat of the hit divisions seemed to be the only option. So you are claiming that between even(!) opponents, the ability to disable the divisions in an entire province each month (or saving them and do so to multiple simultaneously!), which would disrupt an entire defensive line and stop any attempt to attack immediately has no influenceon the outcome? This, Sir, is ridiculous. Even more so than your original statement.

I advise you to read up on those numbers and provide your own or accept them. Until then, I do not perceive you as qualified to talk about the impact of nukes.