So I can add ;lets say, an assault gun battalion to a division type, have 10 divisions of these type and have only 30 guns. Would I still be allowed to update that type and it would give each 3 guns (depending on priority I assume)?
Two weaknesses of HOI: IC-centricity and state-centricity
- Thread starter Sacer
- 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.
So I can add ;lets say, an assault gun battalion to a division type, have 10 divisions of these type and have only 30 guns. Would I still be allowed to update that type and it would give each 3 guns (depending on priority I assume)?
States are still the main actors on an international scale to this day.
#realistbros #realismisrad
#realistbros #realismisrad
The idea that the USSR sent 'masses' of soldiers into battle without weapons/ammunition is vastly exaggerated. It did happen a few times when new divisions where desperatly needed like during the battle of Stalingrad or when the Narodnoe Opolcheniye (People´s Militia) units where raised in a effort to halt the Germans during the autumn of 1941. However in most cases newly formed divisions where simply assigned fewer soldiers since STAVKA realized that a soldier with no weapon or ammuniton wasn´t gonna be very effective.
I'm awayting the 10 pages of post in favor of a rail/road/(canal) separation.
Can we get an extra one at some time? Maybe get 3 in the next two months? We did miss out on the December one after-all
I do hope you have some master plan up your sleeve so that minors and majors can have equipment. We all know how much was sent to the Soviets with lend lease, and from the USA to the UK and France, which in the latter was top of the line equipment. Other things like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada had top of the line or near top of the line equipment in order to fight effectively.
Lend lease wasn't the way all armies outside the chosen ones by the major industrial nations in the world equipped themselves from 1936-1948. Purchasing equipment was very much alive and well. This is where I see the issue of there being no money in the game being a problem.
- 2
Well, thing rather is that German tanks sucked in 1938, then Czech tanks were actually good.
Finland had domestic arms manufacturing. Also they didn`t really do "well", they managed to extract a high toll on Soviets attacking in rough terrain into fortified defensive line and bad supply lines, but after Soviets passed, fins were basically done.
Most of the time, lack of weapons and munitions was due to Soviet logistics failures, not failure to produce weapons. In fact, SU still didn`t exhaust it`s pre-war infantry armament reserves in 1942.
The apex of a 'states-centered system' is WWI and beyond, not starting in the 17th Century. The 19th Century can be marked by a transition from a non-bureaucratic system to one of bureaucracy at a national level. In other words: prior to the 1870's there are monarchies and after that there are national governments.
International systems begin to take on a global relevance in the late 19th century as nation states begin to exert their power globally;i.e., the Gold Standard, the League of Nations, Bretonwoods Agreement, the UN and both the IMF and World Bank, and the EU. It is in the 20th century that national governments place greater emphasis on international system and the need for integration at a global level so that war does not occur again.
WWII was the survival of national governments; i.e., England, USA, and all the others. Even Japan was involved at a national level. Germany and the Soviet Union may have fought for ideological reasons, but the war was still very dependent on the nation state. This is not to say that Nazi Germany did not go to war for ethnicity reasons, but that the Nazis who marched to war used the nation state to further their goals. In the end it was the German 'nation state' that lost out as Germany was partitioned in two two spheres and each being influenced by either the West or Communism.
WWII could not of happened without the nation state. It is the nation state that musters all the resources of a geographical region and projects political/military/financial power globally. WWII was on a truly global scale, unlike all other wars that preceded it, and the campaigns that where fought were continental in scope. To this I would say the HOI serious does a very good job at modelling WWII.
As for civil wars they are less relevant for the game, but your point is valid.
.png){kind=avatar}
Yes, Finland had domestic small arms industry, but no tank or combat aircraft industry. Not sure about artillery, but most of the arty that was used were foreign WW1 or even older guns. Also soviet propaganda highly exaggerated the fortification level of the Mannerheim line to explain their slow progress and high losses.
This game seems to be already less IC-centric for a NON NEUTRAL minor. Thailand had 15 millions people, Japan had 70...now Thailand can field 1/5 of numbers of Japan with bad quality but still better of what they could produce with the IC system (what was? 10 IC VS 100+ of Japan?) without waiting ages.
And what about Venezuela? 5 millions people and lot of oil: they can field a lots of old planes and boats without the need of building them!
And what about Venezuela? 5 millions people and lot of oil: they can field a lots of old planes and boats without the need of building them!
Don't confuse population and manpower though, those are two different metrics that are not necessarily related in a linear fashion.
Versus an industrial power, an agricultural economy has usually less available manpower compared to total population because more people are required to sustain the basic economy (ie food etc.)
Sweden - I'd rather say it produced a relativey large number of weapons of all kinds. The Bofors 40 mm gun was one of the most popular anti-aircraft systems during the period, used by the allies and the axis. Aircraft produced by SAAB and FFVS was not inferior to those produced by the majors. Sweden produced the first prototype of an ejection seat late in the ar. In the 1950s, Sweden arguably had more advanced aircraft than the US/USSR - look up the SAAB Tunnan and Lansen. Landsverk also made a number fully modern tanks for they time, for example the Stridsvagn m/42.
Switzerland - The Oerlikon 20 mm cannon was widely exported and used by the allied and axis nations. Aircraft were produced by several manufacturers, among them Eidgenössisches Flugzeugwerk in which produced aircraft up to par with the majors.
Belgium - Renard and SABCA produced aircraft that could at least be classified as decent.
Poland - Had a large native tank and aircraft industry that churned out decent quality. The quality of the materiel produced in the 1930s was not the main problem to the Polish army.
The Netherlands - Fokker dominated the civilian aviation market in the 1930s and produced a number of high quality aircraft that was exported all over the world.
Czechoslovakia - As has been said, it is widely recognized that Czech arms industry did produce as good or better arms than that of the majors of the era. Then you had Avia which produced aircraft not any less modern than that of the majors.
Hungary - MAVAG and Manfred Weiss produced a large number aircraft. Hungarian produced Turan and Toldi tanks were decent. The world's first turboprop, the Jendrassik Cs-1, was designed and produced in Hungary in 1938. Hungary also produced some quite advanced rocket anti air and anti-tank weapons at the end of the war.
All this military equipment by those neutrals that sold them confirms the fact to me that money should be in the game so that even as a major you could buy these things from those nations and then put them to use in your war-machine.
Yeah, but the overwhelming majority of these was built on license - not in Sweden.
They were slower, and less well armed than the leading aircraft made in the same year by the UK, Germany, and USSR in every case - pick any of them
And?
Even if true, this would be irrelevant.
In small numbers, and it was actually out of date compared to Allied, Soviet, and German tanks of the same year (1943 - the Churchill, the T34, the Tiger).
Irrelevant - these were built on license.
Which was why the Swiss used German aircraft instead? Remember: we're talking about countries that could arm themselves.
So decent they scored hundreds of victories over the Germans - right? Oh, well then.
Tanks and aircraft that were mostly obsolete in 1939. Again, I'm not seeing where the "decent" part comes in.
On top of everything else, the poor quality and quantity of Polish tanks and aircraft did not help.
Civilian aircraft are not the topic under discussion. Did the Netherlands field a decent army from their own industrial base?
They produced small numbers of some tanks which the Germans found useful. And that's about it.
This is impossible to say since they never went into action.
They produced German aircraft under license, overwhelmingly for export to Germany and under German supervision.
The wartime total for all Hungarian armoured vehicle production is around 500. That's enough to equip a single armoured division with almost no replacements. The Turan I tanks which made up the lion's share of these were armed with a 40mm gun and debuted in 1941 - I need hardly point out that it did not fair well against any of the tanks it was put up against.
Since they did not field large numbers of any of these enough to equip their armed forces to a decent standard this is irrelevant.
Frankly, I think you're going to have a hard showing any minor that demonstrably built a "decent" army (let alone airforce or navy) using its own industrial base. The only minors outside the British Commonwealth to do much more than rapidly capitulate under German/Japanese/Soviet/British/US attack during the war were Finland and China, who are well-known to have relied mainly on imports for heavy weapons.
Last edited:
I agree with your points, FOARP.
What I want to see in HOI IV,
-The ability to have lend-lease to anyone you choose, in your alliance or not.
-To be able to sell what you have in your pool of manufactured equipment to anyone.
-To buy the license from countries in order to manufacture the items yourself. Which could allow you to save experience for another variant.
-To create a variant of the item you just bought a license to manufacture. I assume in reality there would be legal issues with this. Perhaps getting that nation's permission?
-Having money in game in order to help facilitate transactions outside of lend-lease.
Getting all these items to those other nations or to your own is another issue, and that will have to be figured out in game.
What I want to see in HOI IV,
-The ability to have lend-lease to anyone you choose, in your alliance or not.
-To be able to sell what you have in your pool of manufactured equipment to anyone.
-To buy the license from countries in order to manufacture the items yourself. Which could allow you to save experience for another variant.
-To create a variant of the item you just bought a license to manufacture. I assume in reality there would be legal issues with this. Perhaps getting that nation's permission?
-Having money in game in order to help facilitate transactions outside of lend-lease.
Getting all these items to those other nations or to your own is another issue, and that will have to be figured out in game.
- 1