Axis always stronger than Soviet Union and the Allies on several mods, which is not that good. For example, Germany can have 600+ IC while Soviet Union is 300 and UK is 190. This is also considering Germany allies, which are the Japanese and Italy. Italy isn't that strong, but Japan is on another level of strength. Often they can get 250+ IC and beating China easily. So then, I wonder, is there a balanced Axis mod out there? If there isn't, is there a way I can make them more balanced?
-
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.
But what is your goal?
AI vs AI balance?
Player vs Player?
Player as Germany vs AI USSR?
In the latter case, of course, a player will develop his country much better.
----
Some (many) people expressed to me their (of course erroneous) opinion that my USSR had been too overboosted. I strongly reject these erroneous accusations, but my USSR is indeed somewhat stronger than I've seen in other DH games.
At february 1941 of "Honduras global AI balance test" my AI countries have: Germany - 463/331 IC , USSR - 468/327, Britain - 218/218
Although, of course, the difference in the strength of the USSR and Germany is determined not only by the IC but by the difference in the strength and number of units, but at least the IC of AI USSR is not inferior to AI Germany. This is due to the fact that my AI USSR builds a lot of IC instead of building divisions, just in order to win a long war.
Last edited:
It's AI vs AI balance. It always strange why USSR often got beat so easy by Germany.
Not in my case. I specifically carefully adjusted and tested the balance of AI USSR and AI Germany, so that these two countries would not break true course of history, provided the player did not interfere.
AI Germany in 1941 rapidly push AI USSR to Moscow/Volga, but it can't take key cities, and since time is working for the USSR, then Germany gradually begins to retreat. At the same time, in 1943, the AI Allies usually land in Italy and the defeat of Germany become inevitable.
Last edited:
Mmmh, I am not sure how to express it without it somehow sounding weird but I think it shows how dangerous, how desperate the situation was for the USSR.
In the very first 6 month more Red Army soldiers died or became prisoners of war than the whole Wehrmacht counted soldiers. More tanks got destroyed, more planes than Germany possessed. The Red Army was shattered, severly defeated and the enemy standing near Moscow.
On the German side: One might think, in such a situation, after a near ideal development of the war and all this victories, everything would be fine... but it wasn't. The whole war had been a wager on defeating the Red Army severly enough that the Sovietunion would either give up or crumble... it did not.
The highly victorious Wehrmacht, at the end of the year 1941, was completly used up, stressed, not able to replace wounded and dead, bonedeep exhausted and so far beyond working logistic lines that the Generals had to chose 2 out of 3: oil, munition or winter clothing.
And there was no plan B. No plan what to do if the Sovietunion, so heavily defeated, would not give up but just kept on furiously fighting. And not only willing to keep fighting but also able to.
This the situation when the first snow began to fall in the war, the first winter of Великая Отечественная война Welikaja Otetschestwennaja woina. And the Red Army, strenghtened by divisions from the far East Asian border, went into the winter offense of 1941/42 and then the feared Wehrmacht, slowly freezing to death, nearly got completly defeated and was close to falling apart (but in the Russian winter in your summer uniform... how and where to could you run away?).
Neither did the USSR crumble within the first 6 month of 1941 nor the Wehrmacht in that horrible first winter 1941/42, the war raged on for more than another 3 years.
And to answere your question or complaint:
It's not easy to simulate this situation with a few scripts on a computer.
There are usual 2 complaints: Why is the USSR so easily defeated? Why is it impossible to defeat the USSR?
Last edited:
- 2
Why does ussr even have so much ic anyway? Why do people refuse to recognize how much of EVERYTHING was provided to them by the USA. Instead, people love to complain how over powered USA is. In reality, almost every version of this game nerfs the hell out of the USA. America outbuilt EVERY other country in the world combined. The USSR contributed bodies. But without supply from the USA, they would have frozen just like the Germans. They would have starved just like the Germans. They would have been barefoot, coatless, and hungry.
Aid from the usa included:
That doesn't include aid to the allies or what we built for our own use.
My point is, the Axis is already overpowered. Artificially boosted to make the game "interesting". They never really had a chance once the USA got involved. It was only a matter of time.
Aid from the usa included:
- 400,000 jeeps & trucks
- 14,000 airplanes
- 8,000 tractors
- 13,000 tanks
- 1.5 million blankets
- 15 million pairs of army boots
- 107,000 tons of cotton
- 2.7 million tons of petrol products
- 4.5 million tons of food
That doesn't include aid to the allies or what we built for our own use.
My point is, the Axis is already overpowered. Artificially boosted to make the game "interesting". They never really had a chance once the USA got involved. It was only a matter of time.
Where are those people and posts?
I guess what is unnnerving you why not everybody just states that WW2 was won by the USA... but people, especially Germans, keep on saying and without a doubt in their voice that Nazi Germany got severly beaten by the USSR.
Thtas one of the key points i always have to think about for trp... because i'm part of the group of people who think that without the US supplies the soviets wouldnt have made it.
U listed the US supplies but in the first half it was the British supplies that were important too (and helped until the full US support kicked in).
So I'm thinking about adding a sort of decision bases System to trp that will go in depth on the allied supplies. But at the moment i still dont have a nice concept...
- 1
- 1
Germany actually lost the war before Lend-Lease in USSR began to have a significant impact.
Lend-Lease began to have real impact only in 1943 since Kursk.
Moscow and Stalingrad were lost by Germany without significant lend-Lease influence.
Lend Lease was undoubtedly really powerful factor in the last two years of the war.
Lend Lease shortened the war time by 1-2 years аnd reduced soviet human losses a lot. But not Lend Lease won the war.
Considering that 75% of all Lend Lease went to UK, Britain would probably feel extremely bad withown Lend Lease, but it was not Britain who was key damagemaker of the Allies.
Since I made accurate historical Lend-Lease volumes to USSR from Britain and USA in 1941-1942, I am well aware of the huge difference in Lend-lease volumes before 1943 and since 1943. That's why I used different concepts to implement Lend Lease in 1941-1942 and in 1943-1945.
Unfortunately, the Soviets had to defeat the Germans in decisive battles at Moscow and Stalingrad without having all this great abundance.
Lend-Lease began to have real impact only in 1943 since Kursk.
Moscow and Stalingrad were lost by Germany without significant lend-Lease influence.
Lend Lease was undoubtedly really powerful factor in the last two years of the war.
Lend Lease shortened the war time by 1-2 years аnd reduced soviet human losses a lot. But not Lend Lease won the war.
Considering that 75% of all Lend Lease went to UK, Britain would probably feel extremely bad withown Lend Lease, but it was not Britain who was key damagemaker of the Allies.
Since I made accurate historical Lend-Lease volumes to USSR from Britain and USA in 1941-1942, I am well aware of the huge difference in Lend-lease volumes before 1943 and since 1943. That's why I used different concepts to implement Lend Lease in 1941-1942 and in 1943-1945.
Unfortunately, the Soviets had to defeat the Germans in decisive battles at Moscow and Stalingrad without having all this great abundance.
Last edited:
- 1
Well, this question was posed originally because USSR rarely increased their IC in game. While on the reality, Stalin was forcing those people to make more factories. So it's kinda strange why USSR couldn't have sufficient IC to produces more armies. I don't realize that people would bring up Lend-Lease in this question. But... I don't mind. The more you learn.
To be fair that is a well liked story by the soviet Historiography.Germany actually lost the war before Lend-Lease in USSR began to have a significant impact.
Lend-Lease began to have real impact only in 1943 since Kursk.
Moscow and Stalingrad were lost by Germany without significant lend-Lease influence.
Lend Lease was undoubtedly really powerful factor in the last two years of the war.
Lend Lease shortened the war time by 1-2 years аnd reduced soviet human losses a lot. But not Lend Lease won the war.
Considering that 75% of all Lend Lease went to UK, Britain would probably feel extremely bad withown Lend Lease, but it was not Britain who was key damagemaker of the Allies.
Since I made accurate historical Lend-Lease volumes to USSR from Britain and USA in 1941-1942, I am well aware of the huge difference in Lend-lease volumes before 1943 and since 1943. That's why I used different concepts to implement Lend Lease in 1941-1942 and in 1943-1945.
Unfortunately, the Soviets had to defeat the Germans in decisive battles at Moscow and Stalingrad without having all this great abundance.
The british supplies were already kicking during the last months of 1941 allowing the red army to keep some tank brigdeas in front line service with british models.
The land lease US help started in 1942. Some of the caucasus battles were heavy influenced and shaped by US weapons and aid. US aircraft with us high octean fuel allowed for air battles in the causasus the red air force could do with the remaining own air frames.
Tbf I think it was the allied help that allowed the soviets to hit back hard when germans were running out of steam.
I even have the feeling that the soviet winter offensive of 1941 would have been smaller in scale without the first allied supplies.
Nevertheless; Its a debate you can do for years to come.
The truth will be somewhere in the middle and hidden under thousends of tons of papers - or its lost to time.
Furthermore, each nation will modify the story for their need.
So to get back to the question here;
I think there is the problem of gameplay reasons.
When u look at ww2 many victories were caused by reasons u cant get into the game. German success in the first battles? Surprise and ruthlessness. Try to blitz through the ardennes in HoI. In a mp game the french human player could adept. And in an AI game the ai is so dump that they dont care where u attack because they cant "understand" it. It will just react.
So to get a sort of "interesting" game u need adjustments. Sure. Germany will need IC. Japan too. Without u wont see them building the weapons and the numbers needed to threat u in the first place.
So I guess the key is "balance" in design - the way e.g. we had in mind for TRP balancing with soviets being able to stop germans when played with a good strategy. But u will need the powerhouse USA in trp with its ~1000 IC to get the supplies, weapons and units u need to break axis defense by force - or u will do this with the british by dropping other battlesfields like India...
So I think there is no "right or wrong" way. The question is: what are u trying to find?
I would not say 'Soviet historiography', but Russian. For 30 years, the entire Soviet historiography has been critically revised and clarified.
Yes, of course, subjectivity will always be present on each side, this is natural.
Yes, about 100 Valentines (which have become so legendary precisely in Internet disputes) managed to reach the battle for Moscow, but according to various sources, there were from 4.5 to 7.5 thousand tanks in the Red Army on December 1, 1941. Even if we take the lowest estimate, a hundred tanks does not have a significant impact on 4,500 tanks. Although, of course, 100 extra tanks never hurt. But it cannot be said that the Valentines had any significant impact on the result of the battle for Moscow. Moreover, due to the poor training of crews for a completely new unexplored foreign vehicle, the valentines were used mainly to organize anti-tank ambushes. Ie, in this case, these hundred tanks are still competing with other 1,200 anti-tank guns defending Moscow.
If they hadn't been there, little would have changed in the results of the battle.
It was only in the second half of 1942 that Lend Lease supplies finally began to increase to a noticeable level, but not a single foreign tank or aircraft goes into battle immediately from the port, it need time to prepare the non-standard equipment and crew and deliver the equipment to the front. The 1942 Lend Lease can be named 'too little and too late.'
Last edited:
From my point of view, the moment Japan attacked USA doomed the Axis.
Without the USA, Italy wouldnt have collapsed and would have hold more or less in Lybia. Just little advances there.
Germany was not going to have any decissive victory over the USSR, Moscow and Stalingrad proves that. But the Soviet wouldnt have taken Berlin in any means.
USA made a total victory for the allies.
Without them, Axis would have achieved a partial victory or a draw.
Without the USA, Italy wouldnt have collapsed and would have hold more or less in Lybia. Just little advances there.
Germany was not going to have any decissive victory over the USSR, Moscow and Stalingrad proves that. But the Soviet wouldnt have taken Berlin in any means.
USA made a total victory for the allies.
Without them, Axis would have achieved a partial victory or a draw.
- 2
- 1
I dont have the time to dig out all numbers so I will use some elements Military History Visualized has collected:
- In December 1941 british tanks made 6,5% of all soviet tanks but ~25% of the medium and heavy tanks (by Alexander Hill it could have been up to ~35% because the soviet tank loses were most likely higher compared to the reported strenght numbers).
- Trucks allowed any soviet offensive movement from 1943 onwards. 2/3 of all soviet trucks and support vehicles were land lease vehicles. So without soviets wouldnt have been able to organise big offensive movements. I see that this is a factor for the 1943 campaigns because it was needing time to build up.
- Explosives (something i wasnt aware of) were supplied with ~35% by the allies. So when the USSR made 600.000ton of explosives in 1941-45 the allies delievered an additional 325.000tons to the soviets. So I guess u can argue that the soviet artillery hammer was often filled with allies help
- Radios were in most cases send by allies allowing the soviets to ignore significant radio production in the war so they could use the resources for other parts.
- Specialization: With the allied support the soviets to focus to build their weapons because everything else from food to chemical goods up to trucks and locomotives and railway waggons were supplied by the allies. Sure. USSR buidl "some" stuff here but in terms of absolut numbers these goods were outmatched by allied deliveries.
To sum it up:
Perhaps my argument for the victory at Moscow can be heavly debated but I think @tioperete summarizing will be the best result: without the allies a soviet victory would have been very unlikely. It was US material that brought the Allies to Berlin, Rome and Tokyo.
- In December 1941 british tanks made 6,5% of all soviet tanks but ~25% of the medium and heavy tanks (by Alexander Hill it could have been up to ~35% because the soviet tank loses were most likely higher compared to the reported strenght numbers).
- Trucks allowed any soviet offensive movement from 1943 onwards. 2/3 of all soviet trucks and support vehicles were land lease vehicles. So without soviets wouldnt have been able to organise big offensive movements. I see that this is a factor for the 1943 campaigns because it was needing time to build up.
- Explosives (something i wasnt aware of) were supplied with ~35% by the allies. So when the USSR made 600.000ton of explosives in 1941-45 the allies delievered an additional 325.000tons to the soviets. So I guess u can argue that the soviet artillery hammer was often filled with allies help
- Radios were in most cases send by allies allowing the soviets to ignore significant radio production in the war so they could use the resources for other parts.
- Specialization: With the allied support the soviets to focus to build their weapons because everything else from food to chemical goods up to trucks and locomotives and railway waggons were supplied by the allies. Sure. USSR buidl "some" stuff here but in terms of absolut numbers these goods were outmatched by allied deliveries.
To sum it up:
Perhaps my argument for the victory at Moscow can be heavly debated but I think @tioperete summarizing will be the best result: without the allies a soviet victory would have been very unlikely. It was US material that brought the Allies to Berlin, Rome and Tokyo.
- 1
Moreover, I insist that WW2 began only on December 7th, 1941!
True, when you have such сolossal industrial monster at another side, it's really impossible to win.
However, this does not negate the fact that invading the USSR and getting involved in a war on two fronts was complete madness. I do not understand what prevented Hitler from comfortably trading with the USSR, receiving all the necessary resources and concentrating his efforts on strangling Britain.
- 1
Obsession about the "future" Germania-Amerika war. USSR was a possible second front in that case that he wanted to eliminate, cause the Lebensraum at that time was achieved in the west.
I want USSR or China to survive more often so the Allies at least can try to invade them when the time is right.
- 1
Ussr should work. E.g. for TRP we aimed for a ussr that can survive. At the moment the trp problem is a german collaps in late 1943. Balance and Timing is always a problem with an ai Script that can attack only...
China is way more difficult because of the impact to the Overall japanese war. So in trp we had made the hard decision allowing the japanese ai to win more often in the war. The reason is the weak and bad invasion ai Script. With an ongoing war in China the japanese ai is often so crippeled that they wont do any naval invasions or pushs into the pacific or india at all... the ai just cant handle such a complicated Theater. Here u would need ai coding people who would Code a new ai.
@Lord Rommel have you tried any time a version without independent Burma but the Raj giving that territory to UK? Atm Japan rarely annex it.
I think not.
The question is; would it solve AI issues.
We already had plans for a sort of fictional new japanese nation like KWA based in Vietnam to boost the AI for a war into india but it would add other problems (like troop transfer and possible exploits and Bugs with it).
The question is; would it solve AI issues.
We already had plans for a sort of fictional new japanese nation like KWA based in Vietnam to boost the AI for a war into india but it would add other problems (like troop transfer and possible exploits and Bugs with it).