Paradox Studio Thread

[JJLiautaud]

Pretty sure not even the USA can crank out 40,000+ Shermans from 42-45 and still have the mils left over for a strategic bomber every hour from Willow Run. From March of 41 to the start of December the USA had cranked out over 2K M3 Stuarts. December of 1942 alone had over 1,500 M3's rolling off the line.

I dont think theres enough aluminium accessible by the US to build 24 strat 2s in a day

 

[Snekposter]

I dont think theres enough aluminium accessible by the US to build 24 strat 2s in a day

Someone better tell Henry Ford he did the impossible then...

 

[Bush King]

I dont think theres enough aluminium accessible by the US to build 24 strat 2s in a day

HoI4's had massive resource issues since day one.

I don't think there should be resources all over Africa because they were yet to be exploited, but there should be the ability to extract them eventually. Most of the African states are lucky to have one decision that increases rubber by 3. Most have jack shit. The lack of agricultural products also hurts minors a lot- Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey had massive tobacco, olive oil, date, etc markets which funded their economy but are lucky to receive one or two factories for their chrome. Bulgaria has nothing at all and is shit out of luck.

Now that railroads are in the game, they should have resources tied to that infrastructure. If you want to build rifles, you need steel, but you'll have a shortage if a railroad isn't connecting the resource to the capital or a port with access to the capital. Building a factory directly on that state will bypass this requirement, but the equipment will be stockpiled and only accessible to local units until it can connect to your capital.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

HoI4's had massive resource issues since day one.

I don't think there should be resources all over Africa because they were yet to be exploited, but there should be the ability to extract them eventually. Most of the African states are lucky to have one decision that increases rubber by 3. Most have jack shit. The lack of agricultural products also hurts minors a lot- Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey had massive tobacco, olive oil, date, etc markets which funded their economy but are lucky to receive one or two factories for their chrome. Bulgaria has nothing at all and is shit out of luck.

Now that railroads are in the game, they should have resources tied to that infrastructure. If you want to build rifles, you need steel, but you'll have a shortage if a railroad isn't connecting the resource to the capital or a port with access to the capital. Building a factory directly on that state will bypass this requirement, but the equipment will be stockpiled and only accessible to local units until it can connect to your capital.

The game needs Food as a resource but will never get it due to Paradox being pussies about genocide/civilian suffering.

Here’s an idea:
Have cash crop industries be a type of building that substitutes for Civilian Factories (in terms of satisfying the requirements) but does nothing else. All it does is just free up your factories to do other things (including trade), or trade it for resources since the nation importing the agriculture can free up one of its factories.

Ie, Ag Industry acts as Civilian Industry for satisfying pop needs but not usable for constructing things.




Edit: For added complexity, maybe you can build Agricultural Industry quicker/cheaper than industry, so that would also be an incentive to develop it (free up other factories to use for useful things quickly, but then you're stuck with the shitty Ag Industry).
Some other things HOI doesn't represent as resources but maybe should are copper (for electronics), coal (for fueling industry), wood (wood is actually used in tons of things), and textiles.

I wish HOI actually tried to seriously represent civilian suffering. Food should be something that as it runs low you start to get major unrest, maluses, and falling National Unity, so starvation basically forces earlier surrender, see WW1. Britain basically stole food from Bangladesh to strategically kill off Bengalis and guarantee that the British population would not face too much privation. It's really gay how HOI only counts deaths as casualties, but when you get encircled the entire unit is counted (implying they all died).

Spoiler: Autism about casualties

A lot of this shit I'm going to spew would be more useful with a game that spans a longer timeframe so the consequences of war actually matter, but imagine casualties being decomposed into the following:
Killed in action
Prisoner of war
Deserter
Disabled
Cashiered
Wounded
Killed of disease
Killed of starvation

In combat, there would be a certain ratio of each to happen, and then circumstances and technologies would change the ratio, like a badly organized unit being defeated resulting in higher prisoners of war being taken or a very badly outmatched unit maybe suffering more deaths. Doctors could be an interesting resource (imagine like a trained pool of educated workers who can be put into slots like engineers, doctors, officers, etc.), but even without them medical supplies should be a good, and medical supply access, field hospitals, medical technology like penicillin would skew it more towards wounded than killed in action. Military hospitals would basically save some people from death/disabled to become cashiered/wounded, wounded meaning they're back in the fight (no manpower loss), cashiered meaning they're out of the fight (not usable for military service, but employable in industry). Prisoners of war would be a drain on the society that takes them, with options like setting their treatment status (potentially in violation of rules of warfare, like Bataan Death Marches or Andersonvilles) and what they're used for (like employment in industry); there's a WW1 fan grand strategy game that's going to include this.

If a province is getting really fucked up with strat bombers, active fighting over it, or cut off from supplies, civilian deaths should shoot up, and a province sufficiently traumatized by fighting should start to get epidemics.

Something HOI really lacks, but which it looks like Victoria 3 is actually going to do pretty well, is that it's all goofy fun time Byzantium-Kaiser-Confederacy-Ottoman-wheee. It sanitizes the war to an extent that's more offensive than portraying suffering would be. When I finish the Second American Civil War in Kaiserreich I want to see exactly how many civilians got turned to paste by shelling Chicago and when I liberate Germany in vanilla I want to see how many Jews died because D-Day failed and the Holocaust went on for another year.

That's one problem with Paradox's sissy "oh no what will the media think" attitude about the ugliness of history. When you make mechanics out of stuff like this you make it MORE EMOTIONAL AND IMPACTFUL, like This War of Mine did. People would praise it to high heaven.

One of you said a long time ago, when I brought it up, that a good Holocaust mechanic could be something where if you don't Holocaust enough you get a Himmler coup and are forced to go full Holocaust.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Does anyone remember when ISIS used a Victoria II map to show what there territorial goals was? Does anyone have that image?

 

[East_Clintwood]

Does anyone have that image?

This one?

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

This one?
View attachment 3481122

Yes, yes it is. Thank You.

 

[Bush King]

I like how they claimed west Tibet but not Azerbaijan, Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, the Volga/Siberian Muslims, or any territorial claims like Andalusia, Crimea, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, etc.

Also I guess Yemen gets to keep Socotra.

 

[Kane Lives]

I like how they claimed west Tibet but not Azerbaijan, Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, the Volga/Siberian Muslims, or any territorial claims like Andalusia, Crimea, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, etc.

Also I guess Yemen gets to keep Socotra.

Also weird oddities like claiming the entire Indian subcontinent, and the non-Muslim parts of SEAsia. Truly maximalist wargoals.

 

[Slap47]

I dont think theres enough aluminium accessible by the US to build 24 strat 2s in a day

Pretty sure not even the USA can crank out 40,000+ Shermans from 42-45 and still have the mils left over for a strategic bomber every hour from Willow Run. From March of 41 to the start of December the USA had cranked out over 2K M3 Stuarts. December of 1942 alone had over 1,500 M3's rolling off the line.

It's possible to get obscene numbers of tanks. Just spam a standardized model instead of constantly upgrading tanks.

If Paradox made the USA as overpowered as they were in real life they would ruin the game.

US bankrolled every major power including the USSR and was 60% of the world economy.

300,000 aircraft
150 aircraft carrier
90,000 tanks
3,000,000 trucks
250,000 artillery pieces
12,000,000 rifles + 2,000,000 Smgs

If anything, the fact that the USSR and UK can supply themselves is even historically imbalanced.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Pretty sure not even the USA can crank out 40,000+ Shermans from 42-45 and still have the mils left over for a strategic bomber every hour from Willow Run. From March of 41 to the start of December the USA had cranked out over 2K M3 Stuarts. December of 1942 alone had over 1,500 M3's rolling off the line.

Sounds like the same shit how in HOI3 it was borderline impossible to build the historic WWII US Navy--IIRC the only way was to use various exploits (and stuff like not using Lend Lease) while almost solely focusing on naval production (after building factories). Even building 24 Essex-class carriers and their accompanying air groups is basically impossible. Doubt you can in HOI4 either.

I'd rather the US be the FINAL BOSS of the game for the Axis and USSR. Finding a way to make the US admit defeat should be your final challenge in Hearts of Iron, and the AI should be balanced toward that. Japan needs to make their stupid IRL scheme that started with Pearl Harbor happen by making losses to the US too unacceptable and thus the US gives you the Philippines or otherwise abandons aiding China. Germany needs to crush the USSR, force the UK to a peace, and sink enough US shipping/warships to make the US ignore their conquests in Europe. The Soviets need to do the same. The US can have their actual production but has a host of restrictions on using it (especially before the war starts) and US AI would be singled out for nerfs if you turned down the difficulty. Hell, maybe the US player could hit a button to make the enemy ahistorically strong.

Britain should be something similar in Victoria but I don't think I ever had a satisfying war with them in hundreds of hours of playing Victoria 2. I wanna tell their obnoxious foreign policy to fuck off like the Kaiser did and when they send their Britbong soldiers and their allies after me I should feel a real challenge in disposing of them, especially if I try and best them at sea.

 

[Radola Gajda]

revolutions were made completely cancer,

Yeah last time Revolution spawned in my game. It spawned in one of Manchu tribes.

 

[Snekposter]

Sounds like the same shit how in HOI3 it was borderline impossible to build the historic WWII US Navy--IIRC the only way was to use various exploits (and stuff like not using Lend Lease) while almost solely focusing on naval production (after building factories). Even building 24 Essex-class carriers and their accompanying air groups is basically impossible. Doubt you can in HOI4 either.

I'd rather the US be the FINAL BOSS of the game for the Axis and USSR. Finding a way to make the US admit defeat should be your final challenge in Hearts of Iron, and the AI should be balanced toward that. Japan needs to make their stupid IRL scheme that started with Pearl Harbor happen by making losses to the US too unacceptable and thus the US gives you the Philippines or otherwise abandons aiding China. Germany needs to crush the USSR, force the UK to a peace, and sink enough US shipping/warships to make the US ignore their conquests in Europe. The Soviets need to do the same. The US can have their actual production but has a host of restrictions on using it (especially before the war starts) and US AI would be singled out for nerfs if you turned down the difficulty. Hell, maybe the US player could hit a button to make the enemy ahistorically strong.

Britain should be something similar in Victoria but I don't think I ever had a satisfying war with them in hundreds of hours of playing Victoria 2. I wanna tell their obnoxious foreign policy to fuck off like the Kaiser did and when they send their Britbong soldiers and their allies after me I should feel a real challenge in disposing of them, especially if I try and best them at sea.

Agreed. Won't PL by saying what mod I'm on, but we've had to actively nerf the USA hard from its historical capability and we still get complaints that the USA is OP and unbalanced and etc, etc. Hell, Germany was in a rock and a hard place as soon as the Battle of Britain was lost simply because the Royal Navy and RAF existed. Without the USA getting directly involved we likely would have seen the Brits go with their early war planning and invade Norway to choke out the iron supply from Sweden. Securing a bridge head across the Skagerrak into northern Denmark and then the Danish Belts would have opened up the Baltic Sea to the UK, and next thing you know they're shipping weapons and ammo right to St. Petersburg in exchange for whatever Russia can spare in the way of raw materials and oil. GG, no re Hitler.

It would have been a brutal, long, hard slog to victory, but the UK simply didn't have the manpower to directly invade Europe by themselves, and even with the USA doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in Normandy they were forced to use the Leafs as cannon fodder because they were that low on their own reserves.

 

[Bush King]

Agreed. Won't PL by saying what mod I'm on, but we've had to actively nerf the USA hard from its historical capability and we still get complaints that the USA is OP and unbalanced and etc, etc. Hell, Germany was in a rock and a hard place as soon as the Battle of Britain was lost simply because the Royal Navy and RAF existed. Without the USA getting directly involved we likely would have seen the Brits go with their early war planning and invade Norway to choke out the iron supply from Sweden. Securing a bridge head across the Skagerrak into northern Denmark and then the Danish Belts would have opened up the Baltic Sea to the UK, and next thing you know they're shipping weapons and ammo right to St. Petersburg in exchange for whatever Russia can spare in the way of raw materials and oil. GG, no re Hitler.

It would have been a brutal, long, hard slog to victory, but the UK simply didn't have the manpower to directly invade Europe by themselves, and even with the USA doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in Normandy they were forced to use the Leafs as cannon fodder because they were that low on their own reserves.

Even without the USA and USSR, I think the British could have won the war alone.

The African campaign is definitely not remembered the way it should be. The fall of Tunis shortly after the surrender at Stalingrad resulted in similar losses for the Germans. The British were set on Norway until the US told them to pound sand, and there's no way the Germans would have been able to retrieve or reinforce the 400,000+ garrison there once the British cut off the sea routes and starved them out. The Balkans were in open revolt by the end of 1943, with most of Yugoslavia outside of the major towns and rail lines being controlled by partisans. Greece was having an active civil war while also under occupation.

The British outproduced the Germans in all metrics except tanks and small arms, both of which the British would not have needed to exceed to pursue their strategy anyway. Germany's economy was slowly collapsing even by late 1940 (people don't understand the sheer scale of starvation caused, Germans were cutting calories in 1940/41 while Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR was in a forced famine). Sure, Britain was going to be bankrupt, but bankrupt while still having access to world trade and not starving is far superior to having piles of gold stolen from the conquered while you have no men in the fields to grow corn or grain. Germany was reaching a critical point for just civilian oil requirements even with access to the roads severely limited 1940, yet Britain had access to fields and refineries as far flung as South America and Iran, all out of reach of the Axis.

There is just no scenario where the Axis wins. Even in the reality we got, where the Germans rolled 9 Luck, they lost horribly. In a sensible world, they would have been stopped in Belgium and then collapsed after the Winter. Even if Germany was successful, it would only be "until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old". A population only slightly smaller than occupied Europe's, with a far stronger and completely undevestated economy, which had 85% of it's total trade being internal to the country, which had the unprecedented ability to say "nah, we don't need more tanks" when everyone else was struggling for more? A B-29 every hour can't be wrong. 13,000 B17s can't be wrong.

It says something that the British were able to produce more aircraft when they had a newspaper Baron in charge of the air ministry, while the Germans had experienced engineers and architects in that position. HoI4 should add a national spirit for the US and UK; "Jewish Tricks- +50% base production efficiency".

Edit: Fuck it, a magician magics Halifax into the Premiership before Poland gets invaded, France falls into the ocean, and the Germans conquer the Soviets. CANADA stands alone, and in all her underdogness still wins the damn war. She'd probably end up developing nukes in collaboration with British scientist's help and then send a fleet of reverse Amerika bombers into Germany by 1950.

 

[Snekposter]

Even without the USA and USSR, I think the British could have won the war alone.

The African campaign is definitely not remembered the way it should be. The fall of Tunis shortly after the surrender at Stalingrad resulted in similar losses for the Germans. The British were set on Norway until the US told them to pound sand, and there's no way the Germans would have been able to retrieve or reinforce the 400,000+ garrison there once the British cut off the sea routes and starved them out. The Balkans were in open revolt by the end of 1943, with most of Yugoslavia outside of the major towns and rail lines being controlled by partisans. Greece was having an active civil war while also under occupation.

The British outproduced the Germans in all metrics except tanks and small arms, both of which the British would not have needed to exceed to pursue their strategy anyway. Germany's economy was slowly collapsing even by late 1940 (people don't understand the sheer scale of starvation caused, Germans were cutting calories in 1940/41 while Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR was in a forced famine). Sure, Britain was going to be bankrupt, but bankrupt while still having access to world trade and not starving is far superior to having piles of gold stolen from the conquered while you have no men in the fields to grow corn or grain. Germany was reaching a critical point for just civilian oil requirements even with access to the roads severely limited 1940, yet Britain had access to fields and refineries as far flung as South America and Iran, all out of reach of the Axis.

There is just no scenario where the Axis wins. Even in the reality we got, where the Germans rolled 9 Luck, they lost horribly. In a sensible world, they would have been stopped in Belgium and then collapsed after the Winter. Even if Germany was successful, it would only be "until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old". A population only slightly smaller than occupied Europe's, with a far stronger and completely undevestated economy, which had 85% of it's total trade being internal to the country, which had the unprecedented ability to say "nah, we don't need more tanks" when everyone else was struggling for more? A B-29 every hour can't be wrong. 13,000 B17s can't be wrong.

It says something that the British were able to produce more aircraft when they had a newspaper Baron in charge of the air ministry, while the Germans had experienced engineers and architects in that position. HoI4 should add a national spirit for the US and UK; "Jewish Tricks- +50% base production efficiency".

Will mostly agree with you except for a few points. The Germans weren't actually starving as much as people think they were. Their overall caloric intake was little different from the British one, even with the bombing campaign going on. Turns out that even with every able-bodied man fighting instead of farming... Germany really isn't all that agriculturally productive in the first place (the Morgenthau Plan to forcibly convert Germany into farms instead of factories was estimated to kill or displace millions due to starvation and famine) and they were able to exploit the rest of Europe to compensate. Plus it isn't like Britain itself is known for having food surpluses, you know, especially with them almost as desperate for manpower as the Germans due to the difference in population sizes and the need to keep the Royal Navy manned. The U-boat campaign was also surprisingly effective early on at interdicting vital imports such as oil, the only part of the British Empire that could effectively support them was Canada, with India and the Aussies/NZ having problems of their own with Japan and the Brits forced to pull back into the Burmese jungles instead of fighting the Japanese more directly until the USA had done all the hard work there, the British Pacific Fleet being them showing up at the last minute to snatch some vestige of glory. Oh, and the Brits were so fucking poor Cash-and-Carry took just about every single dollar they had in the USA, and were forced to cede control over the Western Atlantic to the USA just to get some obsolete destroyers that had been in mothballs since WW1 for ASW purposes.

Not to disagree with you on how fucked long-term Germany was or the inevitability of a UK victory, but it definitely would have taken several more years of conflict as the Germans were painfully attritioned of everything, because they were sure as shit going to melt down their belt buckles for gunmetal if its that or some quality time with an SS interrogator.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Even without the USA and USSR, I think the British could have won the war alone.

The African campaign is definitely not remembered the way it should be. The fall of Tunis shortly after the surrender at Stalingrad resulted in similar losses for the Germans. The British were set on Norway until the US told them to pound sand, and there's no way the Germans would have been able to retrieve or reinforce the 400,000+ garrison there once the British cut off the sea routes and starved them out. The Balkans were in open revolt by the end of 1943, with most of Yugoslavia outside of the major towns and rail lines being controlled by partisans. Greece was having an active civil war while also under occupation.

Ridiculous. The planned British Norwegian campaign was pure lunacy since it would just tie down a bunch of men in a strategically worthless target. They already had done significant damage to

The British outproduced the Germans in all metrics except tanks and small arms, both of which the British would not have needed to exceed to pursue their strategy anyway. Germany's economy was slowly collapsing even by late 1940 (people don't understand the sheer scale of starvation caused, Germans were cutting calories in 1940/41 while Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR was in a forced famine). Sure, Britain was going to be bankrupt, but bankrupt while still having access to world trade and not starving is far superior to having piles of gold stolen from the conquered while you have no men in the fields to grow corn or grain. Germany was reaching a critical point for just civilian oil requirements even with access to the roads severely limited 1940, yet Britain had access to fields and refineries as far flung as South America and Iran, all out of reach of the Axis.

Germany was confiscating significant amounts of food from conquered Europe and would continue to reduce rations given to Jews and Slavs throughout the war. They weren't in any real danger of famine until they lost the populations they were stealing food from. Further, they were building new oil infrastructure including artificial oil plants and of course one of the main goals of the USSR campaign was to seize the bulk of Soviet oil. And some British refineries weren't that well protected, given they had to fight a month-long campaign against both Iraq and Iran because there was an obvious threat to their oil supply there.

There is just no scenario where the Axis wins. Even in the reality we got, where the Germans rolled 9 Luck, they lost horribly. In a sensible world, they would have been stopped in Belgium and then collapsed after the Winter. Even if Germany was successful, it would only be "until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old". A population only slightly smaller than occupied Europe's, with a far stronger and completely undevestated economy, which had 85% of it's total trade being internal to the country, which had the unprecedented ability to say "nah, we don't need more tanks" when everyone else was struggling for more? A B-29 every hour can't be wrong. 13,000 B17s can't be wrong.

This is like inverse-Wehraboo logic where Germany is led by incompetent fools with awful equipment and an economy one step from collapsing when in reality their economic model was perfectly suited for what they aimed to do--rearm as fast as possible and hit France and the Soviets before they can do so as well, and pay for it by looting the fuck out of occupied countries (which had the nice side effect of clearing up space for Lebensraum and Generalplan Ost).

A successful attack in the south, which wouldn't require an unrealistic amount of luck on the part of the Germans, then a lot of Lend Lease would get cut along with a lot of Soviet oil from Baku meaning the Soviet ability for massive counterattacks is weakened, meaning both Moscow and Leningrad could be captured. Leningrad probably could have anyway if the Finns had put more effort into it. And once the USSR is defeated, there's no reason for the UK and US to keep fighting against Germany. They have their hands full with Japan and all Hitler needs to do is throw his ally under the bus and be content with the UK being Airstrip One and he's won. Just because Britain stayed at war with France and Napoleon for over 20 years doesn't mean there would be the will to do the same with Germany.

It says something that the British were able to produce more aircraft when they had a newspaper Baron in charge of the air ministry, while the Germans had experienced engineers and architects in that position. HoI4 should add a national spirit for the US and UK; "Jewish Tricks- +50% base production efficiency".


Edit: Fuck it, a magician magics Halifax into the Premiership before Poland gets invaded, France falls into the ocean, and the Germans conquer the Soviets. CANADA stands alone, and in all her underdogness still wins the damn war. She'd probably end up developing nukes in collaboration with British scientist's help and then send a fleet of reverse Amerika bombers into Germany by 1950.

Without American funding its pretty clear the British would have bowed out of the war in Europe and focused on getting their colonies back from Japan.

 

[Bush King]

Will mostly agree with you except for a few points. The Germans weren't actually starving as much as people think they were. Their overall caloric intake was little different from the British one, even with the bombing campaign going on. Turns out that even with every able-bodied man fighting instead of farming... Germany really isn't all that agriculturally productive in the first place (the Morgenthau Plan to forcibly convert Germany into farms instead of factories was estimated to kill or displace millions due to starvation and famine) and they were able to exploit the rest of Europe to compensate. Plus it isn't like Britain itself is known for having food surpluses, you know, especially with them almost as desperate for manpower as the Germans due to the difference in population sizes and the need to keep the Royal Navy manned. The U-boat campaign was also surprisingly effective early on at interdicting vital imports such as oil, the only part of the British Empire that could effectively support them was Canada, with India and the Aussies/NZ having problems of their own with Japan and the Brits forced to pull back into the Burmese jungles instead of fighting the Japanese more directly until the USA had done all the hard work there, the British Pacific Fleet being them showing up at the last minute to snatch some vestige of glory. Oh, and the Brits were so fucking poor Cash-and-Carry took just about every single dollar they had in the USA, and were forced to cede control over the Western Atlantic to the USA just to get some obsolete destroyers that had been in mothballs since WW1 for ASW purposes.

Not to disagree with you on how fucked long-term Germany was or the inevitability of a UK victory, but it definitely would have taken several more years of conflict as the Germans were painfully attritioned of everything, because they were sure as shit going to melt down their belt buckles for gunmetal if its that or some quality time with an SS interrogator.

Don't get me wrong, a lone Britain was not going to have an easy time of it. We know how bad the situation was in from May '40 to June '41, writ large to almost a decade it would be nightmarish.

Goebbels diaries begin talking about hunger issues in 1940. They didn't have actual hunger in Germany during the war- by the time their sources were cut off, the war was won. They had a season of fighting from the Bulge until US aid imports. Yet it was still dire. The food czars were actively shrinking meat rations, replacing fats like butter with substitutes, the agricultural industry was moving to hand labour during Barbarossa, and female labour was unable to keep the same pace as the menfolk. Ultimately it was other's who paid the price- the Greeks lost up to half a million, the Dutch lost few due to neutral imports but largely subsisted on soup to feed the German interior, France was forced to send most production to Germany, and of course the East was intimately connected to starvation as direct policy, if not pragmatic concerns.

I think a Britain in crisis would have major steps left. They never conscripted in India, which provided millions of volunteers. They certainly ran out of money and had concerns outside of Europe, but a Britain alone necessitates a lack of Japanese intervention- there was no way they would have attacked the British without also taking the Philippines and therefore bringing in the US. They also wouldn't be supplying the Soviets in this scenario. The Commonwealth completely in lockstep with a conflict against Germany and no other concerns is a Commonwealth at peak performance.

It's a counter-factual, there is no ability to judge this. My point is largely that whatever the issues Britain had, they had ways of dealing with them and those ways were entirely out of range of German and Italian machinations. Even the minor colonies like Canada and Australia had the ability to act as giant players. The reverse is not true.

@Save the Loli What you say about Norway is perfectly true- for the Germans. They sent something like 400,000 men there who just sat around doing nothing for the entire war. Britain intended to go against the easy targets at the periphery. A blockaded Norway overstuffed with troops is an easy target when cut off from home. German food supplies were increasingly at risk, and them controlling Ukraine meant nothing. After the first confiscation in '41 very little remained- what few stocks were produced were consumed by the troops in the East as production was well below pre-war levels. The oil campaign was lost in '42- they could never have met demand with synthetic sources (they had only achieved something like 15% of needs despite a policy of autarky from 1933) and Case Blue was a monumental failure. You say I'm using reverse Wehraboo logic yet you start bringing up a successful Case Blue? The reality is that it failed. The Axis had the best shot of success with their luck and still failed. That is the entire point. There was no getting the oil from the Caucasus. Even had they won that campaign, the losses were irreplacable and it would take months for any production to start flowing back to the Reich after the fields were destroyed, then several more months for it to be refined, and finally sent back East for use. Without American funding the Japs don't attack the US. The Japs attacked the Phillipines specifically because they did not want an unsinkable aircraft carrier straddling their supply lines to Indonesian resources. If Japan attacks Britain, Britain gets US funding. The Brits also could not give less of a shit about Malaya and Hong Kong when Germany is right next door. This would be like the Soviets giving up Ukraine to protect China against the Japanese.

 

[Snekposter]

Without American funding its pretty clear the British would have bowed out of the war in Europe and focused on getting their colonies back from Japan.

@Save the Loli You've got it backwards. They had zero ability to fight the Japanese in their home theater half a world away, and in fact had already begun to abandon them to focus on Europe. It wasn't until the Japanese were handed intelligence from the Germans alerting them the British were leaving the Pacific that they felt emboldened to make their move, especially since they were already bogged down in a war against China that wasn't going as well as they had intended.

@Bush King Its hard to say how well they could have effectively mobilized India given the existence of the pro-independence movement and the Indian National Army, but even without fighting Japan its doubtful they would have been able to do much regarding the war in Europe due to transportation and supply difficulties. As to the rest, we're not disagreeing, at least so far as if we include Japan declaring war on them. Without the threat of a Japanese invasion India and AUS/NZ would have been far freer to reinforce the UK, even if just with various small arms and supplies, but given what a knife edge so much of the war was it definitely would have tipped the scales. As to Russia, they needed to supply the USSR with anything because if they didn't backstop the USSR, their own internal issues with supply and transportation would have lead to at best things grinding to a halt for them somewhere to the west of Stalingrad and Moscow, the line turning into a bunch of Rzhev-style salients of attack and counter-attack on both ends. Or in other words, two logistics retards fighting. The Germans had no fuel, and the Russians no trucks.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

The Germans in Norway were precisely so the British wouldn't invade and take out U-Boat bases as well as to ensure Sweden kept providing Germany with resources and didn't try and join an Allied invasion. That's why they were mostly low-quality units with limited mobility, even if reducing the garrison was feasible. Invading Norway doesn't make any strategic sense given that by the time the invasion was feasible, the U-Boat threat was reduced because of convoys, Norway was getting bombed and the waters mined. There's an obvious reason it was cancelled, since it was as dumb as other plans like invading Europe through the Balkans.

And Case Blue succeeding was a real possibility. All it would take is Stalin to make another stupid decision or two and failed attacks elsewhere and that cascades into Nazi success. Sure, the Germans can't go much further than Stalingrad, but denied of manpower, food, oil, and supplies the Soviets will eventually quit the war and prepare for round two.

There was no getting the oil from the Caucasus. Even had they won that campaign, the losses were irreplacable and it would take months for any production to start flowing back to the Reich after the fields were destroyed, then several more months for it to be refined, and finally sent back East for use

During which time not a drop will go to the Soviets, nor will the Lend Lease that came via the Caucasus and Caspian come through the way (IIRC 1/3 or so, cutting Leningrad would take out everything except that which came via the Trans-Siberian Railroad). Therefore large-scale counterattacks are not possible. It protects the flank advancing on (or even past) Moscow while once Stalingrad is secured then that entire area can be deprioritized (as advancing much further is dangerous), therefore diverting soldiers and supplies toward Moscow and Leningrad. No, it was perfectly winnable, even if the Nazis didn't do the obvious (because their ideology was pro-German) which was conducting the war as anti-communist crusade instead of the mixed messages and poor use and recruitment of potential anti-communist allies.

The Brits also could not give less of a shit about Malaya and Hong Kong when Germany is right next door.

You mean the important base for communication with Australia/New Zealand (and allied China) and the place that produced a fuckton of rubber? They cared enough that they lost a couple capital ships, lost 130K soldiers, and had to continually reinforce India which tied down plenty of resources. Nothing unimportant about that. Germany can't attack Britain because the Royal Navy was to fight to the last ship and Operation Sealion was the stupidest plan ever, Britain can't attack Germany because coastal defenses are too strong.

Without American funding the Japs don't attack the US. The Japs attacked the Phillipines specifically because they did not want an unsinkable aircraft carrier straddling their supply lines to Indonesian resources

Except they literally have to because they were running out of resources because of the embargo and the Strike North plan was cancelled after meeting heavy Soviet resistance.

@Save the Loli You've got it backwards. They had zero ability to fight the Japanese in their home theater half a world away, and in fact had already begun to abandon them to focus on Europe. It wasn't until the Japanese were handed intelligence from the Germans alerting them the British were leaving the Pacific that they felt emboldened to make their move, especially since they were already bogged down in a war against China that wasn't going as well as they had intended.

Are you talking about 1940 or post-1941? It's pretty obvious Japan had to expand the war themselves since like Germany, they were running out of resources.

 

[Bush King]

The Germans in Norway were precisely so the British wouldn't invade and take out U-Boat bases as well as to ensure Sweden kept providing Germany with resources and didn't try and join an Allied invasion. That's why they were mostly low-quality units with limited mobility, even if reducing the garrison was feasible. Invading Norway doesn't make any strategic sense given that by the time the invasion was feasible, the U-Boat threat was reduced because of convoys, Norway was getting bombed and the waters mined. There's an obvious reason it was cancelled, since it was as dumb as other plans like invading Europe through the Balkans.

A lot of British plans made little strategic sense. This is same country that invaded Italy from the heel up, and thought driving from Athens to Berlin would be easier than going from Normandy.

The truth is that Churchill wanted to reverse the embarrassment of Norway. Even if we discount the strategic sense, 400,000 troops having to surrender because they were unable to get supplies especially so close to home would be a travesty and one worth pursuing. Again, British strategy was soft, peripheral targets, which Norway certainly was. As you say, those troops were not quality. They were static, lucky to have light mortars as support. In a world without US intervention, Norway becomes far more attractive an option than Italy- they don't have the US sending ships and patrolling convoys in the West Atlantic, and so those U-Boat pens would have been a threat far longer.

And Case Blue succeeding was a real possibility. All it would take is Stalin to make another stupid decision or two and failed attacks elsewhere and that cascades into Nazi success. Sure, the Germans can't go much further than Stalingrad, but denied of manpower, food, oil, and supplies the Soviets will eventually quit the war and prepare for round two.

Again, we had this hypothesis in reality already tried, tested, and proved false.

Stalin made many mistakes, as did his generals. The historiography, as Glantz has shown, has moved towards the position that Case Blue was lost in the opening as they secured the bend of the Don river- there were simply far too many German casualties that could not be sustained, and no amount of mistakes will remove the fact that the Soviets have two massive armoured Fronts in reserve. Again, even if the campaign were successful, you'd be waiting months for the oil deposits to finally being used by troops and industry, while the Soviets would have received even more through Archangelsk and Vladivostok as Lend-Lease.

During which time not a drop will go to the Soviets, nor will the Lend Lease that came via the Caucasus and Caspian come through the way (IIRC 1/3 or so, cutting Leningrad would take out everything except that which came via the Trans-Siberian Railroad). Therefore large-scale counterattacks are not possible. It protects the flank advancing on (or even past) Moscow while once Stalingrad is secured then that entire area can be deprioritized (as advancing much further is dangerous), therefore diverting soldiers and supplies toward Moscow and Leningrad. No, it was perfectly winnable, even if the Nazis didn't do the obvious (because their ideology was pro-German) which was conducting the war as anti-communist crusade instead of the mixed messages and poor use and recruitment of potential anti-communist allies.

The Germans invaded with Finns, Romanians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Hungarians, Czechs, Croats, Albanians, Norwegians, Swedes, and others. I don't think any more recruitment was going to change anything. Further, German had the men- the issue was getting them anywhere, especially when it can be weeks between a request and troops arriving (which is why they had more casualties than could be replaced despite reserves). Even assuming this would change the Soviet position, they weren't going to surrender.

You mean the important base for communication with Australia/New Zealand (and allied China) and the place that produced a fuckton of rubber? They cared enough that they lost a couple capital ships, lost 130K soldiers, and had to continually reinforce India which tied down plenty of resources. Nothing unimportant about that. Germany can't attack Britain because the Royal Navy was to fight to the last ship and Operation Sealion was the stupidest plan ever, Britain can't attack Germany because coastal defenses are too strong.

They cared and yet they only sent one modern battleship and most of the forces there were Indian. The other Commonwealth forces fought in the PNG and Pacific, not Asia.

Again, care as they might, they didn't treat it as any more than a secondary conflict. Even once Germany was defeated, they were slow going.

Except they literally have to because they were running out of resources because of the embargo and the Strike North plan was cancelled after meeting heavy Soviet resistance.

You misinterpret my point.

If there is no funding from the US, it means the US doesn't get involved. The US would never withhold support from a war ally. If they are attacked by Japan, they send shit to Britain. It's a counter-factual where there is no US support, ergo discounting Japan.