Will it be exciting this time around? Will HOI4 be more exciting in this department?
War won because of good codebreakers.
- Thread starter wolf1455
- 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.
Maybe with an expansion but the base game will be pretty light about this area and will not have any espionage system.
- 1
No single weapon, person, tech or doctrine ever wins any war. Allied intelligence superiority (with cryptography being a part of it) certainly contributed massively to victory, but it was far from the single deciding factor. HoI always represented intelligence adequately with a mixture of direct (fog of war) and indirect (unit buffs) factors.
- 17
.png){kind=avatar}
Would be pretty sweet if you had a substantial lead in decryption if you could see enemy battle plans.
- 4
I would have that be a fairly major lead though with smaller leads bringing other advantages. Also, higher levels of decryption should also offer insight into what the AI is thinking, and the probabilities that they take various actions.
say something like this with each number representing one level of decryption advantage, squished or expanded, depending on the precise structure of the tech system:
1: Last known position indicators.
2: Private decisions revealed
3:?
4: Unit positions revealed
5: Battle plans shown
- 1
Decryption gives at least some information on the units you fight on the front. Number of divisions in a province, their icon (so you can see if it's infantry, or tank, etc) and their strength/org.
We're talking about Europe I presume.
Here I thought the war was won by the lives and blood of the Soviet Union, who didn't exactly have access to the same intelligence the British had.
The conceit about the wests role in the defeat of Germany is more than a little nauseating at times.
Here I thought the war was won by the lives and blood of the Soviet Union, who didn't exactly have access to the same intelligence the British had.
The conceit about the wests role in the defeat of Germany is more than a little nauseating at times.
- 14
- 6
- 1
To be fair, the Pacific was another theater where decryption helped enormously. In fact, even before the war started, there were times US codebreakers were getting Japanese messages decrypted as fast as the Japanese.
- 8
And it could have saved the Pacific fleet stationed in Pearl Harbour, but the Japanese were smart by flooding transmissions with false information for the Americans to decrypt hours before the attack. I believe it was all part of their deception plan in fooling the Americans an attack will happen elsewhere.
Last edited:
- 2
Given what I have seen probably not but then again there has been some good additions to Eu4 in this regard.
- 1
They didn't, but they still got access to some of it. IIRC (I'm no expert, and memory's patchy, so correct me if I'm wrong) the British had a hand in the intelligence regarding Kursk, which allowed the Russians to leverage their advantages. The intelligence also helped with the Battle of the Atlantic, which meant more lend-lease flowing through to the Soviets (because more ships would have been available). While the Soviets were very, very likely to roll over the top of Germany regardless, they still benefited directly and indirectly from the decryption efforts. I'm not trying to downplay the Soviets' contribution here, or say that codebreaking was the reason the war was won, mind.
- 1
The idea that the SU won without the west is as abusrd as the west winning without the SU. Lets not turn the discussion into a chicken measuring contest, huh?
- 10
- 2
Yes, I agree that Russia could not have done it without the west.
I do think the west eventually would have won without Russia it would just take time.
Japan & maybe Italy would have been defeated historicaly even without Russia.
- 4
- 2
If Germany had no Eastern front, there is no chance in hell that Europe could be militarily (in conventional warfare) invaded and conquered. Same for Italy.
The costs (in manpower) were just too great for the Allies to do that. (since they were safe themselves due to navy)
The Russians had no such choice, so they *had* to win, whatever the cost.
Now, if we are talking about naval blockades, resource starvation and the such (maybe even nukes), i don't think they can just topple the Germans. Only make them eventually also get nukes and hit the UK.
I'd argue about Hitler being couped, or German economy crumbling after their occupied countries were completely dried up, but this is not the point, right?
- 3
The Alies would have had nukes before the Germans in that scenario.
There's a thing in these counterfactuals which people "forget" because it's unsporting which is that the Allies have, starting in 1942, an "I win" button in three years. It doesn't matter how well the Germans do in 1943-1945, because the Allies will drop nukes on them if they're still there in the latter half of 1945.
- 2
- 2
Hmmm... I dunno. Once the States entered the war they'd have just thrown resources at the problem till victory was achieved. Total victory.... maybe not. But I can imagine multiple fronts opening up in Italy, Scandinavia, the Balkans, South of France....
Besides, these kind of "what if" scenarios are why we play the game.
- 4
As much as i'd like them to (i live in Europe), they wouldn't.
Not if it meant risking *their* manpower to annihilation. Because in such invasions a defeat is much more costly since you cannot fall back.
They would open limited fronts if they could, but against Germany with its powerbase much closer and no drains upon its power, it would be unfeasible to make significant gains. Maybe Sicily, maybe all Med Islands, North Africa most certainly, also Norway if possible, but not much more.
You overestimate the destructive power of the first nukes. They were not the automatic 'i win' button, except against a Japan humiliated, defeated in detail, too starved of resources and assets, and generally brought on its knees. That was the last straw for them.
Nobody can really say what would be the effect of nuking a Germany, while comfortably sitting on its powerbase with no Eastern front, but i bet they would not just surrender and accept whatever terms the allies want. They might endure and try to get their nukes too.
In short, if (as was the case) the USA cannot build an infinite number of nukes, and the ones they can are of low yield (also the case), they are not the decicive factor. Plane bombing raids could and did cause similar destruction (rules don't allow talking about that though)
PS. Sure such a what-if is a very good reason to play the game. Its a game after all. But IRL is another matter.
EDIT
Bout the OP, i also feel that crypto IRL played a much greater role than the game portrays. Thing is, putting crypto in its correct place would not make for a great Grand Strategy Wargame. Most people want to play with armies and navies primarily.
Last edited: