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.
No myth.
Every German tank had one, while for the French, IIRC it was only the command tank and for the russian those only if they were lucky. That forced both Russian and French tanks to operate in the infamous 'Hen and Chicken' formation which hit the russian even harder because of the bad visibility of the T-34 and the heavy workload for the commander (which was an issue for French tanks as well).
Overall the German tanks were 'better' because they could be and were better lead, had more crew, better division of labour and greater tactical awareness.

Not exactly, the Germans also had radio shortages (this is what you get for having an electronics industry that is almost entirely just the "Siemens Company" and having the director of the said company be very anti-Nazi), but they did at least try to have a receiver for each tank and they pioneered some command vehicles with lots of radios that served battalion or higher level command. The mobile command vehicle thing I think is really the more novel bit, as I don't see similar vehicles in the French or Soviet OOBs.

The bigger issue for the French and Russian tanks (both of whom actually did have radios and radio receivers with more of their tanks than History Channel claims) was having the same guy be the commander and gunner, which is going to destroy situational awareness and make company-level coordination near impossible even with a radio ("Can't talk to you Captain, I'm busy shooting at the Panzer III in front of me!").

The French in particular expected each tank to fight independently for the most part, albeit when you're talking about having only 12 tanks to face a Panzer Division because the rest are stuck in Belgium on a fool's errand you can't really do very much even with more coordination.
 
Ya that was really an incitful perspective I really enjoyed it. So if the two armies should have gone toe to toe do we want them to be ableb to? Historicaly germany beats France and a truly global conflict can play out. Which is fun to play! So mayou it's not so bad if the devs create a "broken" freach army.
 
Contrary to the "myths", most of the Soviet T-34s were built with radios, although the reliability was so poor that it was rare to have more than one working radio for the command tank and another somewhere in the formation if you were lucky. I've seen photos of Soviet armor formations maneuvering via signal flags.

The big advantage that the German tanks had, besides officers at various levels in the command chain willing to take risks when opportunities presented themselves, was a turret ring design on the Panzer IIIs and IVs which was capable of supporting a 3-man turret. Instead of having the tank commander perform double duty as either gunner or loader, the German commanders could keep an eye on the "bigger picture" around them and react to events. In addition, the armored cupola design with view-slits allowed the commander a reasonable field of view even while "buttoned up". Once the shooting started, most French or Soviet tanks were in effect all but blind to anything not in the direct line of fire.

I recall reading that one senior French officer (Gamelin?), upon hearing that the cream of the French army had been cut off in Belgium, retired to his room with orders that he not be disturbed, where he remained for several days as the tragedy unfolded. There were no orders to deal with the problem on anything more than a local basis, because the senior officer responsible refused to accept that responsibility. To fail to act is to act to fail.
 
That's actually not really true, and is the History Channel version laced with a bit of French/British apologism (really, the French and Brits tried very hard to make it as though the Germans were so superior in 1940. In reality, it was discovered by the Americans in 1944 that the French and Brits had completely lied about the Order of Battle of 1940, and the French/British actually had more tanks than the Germans).

The French actually began the war with an outstanding all-armed motorized formation - the 7th Army - which included two Panzer Division equivalents, a pair of elite motorized Divisions, and a couple of other motorized outfits. While not yet quite a Panzer Army in terms of doctrine, this outfit - plus another half a dozen or so armored and mechanized Divisions - shows that the idea that the French didn't concentrate tanks was fiction. The French "penny-packeted" their tanks to an extent - but these were mostly old and slow tanks (eg H35) meant for infantry support. Moreover, to think that this penny-packeting is wrong is to fly in the face of the German and American OOB in 1944 - both of which also "penny packeted" armor in support of their infantry Divisions (the Germans typically allocating one company of assault guns per infantry Division, while the Americans allocated a battalion of Shermans).

The real problem is that the French high command made a mistake, which ran contrary against doctrine. Instead of keeping 7th Army in reserve at Reims - where it was about 2 day's march away from Sedan at worse - they instead decided to spend their reserves immediately to try and extend the battle line in Belgium so that they could link up with the Dutch in Breda. Hence, this superb all-arms reserve, instead of facing the main effort of the German army, was stuck in Belgium against the German diversionary effort.

All of the problems encountered by the French at Sedan - including sending tiny numbers of tanks against entire Panzer Divisions - was actually a function of a lack of reserves rather than the lack of armored/mechanized formations that can go head-to-head against a Panzer Army. This is why the Panzers were able to avoid fighting for the most part - the French had no units at all to stop them, because all the reserves were stuck in Belgium/Holland. This is a mistake in generalship, not doctrine or army composition, and it's been basically covered up to excuse the bad decisions of Gamelin.

====

Finally, French aircraft were not caught on the ground napping (that's the issue with the Poles and Soviets). They did however lack fighters because the French were very focused on tactical bombing while forgetting you need to establish air superiority first; and in any case the Reich did in fact invest far more in their air force before the war and were thus in a much more advanced state than the French.

The more I read about it I agree the French and allies were sucked by this german attack through the Ardennes. The battle of Gembloux is an example of how it could have been quite a bloody drawn out affair and if the french had some interceptor squadrons to contest the skies it would be very even.

So yeah this artifical nerf of france in hoi3 is masking the fact that the victory was so "easy" because of a stroke of luck with this battle plan and the failure of the french high command not that the french and british forces were just weak and out matched.

I would like to see this balanced properly in the new game and like or or not like it the western allies had to ability to make it very hard for the Germans to win.
 
Yep.

And none of this French stuff takes into account how key German leaders ignored their orders and pressed the attack at critical junctures. Rommel and Guderian weren't doing what Hitler or the General Staff wanted when they pressed ahead at key battles. The famous Ghost Division and Rommel was even out of contact with higher headquarters when he made portions of his famous advance. The situation was so disagreeable that Hitler and Kliiest kept trying to give stop orders to commanders like Guderian, who were able to conveniently ignore them.

Had Kleist and Hitler had their way in 1940, France might not have lost so many divisions in early combats and encirclements, changing the war entirely. Generals like Guderian and Rommel made it look easy, but it really wasn't.

In several cases, Guderian "ignored" specific orders to halt and not advance into a particular town, because the orders were obsolete by the time they were "received", and he already had recon units there. That "obsolescence" may have been accelerated to some degree because he quickly learned not to accept any last-minute communications until he had already set things in motion, so if the order was not to his liking, he could make a verifiable claim that it was too late to comply.
 
In several cases, Guderian "ignored" specific orders to halt and not advance into a particular town, because the orders were obsolete by the time they were "received", and he already had recon units there. That "obsolescence" may have been accelerated to some degree because he quickly learned not to accept any last-minute communications until he had already set things in motion, so if the order was not to his liking, he could make a verifiable claim that it was too late to comply.

Absolutely right. This was also a significant factor in things working out as they did. Guderian was not the only panzer leader to be doing this but he was probably the most blatant about it.
 
In several cases, Guderian "ignored" specific orders to halt and not advance into a particular town, because the orders were obsolete by the time they were "received", and he already had recon units there. That "obsolescence" may have been accelerated to some degree because he quickly learned not to accept any last-minute communications until he had already set things in motion, so if the order was not to his liking, he could make a verifiable claim that it was too late to comply.

Of course, Guderian had recon units there, because on 12 May, he was given an order to halt and dig-in, but he asked Kleist for permission to perform reconnaissance in force by threatening to resign. When given permission, he performed a "reconnaissance in force" that included two panzer divisions heading straight to the Channel, while two other divisions contested Stonne in a feint that mirrored the original Manstein Plan.

"Well, you said I could do a recon in force. I just decided to recon with multiple panzer divisions. Problem?"

:Cue Maximum trolling meme:
 
...so how do you represent "interpretation of orders" and other such factors within the framework of the game in a way that makes GER able to beat FRA, without making them able to curb-stomp the SU?
 
...so how do you represent "interpretation of orders" and other such factors within the framework of the game in a way that makes GER able to beat FRA, without making them able to curb-stomp the SU?

Unlike the representation of bad Allied decisions in 1940, the issue with German commanders ignoring orders is not an issue in game. The reason for this is that with our hindsight we want to do it Guderian's way. We lack the uncertainty and caution that commanders at the time had.
 
...so how do you represent "interpretation of orders" and other such factors within the framework of the game in a way that makes GER able to beat FRA, without making them able to curb-stomp the SU?

Give France lousy battleplans for the AI to use?

We also don't know what impact battleplans and leaders have on units, yet. We know they have an impact, but what that impact is I don't know.
 
All of the problems encountered by the French at Sedan - including sending tiny numbers of tanks against entire Panzer Divisions - was actually a function of a lack of reserves rather than the lack of armored/mechanized formations that can go head-to-head against a Panzer Army. This is why the Panzers were able to avoid fighting for the most part - the French had no units at all to stop them, because all the reserves were stuck in Belgium/Holland. This is a mistake in generalship, not doctrine or army composition, and it's been basically covered up to excuse the bad decisions of Gamelin.
I don't think anyone can try to excuse the decisions of Gamelin. In fact, most of the generals (which were in place due to the prestige of being the "winner of the great war"), including Gamelin, are quite bad, and it's said quite willingly that the French high command was the main cause of the french defeat. I'd say that doctrine in HoI4 should reflect also how the command is. The immediate reaction of the French army was so bad (reactions over the following months were much better), strategically and tactically, you could reflect it with bad generals, but it should also be shown by doctrines being ineffective (since they're not really put to use, maybe blueprints but not researched ?).
Army composition wasn't that bad (could have been better, probably), but organization and the high command were faulty.

As for the 7th army, I'd ask for sources, since I've never seen it have 2 tank divisions. One yes, and with mechanized infantry divisions too. France had a few tanks divisions (3 or 4 depending on the sources).

Also, Germany didn't really used trucks to speed up their assault. They didn't have that much trucks, and used a lot of pack animals to do the work, which consume much less fuel. Trucks for the panzer divisions though, yes.
 
I don't know how it will be done but I will guarantee one specific outcome.

In a AI vs. AI fight Germany will defeat France in around 2 months or so. I guarantee this because without this outcome the rest of the game suffers.

Germany won not because of one or two things but because of many things, including LUCK.
 
This (excellent) discussion is making me think that Paradox should create an AI that will develop sub-optimal battleplans in certain circumstances both to more accurately reflect history and to improve gameplay. If you're playing anyone other than France (or Germany) the French ought to be handicapped, not in materials and men, but in how they react to the German invasion. Then, if you're playing France, you can fight (and win) the 3rd Franco-Prussian war, and if you're Germany, you actually might be challenged by the French instead of just rolling over them.
 
This (excellent) discussion is making me think that Paradox should create an AI that will develop sub-optimal battleplans in certain circumstances both to more accurately reflect history and to improve gameplay. If you're playing anyone other than France (or Germany) the French ought to be handicapped, not in materials and men, but in how they react to the German invasion. Then, if you're playing France, you can fight (and win) the 3rd Franco-Prussian war, and if you're Germany, you actually might be challenged by the French instead of just rolling over them.
That would be terrible.

Human should be forced to clean-up the mess of French generals, obtain enough political capital to either promote more innovative officers, or force the resignation of the old guard, also suffer from having to direct French research elsewhere, probably not getting as good hardware as a result of being forced to research more of doctrine and organisation.
France suffered hugely from loses of WW1 and great depression, of course it should be far worse on man and material front than Germany, it was almost half as small, and had only half of the economy. Without really large help from GB and probably serious American loans and supplies, France shouldn`t be able to stand to Germany, and those help and supplies should come at large political price to make you less willing to reach for them.

Historically GB basically sold it`s empire for US assistance in WW2, same should be applied to France. Allies may win, but if you rely too much on UK and US, it will still cost you your colonies and probably even more.

Player Germany should be challenged, again with buildup, since having stronger army for France would probably mean having weaker army for USSR as a lot of your hardware will be obsolete, and the force composition for France and for USSR should be different.
Also Player should be in a rush to kill France, which should make him/er more open to mistakes and counter-attacks.
 
This (excellent) discussion is making me think that Paradox should create an AI that will develop sub-optimal battleplans in certain circumstances both to more accurately reflect history and to improve gameplay. If you're playing anyone other than France (or Germany) the French ought to be handicapped, not in materials and men, but in how they react to the German invasion. Then, if you're playing France, you can fight (and win) the 3rd Franco-Prussian war, and if you're Germany, you actually might be challenged by the French instead of just rolling over them.

The suboptimal plan idea reminds me of how SPI dealt with part of this in War in the West/WiEurope. There was a special rule that got invoked when Germany began their western offensive that forced the British and French to advance heavily into Belgium. Making that one blunder mandatory did a lot to preserve the overall balance of the war.
 
Unlike the representation of bad Allied decisions in 1940, the issue with German commanders ignoring orders is not an issue in game. The reason for this is that with our hindsight we want to do it Guderian's way. We lack the uncertainty and caution that commanders at the time had.

While it worked in France, it failed during Barbarossa.

e.g. Guderian fritters away his troops in a positional battle. (Simply must have that jumping off point for the dash to Moscow...) Meanwhile his superior officers' repeated orders to help close a large encirclement are ignored.

And in counterhistorical terms... if France had simply done the bloody-standard Generalling 101 thing and kept a decent reserve... the odds for 'recon in force' gambles would have diminished drastically. Notwithstanding other failures (e.g. wrong strategy [sod the Low Countries!], poor sortie rate by French air force, inadequate logistical lifeline for French armour, etc.)
 
This (excellent) discussion is making me think that Paradox should create an AI that will develop sub-optimal battleplans in certain circumstances both to more accurately reflect history and to improve gameplay. If you're playing anyone other than France (or Germany) the French ought to be handicapped, not in materials and men, but in how they react to the German invasion. Then, if you're playing France, you can fight (and win) the 3rd Franco-Prussian war, and if you're Germany, you actually might be challenged by the French instead of just rolling over them.

i agree with most of this proposal.

Up to the point where a German player would be challenged by the improved AI. imho better to have the difficulty level be the factor. So perhaps an Axis high difficulty campaign would see the more reactive defence but imho the standard/normal difficulty should see a tendency towards the historic. Regardless of whether the player is Germany or Xinjiang. That is of course assuming it could/would be implemented.
 
I think another factor we don't know a whole lot about yet is the impact that individual generals will have on their armies in the game. As has been said, the French High command were all relics from WW1 who weren't fully caught up with modern battle doctrine. So in an MP battle the French player might be hampered by generals who give few, if any, bonuses to their troops compared to the Germans who have highly skilled generals and powerful bonuses from their battle doctrine. The differences may make too much of a difference even if the French have effective tactics. Again, we'll have to see as we get closer to release, since individual generals may not actually make a huge difference.
 
While it worked in France, it failed during Barbarossa.

e.g. Guderian fritters away his troops in a positional battle. (Simply must have that jumping off point for the dash to Moscow...) Meanwhile his superior officers' repeated orders to help close a large encirclement are ignored.

And in counterhistorical terms... if France had simply done the bloody-standard Generalling 101 thing and kept a decent reserve... the odds for 'recon in force' gambles would have diminished drastically. Notwithstanding other failures (e.g. wrong strategy [sod the Low Countries!], poor sortie rate by French air force, inadequate logistical lifeline for French armour, etc.)

In a similar time period the germans inflicted similar and then much greater losses on the soviet union. It's just that france was much smaller and when their 2 or 3 million were gone that was it while the soviets could lose that and easily replace them all the while their massive country kept stretching the germans to their limit all topped of by the autumn rains and the freezing winter.
 
The French in particular expected each tank to fight independently for the most part, albeit when you're talking about having only 12 tanks to face a Panzer Division because the rest are stuck in Belgium on a fool's errand you can't really do very much even with more coordination.

Now that isn't exactly historic either. There was a French tank division (3e Division Cuirassée) near Sedan that was supposed to attack the bridgehead but ran into parts of the 10th Panzer-Division and Infantry regiment Großdeutschland, which Guderian had send to do a feint attack. With the 1st and 2nd Panzer-Division already having moved on, the French had a sizeable numerical advantage in terms of armor. The 4e Division cuirassée wasn't in Belgium either, though it didn't have the strength of a full division. Stating that pretty much all of the french armor was in Belgium is simply incorrect. They had enough tanks to press the attack on multiple occasions, they just neglected to do so or did so only half-hearted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.