Soviet and China too weak in historical path

[天宝(O v O)]

Please fix USSR losing to Germany and China losing to Japan every single time.

Soviet doesn't have any chance to fight back during winter, which doesn't make any "historical" sense.

China is capitulated in one year against Japan.

USA just can't stop neither Japan nor Germany. AI USA just sends amphibious divisions across the oceans and accumulate insane casualties without any progress to neither European nor Asian continents. While Germany and Japan have almost zero casualties against USA.

[天宝(O v O)]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Originally posted by 棋鬼.混日子:

AI USA just sends amphibious divisions across the oceans and accumulate insane casualties without any progress to neither European nor Asian continents.

I did the Netherlands hold out achievement. I watched the US do repeated naval invasions into Emden instead of just entering my country and attacking without a naval penalty.

The AI does not really care about defending puppets or allies either. If they defend an ally it is a con job, those units are jsut waiting on reinforcements until it has odds to attack what is on the other side.

As capitulated Netherlands I kept telling West Indies not to enter the war. When I annexed them they still had units scattered all over Africa and India. This happened every time on my repeated attempts to do the uncapitulate achievement.

I was playing Netherlands too.
In my runs, "Treading the Narrow Path" was easy. I just uncheck historical focus at game setup and lead the minor democracies to defeat Germany at around 1941.
But the "Bevrijding" was so insane. Despite my continuous efforts to bombard German industries with flight wings, the other allies just can't do nothing but watching Germany defeating USSR and unite Europe, Africa and Asia with Italy and Japan. At 1946, the difference of industries was like 1k factories on the Allies and 2k factories on the Axis. (The British and USA's fleets were defeated by Germany btw.)

[Lendoo]

the reason the ussr kept losing is because the game didn't simulate fuel, now that there is fuel in the game germany has the ability to lose, or at least i hope, and nor does the game simulate mud, which was a key factor since between winter and summer, russia has it's mud period, and because the AI is too stupid to set up a blockade of germany (basically raid convoys at all their accesses to ports)

[Viksteri]

Originally posted by DJ Wise Pariah:

Well, China should just never win, like, ever, and AI USSR losing to AI Germany normally only happens if the player actively assisting Germany or attacking the Soviets themselves. As for the US just using amphibious units, dunno if that's a bug or not, but in the game I'm currently running, the UK is also doing the same. They garrison their regulars and only attack with their specialist marines with AMTRACs.

Well uumm that uis not ture. The part were AI Germany wins casue player gets involved. I have played as Trostky mexico an dIve seen AI Germany beat USSR without my intervention. It's like STalin just throws his troops to useless fights and than dies

[ChaosKhan]

The reason for SU loss is simple. It literally runs out of rifles (because of higher losses due to lower division/general/boni quality and about 1/3 less factories) and can't sustain the fighting (leading to even more losses), yet the Allies don't lend-leaase even a single rifle and let it die.

Even if we assume, that winning without L-L is was historically impossible: In this case the game is highly ahistorical. I remember that in earlier versions the Allies helped out with L-L, so I wonder wth happened. That's why the USSR needs either a buff to be able to win on its own in favorable circumstances, or it needs to receive L-L to stand a chance.

Regarding China: Historically it did receive volunteers from all over the world and got also military supplies from the USSR, so again I wonder why there is no help in the game.

[Včelí medvídek]

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

The reason for SU loss is simple. It literally runs out of rifles (because of higher losses due to lower division/general/boni quality and about 1/3 less factories) and can't sustain the fighting, yet the Allies don't lend-leaase even a single rifle and let it die.

Actually I saw US lend-lease at some historical dates.. but simply say it comes too late in current state, because once the front collapse and sovietsare on retreat they have no chance to catch up (such things are challenge for even human player)

Anyway I opted 1.6.2 beta for next playtrough and as SU unability to defend is addressed in patch notes, so I am looking forward to give it a try in new game.

[Azoniar]

About the lend-lease, you guys might find this intresting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9PiDvI4pY

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by 棋鬼.混日子:

But the "Bevrijding" was so insane.

The crappy thing is, I should have had it. One of my first attempts the Allies sent in troops as I left. They retook my land and conquered Germany before I could do the focus, lol.

Every attempt afterwards always the same thing, Germany or Japan takes Russia out. Then uses all that manpower and production and becomes unstoppable. Mostly because the air superiority can not be beaten, you struggle to maintain 1000 planes in an airspace and the AI has thousands. Next thing you know you got 30+ factories doing aircraft and you are still falling behind. Then around 46 or 47 I run out of steel and convoys.

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by Azoniar:

About the lend-lease, you guys might find this intresting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9PiDvI4pY

Nothing new there.

The statement from 9:29 is completely besides the point. The construction principes were not similiar at all. Russians had to make do with plywood constructions instead of aluminium for quite some time, reducing the quality of the aircraft, but beeing able to produce it in the needed numbers. They just substituted materials, so it's not "mysterious" at all.
If you have to fight and you have no iron left is a sword out of copper still better than no sword at all...

[nicovallejos]

The Russians got defeated by the Central European Alliance.

However, the Allies are having difficulty crushing the Confederates (because of their Homeland Defense ability), thus, Canada got eliminated from the war quickly leaving the Japanese troops and other allies isolated. The British, though democratic, are already waging war to reunify the Anglosphere once and for all.

[HoboMan]

Yeah, USSR and China lose in every single game I've played lately. I can't figure out what is going on.

Before, in every single game with historical focus I was able to hold off Japan as China, even in the 1.6 patch, and once the US joins the war I can really feel the pressure being let off and I can easily push Japan off the mainland.

Then I bought MtG and now Japan just slowly advances over me as China and there is nothing I can do about it and even when the US joins (if I can even hold out that long) there is no change, I still can't even hold the line.

[Včelí medvídek]

Just actual note to 1.6.2 - sadly there is nto so big improvement.

I play US and mroe or less everything in world go historic path. War trigered in June 41 - I started pump lend-lease to SU, more than 1k convoys, about 150k infantry equipment and thousnads of guns and other gear. At the same time SU pupetted Finalnd before (small, btu nice boost and protection at this area) and I am in war since early years, mainly by air (but it definitly must cost Germany lot in manpower and production)

But still germany is on steroids - Moscow jsut falled and it is July 42, with this speed SU will collapse in less than year neevrtheless all material aid it got from me.

As only bright side I must say brits do quite well (well I ntoed in lend lease they miss over 1k convoys so fixed that with mine - that could be difference) - they still fight in Africa, got dominance on sea over Germany, Italy and Vichy (jsut losing fleets to Japan though) and they fight in India without losing ground.

PS: Just soon before SU collapsed I checked lend-lease and ti showed me they miss 8k convoys... what the heck they are needed for as Soviets hold just eastern part of their country - and my lend-lease already ended -I had no Idea.. but it could be part of issue.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

Originally posted by Coral:

Historically China and USSR win with foreign support and enemy supply collapse, which is less likely to be seen in games though

Historically, the USSR won on its own. Feel free to check out the statistics regarding lend & lease. Blitzkrieg had failed 1 year before lend & lease started to supply weapons and armor in earnest and over 90 % of German casualties were on the eastern front. The Allies helped to conclude the war 1-3 years faster, but a Soviet Victory was a foregone conclusion after the Battle of Moscow - at a time, where lend & lease supplied only food nearly no equipment. If you think about it, it does make sense. The Allies expected the SU to lose to the Blitzkrieg (because of their western mentality they didn't even think of such a heroic resistance which the Red Army put up) and therefore didn't supply noteworthy equipment because they feared, that Germany would just capture it for itself, once the SU would have capitulated. That's exactly what happened in France and Czechoslovakia after all... The Wehrmacht won and all equipment went to the victor.

The reason why the SU loses in the game isn't neccessarily because of Germany, but because all the other Axis join the war in earnest, which historically didn't happen. Romania, Hungary, Vichy France and Italy commit nearly all their forces, so the SU has to fight basically 4 powers on its own while receiving no help until 1944, when the USA AI is scripted to trigger the landing and starts to provide reinforcements for the eastern front if you give them military access. The British help out earlier, by doing the same, but only about 30 divisions, which obviously doesn't help a lot. What is ahistorical in the game either is the fact, that you don't receive ANY lend & lease as SU. This is basically what leads to it's defeat if played by AI.

I would put the confirmed Soviet survival date later, in early 1943 after Stalingrad. Summer 1942 saw the Soviet troops in the South collapse and another huge, Barbarossa like advance all the way to Stalingrad. If Stalingrad had fallen, much of the raw materials in the Caucasus would not have been able to he shipped north. It would have been the end for the USSR. Alan Brooke though that the British would have to defend against the Germans in Persia and India.

And if Bagration had failed, the Soviets may well have been halted. They were suffering from huge manpower shortages, which they solved by drafting in liberated PoWs and any young men they found on the way to Berlin. Turning Hungary and Romania helped too, but it was no where near as forgone as most people think it was.

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by acur1231:

I would put the confirmed Soviet survival date later, in early 1943 after Stalingrad. Summer 1942 saw the Soviet troops in the South collapse and another huge, Barbarossa like advance all the way to Stalingrad. If Stalingrad had fallen, much of the raw materials in the Caucasus would not have been able to he shipped north. It would have been the end for the USSR. Alan Brooke though that the British would have to defend against the Germans in Persia and India.

And if Bagration had failed, the Soviets may well have been halted. They were suffering from huge manpower shortages, which they solved by drafting in liberated PoWs and any young men they found on the way to Berlin. Turning Hungary and Romania helped too, but it was no where near as forgone as most people think it was.

The main problem with all this "western judgement" is, that you can't judge Russia by western standards. History showed very well, that the SU defied basically all expectations with impunity:

- Hitler expected the SU to surrender before winter
- the British and Americans expected it to fall by the end of 41
- economists expected the soviet economy to collapse at the end of 42 (based of "other wars in history")
- pretty much all of the Allies expected the Red Army to collaps after witnessing over 3 million of soviet soldiers going into captivity after just a couple weeks of war
- German generals expected Leningrad to surrender after half a year, once the food ran out
(- Napoleon expected Russia to surrender once he took Moscow)

You know what the Russians did? They showed the middle finger to all those "expectations". Therefore, Bagration would have only given Germany a little more time, because its economic capacity was already exhausted. By that time, the soviet production was already totally mobilized and they literally outproduced the german one on land and air. The german military potential was already exhausted long before Goebbels proclamed the "Total War".

I guarantee you, that even if Germany would have captured Moscow, even if Hitler would have taken Stalingrad, the Russians would have still grinded down the Wehrmacht in an unprecendented partisan warfare. That's also what most people like you tend to forget. Partisan warfare played a very important role in undermining the german war potential, and the more the war dragged on, the better and stronger those partisan movements became. They became highly organized and extremely effective at sabotaging supply lines and damaging the german war effort. It was simply impossible for the Wehrmacht to occupy soviet territory long term, because the population just hadn't the same self centered and craven mentality as the western did. Don't forget, we are talking about a population which left behind the most bloody revolution in human history not even a couple decades ago. It can't be overstated just how tough the soviet people of that time were.

Hitler would have lost simply, because the soviet people were not ready to surrender, under any circumstances. You can't hold over 100 millions people occupied if they defy your occupation with hundreds of thousand flowing into partisan corps - even children. Therefore, even if the Red Army had to fall back beyond the Ural, the Wehrmacht would have been utterly unable to follow up with their offensive and would have still been defeated by partisans and the inevitable counter offensive that would have followed anyway.

[acur1231]

Ah, the good old "Russia is unconquerable" myth. Truth is, while the Russians are hardy and all, they are still human. If Stalingrad had fallen, how could they use all their tanks and aircraft? The great oil wells would have been destroyed or captured. The Russians don't have the superhuman ability to let tanks drive on nothing. If they fell behind they Urals, they would have no industry, how would they produce weapons? Not to mention that they would suffer severe attrition from cold and hunger, given that that area is a desolate wasteland.

As for partisan warfare, thats a no. The Soviet partisans were sustained for years by airdropped weapons by the Red Army. They caused trouble, but never came close to chucking the Germans out of the USSR. That was down to the Red Army. If the Red Army was defeated, they would slowly but surely run out of weapons, no? But even more sinisterly, General Plan Ost had the Germans committing genocide throughout their occupied territories in the east, which would have killed off any chance of partisan warfare. Wipe out the population the partisans hide in and live off, and the partisans become nothing more than desperate bands of bandits that would be wiped out, one by one. Like the Boer War or the Malayan Insurgency, except the Germans would kill the popation instead of isolating them from the insurgents. Pretty standard anti-partisan stuff, since the partisans can never stand up to the occupier, any policy which forces them into open conflict with that occupier will wipe them out. The Germans were not constrained by the need to protect civilian life that insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have benefitted from. In fact, they would gladly massacre millions, knowing that it would cripple any chance of prolonged partisan warfare.

The USSR was saved by the readiness of its citizens to sacrifice all to expel the invader, and by the near miraculous transformation of the Red Army into the best military in the world by 1945.

[ChaosKhan]

Read about soviet partisans on the wiki for starters. Partisans only require supplies at the beginning, before they "connect" to the populace which then starts to sustain them. Here a wiki quote just on the Belarus front:

By the end of 1943, partisans controlled more than 100 thousand square km. of Belarus, which was about 60 percent of the republic's territory. The partisans controlled more than 20 regional centers and thousands of villages. By the time of the return of the Soviet Army, most of the Belorussian SSR was in the hands partisan groups and the actual size of republic controlled by the Germans was small.

It's not a myth, it's a certainity. Russia has yet to lose a defensive war in its history and it has fought a lot of those.
It's geographically consideren unconquerable. Even the Wehrmacht generals said it. Only people like Hitler and you believe otherwise.

You should read more about history, seriously. Try to start with wiki instead of playing HOI4, where a lot is just absolute BS. Even todays armies would need over 9 million mibilized manpower to garrison todays Russia (without even counting partisan resistance etc), and we are talking about the Soviet Union here, which was far bigger.