• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - News from the Eastern Front

Hi everyone! It’s time to touch base and start talking about what we have been up to since we released 1.6.2. We have been both preparing to start on the next big expansion which will come together with the 1.8 “Husky” Update as well as working on various tasks for 1.7 ‘Hydra’ which is the next upcoming release. Let's jump in. Beware, it’s going to be pretty wordy!

1.7 ‘Hydra’
So first up, why 1.7? This is because we are now going 64-bit which will mean you can no longer run HOI4 on 32-bit, so we want to make it clear it is a different technical base. More on this next dev diary though.
We have also worked on some of the bugs that have popped up since then, most importantly front issues for Germany vs Soviets. This was something that was reported during 1.6.2 development, but as we dug into things it turned out to require a lot more work than we had planned. We made the decision to do it for 1.7, and instead of just fixing that particular issue we also reworked a bit of how fronts and the ai work. This is going to be what the diary will be about today!
Oh and because people will ask... we are not super far away from the 1.7 release. We plan to let you help test it in open beta soon (where soon means like “within a week” or thereabouts).


What’s new on the eastern front?
Operation Barbarossa, which is the German invasion of the Soviet Union, is one of the pivotal balance points in HOI4 (and in all the HOI games) together with the fall of the low countries, Poland and the Sino-Japanese war. After 1.6.2 we had Germany beating the Soviets a bit too easily, and in particular, players had too easy of a time doing it. This had a lot of different reasons. The primary one is that we spent a lot of time overhauling the German strategic and planning AI which has made it very consistent and strong. Additionally for the AI, being good at defending is a much harder job than being good at attacking. What wasn’t working properly was that when the Soviets finally fell, it was often due to an issue related to frontline stability. The Soviet AI would misprioritize this and move a large part of its front elsewhere, leaving a hole that the German AI would often exploit (which players also definitely did). It’s also not fun beating an AI when it makes such a critical mistake. This particular case was extremely random, but the front reaching Crimea was a common factor. At that point, a new front would open at the same time as the line became long enough to require multiple Army Groups to cover it, which was another weakness for the AI. A lot of those technical issues should now behave a lot better and we are consistently seeing much better performance from the Soviets. Although, they do still generally lose in the end, but this is mostly by design.

To explain why this is a good target, let’s look at our balance targets for Barbarossa:
  • The Axis pushes the Soviet line in slowly until the Soviets lose in 1945 unless the Allies secure a big landing and relieve the Soviets, at which point Germany should start losing with its forces split across the 2-3 fronts.
So why is this a good target?
  • As an Axis player, it means business as usual. You get to beat the Soviets, and the better we make the German AI (which does the heavy lifting), the more challenging we can make it for a player Germany and still retain the balance target.
  • As a Comintern player it means you need to defend, hold out, and push back Germany. Here, the stronger we can make the German AI, the more challenging it is for a Soviet player. So to keep our balance target we want to make the Soviet as tough as possible, but on their own, they need to break by ‘45.
  • As an Allied player, you have a bit of a race on your hands. A Germany that has beaten the Soviets will be a very difficult target, so you need to build up your strength and preferably strike when the German army is as extended, as it will get some solid landing points (ai is better at defending too now, so this is not always so easy). From a balance point, we need to make sure that the eastern front holds up long enough for you to get ready to do this. If the Soviets can push back the Germans on their own, there is no reason to play someone on the Allied side. If Germany beats the Soviet too fast, you will not have time to get involved (especially since the Allies are much more spread across the world and contains more minor nations we wanna make sure can make it to the party).
Hopefully, that clarifies how we think about stuff. At the moment the allies do ok in Africa, but pulling off consistent D-Day scale invasions is something we have as more of a long term goal we are working on. Invasion skill for the AI has improved a lot, but the AI has also gotten better at defending. We have thought out a long term plan to also tackle this, but it requires a lot more strategic planning on the side of the AI with respect to theaters, so it is something you will need to look forward to in the future :)

AI in Hearts of Iron is a very complex problem and something we will always be working on improving. It will never really be “done”. We are feeling a lot better about the eastern front now and shuffling issues there, but there is, of course, lots of work left to do everywhere. It won’t fix everything, but I hope it will feel a lot better when you get to try fighting the Soviets again in 1.7 :)

Tools
So while I am talking about AI, let's take a look at some of the tools we use to stay on top of the strategic situation and to help find relevant savegames, etc.

Every night we run several machines hands-off that record various data for us and lets us check whether we broke something, measure improvements, etc. Loading 30 savegames every morning and going over them is neither fun nor effective, so we have developed this awesome web tool that gives us a quick timeline and map to scan over:

Screenshot_1.jpg


Heat maps also make it easy to scan over time and see where the AI is distributing and focusing its units. This example below is highlighting the Japanese forces late 41:

Screenshot_9.jpg


Unit Controller for Players
So that was all about the AI, but we have also done underlying changes as well as UI that will affect you as a player.

A lot of players liked using primarily Army Group Orders for their armies so we have been doing various improvements there. For example, if you do not want to mess with individual army orders on a front you could already hit Shift-Click when setting up the frontline and it would simply keep all the units on the army group order. This is primarily how the AI handles big fronts now. If you do it this way as a player we have cut down a lot of the clutter you get by spreading multiple armies over the same area by having divisions without individual orders and part of an army group order to simply show and group on the map by using the Army Group color. As an example, this is an Army Group Frontline where each army is assigned a piece:

upload_2019-5-15_16-31-1.png

Now, if you are the kind of player who has a big front and wants to simplify things by giving it all over to the Army Group (Shift-Click to create the frontline) you will get this:
upload_2019-5-15_16-31-16.png


There are still 3 armies there, but because you didn’t care to assign a position we won't clutter things by showing that (this also work for garrisoning which is really nice for big areas). You can still select the individual armies as normal in the bottom bar and in the selection lists etc.

For players who prefer to keep control over where each army is assigned we have also made that easier in two important ways:
  • Each army front piece on an army group front must connect, so no holes are allowed. That among other things means that you only need to adjust one point (the connection point) if you want to adjust how much frontline each gets, rather than trying to adjust 2 points, sometimes while the front was moving and with the game unpaused :S
  • We have added controls to be able to change the order of the armies if you want to reshuffle that. The middle of each line when in Edit Mode will now show arrows which let you swap position for that piece of the frontline with its neighbors.
upload_2019-5-15_16-50-51.png


We have also increased saturation on all the rendering of plans on the map to make sure they are easier to see and to make sure they match their respective army colors better.

Next week we will be going over other bugfixes, balance and other changes so tune in then!
 
The North African Campaign was happening at the same time as Stalingrad. The North African Campaign resulted in the Axis losing almost 500,000 men. Maybe the 6th army wouldn't have been encircled if there was a few 100,000 more troops on the eastern front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
The Allies should be mounting continual offensives in Africa and landings to keep the Axis off-guard and stretch their forces just like what Bobby has said here
 
:p With current Allies AI. After 1945, history is written as:"Allies told Stalin they will arrive and attack German before 1945. But, they lied to Soviet. There is no idea of attacking.....just as they did to Poles."
 
The Axis pushes the Soviet line in slowly until the Soviets lose in 1945 unless the Allies secure a big landing and relieve the Soviets, at which point Germany should start losing with its forces split across the 2-3 fronts.
Seems like resonable goals, I like the symmetry with ww1, if Germany has the west secured then they will eventually grind Russia down.
. A Germany that has beaten the Soviets will be a very difficult target,
Here's a problem though, in game the USSR capitulates when certain number of victory points have been taken, and that's all well and good but in reality that wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender. If the USSR had lost a few more major battles and the Germans taken a few more cites then the USSR would likely have offered Germany peace terms but not a full annexation. It's a bit immersion breaking when losing cities west of the Ural result in Germany (or sometime even Poland) suddenly reaching to the pacific.
 
Looks great! Can't wait to give it a try. Couple of things though:

- I'm still concerned about the strength of Germany / Axis in Europe. As the allies trying to land and make any progress after the initial invasion is tough. The Germans just send waves and waves of infantry at your beach head, crashing against your defenses for months at a time non-stop. They're more akind to zombies then any kind of military force with their seemingly endless supply of men and equipment. Hopefully the improved Soviets will help with this but I'm kinda convinced that Germany is so OP right now that they can safely fight a massive two front war no problem.

- Speaking about the Soviets I actually disagree that Russia needs the allies to survive. I think historically the Soviets probably could have won the war on their own after halting Germany at Moscow. While I don't expect each AI vs AI game to be a win for the Reds I do think it should be quite possible for the Soviet Union to beat Germany alone.
 
The North African Campaign was happening at the same time as Stalingrad. The North African Campaign resulted in the Axis losing almost 500,000 men. Maybe the 6th army wouldn't have been encircled if there was a few 100,000 more troops on the eastern front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
Where did I say that the Eastern Front was the only place the Germans fought?:rolleyes:

Of course the Allies contributed significantly to the victory over Germany. But the war was won on the Eastern Front; the vast majority of Axis troops were defeated by the Soviets, who were already WINNING THE WAR long before the D-day landings happened! But apparently in this "historical" game they'll have to be saved from assured defeat by the Allies?!?

But hey, if it takes some blatant and grotesque historical revisionism to satisfy the Germany players who like to play out their fantasies of defeating the Soviet "cardhouse", at least it'll probably make you some more bucks!
 
So if I'm playing a minor country like, say, New Zealand, AI USSR will reliably lose to the Axis by '45 (which I doubt will not happen much earlier with the current game mechanics), unless they are saved by the AI Allies?

Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:
The Germans were on the crusp of victory at Kursk when they were recalled to fight the allied landing in Italy.
The Eastern Front was a clash of titanic armies numbering in the millions. Adding another 120,000 men from Panzer Armee Afrika to that meatgrinder would have been a relative drop in the ocean.
How about adding one Rommel?'

the vast majority of Axis troops were defeated by the Soviets, who were already WINNING THE WAR long before the D-day landings happened
I must have imagined that Stalin practically begged the allies to open up a new front. And no that wasn't d-day it was north africa and then Italy.
 
The North African Campaign was happening at the same time as Stalingrad. The North African Campaign resulted in the Axis losing almost 500,000 men. Maybe the 6th army wouldn't have been encircled if there was a few 100,000 more troops on the eastern front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

Yes but will Germany send troops there? It's been my experience that the AI doesn't really commit resource to those smaller fronts. That may be in part because it doesn't need to worry about the oil in the Middle East since it can trade overland with Iran/Iraq anyhow.

I get that making the Soviets lose in '45 is a game balance issue but I would argue that it's more interesting to make it a coin toss in that case. As the game already veers towards the ahistorical it would make Allies more dynamic as there might be good reason for them to intervene in mainland Europe only when both other factions are exhausted.
 
I'm kinda sympathetic to both sides of this argument. It seems to me that what we have here is a classic case of the challenge of trying to balance the game as opposed to maintaining historicity. The historical path of events is indeed that by the time the main Allied landings occurred at Normandy, the Soviets had obtained the upper-hand and would have rolled over Germany. They had already spent two years by that point pushing the Germans back and were already poised to invade Eastern Europe and then on into Germany proper. And even if one wants to argue that the Italian landings are large enough to count, that still occurred after the Soviets had gained the upper-hand at Stalingrad and Kursk and were pushing back the Soviets.

The thing is, Podcat is also right: making it so the Soviets win against the Germans every time on their own so long as they receive WAllied aid blows much of the tension in playing a major Allied player out of the water. My solution to the conundrum would be a bit more nuanced: make it a relative toss-up as to whether it's the Soviets or Germans who can win against each other without a major Allied landing in Europe, but if the Allies wind-up sitting the whole thing out behind their oceans and navies then and the Soviets do win, then the Allies now have to deal with a aggressive USSR deciding that with Europe under it's control, now's the time for the world revolution. The problem with that approach is that it would require a better late-game mechanics to handle the peace and immediate post-war environment then what we currently have. So if the devs do intend to swing things that way, it'll have to wait for some kind of DLC which addresses the late-game issues.
Souns fine to me...

I think the main attraction to Hearts of Iron games is the ability for a player to play a game that plays out historically and try to change the course of the war with the resources at the disposal of his in-game country; it is for me, at least. To make this possible, an as historically as possible course of the war in-game is required, otherwise one isn't changing "history" as it would've happened, but an alternate history designed to satisfy gameplay. I thought the "Historical Focuses" checkbox was made just for this, but it seems I was wrong...
 
The Germans were on the crusp of victory at Kursk when they were recalled to fight the allied landing in Italy.

No, they were not. They were in fact on the cusp of a greater disaster then actually happened and Hitler calling it off when he did was a vastly needed reprieve that proved the difference between the German forces that were committed being merely mauled instead of outright annihilated. It was one of his last good calls.

How about adding one Rommel?
Given the logistical failings of the Germans in the Eastern Front, the last thing they need is a general who paid even LESS attention to his supply lines.
 
So as the Italians can we actually have enough generals to send an army to Russia without hurting our forces elsewhere? Generic #1-10 are boring.
 
Seems like resonable goals, I like the symmetry with ww1, if Germany has the west secured then they will eventually grind Russia down.

Here's a problem though, in game the USSR capitulates when certain number of victory points have been taken, and that's all well and good but in reality that wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender. If the USSR had lost a few more major battles and the Germans taken a few more cites then the USSR would likely have offered Germany peace terms but not a full annexation. It's a bit immersion breaking when losing cities west of the Ural result in Germany (or sometime even Poland) suddenly reaching to the pacific.

In HoI4, at least last time I played, you don't need to take just a couple of VP but almost all of it. Unless Japan helps and occupies Vladivostok, you will have to march to Kazakhstan. Maybe an event (there was one in HoI3, wasn't it?) for a negotiated peace deal after taking the major cities would be nice. Although it would be hard to balance: SU would be meaningless without those valuable western regions and Germany has no incentive to stop when they have already broken through. And noone wants an european peace in 42.
 
Hi everyone! It’s time to touch base and start talking about what we have been up to since we released 1.6.2. We have been both preparing to start on the next big expansion which will come together with the 1.8 “Husky” Update as well as working on various tasks for 1.7 ‘Hydra’ which is the next upcoming release. Let's jump in. Beware, it’s going to be pretty wordy!

1.7 ‘Hydra’
So first up, why 1.7? This is because we are now going 64-bit which will mean you can no longer run HOI4 on 32-bit, so we want to make it clear it is a different technical base. More on this next dev diary though.
We have also worked on some of the bugs that have popped up since then, most importantly front issues for Germany vs Soviets. This was something that was reported during 1.6.2 development, but as we dug into things it turned out to require a lot more work than we had planned. We made the decision to do it for 1.7, and instead of just fixing that particular issue we also reworked a bit of how fronts and the ai work. This is going to be what the diary will be about today!
Oh and because people will ask... we are not super far away from the 1.7 release. We plan to let you help test it in open beta soon (where soon means like “within a week” or thereabouts).


What’s new on the eastern front?
Operation Barbarossa, which is the German invasion of the Soviet Union, is one of the pivotal balance points in HOI4 (and in all the HOI games) together with the fall of the low countries, Poland and the Sino-Japanese war. After 1.6.2 we had Germany beating the Soviets a bit too easily, and in particular, players had too easy of a time doing it. This had a lot of different reasons. The primary one is that we spent a lot of time overhauling the German strategic and planning AI which has made it very consistent and strong. Additionally for the AI, being good at defending is a much harder job than being good at attacking. What wasn’t working properly was that when the Soviets finally fell, it was often due to an issue related to frontline stability. The Soviet AI would misprioritize this and move a large part of its front elsewhere, leaving a hole that the German AI would often exploit (which players also definitely did). It’s also not fun beating an AI when it makes such a critical mistake. This particular case was extremely random, but the front reaching Crimea was a common factor. At that point, a new front would open at the same time as the line became long enough to require multiple Army Groups to cover it, which was another weakness for the AI. A lot of those technical issues should now behave a lot better and we are consistently seeing much better performance from the Soviets. Although, they do still generally lose in the end, but this is mostly by design.

To explain why this is a good target, let’s look at our balance targets for Barbarossa:
  • The Axis pushes the Soviet line in slowly until the Soviets lose in 1945 unless the Allies secure a big landing and relieve the Soviets, at which point Germany should start losing with its forces split across the 2-3 fronts.
So why is this a good target?
  • As an Axis player, it means business as usual. You get to beat the Soviets, and the better we make the German AI (which does the heavy lifting), the more challenging we can make it for a player Germany and still retain the balance target.
  • As a Comintern player it means you need to defend, hold out, and push back Germany. Here, the stronger we can make the German AI, the more challenging it is for a Soviet player. So to keep our balance target we want to make the Soviet as tough as possible, but on their own, they need to break by ‘45.
  • As an Allied player, you have a bit of a race on your hands. A Germany that has beaten the Soviets will be a very difficult target, so you need to build up your strength and preferably strike when the German army is as extended, as it will get some solid landing points (ai is better at defending too now, so this is not always so easy). From a balance point, we need to make sure that the eastern front holds up long enough for you to get ready to do this. If the Soviets can push back the Germans on their own, there is no reason to play someone on the Allied side. If Germany beats the Soviet too fast, you will not have time to get involved (especially since the Allies are much more spread across the world and contains more minor nations we wanna make sure can make it to the party).
Hopefully, that clarifies how we think about stuff. At the moment the allies do ok in Africa, but pulling off consistent D-Day scale invasions is something we have as more of a long term goal we are working on. Invasion skill for the AI has improved a lot, but the AI has also gotten better at defending. We have thought out a long term plan to also tackle this, but it requires a lot more strategic planning on the side of the AI with respect to theaters, so it is something you will need to look forward to in the future :)

AI in Hearts of Iron is a very complex problem and something we will always be working on improving. It will never really be “done”. We are feeling a lot better about the eastern front now and shuffling issues there, but there is, of course, lots of work left to do everywhere. It won’t fix everything, but I hope it will feel a lot better when you get to try fighting the Soviets again in 1.7 :)

Tools
So while I am talking about AI, let's take a look at some of the tools we use to stay on top of the strategic situation and to help find relevant savegames, etc.

Every night we run several machines hands-off that record various data for us and lets us check whether we broke something, measure improvements, etc. Loading 30 savegames every morning and going over them is neither fun nor effective, so we have developed this awesome web tool that gives us a quick timeline and map to scan over:

View attachment 480597

Heat maps also make it easy to scan over time and see where the AI is distributing and focusing its units. This example below is highlighting the Japanese forces late 41:

View attachment 480598

Unit Controller for Players
So that was all about the AI, but we have also done underlying changes as well as UI that will affect you as a player.

A lot of players liked using primarily Army Group Orders for their armies so we have been doing various improvements there. For example, if you do not want to mess with individual army orders on a front you could already hit Shift-Click when setting up the frontline and it would simply keep all the units on the army group order. This is primarily how the AI handles big fronts now. If you do it this way as a player we have cut down a lot of the clutter you get by spreading multiple armies over the same area by having divisions without individual orders and part of an army group order to simply show and group on the map by using the Army Group color. As an example, this is an Army Group Frontline where each army is assigned a piece:

View attachment 480595
Now, if you are the kind of player who has a big front and wants to simplify things by giving it all over to the Army Group (Shift-Click to create the frontline) you will get this:
View attachment 480596

There are still 3 armies there, but because you didn’t care to assign a position we won't clutter things by showing that (this also work for garrisoning which is really nice for big areas). You can still select the individual armies as normal in the bottom bar and in the selection lists etc.

For players who prefer to keep control over where each army is assigned we have also made that easier in two important ways:
  • Each army front piece on an army group front must connect, so no holes are allowed. That among other things means that you only need to adjust one point (the connection point) if you want to adjust how much frontline each gets, rather than trying to adjust 2 points, sometimes while the front was moving and with the game unpaused :S
  • We have added controls to be able to change the order of the armies if you want to reshuffle that. The middle of each line when in Edit Mode will now show arrows which let you swap position for that piece of the frontline with its neighbors.
View attachment 480601

We have also increased saturation on all the rendering of plans on the map to make sure they are easier to see and to make sure they match their respective army colors better.

Next week we will be going over other bugfixes, balance and other changes so tune in then!
Great news.

Do you guys also have news from East Asia? Will these changes also help the Chinese hold the Japanese for longer? How is the AI currently performing there in testings? I don't mind buffing the Chinese in the settings to reach that result, but it's nice to know nevertheless.
 
While you're on the subject of front line tools can we get a way to lock the number of provinces you want an army to front?. Having your tanks disperse if you look away for a minute while they're advancing is irritating
 
wm31d9wvijp21.jpg


The solution for the front stabiliy is Easy, lets us drawn the red lines and make the armies to keep the line when they move back into Russia, and make the AI keep the other lines.

Now we have a front defined for only one moment and after a month we have to reorganize all, with my system we have the lines for a complete invasion.
 
So if I'm playing a minor country like, say, New Zealand, AI USSR will reliably lose to the Axis by '45 (which I doubt will not happen much earlier with the current game mechanics), unless they are saved by the AI Allies?

Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:

It’s a balance thing. That was explicitly mentioned.

The Eastern Front was a clash of titanic armies numbering in the millions. Adding another 120,000 men from Panzer Armee Afrika to that meatgrinder would have been a relative drop in the ocean. Many of the other reinforcements that were rushed to Africa following Torch were garrison troops who were in no position to affect Stalingrad even had it not occurred. Not to mention, even within the North African campaign, Torch occurred after Montgomery had already gotten the upper-hand at El Alamein.

100,000 men is 100,000 men, whether or not they’re on the Eastern Front or in Africa. That’s still several divisions worth of soldiers that could hold Stalingrad’s flanks or support a drive into the Caucasus. Trying to go “It’s but a drop in the ocean” only ignores how influential smaller forces can be. If the destruction of 250,000 men can be considered a crippling disaster, there’s no reason 100,000 men can’t be considered a significant threat.
 
Of course the Allies contributed significantly to the victory over Germany. But the war was won on the Eastern Front; the vast majority of Axis troops were defeated by the Soviets, who were already WINNING THE WAR long before the D-day landings happened! But apparently in this "historical" game they'll have to be saved from assured defeat by the Allies?!?

Take into account that the mistakes of Stalin left the Red Army in a very precarious position. If the Axis didn't had a contested front in North Africa and several divisions to garrison Europe it is likely that the Red Army would have been defeated in 1941. Also, the material lend lease of the Allies was vital to help the Soviets survive until they were able to relocate their industry.

Anyway, it is a matter of game balance over historical accuracy. If the USSR could singlehandedly defeat the entire Axis there would not be any point in playing the allies as the German player would always lose against an equally competent opponent.
 
Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:

Kursk was full retreat? o_O

The Allies bombing campaign, Africa campign and defeat of the wolf packs had an effect. It's not like the main Allied landings was the first time they got involved in the war.

But yeah the Allies AI will be very important to how the game plays out so I hope they get it working properly.

Indeed. The bombing campaign alone vastly reduced the amount of the Luftwaffe available on the Eastern Front and utterly slashed the output of the Romanian oil fields and German synthetic plants. And this doesn't even get into lend-lease.

The North African Campaign was happening at the same time as Stalingrad. The North African Campaign resulted in the Axis losing almost 500,000 men. Maybe the 6th army wouldn't have been encircled if there was a few 100,000 more troops on the eastern front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

6th Army almost certainly wouldn't have been encircled had LSSAH and Grossdeutschland not been sent to France in response to the Dieppe landings, since the lack of mobile reserves was the decisive factor in the success of Operation Uranus. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of men in Norway as well.

The Eastern Front was a clash of titanic armies numbering in the millions. Adding another 120,000 men from Panzer Armee Afrika to that meatgrinder would have been a relative drop in the ocean. Many of the other reinforcements that were rushed to Africa following Torch were garrison troops who were in no position to affect Stalingrad even had it not occurred. Not to mention, even within the North African campaign, Torch occurred after Montgomery had already gotten the upper-hand at El Alamein.

The fact that you think it was a simple meatgrinder belies that you haven't researched the war sufficiently. It was a war of maneuver. On a grand scale, yes, with some meatgrinders at strongpoints, but the front was incredibly vast and the sheer frontage of the thing meant local superiority, not strategic superiority, was the order of the day. Even at the height of the Soviet Steamroller, they were forced to simply provide frontage in parts of the line (Courland, for example) to advance elsewhere (Poland).

There are countless examples of where local superiority made an incredible difference, from 1941-onwards. Adding 120,000 (highly mechanized and very experienced in maneuver warfare, led by a set of extremely capable commanders, I might add) troops means the operations like Uranus would likely fail. If Uranus fails, Stalingrad falls, AG Caucasus doesn't withdraw, and the Soviets are in real trouble.

All Paradox is doing is acknowledging the historical reality that the war was a lot closer of a call than those with second opinion bias (or first, as the case may be) realize. It obviously wasn't Hollywood "Americans save the day" but it wasn't as if the Soviets had everything in hand the moment Barbarossa was conceived. No amount of revisionism will change that.
 
Where did I say that the Eastern Front was the only place the Germans fought?:rolleyes:

Of course the Allies contributed significantly to the victory over Germany. But the war was won on the Eastern Front; the vast majority of Axis troops were defeated by the Soviets, who were already WINNING THE WAR long before the D-day landings happened! But apparently in this "historical" game they'll have to be saved from assured defeat by the Allies?!?

But hey, if it takes some blatant and grotesque historical revisionism to satisfy the Germany players who like to play out their fantasies of defeating the Soviet "cardhouse", at least it'll probably make you some more bucks!
I will be thinking about this shocking piece of a-historical revisionism while I watch Oswald Mosley declare martial law in Canada and send his tanks to invade North Dakota.
/s
 
Last edited: