Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dorsidwarf]

No matter how many tutorials I watch or how optimal i make my armies, I can never seem to have any real success in my games. At most I can just fortify myself in and tell the rest of the world to fuck off successfully, but any kind of defensive actions I take are swiftly crushed

[EuchreJack]

Yeah, I was just wondering how much of Stalin being a monster actually saved the Soviet Union.

I would say that the Purges were done...poorly, and hindered Soviet combat readiness.  They also didn't end with WW2, FYI.

[a1s]

I would say that the Purges were done...poorly, and hindered Soviet combat readiness.  They also didn't end with WW2, FYI.

They... paused, shall we say, while the country was in danger of falling. It's remarkable what a newly industrialized superpower can achieve when it stops hamstringing itself.

(The way the country was able to operate for 4 years in a state of emergency without anyone complaining (or trying to kill it's leader) is a direct effect of the purges, BTW. Was it worth it? Dear god no. But that was one of the effects)

[EnigmaticHat]

As for a counter-revolution, I've never seen someone argue that there would have been one if it hadn't been for the purges.

the Russian Civil War ended barely 10 years ago. if not for the purges it's likely that resistance to the 5 year plans and collectivization of agriculture would have generated enough opposition to end stalin's rule, if not a full counter-revolution. which would have made a nazi defeat of russia actually possible.

pretty tough to take an agrarian backwater and turn it into an industrial superpower in 20 years without just killing everyone who opposes you.

The Russian Civil War happened because of a complicated series of events relating to WW1.

The scenario you're describing is unlikely.  The USSR was built around a class structure that went party member > Russian > non-Russian Soviet State.  This meant that the people in closet proximity to the party leader were the most benefited by society.  The soviets also controlled movement through their territories, in particular movement from the countryside to the cities was prohibited and required special approval.  Information was tightly controlled.  Its also worth noting that (for some reason) there was optimism and patriotic spirit in Russia about communism.  Compare to the Tzar in WW1 who was losing a war, was widely disliked, and lacked the approval of those he most needed for protection (the military).

A much more likely scenario is that less than 20 million people in the USSR wouldn't have died if Stalin hadn't killed a quarter of his own military, put off modernizing it, and helped the Germans develop tanks (!).

Now, a very likely scenario is that if Stalin hadn't killed pretty much every other heir apparent to Lenin, and made an example of a few high ranking military officers, he would have been overthrown.  But that's like... 30-40 people.  Hitler was also running a totalitarian government built around a cult of personality and he killed many less "first class citizens" than Stalin did.  Off the top of my head all I've got are his secret police that grew too powerful.

[a1s]

The USSR was built around a class structure that went party member > Russian > non-Russian > Soviet State.

This was actually Stalin's doing, early Soviets not only espoused multi-culturalism, but in fact followed it. A disproportionate amount of Jews, Latvians, Georgians (off the top of my head) and others (probably) made surprising careers in the late 1910s - early 1920s.

This meant that the people in closet proximity to the party leader were the most benefited by society.

Aren't they always? Even in modern liberal democracies those close to the leadership enjoy unofficial perks, whereas in the early 20th century this was more or less expected. Those lacking perks want to change leadership and get them.

The soviets also controlled movement through their territories, in particular movement from the countryside to the cities was prohibited and required special approval.  Information was tightly controlled.  Its also worth noting that (for some reason) there was optimism and patriotic spirit in Russia about communism.

And yet early on the Soviet state was plagued by rebellions.

if Stalin hadn't killed a quarter of his own military, put off modernizing it, and helped the Germans develop tanks (!).

Stalin didn't kill a quarter of the military (which, as all militaries do, primarily consisted of enlisted men,) nor even of the officer corps (absolute majority were merely fired, not killed.) One can theorize that the 5% that were killed were likely to be the best and brightest (they, so the theory goes, were reported by less qualified men passed over for promotion.) What Stalin did completely decimate was the high command- well over 75% (in the case of the navy almost 90%) were sentenced and either killed outright or sent into Gulags. This was a heavy blow for the military, but as late war experience shows, a temporary one.
Stalin was also modernizing the military with what can be described as too much zeal. By 1941 Soviet Union had over a million self-loading rifles (Germany hadn't adopted one yet, nor did the British) over 30 thousand tanks (many of which were on par with the German ones, perhaps unsurprising considering the wealth of shared know-how) over 8 thousand aircraft. What was missing, in a major way, was the doctrinal development to go along with these high-tech toys. Planes lacked pilots, tanks lacked drivers, complex rifles kept jamming on dirt, but because everyone was too afraid of showing initiative none of these problems were being solved. Instead Infantry was trained in human wave attacks and focred marches, like the ones employed in Brusilov Offensive 20 years earlier.
Tank know-how, as mentioned, went both ways.

Now, a very likely scenario is that if Stalin hadn't killed pretty much every other heir apparent to Lenin, and made an example of a few high ranking military officers, he would have been overthrown.

Yup. And those were exactly the people who suffered the hardest in the purges. Zhukov was in no way a less prominent figure than Tukachevky or Budenii, but he was one of Stalin's appointees (instead of Lenin's) and knew how his toast was buttered.

[ZeroGravitas]

The Russian Civil War happened because of a complicated series of events relating to WW1.

Umm... lol? Want to get into them? This is like saying, "America exists because of a complicated series of events relating to Seven Years' War." I mean... they're certainly connected, but it masks the interests of primary combatants in a major way. The Russian Whites were conservatives, monarchists, centrists, even other socialists. It wasn't just European powers.

The scenario you're describing is unlikely.

Major counterfactual though, isn't it? Orthodox clergy was wiped out in the Great Purge. Former White army officers, ex-kulaks, intellectuals, etc etc. All sorts of potentially anti-regime elements. Hard to say.

The USSR was built around a class structure that went party member > Russian > non-Russian Soviet State.  This meant that the people in closet proximity to the party leader were the most benefited by society.  The soviets also controlled movement through their territories, in particular movement from the countryside to the cities was prohibited and required special approval.  Information was tightly controlled.  Its also worth noting that (for some reason) there was optimism and patriotic spirit in Russia about communism.  Compare to the Tzar in WW1 who was losing a war, was widely disliked, and lacked the approval of those he most needed for protection (the military).

A much more likely scenario is that less than 20 million people in the USSR wouldn't have died if Stalin hadn't killed a quarter of his own military, put off modernizing it, and helped the Germans develop tanks (!).

Totally absurd to think he killed a "a quarter of his own military." Like absolute lol. Only a tiny percentage of officers were actually purged - a few thousand, and many were allowed to rejoin the Red Army once the war began. And how did Stalin "put off modernizing" the army? If Lenin's New Economic Policy had continued there wouldn't have been an industrial base to fight with. The Five Year Plans won the war.

Now, a very likely scenario is that if Stalin hadn't killed pretty much every other heir apparent to Lenin, and made an example of a few high ranking military officers, he would have been overthrown.  But that's like... 30-40 people.  Hitler was also running a totalitarian government built around a cult of personality and he killed many less "first class citizens" than Stalin did.  Off the top of my head all I've got are his secret police that grew too powerful.

Apples and oranges. One started out as an industrial power; the other didn't. One had an economic base that actively supported his rule; the other had to make an industrial base to work with, the other had to make one out of nothing.

[Kot]

Stalin was also modernizing the military with what can be described as too much zeal. By 1941 Soviet Union had over a million self-loading rifles (Germany hadn't adopted one yet, nor did the British) over 30 thousand tanks (many of which were on par with the German ones, perhaps unsurprising considering the wealth of shared know-how) over 8 thousand aircraft. What was missing, in a major way, was the doctrinal development to go along with these high-tech toys. Planes lacked pilots, tanks lacked drivers, complex rifles kept jamming on dirt, but because everyone was too afraid of showing initiative none of these problems were being solved. Instead Infantry was trained in human wave attacks and focred marches, like the ones employed in Brusilov Offensive 20 years earlier.
Tank know-how, as mentioned, went both ways.

AVS-36 was "eh", SVT-38 or 40 were better, but the main problem with them was that, like with a lot of other Soviet equipment, it was simply lost during the early war, and soon after they switched back to making more Mosins (a lot of Russian historians argue that equipment shortages were not a thing in Soviet Union, since IIRC before the war there were more rifles than Soviet soldiers in the entire WW2, but they do not take into account the insane amount they lost to Germans who took over the supply depots), similarly, a lot of those advanced planes were lost without ever taking off the airfields. Also, out of those 30,000 tanks, optimistically speaking about couple thousand (so, pretty much equal) were actually on-par with the Panzer III and IV, and while, sure, the relatively rare T-34s and KVs were absolutely outclassing the Germans, there were just couple hundred of them, so often they just got overrun and like with so many other things, later were used in German service.

Umm... lol? Want to get into them? This is like saying, "America exists because of a complicated series of events relating to Seven Years' War." I mean... they're certainly connected, but it masks the interests of primary combatants in a major way. The Russian Whites were conservatives, monarchists, centrists, even other socialists. It's not

"Russian" civil war was years in making, though ironically the places that most well-known communist figures looked to for it were Poland and Germany, though that's (Germany) not in Russia at that point. I think it's the most fucking ironic thing in existence that Marx said: "There is but one alternative for Europe. Either Asiatic barbarism, under Muscovite direction, will burst around its head like an avalanche, or else it must re-establish Poland, thus putting twenty million heroes between itself and Asia and gaining a breathing spell for the accomplishment of its social regeneration.".

Apples and oranges. One started out as an industrial power; the other didn't. One had an economic base that actively supported his rule; the other had to make an industrial base to work with, the other had to make one out of nothing.

This is a major point that people are forgetting. The actual numbers in 1941 (and during the entire war even) make it so that Soviet Union industrial capabilities, be it in terms of materiel, civilian industry and raw resources (oil is a significant exception) was abysmal compared to German ones. I'm not saying that Lend-Lease (mostly in terms of "unseen" resources, not front-line equipment) was the only reason they stood, but they really made it so that they could actually compete with Germany in terms of their industry, and in many ways Lend-Lease left a significant mark after the war too, because it also included factory equipment that Soviets simply had no technological base to create before the war.

[a1s]

Stalin was also modernizing the military with what can be described as too much zeal.

AVS-36 was "eh", SVT-38 or 40 were better, but the main problem with them was that, like with a lot of other Soviet equipment, it was simply lost during the early war,

My point was merely that, at least in terms of equipment, there was no lag between Soviet military and those of developed nations during the Third Five Year Plan.

P.S.

Marx said: "There is but one alternative for Europe. Either Asiatic barbarism, under Muscovite direction, will burst around its head like an avalanche, or else it must re-establish Poland, thus putting twenty million heroes between itself and Asia and gaining a breathing spell for the accomplishment of its social regeneration.".

Marx in general was quite russophobic and considered them too backward and barbaric, to him socialist revolution happening in Russia was about as absurd as one in Qing China. This is all over his writing. Here's a piece that came up first when I googled this:

To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution.

It is only the amazing amount of fanboyism respect that Lenin held for the man that kept the dislike from being mutual.

[Radsoc]

Lenin was 13 when Marx died, and probably not a social democrat by then.

Engels wrote the text and it does not imply russophobia. Tsarist Russia was the most reactionary and backward empire of Europe, that together with e.g. Austria (Metternich) and Prussia (Germany didn't exist at the time) had formed the so called Holy Alliance in the early 19th century. Similar interests came to combat the national/bourgeois revolutions of ~48 (Many nations were subjugated as part of those empires). Reactionary Russia, along with other countries, came to be obstacles to national liberation and revolution.

[Culise]

Was this written on the 1848 Revolutions?  That's the only non-ethnic reason I can think of to lump a hatred of Russians, Czechs, and Croats together in order to advocate "terror against these Slav peoples" while simultaneously singing the praises of the equally-Slavic Poles in the very same sentence.  Rather than any sort of Slavic menace, it's simply that these three were rather ambivalent at best in their support of the 1848 revolutions.  The Czechs were less then enamoured with the idea of joining the German revolutionaries and subsuming Bohemia into any sort of German national state for some funny reason; likewise, the Croats were driven into the arms of the Habsburgs when the Budapest Diet revoked the autonomy of Croatia-Slavonia and Transylvania, deposed the ruling ban, and moved to crush the nascent nationalist movement.  The Russians, of course, go without question: it was Russian armies that marched into Budapest and crushed the revolution in the end.

[Glloyd]

This discussion has been going on way too long and I keep thinking it's actual HoI IV discussion. Wouldn't this be better suited for the armchair general thread?

[Tack]

Eh. There’s an overlap.

Maybe they’re complianing about a lack of fallout to national focus decisions

[pisskop]

No matter how many tutorials I watch or how optimal i make my armies, I can never seem to have any real success in my games. At most I can just fortify myself in and tell the rest of the world to fuck off successfully, but any kind of defensive actions I take are swiftly crushed

To snipe this from the discussion:

The ai is, imo, best thought of as running algorithms.  The ai will toe the line and gently push, but they wont ever really push unless they think they can win.  Theyll push fights that last for 3 months if the numbers favor their eventual win; and theyll count on that win happening,  If you can make situations where they cant win they wont attack.  If they dont attack you must.

Defense kind of implies some level of getting them to attack.  The ai simply isnt a human who is willing to probe; presumably they have most of the numbers they need, and they are limited by their own caution wrt the odds.  The ai is going to attack or isnt.

Set up situations the ai thinks it can win, and then use a 'counter-attack' force to wipe out individual regions.  Use artillery and dug-in infantry, and use a more mobile element to swipe down the line to where its needed.  Mountains are great corridors to defend if you can, and in places of attrition pay attention to your own supply and losses.  Tanks get absolutely BFed in mountains, putting a strain on your production.

Production in this game can be thought of as a loose resource.  A slow-burn, loose resource.  You lose if it gets too inefficient.  Try to keep your attrition down, your production up and prioritized towards keeping your armies moving and defending, and try to exploit the ai.  Attack over sea, attacks in several places, abuse their propencity to use regional reinforcements and hammer new locations as they deplete the defenders there.  Send tanks over flat lands occupied by only infantry.

[Micro102]

Necro'ing the thread because I need someone to explain to me how naval battles work.

I've had situations where I have more of every stat. Bigger guns, better positioning, better screen efficiency, better everything... and I lose like 40 ships to their 1. I had DDs, CLs, BCs, BBs, and a carrier with naval bombers and fighters. That's a nice balance, right? So I need to know the different things that could cause such a crippling loss.

Are there any size rules to follow, like how on land you have a width of 80? I feel like I'm missing something big.

[forsaken1111]

Honestly, the naval battles are the biggest damn mystery to me too. So much so that I often just fight land battles and spam battleships because I have no idea what I'm doing. If someone has a good resource I'm echoing Micro102's request, please make it make sense.