Will you fix these game killers?

[lwarmonger]

Fedor von Bock, Guderian and almost all of the German generals involved in Operation Barbarossa vehemently argued in favor of continuing the all-out drive toward Moscow. Besides the psychological importance of capturing the enemy's capital, Moscow was a major center of arms production and the center of the Soviet communications and transportation system.

The only one who wanted Kiev encircled was Hitler.

I would ask what would have compelled the Soviets to surrender to an enemy intent on their enslavement and annihilation after their capital had been taken, when they still had a fresh army and significant industrial potential in Siberia?

I would also ask what would have prevented those soviet troops in the Ukraine from pushing north and cutting a drive on Moscow's supply lines?

I'd take the views of the German general staff, and the views of almost all professional historians, over the views of an Austrian corporal and some random Wermacht fanboys on the internet.

The chief proponent of the drive on Moscow was Gudarian... who was a fairly enthusiastic commander, but didn't know when to stop, and had a very bad habit of letting his armor get way too far ahead of his infantry even before combined arms doctrine (on both sides) put an end to the type of slashing armored thrusts he was so fond of.

Sure, they captured a lot of soldiers at Kiev..but there were a lot more in the USSR's manpower reserve. When fighting a Hydra, it doesn't matter how many heads you chop off, you have to stab it in the heart.

I just don't see how Moscow would end Soviet resistance. It would be an important victory to be sure, and would certainly complicate logistics for everything north and west of Moscow, but a war of annihilation isn't over until everything is conquered. German armies fought (and attempted to fight) their way out of encirclement by Soviet troops at the end of WWII in order to make it to Allied lines, and that was when almost all of Germany was occupied. I don't see why the Soviets would give in with industry still in Siberia and significant armies still in the field. Especially at a time when the Germans have almost nothing left (this is where the lack of follow on forces for Barbarossa really screwed the entire plan over, no matter what they did operationally).

The game inadequately models the logistical difficulties of fighting in Russia and Russia's manpower advantages. As it is these factors kick in only when Germany has reached the Urals - the game needs to be tweaked so that these things make an impact earlier.

Agreed. European Russia was a seemingly limitless war for the Germans... it should seem that way when I am playing Germany. At the very least, as was said above, ESE needs to have more of an effect on supply reaching my troops.

 

[froek]

I just don't see how Moscow would end Soviet resistance. It would be an important victory to be sure, and would certainly complicate logistics for everything north and west of Moscow, but a war of annihilation isn't over until everything is conquered. German armies fought (and attempted to fight) their way out of encirclement by Soviet troops at the end of WWII in order to make it to Allied lines, and that was when almost all of Germany was occupied. I don't see why the Soviets would give in with industry still in Siberia and significant armies still in the field. Especially at a time when the Germans have almost nothing left (this is where the lack of follow on forces for Barbarossa really screwed the entire plan over, no matter what they did operationally).
.

Wasn't Stalin still in Moscow when they were fighting?

 

[lwarmonger]

Wasn't Stalin still in Moscow when they were fighting?

Yep. And he refused to leave. But when you are fighting to avoid annihilation, you don't stop just because the enemy has taken your capital and killed your leader.

Hitler made it pretty clear through words and deeds exactly how "Lebensraum" would be acquired in the east.

 

[unmerged(36286)]

I just don't see how Moscow would end Soviet resistance. It would be an important victory to be sure, and would certainly complicate logistics for everything north and west of Moscow, but a war of annihilation isn't over until everything is conquered. German armies fought (and attempted to fight) their way out of encirclement by Soviet troops at the end of WWII in order to make it to Allied lines, and that was when almost all of Germany was occupied. I don't see why the Soviets would give in with industry still in Siberia and significant armies still in the field. Especially at a time when the Germans have almost nothing left (this is where the lack of follow on forces for Barbarossa really screwed the entire plan over, no matter what they did operationally).

You're missing my point. I agree with you that taking the Moscow may not have been decisive. But faced with choice of taking either Kiev or Moscow, taking Moscow was the only chance the Germans had for victory. Any attempt to fight a "war of annihilation," as you seem to advocate, was doomed to fail.

Russia had such an overwhelming advantage in resources that losses at Kiev or Moscow, no matter how gigantic, would not have been truly decisive. The only way to have beaten Russia would have been to inflict a psychological blow - to break the leadership's will to fight. You are of course aware that Stalin made a few peace overtures in the early months of Barbarossa?

The only possible way to crack the Soviet will to fight would have been a spear-thrust towards Moscow to topple the centre of leadership.

I know, I know...you like the Kiev battle because it was so cool to have carried out the most devastating double development since Cannae, oh wow! When I was younger, in my early stage of Panzer fanboyism, I liked that battle too.

Unfortunately the Kiev battle was a waste of time, as all the Panzer generals knew.

I would also ask what would have prevented those soviet troops in the Ukraine from pushing north and cutting a drive on Moscow's supply lines?

Those troops were disorganized, poorly led, and represented no offensive threat. This is not my opinion, but the professional assessment of the competent and battle-proven panzer generals who were in the field and present as the events unfolded. Once again, I hold their opinions more valuable than the opinion of some Austrian corporal amateurishly meddling in operational affairs.

 

[unmerged(209792)]

...when they still had a fresh army and significant industrial potential in Siberia?

A "fresh" army of largely mixed and oppressed ethnicities with low morale and organization, and most importantly - after the fall of Moscow -, no central communications and no co-ordination between the armies. The only thing that allowed this army to eventually topple the Germans IRL, was the fact that they were being given orders. With no-one to do that for them, I seriously doubt they would've stood any chance whatsoever to the technologically, morally, organization- and leadership-wise superior Germans.

EDIT: IMO in such a scenario any remaining Soviet industry would've made little difference to the outcome.

EDIT2: To simulate this matter in AoD, I've taken an event from the World in Flames mod for HoI2 and modified it, so that triggering it only requires Moscow. It gives the USSR -30% max. org. and 30% dissent if/once they lose Moscow. I suggest a similar event be made for AoD.

 

[unmerged(151142)]

There is a lot I like about this game, but there are 3 game killers that ruin the games for me.

1. Soviet Union is easily defeated by Germany, every time.

2. China is always conquered and puppeted by Japan, every time.

3. Japan will not attack allies or US, preferring to attack Soviet Union.

Will you devs fix these, please?

Since this discussion has somewhat driven off into a historical colloquium, I thought I might take it back to the question it started with. To me, a "balanced game" means that if I play, let us say Switzerland or Colombia, things turn out the way they historically did. That also means that I do not want to see the Soviets defeated, nor China conquered completely nor peace in the Pacific in 1942. Means I agree completely with the request. Some of these things are to be changed easily however: enter a building scheme for Japan (AI-File), so they have less infantry against China and more fleet when they need it against USA. I never saw Japan attack USSR, really never. Maybe something wrong in the AI file or in combination with the Nomohan incident (check db/events/hoi2.txt). You could also fix the Japanese AI file to tell him to attack the US in December 1941 in any case. Set the AI choices fixed, so no silly ahistoric stuff happens (i.e. no lend lease, no Legion Condor, no attack on Poland etc). Finally, I only played one game so far in AOD 1.04 - as Germany. I consider myself a pretty decent general but...it is September 1941 and I am somewhat in trouble, Soviet forces have stopped me all the way, I am running out of oil and patience, I lost three valuable tank divisions and I haven't taken much more than Ukraine. In the north I haven't even been able to liberate the Baltic, haha...Don't even see Moscow at the horizon, after he pushed me out of Smolensk. Well I still have maybe 100 Div's plus 60 allied in the East (taken control of Hun/Rom/Bul/Svk, but never of Finland) but the Soviet has 300 Div's waiting for me. How come? First I had Molotov as Head of Gov. from 1936 to 1941, which gives USSR significantly more IC. Second, with Lend Lease the Soviets do not get IC's in Siberia but some motorized and armoured divisions (he pays in manpower, the USA deliver tanks and trucks). I think this is well balanced, the Ai however is much better than in Doomsday, now he really doesn't like to be encircled The only thing I would like to see improved is that now he doesn't hold a reserve or a second battle line, once you are through you got him.

 

[Iberville]

Best way to play AoD is multiplayer!

 

[TontonJack]

Hi everybody,

I agree with # 2 : Japan puppets China more than 3/4 game, but not with #1 and # 3.

In my current UK game, Moscow is taken, only the south is resisting, and now, SU may have a chance since I am strong enough to lauch Tiers III Strategic Bomber to the Reich. But, in one game for three, I can see GER forgets to DoW SU and be beaten 3 years later by a huge bear, in the other third part, I see GER DoW and be unable to take Moscow and reach Stalingrad.

For the #3 proposition, I see only one time Japan DoW SU - and that's a pity for him - . But it is true that Japan AI is a bite funny with historical dates.

Best regard.