How much of an advantage do the allies start with at the beginning of the game?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The discussion about what would`ve happened in France tried to push into Saar seem quite wierd.

A nice look at what actually happened, reveals that Polish army, 2 weeks into the invasion, bu 14 september was already crushed, huge portion of it was surrounded and Poland lost huge territory and simply couldn`t mobilize any more forces.

Considering Allies only managed to start Saar the offensive on 7th of September, Allies basically had 7 days to make Germans radically review their plans, which is doubtful.

These are all good points. Time really is against France on this one. Which feeds into your next point:

French army couldn`t attack at similar to Wehrmacht speed, and it would see opposition. Yes, those were not Best German forces, but even bad forces, can hold the line for long if sufficient morale is present, and Germans had prepared defense line to fall back on, and did I mention Germans could fight in Urban areas for very long, forcing allies to commit huge forces to surrounding the cities.

Most probable outcome would be French simply failing to make enough progress in the 1-2 weeks they had to make it meter. Neither French, nor british were really capable of fast offensive, and it is quite questionable if the French even had the necessary spare parts and repair capacity for their tanks, considering how hard they failed at using them in their own soil, in 1940.

You seem to be arguing that the fast operational tempo required to make the Saar offensive matter in 1939 isn't present in either French or British capabilities. I won't argue against your point on this one. You'd need someone like Guderian, backed up by a logistics network and superiors who can support such an action.

But that line of arguing is silly, you`re suggesting that German player needs a skill advantage, which shouldn`t be necessary. Also, you may want to look at MP games, France tends to hold way more than historical in HOI3, despite your claim that the German buffs make his army imbalanced.

No, I'm saying that historical Germany had a skill advantage in its leaders and doctrines. This means that if you want to replicate the historical results, you need that kind of skill advantage.

If you just want to defeat France in general terms, then you don't need that skill advantage. Take a leisurely 12 months to defeat France if you want. Bleed the French white, or bomb them to death, or slowly pick apart the French army in key combats, or even let the Italians soak some bullets for you.

But if you want the gold medal (and Germany gets the gold medal for winning the Battle of France in such a short time and with such few losses), then I don't think it's unreasonable to demand gold medal performance.

I certainly wouldn't tell the least skilled player in an MP group to take Germany for a spin if decisions weren't in play. Germany just isn't going to have the resources for Barbarossa in MP if she doesn't defeat France quickly and easily. (And even then, it's touch and go if the Soviet player has skill, or if house rules don't prevent certain kids of things.)

Of course, lots of people (not just in HOI3) just play MP for the lulz. And I also understand that. But if your playing just for the fun of it, then the time it takes to defeat France isn't as important.

France falls in MP games, but the importance is not IF it falls, but how it falls and how much did Germany lost. I can`t see how you, of all the people fail to see the difference.

Yes, I see there is a major difference. In fact, part of France's contribution to the war effort (in MP or SP) is how much is hurts Germany during the Battle of France. I get that.

I also understand that Germany winning or losing Barbarossa has a connection to its victory over France. I also understand that.

Magic modifiers are bad, but do be fair, Allies, and especially SU rely on those even heavier. The game mechanics simply doesn`t allow SU to rebuild army as fast, needing to give them magical buff making their militia as good as infantry, while their tanks super cheap and fast to produce, but only for a year.

Well, since you brought it up, I don't like those decisions either. The Their Finest Hour decision in particular is irritating to me for a whole list of reasons, although the Soviets conjuring up manpower, tanks, and ORG out of thin air rankles me, too. The near invincibility of the RAF for several months is even worse than Germany's decisions, but it's less of a problem, because British ground forces aren't affected, making Sealion still a possibility. An invincible RAF, ironically, makes getting across the Channel more important, because there is nothing to be gained for months on end by just waging an air war over Britain (or the cost to benefit ratio is so bad that you might as well build some extra battleships and just force the damn Channel when the human player isn't looking).

Again, though, these decisions create bizarre strategic situations for players, causing strategies to be based on the decisions rather than the actual circumstances of the war. Their Finest Hour is a classical example of this: clever players who are in the mood to bomb Britain into rubble will start bombing Britain before France falls just because the British can't fire the decision yet. This has nothing to do with strategic position, resource allocation, or national goals. Then there's the whining from Soviet players in SP who want their 2500 manpower up front, rather than triggering it by losing territory. There are whole strategies that involve losing just enough VPs as the Soviets to fire the extra manpower, so you can then go on the conquer the world.

Think about what I just said: there are whole strategies built around losing enough territory to get the benefits Soviet decisions and events provide. I never do it (I consider it part of playing the Soviets better than history to never get to the point where I fire Great Patriotic War), but that doesn't change the fact that it is very efficient to do this.

No that is not what I'm saying. There are many reasons to 'nerf' France but only one scenario not to. Also there are many ways to 'nerf' them and I'll discuss a few.

1) AI Germany vs. AI France. This needs nerfs else the whole game is busted if France survives.
2) Human Germany vs. Human France (MP). Again you need to have France lose fairly quickly else the whole rest of the game is busted.
3) Human France vs. German AI. Heck even in HOI3 WITH the nerfs you could still win. Now you want to make it easier? At least the nerfs offered a somewhat harder game as France.
4) Human Germany vs. French AI. This is the ONLY scenario where an argument can be made to make France stronger.

I have already acknowledged that in AI versus AI, some kind of set up is needed to ensure France screws up. I'd prefer some kind of crappy battleplan and crappy use of leaders to buffs and whatnot, though. After all, a human Britain needs some kind of incentive to support the French, and if Voldemort waves a wand and causes 80% of the ORG in the French army to disappear via event or decision in AI versus AI play, a human Britain is just going to write off AI France every time.

As for #2, why is the whole rest of the game busted? If the only MP players are France and Germany, then nerfing France to ahistorical levels makes no sense. If there are several MP players, then perhaps you have identified another flaw in the game inadvertently. You seem to really be saying, "HOI3 is not interesting if Germany doesn't start Barbarossa on schedule and with sufficient strength." Fair enough, but shouldn't the rest of the game be interesting regardless? I mean, not to be picky, but there's the whole Pacific War to think about. If the Pacific is interesting, then even if Germany gets stuck in a 12 month slog in France, a US player has something to do in the future. Now, you are going to say, "But it's not interesting in MP," and I might agree with you (depends on house rules and how Japan is played), but that's got nothing to do with France and Germany. That has everything to do with how Asia and the Pacific is represented.

So, it seems to me that the real problem is "In MP, there is nothing interesting to do if things go off the rails in 1940." That's not the same thing as saying, "Well, we need to nerf France in MP."

Now I'm not going to get into which army was better etc. But we do know Germany defeated France in 6 weeks. That can't be denied.

There are many ways to do this 'nerf'. HOI3 picked one way. But I've played board games where either Germany got a +2 to die rolls and France a -2 or if they had CRT's with multiple columns the Germans got a positive column shift and the French a negative one.

We can't force the French AI to make stupid decisions when playing against the AI but smart ones against a human so nerfs based on those (like battle plans) will most likely apply across the board. Maybe the combat formulas for HOI4 will be very different from HOI3 but who knows.

Well, you can do this, but I think podcat and other Devs have made it clear that they won't deliberately try to make a "dumb AI" for various reasons.

But I submit to you that giving France a crappy battleplan (or two) and just letting the AI run with them would go a long way to giving a nerf to France that doesn't involve deleting the OOB or just giving Germany arbitrary bonuses. I mean, the historical battleplan Gamelin used has flaws. And if you know the AI is going to use the Dyle Plan most of the time, the a human Germany can strategize around that.

The bottom line is this. For all but one scenario France needs to lose and lose historically fast. So it really falls on those that don't want a nerf to France to come up with ideas where the rest of the scenarios don't break. HOI3 took an easy route to do this. Most likely HOI4 will also pick a method that doesn't require lot's of programming, balancing and other issues.

No. In at least one scenario, France needs to lose fast because apparently there's nothing else to do in MP if Frane doesn't fall, or nothing interesting to do at least. Perhaps HOI4 will rectify this problem.

And, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone in MP from just picking a start date after the fall of France. That is, assuming your not playing in one of the "fast" MP games that starts in 1936, and sees war in 1937.
 
Praetori,

Even though the game mechanics may all work out as you say, I hope so in fact. I think the weakness in your scenario comes down to the decision process of the players themselves. I see your two scenarios as wishful thinking. I don't believe that any French player will be lured into a major trap no matter what intel he may have stumbled into. A commander must prepare for the worst, i.e. the sickle cut through the Ardennes behind your advanced forces. If the cost of being more convservative is giving up Belgium and the Netherlands too easily, I beleive that is a price that the French player will almost always be willing to pay in light of historical hindsight.
 
Well, since you brought it up, I don't like those decisions either. The Their Finest Hour decision in particular is irritating to me for a whole list of reasons, although the Soviets conjuring up manpower, tanks, and ORG out of thin air rankles me, too. The near invincibility of the RAF for several months is even worse than Germany's decisions, but it's less of a problem, because British ground forces aren't affected, making Sealion still a possibility. An invincible RAF, ironically, makes getting across the Channel more important, because there is nothing to be gained for months on end by just waging an air war over Britain (or the cost to benefit ratio is so bad that you might as well build some extra battleships and just force the damn Channel when the human player isn't looking).

Again, though, these decisions create bizarre strategic situations for players, causing strategies to be based on the decisions rather than the actual circumstances of the war. Their Finest Hour is a classical example of this: clever players who are in the mood to bomb Britain into rubble will start bombing Britain before France falls just because the British can't fire the decision yet. This has nothing to do with strategic position, resource allocation, or national goals. Then there's the whining from Soviet players in SP who want their 2500 manpower up front, rather than triggering it by losing territory. There are whole strategies that involve losing just enough VPs as the Soviets to fire the extra manpower, so you can then go on the conquer the world.
This. The decisions in Hoi3 are really bad because not everyone has them, and because they're too strong. DH has some nice decisions, which represents a large scale effort or offensive, and which gives some bonus (nothing outstanding, but allows to get on the offensive or such), but to everyone. USSR gets Winter Offensive Chit, others get a generic one, etc. That lasts 1 month, and you can do it once a year (or something like that), and it costs supplies and fuel, ofc. That's more interesting, because you decide when you make a massive offensive, but it doesn't make your troops better in combat (though they reorganize a bit faster), and the decision without some plan behind is just wasted supplies.

So, it seems to me that the real problem is "In MP, there is nothing interesting to do if things go off the rails in 1940." That's not the same thing as saying, "Well, we need to nerf France in MP."

No. In at least one scenario, France needs to lose fast because apparently there's nothing else to do in MP if Frane doesn't fall, or nothing interesting to do at least. Perhaps HOI4 will rectify this problem.

And, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone in MP from just picking a start date after the fall of France. That is, assuming your not playing in one of the "fast" MP games that starts in 1936, and sees war in 1937.
And this is another good point. Hoi3 was too rigid, meaning that only one scenario could happen, and everything was railroaded. Some minor things could change (a minor power joining one side instead of the other), but nothing really meaningful. If the AI in its diplomatic attitude could be better, then things could happen even if some war go off road. Some stuff is just stuck, when a lot of different outcomes (not unrealistic, but historically plausible) could be happening.


Also, concerning the battle plans, it seems kinda weird a mechanism. The attacker seems favored, unless he's directly countered (or your defense plan is perfect, which won't happen).
 
Not fighting alongside the Germans as in 'Hey, Arian brothers, so great to see you.'
But if France violated their neutrality, would they just have let it happen?
And if the Uk would not have done anything to stop it (which they wouldn't) isn't German then the last place to turn to?

As a belgian myself, I would like to be able to say: "no, it would never happen."
The only elephant in the room is the king of Belgium. I won't bore you with all the details, but after the war, Belgium had several months where we teetered on the brink of civil war, because there was good circumstantial evidence that king Leopold III was a collaborator. Only his resignation in favor of his son, Boudewijn, prevented that civil war.
Depending on the interpretation of the devs, with the Allies violating Belgian neutrality, it might be possible for Belgium to seek help in Germany.
 
As a belgian myself, I would like to be able to say: "no, it would never happen."
The only elephant in the room is the king of Belgium. I won't bore you with all the details, but after the war, Belgium had several months where we teetered on the brink of civil war, because there was good circumstantial evidence that king Leopold III was a collaborator. Only his resignation in favor of his son, Boudewijn, prevented that civil war.
Depending on the interpretation of the devs, with the Allies violating Belgian neutrality, it might be possible for Belgium to seek help in Germany.

To ask a more specific question, how invested in realpolitik was the Belgian cabinet in 1939-1940? Germany had given Belgium a guarantee of neutrality in 1937, and Belgium had left its treaty commitments in 1936. Would Pierlot and his ministers have been willing to join with Germany if the French invaded in 1939? The king's unconstitutional actions notwithstanding, would it make sense in terms of political expediency to align with Germany in the case of French attack, or would it have made more sense for Belgium to cave to French pressure in light of the value of the Congo?
 
But the Allies DID violate Belgium's neutrality. How did the French army go to Belgium and Netherlands ? They went in without asking, and were treated as invaders by the population. The government, however, recognized Germany as the greater threat (plus memories of the WWI), and only then made an alliance with the Allies. When they had already begun to advance on Belgian soil.
As such, unless you have a much less aggressive Germany, Belgium is not gonna fight on their side, as it was very Allies leaning (and one of the reason it broke its alliance with them before was because of their inaction against Germany in 36).
Plus, Leopold III was quite supportive of the Allies (though favoring the Belgian's interests, ofc).
 
To ask a more specific question, how invested in realpolitik was the Belgian cabinet in 1939-1940? Germany had given Belgium a guarantee of neutrality in 1937, and Belgium had left its treaty commitments in 1936. Would Pierlot and his ministers have been willing to join with Germany if the French invaded in 1939? The king's unconstitutional actions notwithstanding, would it make sense in terms of political expediency to align with Germany in the case of French attack, or would it have made more sense for Belgium to cave to French pressure in light of the value of the Congo?

That's a good question. First of all, Belgium is a Constitutional Monarchy, making the king more of a figurehead with some very real influence but no say. If parliament told him to sign a new law, it would be unconstitutional for him to refuse. Boudewijn, in the late '80s or early '90s, declared himself "unfit to rule" for a week because he wouldn't sign an abortion law.
So despite his massive influence, the king had no say.
A second thing to mention (especially for the British and Americans reading this) is that, in Belgium, a coalition government is the rule. In 1939-40, you had a tripartite of Catholics, Liberals (read as modern-day conservative Republicans in the US) and Socialists.
Under those circumstances, caving in to one side or the other would have led to massive unrest in Parliament. It could have toppled the government.
All of Pierlot's actions and decisions during and after the war, tell me that he would have fallen back on the constitution. I like to think that he would have surrendered to the French after putting up a token resistance.
it is worth noting that Degrelle's fascist party, Rex, only had 5 seats in parliament after the 1939 elections, ruling them out as a factor.
 
But the Allies DID violate Belgium's neutrality. How did the French army go to Belgium and Netherlands ? They went in without asking, and were treated as invaders by the population. The government, however, recognized Germany as the greater threat (plus memories of the WWI), and only then made an alliance with the Allies. When they had already begun to advance on Belgian soil.
As such, unless you have a much less aggressive Germany, Belgium is not gonna fight on their side, as it was very Allies leaning (and one of the reason it broke its alliance with them before was because of their inaction against Germany in 36).
Plus, Leopold III was quite supportive of the Allies (though favoring the Belgian's interests, ofc).

That's not the case. The Allies went in after an agreement was reached. They would have gone in much sooner to fortify (as Germany thought they would) if they intended to violate Belgium's neutrality.

The cascade of events starting with the Rhineland crisis in '36 and its effects on minor powers like Belgium can't be over exaggerated. If France and Britain had taken strong action in '36 things would have been much different.

Leopold obviously was a negative factor as well.

If the Allies "invaded" Belgium earlier, I don't think resistance would've even been possible. I'm sure all their guns were pointing toward Germany.
 
Praetori,

Even though the game mechanics may all work out as you say, I hope so in fact. I think the weakness in your scenario comes down to the decision process of the players themselves. I see your two scenarios as wishful thinking. I don't believe that any French player will be lured into a major trap no matter what intel he may have stumbled into. A commander must prepare for the worst, i.e. the sickle cut through the Ardennes behind your advanced forces. If the cost of being more convservative is giving up Belgium and the Netherlands too easily, I beleive that is a price that the French player will almost always be willing to pay in light of historical hindsight.

Indeed. But the French will always be at a disadvantage if they try to cover every eventuality and make a battleplan that covers the entire front. If they concentrate around the Ardennes and the German Schwerpunkt is on the Belgian border then the massed German formations there will (after overwhelming the less numerous allied forces on the Belgian border by brute force) drive straight down to Paris while the Allied main front is kept at the Ardennes. The attacker will always have the edge since the side with the most up-to-date battleplan and longest preparation time will get the most bonuses. Even a defense in-depth with units that have just been assigned to the battleplan will, as far as have been explained, be at a gross disadvantage to the attacker (assuming the attacker is following his battleplan with forces assigned well in advance).
In effect assigning forces to a secondary battleplan as a counter once you've discovered the attackers main thrust will mean that your assigned forces will get low or no bonuses, that combined with the German doctrines should, in theory, be enough to break the French lines and allow the panzers to roam free behind the French lines.
It's the classic decision spiral. If the enemy battleplan is a success and the enemy keeps following it with all assigned forces then that forces you to come up with a new one and then your forces will be one step behind in every battle forcing you to design a new battleplan and on it goes.

Then again. If the French and BEF correctly anticipate the German main thrust and have a battleplan with assigned units in order well in advance the Germans will probably get stuck, no matter where that battle is fought.
 
Last edited:
Is it not possible for the French player to plan a balanced defense in depth?

Historically (up to 1940 of course) the French were known for their ability to rally, recover, and counterattack.

Even if the German main thrust achieves a breakthrough, there should be a sizable mass of divisions ready to counterattack and fill the gap. I think it should be possible to for the player to achieve this with battle plans. As Dalwin points out, with hindsight the French player should be able to plan an adequate defense and never change their battleplan. Just revert to the most conservative option.

Churchill met with Gamelin and the French government when things were at their worst in France. He was rendered SPEECHLESS (which says a lot) when he asked Gamelin where the strategic reserve was. Gamelin told him that there wasn't one.

Edit: I mean it should be possible for the player to counterattack in time, despite not knowing in advance where the main thrust will occur.
 
Last edited:
Is it not possible for the French player to plan a balanced defense in depth?

Historically (up to 1940 of course) the French were known for their ability to rally, recover, and counterattack.

Even if the German main thrust achieves a breakthrough, there should be a sizable mass of divisions ready to counterattack and fill the gap. I think it should be possible to for the player to achieve this with battle plans. As Dalwin points out, with hindsight the French player should be able to plan an adequate defense and never change their battleplan. Just revert to the most conservative option.

Churchill met with Gamelin and the French government when things were at their worst in France. He was rendered SPEECHLESS (which says a lot) when he asked Gamelin where the strategic reserve was. Gamelin told him that there wasn't one.

Edit: I mean it should be possible for the player to counterattack in time, despite not knowing in advance where the main thrust will occur.

They had a balanced defense-in-depth plan, because that's literally what the French doctrine called for. This is the Dyle Plan, which again would have left them with a Panzer-Corps equivalent reserve.

The problem IRL is that is that Gamelin decided to extend the line to Breda and spend the 7th Army for this extension, leaving them with no real reserves.
 
They had a balanced defense-in-depth plan, because that's literally what the French doctrine called for. This is the Dyle Plan, which again would have left them with a Panzer-Corps equivalent reserve.

The problem IRL is that is that Gamelin decided to extend the line to Breda and spend the 7th Army for this extension, leaving them with no real reserves.

Right right, just meant in game "battle plan" terms but certainly agree.
 
But I submit to you that giving France a crappy battleplan (or two) and just letting the AI run with them would go a long way to giving a nerf to France that doesn't involve deleting the OOB or just giving Germany arbitrary bonuses. I mean, the historical battleplan Gamelin used has flaws. And if you know the AI is going to use the Dyle Plan most of the time, the a human Germany can strategize around that.

Depends on the difficulty mode for me. I guess on normal we can have an expected historical behavior. On harder difficulties I expect the AI to throw the history book out the window and "win" at the game if winning entails removing the other two factions from the board. I too am a bit annoyed a lot of strategies utilized firing off events to gain an advantage which really doesn't make best use of the game overall. I had loads of fun with HOI III but am looking for a change where the AI can surprise me and maybe, just maybe, we see WW2 start unexpectedly by the AI. Maybe the Allies also declare war on both the Soviet Union and Reich will make for an interesting three-way toss up.
 
If the Allies "invaded" Belgium earlier, I don't think resistance would've even been possible. I'm sure all their guns were pointing toward Germany.
They had at least their border to France 'fortified' meaning they had huge iron grids in place to block the roads.
 
The Allies respected Belgian neutrality. The Belgian army was under orders to fire upon anyone violating our borders. After the Mechelen incident (a German plane crashed in Maasmechelen with the German invasion plans on board), there were some meetings, but no real plans were decided on.
Things were even worse with the Dutch, who even refused to meet with British and French representatives.
 
Is it not possible for the French player to plan a balanced defense in depth?

Historically (up to 1940 of course) the French were known for their ability to rally, recover, and counterattack.

Even if the German main thrust achieves a breakthrough, there should be a sizable mass of divisions ready to counterattack and fill the gap. I think it should be possible to for the player to achieve this with battle plans. As Dalwin points out, with hindsight the French player should be able to plan an adequate defense and never change their battleplan. Just revert to the most conservative option.

Churchill met with Gamelin and the French government when things were at their worst in France. He was rendered SPEECHLESS (which says a lot) when he asked Gamelin where the strategic reserve was. Gamelin told him that there wasn't one.

Edit: I mean it should be possible for the player to counterattack in time, despite not knowing in advance where the main thrust will occur.

Sure, it's always a good idea to have the reserves, and plenty of them, assigned to a battleplan with counterattacks closer to Paris. The problem here then would be that those reserves are pretty bound there. If you start to siphon forces to reinforce the front at different locations it will weaken your planned counterattack, if you don't you risk having the enemy breaking through at locations outside the scope of your planned counterattack (since you might not know where the Germans have the bulk of their armor and what their targets are) and you'll be back to square one being forced to modify or in the worst case, scrap and make a new plan.
As long as the Allies stay on the defensive up until the outbreak of the battle for France they'll be at a disadvantage since the Germans can concentrate their airpower and armor along a narrow frontline while the defenders will have to spread out to cover all the possible venues of approach. Granted we don't know hos well the mechanics will reflect this when it comes down to it but as far as we've been informed and hinted this is how it's going to work.
And as I wrote, it will probably not just affect the frontline divisions but airpower as well (which should hopefully simulate the massive air support the German forward elements enjoyed in their areas of breakthrough).

It's doubtful that the French and British ever had the forces to protect both the Belgian border AND Sedan while also keeping the Maginot at full strength and that is the key to the outcome of that conflict. The war in France would have lasted for considerably longer had the BEF and 7th army NOT been sidelined at the Belgian border and Belgium itself but then again the victory and the speed with which it came was a surprise even for the Germans. Once the French forces were in disarray there was no doubting the outcome in any case even though resistance didn't end with the fall of Dunkirk.

If the Allies can correctly anticipate the general strategic area where the German main thrust will come and have reserves prepared for this eventuality then it will hopefully grind to a stalemate where French and British superiority in armor and general mobility will wear the Germans down. A human French player will surely be able to muster a very effective defense of France (which was also the case in HOI3) forcing the Germans to put a lot more effort and forces into the mix (again as in HOI3) that was done historically and cost them a lot more in manpower (manpower required for building up the forces to invade the USSR) and possibly preventing the invasion of Britain because of this.

All that taken into consideration. The historical outcome was a surprise to almost the entire world. Even senior German officers were dumbstruck by the success of the campaign that they themselves had helped to create. Hindsight is always 20/20 but duplicating the success of the German invasion of France in-game SHOULD be difficult against a human player as it was one of the most impressive feats of military efficiency seen to date given the initial parameters. Historical Fall Gelb should, IMO, be seen as the benchmark to beat as such a unraveling in-game will (with human player insight) make the invasion of the UK inevitable rather than possible.
 
Last edited:
If you just want to defeat France in general terms, then you don't need that skill advantage. But if you want the gold medal (and Germany gets the gold medal for winning the Battle of France in such a short time and with such few losses), then I don't think it's unreasonable to demand gold medal performance.
It's an assumption that this was the best Germany could do and therefore the Gold standard. Maybe Germany could have won in 3 weeks. We don't know as we only have the one historical outcome. So your whole premise on superior skill is flawed. Maybe it was massive stupidity of France or maybe France was at the top of their game and Germany wasn't and still they won in 6 weeks. None of these can be proved or disproved without a time machine or multiple universes.

I certainly wouldn't tell the least skilled player in an MP group to take Germany for a spin if decisions weren't in play. Germany just isn't going to have the resources for Barbarossa in MP if she doesn't defeat France quickly and easily.
They usually do but it's not hard to take a substandard player and extend how long France survives compared to history.

Heck in human vs. AI because Paris can be a long fight, even the best players seldom win quicker than 6 weeks. So I'm not sure you premise is sound to even begin with.

I also understand that Germany winning or losing Barbarossa has a connection to its victory over France. I also understand that.
Then you have to admit that those extra IC, LS and resources are critical to a MP Germany.

Let me reverse the whole argument. Without those timely resources you are nerfing Germany for Barbarossa. WHy nerf Germany?

a human Britain is just going to write off AI France every time.
Which in hindsight is probably the smarter decision. After all the Germans were the ones that royally screwed up by not destroying the Brits before they could escape at Dunkirk.

As for #2, why is the whole rest of the game busted? If the only MP players are France and Germany, then nerfing France to ahistorical levels makes no sense.
There are a few wrong assumption there. First off what MP game is just human France vs. human Germany? I'm sure it happened but I bet there were human Tibet vs. human Haiti games also. You can't use weird outliers for the norm.

Second, as I said and even you agreed that even with the nerfs a human France does BETTER then the historical France even against another human player. So right there shows that even with the nerfs it is still wrong.


Well, you can do this, but I think podcat and other Devs have made it clear that they won't deliberately try to make a "dumb AI" for various reasons.
I have no clue how the AI comes up with battle plans but if the AI "computes" it then your idea of using a "bad" battle plan is the same as a dumb AI. My suggestion of modifying dice rolls does not depend on the AI at all. And it doesn't depend on the OOB either.


No. In at least one scenario, France needs to lose fast because apparently there's nothing else to do in MP if Frane doesn't fall, or nothing interesting to do at least. Perhaps HOI4 will rectify this problem.
Are you saying that the scenario of human France against AI Germany that France should be even stronger then it was in HOI3? That is pretty crazy considering I've defeated Germany as France multiple times in HOI3. And that was with all those French nerfs you hate.


And, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone in MP from just picking a start date after the fall of France. That is, assuming your not playing in one of the "fast" MP games that starts in 1936, and sees war in 1937.
You can't be serious. You know as well as I do that it's either the 1936 or 1939 start date in HOI3 for almost every single MP game. (Not to mention many scenarios had even worse OOB's). And we have no idea what start dates HOI4 might or might not have. But once again your suggestion forces many others to suffer all for the one, and only one case where a stronger France might make sense.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how the Germans could have done much better than 6 weeks. This would almost require something like Guderian teleporting his tanks to the coast instead of driving there.
 
I am not sure how the Germans could have done much better than 6 weeks. This would almost require something like Guderian teleporting his tanks to the coast instead of driving there.

My point is it's all conjecture. Maybe 5 weeks was the best. We don't know. Maybe 6 weeks is the average performance.

Maybe 6 weeks is great but not because of German skill but because of French stupidity. Or maybe 6 weeks had nothing to do with German skill or French stupidity but instead was all luck or Providence.

But to claim that 6 weeks was the best AND it was the best because of German skill is making assumptions without enough facts.
 
It's an assumption that this was the best Germany could do and therefore the Gold standard. Maybe Germany could have won in 3 weeks. We don't know as we only have the one historical outcome. So your whole premise on superior skill is flawed. Maybe it was massive stupidity of France or maybe France was at the top of their game and Germany wasn't and still they won in 6 weeks. None of these can be proved or disproved without a time machine or multiple universes.

I don't think it's flawed. There's plenty of historical research that goes into excruciating detail regarding good and bad decisions made by commanders on all sides of the conflict. Now, we can debate whether certain decisions were good or bad, but surely you're not suggesting that we can't make ANY determination as to the quality of various decisions made on all sides of the conflict?

Then you have to admit that those extra IC, LS and resources are critical to a MP Germany.

Let me reverse the whole argument. Without those timely resources you are nerfing Germany for Barbarossa. WHy nerf Germany?

You seem to be missing the entire point.

Of course those resources are useful to Germany. But Germany has to work for her Barbarossa setup. If you screw up the Battle of France, it's your own fault as a player. Player choices = success or failure, or an increased chance for success or failure

Now consider the situation of a French player. You get a series of nerfs handed to you before the game even starts. Your success or failure, or the chance of success of failure, is in part determined by arbitrary nerfs that have nothing to do with the historical situation as covered by game mechanics like IC, manpower, doctrines, and leaders.

Which in hindsight is probably the smarter decision. After all the Germans were the ones that royally screwed up by not destroying the Brits before they could escape at Dunkirk.

Now, I completely fail to understand your logic. You want the "historical" outcome for Germany (quick Battle of France, Germany ready to do Barbarossa), but you also think it's good for the game to design itself in such a way that the absolutely best strategy for Britain is to abandon France? If I didn't know any better, I would think you were advocating for an entirely German-centered HOI experience.

There are a few wrong assumption there. First off what MP game is just human France vs. human Germany? I'm sure it happened but I bet there were human Tibet vs. human Haiti games also. You can't use weird outliers for the norm.

Reread that portion of my post:

As for #2, why is the whole rest of the game busted? If the only MP players are France and Germany, then nerfing France to ahistorical levels makes no sense. If there are several MP players, then perhaps you have identified another flaw in the game inadvertently. You seem to really be saying, "HOI3 is not interesting if Germany doesn't start Barbarossa on schedule and with sufficient strength." Fair enough, but shouldn't the rest of the game be interesting regardless? I mean, not to be picky, but there's the whole Pacific War to think about. If the Pacific is interesting, then even if Germany gets stuck in a 12 month slog in France, a US player has something to do in the future. Now, you are going to say, "But it's not interesting in MP," and I might agree with you (depends on house rules and how Japan is played), but that's got nothing to do with France and Germany. That has everything to do with how Asia and the Pacific is represented.

So, if you just have a 1 on 1 between France and Germany, it doesn't make sense (I've done this before). But consider what else I said about there being other MP people involved.

Answer my question: Shouldn't the game be interesting beyond Barbarossa, Husky, and Overlord? If the rest of the game was interesting, would it matter as much if things went off the rails in 1940?

Second, as I said and even you agreed that even with the nerfs a human France does BETTER then the historical France even against another human player. So right there shows that even with the nerfs it is still wrong.

So? Human players win Barbarossa in MP as Germany. Does Germany need a nerf now? Human players of Japan annex all of China and the warlords without house rules in MP and start the war early because they increase threat against the US. Does Japan need a nerf? Italy seals the Med sometimes in MP. Does Italy need a nerf because the player actually does a good job for once?

I'd like to also note for the record that Italy's army has a rather poor performance record in various parts of the war (not all of it), but Britain doesn't get a decision like Blitzkrieg to improve her performance in North Africa. Or a buff to make invading Sicily possible.

Human players who are good at the game should be able to do better than their historical counterparts.

I have no clue how the AI comes up with battle plans but if the AI "computes" it then your idea of using a "bad" battle plan is the same as a dumb AI. My suggestion of modifying dice rolls does not depend on the AI at all. And it doesn't depend on the OOB either.

My assumption is that you can just literally feed the French AI the Dyle Plan and tell it to use it. If that's not how it works, then you are right. But surely one of the advantages to the new battleplan set up is that you can give the AI historical instructions. I mean, I'm not making a giant leap of logic, am I?

Are you saying that the scenario of human France against AI Germany that France should be even stronger then it was in HOI3? That is pretty crazy considering I've defeated Germany as France multiple times in HOI3. And that was with all those French nerfs you hate.

Yes, haven't we all beat Germany as France. That doesn't mean I have to like how it's set up.

Reread my post. You're not addressing what I said in the part you even quoted.

No. In at least one scenario, France needs to lose fast because apparently there's nothing else to do in MP if Frane doesn't fall, or nothing interesting to do at least. Perhaps HOI4 will rectify this problem.

Are you telling me that there is nothing interesting to do in HOI3 MP if France does not lose to Germany in 6 months? If yes, then would it not be reasonable to make the rest of the war more interesting in MP? If no, then there are other interesting things to do in an MP game even if Germany doesn't win quickly.

You can't be serious. You know as well as I do that it's either the 1936 or 1939 start date in HOI3 for almost every single MP game. (Not to mention many scenarios had even worse OOB's). And we have no idea what start dates HOI4 might or might not have. But once again your suggestion forces many others to suffer all for the one, and only one case where a stronger France might make sense.

You can't be serious; surely having viable start dates beyond 1936 and 1939 would benefit MP?

And if its making others suffer for one, then why bother letting France even be in MP at all? Or even why bother having a Battle of France?

In fact, why not create a mod for HOI3? The "No France Mod" that just annexes France to Germany when Poland either surrenders or goes GiE. It replaces the special buff Germany gets, assigns 25% of the pre-existing French army to Vichy, and occupies the historical occupation zone. Then you can have your Barbarossa without even worrying about nerfing France or buffing Germany.

We could write up decisions for Japan and Italy, too. Japan already gets Indochina by decision, so why waste time giving Japan and China a war? Just fire a decision that gives Japan the historical areas of China she occupied, and then the Japanese player in MP can focus on taking out the UK and USA.

MP does lots of things in HOI3. There are so many house rules between MP games I can't even begin to catalog them. But what you are saying is "France needs to be beaten in order for the rest of the game to work in MP." So, I'm saying that either there needs to be a post-Battle of France bookmark (one that works) so people can get the game they want, or the rest of WWII needs to be interesting even if things do not go according to schedule in 1940.

If you just want a pointlessly easy Battle of France, why bother fighting it at all? If MP games want Germany to move towards Barbarossa with a certain measure of resources, then use a start date that gives you what you want. If the later start dates have problem, then those scenarios need to be fixed so that they work correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.