|
chairface posted:Just as you mentioned, "Could Stalin have killed fewer people" answer is always yes. Stalin is small potatoes. The real question burning on everyone's lips is "Could Hitler have killed fewer people?"
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Dramicus posted:Stalin is small potatoes. The real question burning on everyone's lips is "Could Hitler have killed fewer people?" I get why Paradox can't but I still think it'd be interesting for Germany to have focuses/decisions/whatever for the Final Solution. "gently caress over your already lovely manpower pool for basically no practical gain y/n?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Anyone who complains that it doesn't give you any bonuses is literally a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
chairface posted:I get why Paradox can't but I still think it'd be interesting for Germany to have focuses/decisions/whatever for the Final Solution. "gently caress over your already lovely manpower pool for basically no practical gain y/n?" To be fair, with the way core and non-core manpower works, it actually would hardly affect in-game Germany at all. Most of it would affect occupied nations, namely Poland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
chairface posted:Absolutely, and I'm in no way disputing kulaks to kholkozes had to be done for a variety of reasons both practical and ideological... Why? Generally speaking Soviet agricultural policy was a failure, even after WW2. Crop yields regularly fell far short of what was planned for and Soviet agricultural projects in regions such as Central Asia were frequently severely mishandled and cotnributed, together with dam building, diversion of rivers and industrial pollution (particularly from chemical industry), to cause widespread damage to agricultural areas if not their outright destruction. Though the Soviets suffered no major famines after 1947, they frequently had to resort to importing grain from the United States because of the disappointing performance of their agricultural sector, which can only really be coined a failure of the USSR's agricultural policy as a whole. Main Paineframe posted:Historically, nationalizing the property of wealthy landowners has not usually gone smoothly. It was probably impossible for collectivization of Soviet agriculture to have been completely bloodless. And while Soviet agriculture hadn't dipped into famine conditions for a few years, it hadn't been as stable or prosperous as Soviet leaders would have liked it to be; collectivization was seen as a solution to various economic issues that the Soviets feared could lead to famine if not addressed. These weren't wealthy landlords and aristorcrats, the Kulaks were mostly the descendants of successful freed peasants after the abolition of serfdom and were naturally concentrated in the richest agricultural regions of the Soviet Union. Of loving course they resisted when the Soviets demanded all of their harvest or them essentially surrendering themselves to what basically amounted to the serfdom that had been abolished less than one hundred years. Magni posted:No de-kulakization means the agrarian reforms fail and the USSR is stuck with the tzarist-era trainwreck of an agrarian system that features famine as a regular and normal occurrence. No "forced" starvation (given that the main culprits were a bad harvest year hitting exactly as the agrarian system was being reformed and bureaucratic bungling, not actual intent from Moscow) is only possible by completely shutting down grain exports, and even that is likely not going to prevent a famine. No grain exports means there's no money for the fledling USSR to start industrialising in earnest, and their industrial sector by 1940 is likely going to be lagging behind the likes of Italy or Japan, let alone Germany or Britain. No purges means... a few less officers that need to be released from Gulag when poo poo goes down mostly, and like half a dozen more actually able people in STAVKA. Not exactly enough to offset the complete shambles you've made of the USSR's economy and capability to wage an industrialised war. Goddamn you're a loving piece of poo poo. poo poo, if you are going to talk about Tsarist Russia, they too hadn't really suffered a major killing famine since 1890/91, and Russia was actually seeing massive economic growth from about 1900 until the outbreak of war and had begun industrialiazing at a rapid pace. I don't think they had begun mechanizing agriculture or such yet, but I believe things were moving forward there as with industrialiaztion. Yet the fact that Tsarist Russia likely would have industrialized, with the pace of development being what it was, to the same extent as the Soviet Union later did if the war hadn't come, doesn't make that regime one worth defending. But with the Soviet Union we somehow have idiots who are willing to say that the killings of millions, the reduction of once free peasants to a type of tightly controlled servitude and that seizing crops and causing and exacerbating famine in order to obtain capital was justified because industrialization. Magni posted:Which would be the same collective (oh sorry, [i]communal) farms that already de facto owned their entire livelihoods anyway, just not openly codified by law. The only difference for the actual peasants was that they now paid their taxes to a state official instead of the local Kulak collecting it for the local noble, and that said state officials actually gave a poo poo about trying to reorganise and reform the communal/collective system into becoming more efficient and providing better results for everyone involved. With, admittedly, mixed results. What evidence is there to support that this was the case? Or that the officials in question weren't more interested in enriching themselves or just advancing themsevles politically? The latter is in general how the Soviet system actually ended up working and is likely a large factor in the massive environmental destruction wrought by its industry and agriculture, as the officials in charge of policy and operation in general weren't really interested in much more than advancing themselves within the system and obtaining the kind of results that enabled such advances with little else being given much consideration, especially as they had practically no accountability to anyone except those higher up in the system. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
it's kinda hosed up that jet fighters are strictly worse then fighter 3s despite jets having like 5 research techs behind them
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:it's kinda hosed up that jet fighters are strictly worse then fighter 3s I mean yeah agility is vitally important, but still, that's not strictly worse than fighter 3s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:it's kinda hosed up that jet fighters are strictly worse then fighter 3s HOI4 waffles between tech upgrades representing the strict improvement of a weapon's physical qualities, and the shock effect of new weapons that old doctrines cannot deal with. jets are strongly in the former camp; there's no period in HOI4 where your pilots can use the speed of jets to obsolete all your enemies' previous understanding of what was possible in a dogfight. also, jets are like heavy fighters in that they have significant advantages in the strat bombing part of the aerial minigame, but you generally don't care much about strat bombing in HOI4, especially by the point you have jet fighters. strat bombing was much more important as an implicit political threat (especially in the post-WW2 nuclear/jet era) than as a military strategy in an already-declared war, and as such it's not very effective or important in HOI4. the game includes the first weapons of the strategic deterrence era (since many of them were used in WW2) but does not include the politics necessary to make them matter. Strudel Man posted:Aren't they better in everything except agility, which is slightly worse? they also cost more and air superiority is all about having more planes in the air
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
i just chalk it up to jet fighters in this era sucking on account of the whole new technology thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:i just chalk it up to jet fighters in this era sucking on account of the whole new technology thing The game accurately represents how jets were less agile than traditional fighters, but it doesn't model the immense advantage the speed gives in combat. The allied tactic for dealing with jets was to wait until they had to land. Attacking during take off and landing was the only reliable way of taking them out. In the air, they could dictate the terms of engagement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Aren't they better in everything except agility, which is slightly worse? they're a bit better (not bombastically so) but have enough agility loss that they die a good 2:1 against similarly upgraded fighter 3s. amusingly by the statline they have dramatically less air attack then rockets (and heavy fighters) so they wouldn't even make better anti-bomber planes, outside of having quite a bit of range. jet fighter 1s being worse I'd get, but 2s being 1950s and being meteors and stuff seems like it should be fairly on par
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Jets do have much better range than Fighter 3s, so I guess there's a Tactical Bomber-esque niche for players who have already filled all the nearby airfields with Fighter 3s and want to also use distant airfields. They also use different resources - slightly less aluminium, and tungsten instead of oil - which may matter depending on if you're resource-limited and by what. All this said, these are very niche advantages for how late in the game they come and how many technologies you have to research to unlock them. ----- Jet tactical bombers suffer from a similar problem. They have the same ground attack as CAS 3s, but cost almost twice as much. Gort fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:The game accurately represents how jets were less agile than traditional fighters, but it doesn't model the immense advantage the speed gives in combat. The allied tactic for dealing with jets was to wait until they had to land. Attacking during take off and landing was the only reliable way of taking them out. In the air, they could dictate the terms of engagement. All you needed to shoot down Jets was Chuck Yeager*.  *provided the jet was on final approach for landing at the time
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:These weren't wealthy landlords and aristorcrats, the Kulaks were mostly the descendants of successful freed peasants after the abolition of serfdom and were naturally concentrated in the richest agricultural regions of the Soviet Union. Of loving course they resisted when the Soviets demanded all of their harvest or them essentially surrendering themselves to what basically amounted to the serfdom that had been abolished less than one hundred years. That's still not what Kulaks were outside of outright anti-Soviet propaganda. Also, serfdom had only been abolished on paper for the most part. (And neither was kolkhoz work under the Soviets even remotely as bad as serfdom to anyone with the slightest clue what either actually entailed.) quote:Goddamn you're a loving piece of poo poo. poo poo, if you are going to talk about Tsarist Russia, they too hadn't really suffered a major killing famine since 1890/91, and Russia was actually seeing massive economic growth from about 1900 until the outbreak of war and had begun industrialiazing at a rapid pace. I don't think they had begun mechanizing agriculture or such yet, but I believe things were moving forward there as with industrialiaztion. Yet the fact that Tsarist Russia likely would have industrialized, with the pace of development being what it was, to the same extent as the Soviet Union later did if the war hadn't come, doesn't make that regime one worth defending. But with the Soviet Union we somehow have idiots who are willing to say that the killings of millions, the reduction of once free peasants to a type of tightly controlled servitude and that seizing crops and causing and exacerbating famine in order to obtain capital was justified because industrialization. Goddamn, you're a loving ignorant retard. No, let me take that back, you're not merely ignorant, you understand quite literally less than nothing about what you're talking of. You're literally repeating outright propaganda 1:1 without applying even the tiniest shred of actual research or critical thought. Russias industrialisation policies in the early 20th century were a joke, producing great results on paper only. They were only falling behind farther compared to the other Great Powers. FFS, they literally couldn't even produce enough small arms for their army when the war came. And the less said about their attempts at agricultural reform, the better cause that poo poo outright backfired and made things worse. Tzarist Russia was a failing state, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that that would change in any way unless massively upset because without one any meaningful change would keep being opposed by the entrenched elites. And oh those poor, "once-free peasants"? They're a propagandistic fantasy. The kulaks weren't poor, innocent free peasants. They were a de facto class of little wannabe-tyrants who enthusiastically helped the nobility to keep the actual peasantry in de facto servitude (and under conditions notably worse than the system the Soviets produced) and profited handsomely from it. The poor, innocent little landholding farmer who's getting shat on by the evil badwrong reds for being a "kulak" is a straight-up propaganda strawman. I also find it funny how you try to slam the Soviets for grain seizures, as if those hadn't been standard loving policy under the tzar. But I guess the tzarist system wasn't guilty of the grand crime of "being the Soviets", so they get a pass. And yes, given the events that followed, it was justified. Because the alternative is that the Nazis kick in the door in 1941 and the whole rotten structure does in fact collapse on itself, with all the horror that would have entailed. But somehow with the Soviet Union we have idiots who still keep mindlessly repeating old Cold War-era propaganda and expect people everyone to take it at face value before calling them names when they have the temerity to not follow the espoused dogma. quote:What evidence is there to support that this was the case? Or that the officials in question weren't more interested in enriching themselves or just advancing themsevles politically? The latter is in general how the Soviet system actually ended up working and is likely a large factor in the massive environmental destruction wrought by its industry and agriculture, as the officials in charge of policy and operation in general weren't really interested in much more than advancing themselves within the system and obtaining the kind of results that enabled such advances with little else being given much consideration, especially as they had practically no accountability to anyone except those higher up in the system. The very fact that they actually cared at all to change things is in itself proof. Because the kulaks and nobles sure a poo poo didn't, being very much comfortable lording it over the peasantry and keeping things as they were, with them getting to sit on top and nobody else having a chance to better their circumstances. Which is exactly why nothing meaningful got ever done, why the supposed "emancipation" of the serfs changed little to nothing for the peasantry in actual reality, why attempts to reform the system failed abysmally and why famine was a regular fact of life in Russia. (And also why the peasantry at large outright cheered the Soviets on when they decided to put the boot on the kulak's heads; the little tyrants who had had their boots on the necks of the peasantry for generations now got to experience a dose of their own medicine.) So loving what if soviet officials (if we take your generalising nonsense at face value and apply it to literally every last one of them) were doing it for their own advancement? It still served to improve things for everybody in the end, unlike the rule of the nobles and kulaks. That in and off itself already serves to make them better. Not perfect or innocent or whatever, but sure as poo poo better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Magni posted:And oh those poor, "once-free peasants"? They're a propagandistic fantasy. The kulaks weren't poor, innocent free peasants. They were a de facto class of little wannabe-tyrants who enthusiastically helped the nobility to keep the actual peasantry in de facto servitude (and under conditions notably worse than the system the Soviets produced) and profited handsomely from it. The poor, innocent little landholding farmer who's getting shat on by the evil badwrong reds for being a "kulak" is a straight-up propaganda strawman. quote:In May 1929 the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following characteristics defined a kulak: Also, it seems like you've left it awfully vague what you're actually accusing them of doing. "Helped the nobility keep the actual peasantry in servitude?" How, exactly? Aren't they mostly busy doing their farming? Unless you're denying that kulaks were farmers at all? Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
I dunno, trying to justify the mass murder of the _________ seems like a bad position to take, regardless of what you put in the blank. "No really, killing all those _________ was for the greater good, trust me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Those fuckers with their second cow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
What’s generally the best Latin country to take over central & southern America? Brazil? Mexico is sort of a sick dog in most mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
buglord posted:What’s generally the best Latin country to take over central & southern America? Brazil? Mexico is sort of a sick dog in most mods. At the moment I would say Brazil due to the population, but Mexico will soon be the best by far once the DLC comes out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Welp was doing ok as France until 1943, when the Soviets somehow lost and got annexed, then Spain invaded with some sort of god-tier mega troops that are totally unstoppable. They're literally just walking from the border to Paris and my guys just run away. Is there a way to view enemy troop stats beyond just the soft/hard attack stats? Because these Spaniards are supposedly worse in every regard, but they just steamrolled all of France easily. Also how do you stop your guys from constantly shuffling around? They won't just stay put on the line but wander off, then enemies just walk over a river uncontested. appropriatemetaphor fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Magni posted:Goddamn, you're a loving ignorant retard. No, let me take that back, you're not merely ignorant, you understand quite literally less than nothing about what you're talking of. You're literally repeating outright propaganda 1:1 without applying even the tiniest shred of actual research or critical thought. Russias industrialisation policies in the early 20th century were a joke, producing great results on paper only. They were only falling behind farther compared to the other Great Powers. FFS, they literally couldn't even produce enough small arms for their army when the war came. And the less said about their attempts at agricultural reform, the better cause that poo poo outright backfired and made things worse. Tzarist Russia was a failing state, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that that would change in any way unless massively upset because without one any meaningful change would keep being opposed by the entrenched elites. The only one repeating propaganda here is you. Russia's industrialization wa far from a joke, and they were catching up to the other great powers not falling further behind, most of that is based on more modern research which has shown the Soviet narrative of Russian industrial failure before the revolution to most generously be a truth with massive modifications. Industrialization though was far from complete and the state was not at all ready for war in 1914.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
.
WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
buglord posted:What’s generally the best Latin country to take over central & southern America? Brazil? Mexico is sort of a sick dog in most mods. brazil in a long lead, with argentina, mexico, and columbia as distant seconds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Welp was doing ok as France until 1943, when the Soviets somehow lost and got annexed, then Spain invaded with some sort of god-tier mega troops that are totally unstoppable. They're literally just walking from the border to Paris and my guys just run away. Given that it sounds like you've lost, you should probably tag switch over to Spain and see what they've got. It might be something like them having a ton of fighters and CAS swinging the combat to their side, or your guys having no equipment, or you not having land doctrine researched, or something like that. Generally speaking, you need to watch out for Nationalist Spain - they've got a national spirit you can mouse-over to see when they're going to join the Axis. It's called "Recovering from the Civil War" or something like that. If you're playing Fortress France and you've held Italy and Germany for four solid years, you've got plenty of time to fortify and invest the front with Spain. It's a lot like the one with Italy - lots of mountains and a mostly infantry-based enemy - so you shouldn't have too much trouble with some infantry backed by artillery. There's not really a ton of stuff you can do to prevent the military front AI from moving troops around. You can watch the front like a hawk and countermand any obviously bad moves, or make sure you've got several divisions for each province in your frontline. If it's any consolation, the AI players have to put up with the shuffling too. Gort fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Before you accuse others of repeating propaganda make sure you're not confusing the movie Enemy at the Gates for history. The USSR didn't have any issue with producing small arms. The major deficit they had in production was truck manufacturing. He's referring to WW1. As I said, while Russia was catching up quickly*, they were far from ready for war in 1914, and with the disaster at Tennenberg and the retreat from Polan and Russia they lost alot of their equipment and their nascent industry just couldn't produce enough to replace what was lost quickly enough. So in WW1 you actually did have situations where subsequent attacking waves went into battle expected to arm themselves from the fallen of the first. The USSR also had issues producing enough small arms in 1941 and 1942 (perhaps until 1943), though this mostly translated to soldiers in training not being able to carry out any live-fire exercise and having to train with mock-weapons. *I believe we are talking about 10% annual growth approximately from about 1910, and the doubling of literacy rates in about the same periods, as well as the construction of railways and the establishment of industries in St. Petersburg and Moscow primarily but also in other cities, there had also been changes in agriculture after reforms around 1905 (though those were mostly based around disestablishing the old system of communaly held land and setting up new sources of credit for farmers as well as farmers' cooperatives, it also did not go past the reformers that successful self-owning farmers might tend towards being more conservative than peasants in the old system). This development is kind of what made the Germans so worried leading up to WW1 and especially after France and Russia allied, they expected Russia to be ready to fight around 1917 or so, and by then they would not be able to withstand them. This perspective played an important role in German leadership, particularly the military leadership, expending so little effort to stop the war from breaking out when the July Crisis hit, for instance by discouraging or restraining Austria-Hungary from taking military action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Isn't D&D where you're supposed to handwave communist atrocities and not the thread about noted historical military game hearts of Iron
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
He posts, in the thread for the game about a Clean Wehrmacht
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:He posts, in the thread for the game about a Clean Wehrmacht Isn't that more or less HOI4?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah, but what were the stat modifiers to peasant-neck-standing-on for the typical kulak boot? Did they have a cold acclimatization bonus? Did they provide a .0001% bonus to Organization? These are the details the game needs if we will ever have a true alt-history generator. Maybe all that post Great War Russia needed to succeed was better sock tech to succeed. Farming needs good footwear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:"No really, killing all those __Nazis___ was for the greater good, trust me." Looks fine to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Looks fine to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Yeah, but what were the stat modifiers to peasant-neck-standing-on for the typical kulak boot? Did they have a cold acclimatization bonus? Did they provide a .0001% bonus to Organization? These are the details the game needs if we will ever have a true alt-history generator. Maybe all that post Great War Russia needed to succeed was better sock tech to succeed. Farming needs good footwear. the people of soviet russia thanking stalin for the new footwear he got them after brutally eradicating the kulaks and turning their skins to leather https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8ssUHT5AqQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Poil posted:Um, that's not an ethnicity but an active choice to be an appalling overflowing septic dump of a person. So is hoarding grain and executing cattle to rot in a ditch during a famine rather than allow your herds and harvests to be collectivized
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:So is hoarding grain and executing cattle to rot in a ditch during a famine rather than allow your herds and harvests to be
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
I get it now, those 3 million people, they deserved to be exterminated. If Stalin didn't murder them then the Nazis would have won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Imo I think it's wrong to hoard and waste resources while people need them but then again I never use lend lease so I guess its even
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Looks fine to me So easy to paint millions of people with one brush in order to justify their extermination. Seems like you fit the bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:Given that it sounds like you've lost, you should probably tag switch over to Spain and see what they've got. It might be something like them having a ton of fighters and CAS swinging the combat to their side, or your guys having no equipment, or you not having land doctrine researched, or something like that. I guess I never thought Spain would actually join in ww2, so had just nothing on that border while taking out Italy and pushing Germany out of Belg/Nethers. By the time I could shift anyone they were halfway to Paris, then my dudes has no time to setup and got rolled. Haven't quite lost; sitting on Paris and the northeast coast while the USA kinda blunders a load of amphibious assaults. Just gonna sit on speed 5 and see if my allies do anything. Also Japan conquered India and got Hawaii  f'in axis is so buff!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:So easy to paint millions of people with one brush in order to justify their extermination. Seems like you fit the bill. Oh no I painted all the nazis with a broad brush, woe is me I am truly the intolerant one. I guess I'll go back in time and join my great grandfather in a mass grave
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
I guess the Nazis also would have won if the USSR hadn't traded fuel and food with them all through 1939 to summer 1941 and used their treaties with Nazi Germany to justify their expansion in the same period. Also the treaties in the early thirties that allowed the Nazis to develop and test airplanes and tanks in Russia, because doing it in Germany would have been a blatant breach of the Versailles Treaty, not doing that would also have allowed the Nazis to win.Phi230 posted:Imo I think it's wrong to hoard and waste resources while people need them but then again I never use lend lease so I guess its even Yes, once a Pole always a Kulak. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:38
|
|