HOI4 Dev Diary - News from the Eastern Front

[mabus81]

Regarding point 1: If Hitler hadn't invaded Soviet Union, Stalin would have invaded Germany and that's a fact. War between those countries was inevitable.

Regarding point 2: Agree, if Hitler had allowed formation of Russian Liberation Army in 41 instead of 44, when whole soviet armies were switching sides then he could have won.
Hitler lost the war on the east due to his delusional beliefs, SS and einsatzgruppen attitude to the local population.

To be fair: Hitlers delusional beliefs, his SS Einsatzgruppen and his attitude towards the local population in the east led to the entire conflict in the first place. If you replace the historical madman from Austria with a mild-temperated, thoughtful and team-minded generalissimo, there probably would not have been an operation Barbarossa. He probably even wouldn't have become chancelor in '33 in the first place

 

[kapiszon10]

To be fair: Hitlers delusional beliefs, his SS Einsatzgruppen and his attitude towards the local population in the east led to the entire conflict in the first place. If you replace the historical madman from Austria with a mild-temperated, thoughtful and team-minded generalissimo, there probably would not have been an operation Barbarossa. He probably even wouldn't have become chancelor in '33 in the first place

Germans applied their ideology selectivley, Croatia, Slovakia and mostly invitation of Yugoslavia to the tripatriate pact proves that.
All he had to do was to forbid an unhuman treatment of Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians by said groups, and the people would have helped to overthrow an opressive communist regime.

I would gladly discuss the matter further, especially about the barbarossa in other circumstances but it is a HOI4 forum, not a historical one.

 

[mabus81]

Germans applied their ideology selectivley, Croatia, Slovakia and mostly invitation of Yugoslavia to the tripatriate pact proves that.
All he had to do was to forbid an unhuman treatment of Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians by said groups, and the people would have helped to overthrow an opressive communist regime.

I would gladly discuss the matter further, especially about the barbarossa in other circumstances but it is a HOI4 forum, not a historical one.

I'm sorry but I think you're mixing up cause and result here. First Hitler decided to enslave the slavs, then did he decide to start the war to make that happen. Treating the ukranians the way he did was the goal of the war, not the means by which he intended to win the war. Hence saying "if Hitler treated the ukranians humanely he would have won the war", regardless wether that is true or not, also includes saying "if Hitler hadn't been Hitler, he would have won he war". However, if Hitler hadn't been Hitler, there would most certainly not have been a war. Not unless you replace the historical Hitler with a Napoleon or Caesar style leader. And that a leader of that kind of character could have won the war, I guess nobody disputes that.

To clarify my opinion in one sentence: enslaving the eastern people was not part of Hitlers strategy, it was the goal of his war and hence it makes no sense to debate wether he would have won it otherwise (because then it also would have been a different war).

If the Wehrmacht had fought for an even remotely justifyable cause, virtually all aspects of the war would have been a lot easier to manage for Germany.

 

[rwds]

And that a leader of that kind of character could have won the war, I guess nobody disputes that.

If the Wehrmacht had fought for an even remotely justifyable cause, virtually all aspects of the war would have been a lot easier to manage for Germany.

I think these 2 claims are highly unsubstantiated and the second one in particular feels like it was pushed through a modern lens rather than a pragmatic or realistic one.

 

[mabus81]

I think these 2 claims are highly unsubstantiated and the second one in particular feels like it was pushed through a modern lens rather than a pragmatic or realistic one.

So you're claiming that a Napoleon or Caesar style character definelity would not have stood a chance, either. Also you claim that fighting for a justifyable cause would have not made things easier for the Wehrmacht in WW2. Care to elaborate that?

 

[lonewolf371]

Why is this a discussion? It's like saying if Nazi Germany wasn't Nazi Germany, they would have had a better chance of winning the war. Nazi Germany actually did happen, and its roots go very deep into imperial German culture. I don't think this discussion is fruitful.

 

[Black5Raven]

Regarding point 2: Agree, if Hitler had allowed formation of Russian Liberation Army in 41 instead of 44, when whole soviet armies were switching sides then he could have won.
Hitler lost the war on the east due to his delusional beliefs, SS and einsatzgruppen attitude to the local population.

And what would that change? Armed formations which was created by the Germans were not capable of fighting, and their number and locals support were practically near zero (with the exception of Baltic regions).
The only ones who could really be a large force were detachments made up of Soviet prisoners of war, but they mostly also refused to fight for the Germans and at the first opportunity, went over to the partisans or fled.

 

[rwds]

So you're claiming that a Napoleon or Caesar style character definelity would not have stood a chance, either. Also you claim that fighting for a justifyable cause would have not made things easier for the Wehrmacht in WW2. Care to elaborate that?

Well I think for one it's just an absurd situation that once you dig a bit deeper you can reach powers levels almost rivaling captain hindsight in sheer war-winning capacity. "If only we could hand-pick our leaders from the best that have ever existed we could have won this". I think if we restrict our scenarios to at least allow the fascists to assume power in Germany and start WW2 like it happened in our time-line it would be extremely unlikely for Hitler to have relinquished power to someone else, even if they were as competent as those people you mentioned.

On the 2nd point. You claim that fighting for a justifiable cause would have made a large difference (a war winning difference even). Now for the German soldiers it seemed like morale and war support was extremely high until the very end so I assume you mean the difference is that they could have garnered more support from Ukrainians and Russians and the like in conquered territories. I am of the opinion that the main limiting factors for German success in Barbarossa were strategic resources (most importantly oil). They could easily replenish their losses in both personnel and AFVs in the early stages of Barbarossa but had to eventually downsize the number of mechanized and armored divisions due to lack of fuel. I hardly think recruiting more soldiers from conquered territories in Soviet Union would have made a difference. It wouldn't have solved the main issue of fuel running out so they can't conduct large scale offensives. The main obstacle that needs to be overcome is the red army whether your goal for invading is pure benevolent slavophilia to liberate the oppressed or plain old lebensraum.

Since we are all fans of impossible hypothethical scenarios, let's consider one: What if Canada suddenly decides to mobilize a huge army with the goal to annex the United States. In such a scenario I don't think the war would be any more/less difficult whether your stated reason for annexation was to create a pan-anglo-saxon empire or to fight global warming. I think both scenarios would be incredibly similar in terms of difficulty even though one of the scenarios sounds slightly less appaling to a progressively minded person from the 21st century. The main obstacle that you have to overcome in both cases is the U.S armed forces and they need to be defeated in the field no matter how many sympathizers you convert to your cause.

In modern wars it seems to be the equipment (and the firepower associated with said equipment) that decide wars. Not manpower. Now of course if your background to invasion are so incredibly just and benevolent that half of your enemies just lay down their weapons or turn on their own country that would be a different matter entirely but I can't see that happening in the case of Germany vs the Soviet Union.

 

[MikeZed]

First of all, as for the balance philosophy - for me as a Soviet player this is really good news! The need for Soviet-Allied co-op sounds magnificent. Although this requires some tweaks to the AI US lend-lease priorities, because sending 150 support equipment a month is not nearly enough.

All in all, this target may not be 100% historically accurate for several reasons. Not opening a second front would IRL simply mean the war dragging to 1946 or even later. But the Soviet capacity for winning the war on their own can easily be modded in, so it sounds like a neat compromise.

And as for the reasoning in the comments for or against the pro-German balance, most of the arguments aren’t really historically accurate.

And as much as I am a fan of historical outcomes, striving for a balance between historical outcomes, fun and engine capabilities you do have to take into consideration a few factors that cannot be well represented in the current game state:

a) STRATEGY - Germany’s Barbarossa strategy [i.e. destroying the enemy’s army and capturing its main cities] was inherently flawed, and the historical consensus tends to be that the proper strategy would have been to strike south towards the food and oil resource bases and ignore Moscow entirely. Taking this route would increase Germany’s chance of success. Moreover it is this “bad” decision that in part led to Germany’s overwhelming gains in mid to late 1941. USSR did anticipate an attack, but not one the would stretch the Germans so thin with only strategically unimportant terrain to show for it.

On the other hand, the AI is currently unable to choose different strategic goals or perform limited offensives. It either attacks where the enemy is weakest of pushes along the entire front no matter the resource cost or strategic gain. This together with the inability of the AI to make good use of armoured divisions makes it impossible for the human player to be surprised by the AI launching an large scale attack on a strategically vital part of a front (no Fall Blau or Citadel for you, Adof). Therefore, without the need for constant vigilance, it would be too easy for a human SOV player to retake large parts of Russia with only a large enough concentrated force of tanks or “elite” units. With a weaker Germany the Soviet campaign would just be Bagration after Bagration after Bagration.

b) FUEL and SUPPLIES - Germany lost a lot of their fighting capacity due to loss of fuel and not manpower. GER was able to refill manpower losses on the eastern front (and even increase the sizes of their armies) up to late 1943, while objectively being unable to “win” past mid-1942. Securing fuel would definitely increase Germany’s fighting capacity.

Note also that Hitler, wanting to attack the Soviet Union, had to do it in 1941, because that was the last moment when Germany had enough fuel to launch an offensive that could last months.

I’m aware that we have fuel with patch 1.6, but Paradox out did themselves a bit, because factories also historically required fuel, thus the “fuel” requirement for building ships and mechanized units should be re-introduced. That would genuinely cripple Germany’s production capacity and put the German player on a real timer.

On the other hand the current problem with the game balance is that wartime victories put countries in a win more situation. IC occupation is too effective and partisan damage to infrastructure is negligible.

Also, in the game mobilization and training doesn’t work the way it should. (1) Training soldiers, (2) preparing army OOBs and assigning equipment and (3) deploying forces in the field should be their own separate things. The fact that a country can mobilize 8.000.000 soldiers and give each of them a rifle does not mean that said country can hold that large of an army. See point d for further explanation.

c) ALLIED SUPPORT - SOV did highly rely on Allied lend-lease support, the lack of which would realistically have been their demise and not a lack of a second front in Europe. This sorta justifies a workaround in the form of a forced “major allied involvement in the war” for as long as lend-lease doesn’t work all that well in the game and for as long as the AI doesn’t want to build convoys (It’s for your own good, Russia!)

d) OFFICER CADRE - While it’s true that the Great Purge did damage USSR’s army command capability, it wasn’t really THE major factor in the grand scheme of things. Truth be told the Red Army was simply oversized compared to the sluggish training rate of their officer cadre and due to the fact that it was transformed out of a revolutionary peasant army.

The other reason for the RA ineffectiveness was that Stalin initially abandoned the deep defense doctrine while only giving his generals more command power at the later stages of the war. Thus far an dynamic lack of experienced officers cannot be well represented in the game. As a target it should be linked somehow to Command Power.

On the other hand the German OKH wasn’t as good at strategic planning as it is represented in the game. The OKH was conservative, often secretly overruled Hitler’s orders (logical and illogical alike) and put preference on tactical and operational planning over strategic goals, which while useful against Poland or France, was distastrous in the campaign against USSR.

e) INDIVIDUAL LEADER DECISIONS – contrary to popular belief Hitler wasn’t a madman who constantly ruined his generals’ plans. When it comes to Barbarossa Hitler was actually quite reasonable, seeing no strategic value in conquering Moscow. Hitler, to the extent we have the evidence, actually wanted to strike at the ports (Leningrad, Murmansk) to cut communication and (potentially) incoming lend-lease, while in the south he expected to take control of the Ukraininan fields (German-occupied Europe suffered from massive food shortages) and the southern oil fields. Firstly for the purpose of increasing Germany’s dwindling oil reserves; and secondly to cripple the Soviet war economy and push for a stalemate and then a favourable peace.

It is only later that Hitler became increasingly paranoid, albeit he had some reasons to do so and started interfering hands-on making deciding on specific targets and goals.

On the other hand Stalin was initially being paranoid for no good reason and purged the everloving Christ out of his officers rendering the RA too paralysed to fight effectively in the initial stages of the German attack.

He did decrease his meddling past 1942 and with good effect. Moreover Stalin did not make operational decisions to the extent Hitler had done. While Hitler made very specific choices (attack Stalingrad, attack Kursk) Stalin was very general and broad in his demands (don’t lose cities, don’t retreat). While both of these attitudes had a heavy interference on the outcome of the campaigns they were completely different in execution and it is super difficult to simulate this level of human irrationality for an AI.

The only coinflips that can be done here is
- whether or not Stalin trusts his generals in late 1941
- whether or not Hitler stops trusting his generals earlier than 1942.

And this still wouldn’t be enough to historically warrant a German victory over the Soviet Union. But since the alternative is “Soviet Union conquers Germany without the Allies even having to land in France (because that’s a fact, Germany was unable to win long before 1944, we can simply argue if it was December 1941 or January 1943 at the latest), I think OP Germany is the only logical solution. I mean if we have only 1 OP country we can easily balance it out at the start of each game.

All in all, even though it’s overly simplified, I like the design philosophy here. However, I still believe this design philosophy should be implemented all over the board in case of other countries and it basically should put a lot of countries on a timer in the like of “you’re gonna lose if by 194X there’s not gonna be a…”. That’s why we need even more crippling maluses for the lack of fuel to balance things out against Germany.

 

[Uberbrandon]

Checking in after a few days to see if there is an update on the beta patch and people still on here arguing and trying to prove how smart they are

 

[Black5Raven]

If the player chooses to play an Allied nation, and the Soviet Union always wins regardless of lend-lease, a 2nd front, or anything, where's the challenge? You could sit around as the UK and make airplanes and wait for Berlin to fall. Boring!

If you have not noticed, no one says that the USSR will win regardless ofLend-Lease.
The developers want to introduce the concept of where the USSR will inevitably lose without a full-scale invasion of Europe. These are two completely different things.

If you (like Britain) sit on the islands and make airplanes - sooner or later the USSR will be on the shores of the English Channel, and this is not so good for you, is it?
Not to mention the fact that you risk losing Africa, the Middle East, the Asian colonies. So your goal is to protect the numerous and extremely vulnerable distant frontiers and colonies. Sounds a little different than “boring”, isn't it?

For gameplay reasons alone, an AI Germany should (slowly) beat an AI Soviet Union. Or, at the very least, it should be a coinflip after 1943-ish. Otherwise, there's literally zero risk for an Allied player.

Flip-flip is a good idea and it is a pity that the developers and many players do not think otherwise.
The Germans and their allies, using numerous bonuses, are rapidly breaking through into the USSR, but if they are not able to convince Japan to start a war and reach the frontiers near the Ural Mountains by 1942, they slowly begin to lose in the economic and war of attrition.

 

[epicmemory]

If you have not noticed, no one says that the USSR will win regardless ofLend-Lease.
The developers want to introduce the concept of where the USSR will inevitably lose without a full-scale invasion of Europe. These are two completely different things.

If you (like Britain) sit on the islands and make airplanes - sooner or later the USSR will be on the shores of the English Channel, and this is not so good for you, is it?
Not to mention the fact that you risk losing Africa, the Middle East, the Asian colonies. So your goal is to protect the numerous and extremely vulnerable distant frontiers and colonies. Sounds a little different than “boring”, isn't it?


Flip-flip is a good idea and it is a pity that the developers and many players do not think otherwise.
The Germans and their allies, using numerous bonuses, are rapidly breaking through into the USSR, but if they are not able to convince Japan to start a war and reach the frontiers near the Ural Mountains by 1942, they slowly begin to lose in the economic and war of attrition.

I do agree with the gameplay perspective that a 2nd front in Europe needs to be opened by the Allies in order to prevent the USSR from dying late in the war. Lend-lease is a boring (but necessary) mechanic.

The AI never really does anything in the Middle East and it's easy enough to kick the Axis out of North Africa with all the years of foresight the player has. The Asian theater as an Allied player can be interesting, no doubt about that. Depends on aggressive Japan is.

I don't really think the post-war period is particularly important for people who play historical games anyway. I'd bet good money that most people end their games a few months after the capitulation of the Axis.

My point is that, from a gameplay perspective alone, there needs to be a pressing reason for the Allies to launch a major offensive in Western Europe, Italy, Scandinavia, the Balkans, somewhere, in order to save the USSR. The idea of the Soviets in Paris is not sufficient from a gameplay perspective because I doubt the vast majority of players delve into the post-war era and turn the Cold War hot. If the "Great Enemy" can be defeated by what amounts to just sitting around and waiting for the Soviets to do it for you, there's little reason to play the Allies IMO. Sure, you can poke the periphery and guard the colonies, but it's not like they are ever in real danger to begin with.

 

[Rustaveli]

On the other hand Stalin purged his officers rendering the RA too paralysed to fight effectively in the initial stages of the German attack.

Why do people think that repression in the Red Army was motivated by the military aspect, and not ideological? How did Stalin "find" the most experienced generals? How can you check the result of the soviet resistance without purge and consider it a priori more effective? Why do you ignore the fate of Poland, France and the Balkans where there was no large-scale repression, but their army and state suffered a crushing defeat?

 

[rwds]

Checking in after a few days to see if there is an update on the beta patch and people still on here arguing and trying to prove how smart they are

It's a discussion forum. Why even read the thread if the contents past the first dev-post are going to make you upset

 

[Black5Raven]

How did Stalin "find" the most experienced generals?

Not to mention the fact that many talented generals were promoted only in the first years of the war when the strategy of the "veterans" was useless or received promotion - showing their talent during other military companies (like Zhukov against the Japanese)

Otherwise, there's literally zero risk for an Allied player.

Allied player actually Absolutely out of reach of the Axis. Axis cant invade the British Isle, USA and even East-India shores.
Japan, though it acquired the possibility of waging war on the ocean, and even managed to landed in the Dutch East Indies, but they are not able to gain a foothold there.
New Zealand, Australia is still invulnerable to them.

It is fair for the Allies - they are NOT able to land on the continent and a swarm of German and Italian divisions (even Romanians) just sweep them away

I do agree with the gameplay perspective that a 2nd front in Europe needs to be opened by the Allies in order to prevent the USSR from dying late in the war.

While i do not.
A second front is needed to accelerate the fall of Germany and prevent the spread of communism to all continental Europe and Asia.
This is the main task of the Allies (after the destruction of Germany) and, accordingly, this was brought to life.

If the Allies do not open the second front - the USSR by 1947-48 seizes France, Spain and all that was under the control of the Nazis.
If they open it, they return the territory of France, Norway and try to prevent the industrial power of the Reich from reaching the USSR.

The task of Germany is to force the USSR to capitulate before the 43-year and open the Russian-Japanese front.
The task of the USSR has not changed - to avoid war with Japan, support for China and keep the front until the industry is stand on its feet.

The AI never really does anything in the Middle East and it's easy enough to kick the Axis out of North Africa with all the years of foresight the player has.

Sooo.... maybe the problem is not in the USSR, but in the AI, which is not interested in this theater of operations and is not able to put pressure on the player?

he Asian theater as an Allied player can be interesting, no doubt about that. Depends on aggressive Japan is.

If China did not die by the beginning of 1940, everything would be fine.
Without this, French Indochina, the British and Dutch colonies prove to be a senseless rudiment.

My point is that, from a gameplay perspective alone, there needs to be a pressing reason for the Allies to launch a major offensive in Western Europe, Italy, Scandinavia, the Balkans, somewhere, in order to save the USSR.

We have different understandings of how the development of the game and the overall concept should look like.
The only difference is that your point of view coincides with the developers, while mine is not.
So what's the point in continuing the discussion? As the paradox want - so they will do despite the wishes of the players.

So it was before, so it was with other games of paradox (hello Stellaris!)

Thats all.

We have different understandings of how the development of the game and the overall concept should look like.
The only difference is that your point of view coincides with the developers, but mine is not.
So what's the point in continuing the discussion? As the paradoxes want - so they will do despite the wishes of the players.

So it was before, so it was with other games of paradoxes (hello Stellaris!)

 

[epicmemory]

Not to mention the fact that many talented generals were promoted only in the first years of the war when the strategy of the "veterans" was useless or received promotion - showing their talent during other military companies (like Zhukov against the Japanese)


Allied player actually Absolutely out of reach of the Axis. Axis cant invade the British Isle, USA and even East-India shores.
Japan, though it acquired the possibility of waging war on the ocean, and even managed to landed in the Dutch East Indies, but they are not able to gain a foothold there.
New Zealand, Australia is still invulnerable to them.

It is fair for the Allies - they are NOT able to land on the continent and a swarm of German and Italian divisions (even Romanians) just sweep them away


While i do not.
A second front is needed to accelerate the fall of Germany and prevent the spread of communism to all continental Europe and Asia.
This is the main task of the Allies (after the destruction of Germany) and, accordingly, this was brought to life.

If the Allies do not open the second front - the USSR by 1947-48 seizes France, Spain and all that was under the control of the Nazis.
If they open it, they return the territory of France, Norway and try to prevent the industrial power of the Reich from reaching the USSR.

The task of Germany is to force the USSR to capitulate before the 43-year and open the Russian-Japanese front.
The task of the USSR has not changed - to avoid war with Japan, support for China and keep the front until the industry is stand on its feet.



Sooo.... maybe the problem is not in the USSR, but in the AI, which is not interested in this theater of operations and is not able to put pressure on the player?


If China did not die by the beginning of 1940, everything would be fine.
Without this, French Indochina, the British and Dutch colonies prove to be a senseless rudiment.




We have different understandings of how the development of the game and the overall concept should look like.
The only difference is that your point of view coincides with the developers, while mine is not.
So what's the point in continuing the discussion? As the paradox want - so they will do despite the wishes of the players.

So it was before, so it was with other games of paradox (hello Stellaris!)

Thats all.

We have different understandings of how the development of the game and the overall concept should look like.
The only difference is that your point of view coincides with the developers, but mine is not.
So what's the point in continuing the discussion? As the paradoxes want - so they will do despite the wishes of the players.

So it was before, so it was with other games of paradoxes (hello Stellaris!)

Ehhhhh I'm almost there, but just not quite. You seem to want this game, in the end, to be about the Western Allies vs the Soviet Union, whereas myself and (I imagine the devs) always have imagined the game to be a WW2 simulator/sandbox. What comes after the war isn't a priority insomuch as the war itself. To me, the great challenge of the Allies should be to eventually take back their homelands and break the Reich. There's a reason the game tech trees end at 1944: the game is, fundamentally, about Germany (and to a lesser extent Japan and Italy) making plays in the world and the world responding to it.

I'd immediately side with you (are there sides here!?) if the game stretched past 1945 to 1950 and if the game had mechanics that would simulate interesting gameplay the post-war period (As well as potential war of Allies vs. Comintern). However, since the game doesn't have that reach, and given that so much emphasis is on WWII itself, I have to agree with the devs. Allies need a reason to invade the Reich because it's the Reich, not because of fear of the Soviet Union.

 

[Deathbringer1974]

SUGGESTION Two of them

1) I Think their need to be a fix to Changing Templates. That is severely abused and not at all realistic. IE Spamming a division with just 1 company and make a ton of them send them all over the place. Then instantly transform it to a 40 width tank division. No instance of that in history. George Patton " Yes sir I got my one company, got my magic wand and turned them into a 40 width tank division in a few days " Yes Military units were modified during wars but to radically change it .You just did that at the source AKA boot camp training regimens where they were manufactured or made. It is an unrealistic way to skip the whole training draft mechanic. My SUGGESTION if a units template is changed and if a unit template is modified while units are deployed. If the said change is only to three squares or less aka changing 3 companies there would be no penalty. If there is 3 to 6 companies being changed that unit would get inflicted with a 50 percent supply reduction buff for 100 days , 7 or more that unit is inflicted with a 100 percent supply reduction buff for 100 days. Making the conversion time a lot longer than the supply mechanic alone. Also When a template is changed it gets a timer for 60 days so any addition change to unit would be cumulative with the past one. So no spamming 3 units change save and then change another 3. That penalty only applies to units currently in the game. So if its a template overhaul but no units are even using that template no penalty or timer applied. It's just a paper unit on the drawing board.

2 How to balance the game with Germany and Russia but not become the only focus of the game ?

""""National Objectives """"""

You make Russia by default where it can hold on its own by slight advantage as in history.

Now axis need to achieve as many National objectives as they can and hold them as long as possible. Also allies will have National objectives and want to achieve theirs too.

A National objective is a small goal that needs to be achieved and if achieved you get a Buff to your nation either as bonus resources production bonus and even a national morale bonus that translate into a buff for armies. Extra Organization , Hp and combat stats. But if you lose the national objective then you lose the buff with it.

IE If Germany controls Norway or if Norway has joined the axis. Then Germany gets plus 12 steel , plus 5 percent production to MIFs , Italy gets plus 12 steel

With this example Germany is going to want to take Norway and the allies are going to want to take it back asap to stop that buff.

IE If Italy or the axis control the following 3 countries or territories. Gibtar , Egypt and Greece Italy gets plus 24 oil production plus 12 rubber production , plus 10 percent to dockyard production . Germany gets plus 5 percent to all unit organization

As you see with National objectives you can have every part of the world involved making axis want to go after them reflecting what they did in history. Instead of players with axis doing a massive russia surge for a quick win. But now with National Objectives if Germany tries to rush Russia first ignore everything else it will get its rear handed to them.

I got this ideal of National objectives from Triple A game site. It host axis and allies and 1940 global axis and allies . To be a good axis player you need to get the National objectives as fast as possible and try to hold them as long as possible while you build up a killing blow to Russia. Its ok to fail on some National Objectives but if you failed at taking any or you lost them to fast , beating russia becomes historical. Looks grim for Germany. Also to force America to balance its game play with Japan instead of ignoring them and go for a quick killing blow on Germany you give japan some strong National objectives which the buffs also go to axis. But the Japan Objective somewhat hard to get if USA properly responds to them. But if Ignored easy to get for Japan and Germany and Italy are now getting some strong buffs to punish the allies

Happy gaming all my 2 cents

 

[xtfoster]

If you look at the thread entitled "HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.6.2 and Roadmap", you'll find a fairly comprehensive list of goals for the devs, including ones marked out that have already been completed. It's well worth your time to read in general anyway.

Among those is a new focus tree for Turkey. So I can say it's highly likely that one will happen at some point in the future.

I can also say with equal surety that it will NOT be in the Hydra patch. They only tend to add new trees with paid DLC, and Hydra is not going to have that. The earliest you will see a Turkish focus tree is going to be the 1.8 Husky patch and DLC. If the guess of some people is accurate that the Husky patch is focused on the Med Sea area (since Operation Husky was the allied codename for the invasion of Sicily), then a Turkish tree would fit nicely into that theme. That's by no means a guarantee, but it is a cause for hope. I too enjoy playing as the Turks, so I would like to see that happen as well.

I seriously doubt we will see Turkey anytime soon, certainly not in a Mediterranean DLC because while Turkey/Greece/Bulgaria/the rest of the Balkans that don't already have a tree are in the Med, they really weren't part of the Med Sea campaign of France/Italy (the most likely pair of Majors, who haven't gotten an update, connected to the Med Sea).

If the next DLC is a Med Sea focused one then we will probably see Italy/France as the majors and Spain(both)/North Africa as the minors. Mechanics would probably focus on resistance movements/partisan activity (which might tie into the Balkans, so I might be wrong).

If they instead decide to do the USSR/Poland as the majors I would expect the minors to be Finland/Scandinavia(Finland/Norway/Sweden maybe Estonia/Latvia/Denmark/Belgium) and focus more on either tanks or espionage.

As for Turkey, I would expect them much farther down the road in a pure country pack with either the rest of the Balkan countries or with SW Asia (Mid East releasables Syria/Jordan/Israel-Palestine/Saudi Arabia/Yemen/Oman/etc.)

The only countries I can see as lower in priority are the South/Central American ones because they really didn't factor much into WWII.

 

[seattle]

I'd like to start a new game, but obviously wanna wait for the 1.7 beta.
I'm sure most of us feel the same way.

So how about a bit more transparency on the progress, dear devs? Would be greatly appreciated.
Ready for bug and balancing report duty!

 

[DerGrößteRitter]

@MikeZed Some good stuff there, and I agree with most of it, but:

a) STRATEGY - Germany’s Barbarossa strategy [i.e. destroying the enemy’s army and capturing its main cities] was inherently flawed, and the historical consensus tends to be that the proper strategy would have been to strike south towards the food and oil resource bases and ignore Moscow entirely. Taking this route would increase Germany’s chance of success. Moreover it is this “bad” decision that in part led to Germany’s overwhelming gains in mid to late 1941. USSR did anticipate an attack, but not one the would stretch the Germans so thin with only strategically unimportant terrain to show for it.

I admit that I have not heard of this view, most people (in my experience) who argue about Barbarossa seem to think the opposite: that the Wehrmacht should have concentrated on Moscow. I am intrigued, which books/other medium do you take this from?