Czechoslovak survival?

I would simply like to see a historically based Czechoslovakia at least to the point where their ratios are on par with Germany. Made up examples to make my point would be 1) If Germany had 2x the MP as the Czechs then let them do so in game or 2) If German units were twice as powerful then again let them be so in game. Its ok to modify the data so that the game is playable as long as the proper ratios are maintained, unfortunately in HOI3 they werent. Also this doesnt mean the AI should fire to fight all the time, but allows the Czechs to become a player in non historical games for any faction that the player chooses. Ive been wargaming for over 40 years and after awhile Germany vs Soviets / Japan vs USA gets stale. Its nice to mix it up a bit with some non historical games. Im not a fan of hard scripting especially in a game that allows us to veer away from history. The Game needs to be able to adapt to our moves in game and it must then react accordingly. Firing and enforcing the same events 100% of the time makes the game boring. The problem is that PI uses these events to make up for shortcomings in the game, such as providing MP or buffs to nations.

I think if the appeasers to Hitler, UK and the French at that time didnt completely screw over Czechoslovakia. The war would of been very different, I believe the Czechs would have been able to hold the Nazis back (until they attack Poland and circumvent the czech defenses from the rear).

If only Churchill was Prime Minster instead of Neville Chamberlain during this time, I know he would of supported the Czechs.

Centurion1973 said:

You also need to remember that army defending that border wasnt much weaker that the Wehrmacht - so while germans would win, it would be a bloody victory and as I mentioned before, Wehrmach wouldnt be able to take over all that equipment and weapon factories.

Click to expand...

Right. And for political reasons (i.e. capturing Prague ASAP), Fall Gruen called for frontal assaults into some of the most heavily fortified areas. I don't know about all of you, but I sure wouldn't want to charge up a forested mountain into even fairly minor fortifications against an army that was like 80% as large as my attacking force. There were no additional forces to send, either, the western border had a whole 4 infantry divisions backing up a handful of generally WWI-vintage (equipment and troops!) Landwehr divisions. And the scheduled invasion period had unusually bad weather, meaning either minimal air support or a green Luftwaffe that trashes itself in accidents. IIRC, even the planned paratrooper drop was run as an exercise, and turned out to be a disaster; the Fallschirmjaeger were scattered through the killzones of the forts, while the demolitions gear needed to breach the forts never showed up. Without, y'know, any AA fire to disrupt the Ju 52s.

Germany in 1938 was not ready for war. They'd have won, but it would have meant going into Poland with a weaker army that had taken disproportionate losses in its mobile forces with less industry and resources to replace them, therefore the losses in Poland would be significantly higher. Which means that the Battle of France probably turns into a stalemate or a grinding Allied victory. Plus, there was no way that Germany could go to war in October 38 but wait until May 40 to hit France, so they'll also be short of time to rearm and refit.

TheDerpyBeagle said:

Honestly, although it would be historically correct, would you really want that? If Czechoslovakia is strong enough to survive a German invasion, then (especially in MP) Axis will be much weaker then the allies. I think it's honestly better for game balance if the Czechs aren't very strong, or at least so they get a large penalty if they refuse the Sudetenland. Like let's say Germany is forced to fight the Czechs, the Czechs hold the Germans off long enough for the war to start. Germany has to fight Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France + UK = Game Over in 1939/1940. To me, that seems no fun at all.

Click to expand...

In MP German player would have many options to ease penetration by prolongations of border - using Hungary and Poland. The historical Czechoslovakia also means strong industry, when done properly getting quicker than by munich agreement/protectorate combo (in sep 38 agreement and in mar 39 protectorate). French and UK players often needs more time on preparation so occupation of Prague than historical way should actually may make things easier for Axis. And we are still talking about eventuality which would be not used by players who want fight historically.

theolor said:

If the Soviets had backed the Czechs, the Germans would have backed off because Hitler was not ready for a war with the Soviet Union, that is why he made a non aggression pact with the CCCP and agreed to split up Poland, let them have Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Click to expand...

Do not forget that USSR hadnt border with Czechoslovakia. Even if would USSR managed to get army to Czechoslovakia by force/agreement with Romania/Poland it would be still more proxy war and with fall of Czechoslovakia would both countries very likely make NaP again.

psychosiszz said:

I think if the appeasers to Hitler, UK and the French at that time didnt completely screw over Czechoslovakia. The war would of been very different, I believe the Czechs would have been able to hold the Nazis back (until they attack Poland and circumvent the czech defenses from the rear).

If only Churchill was Prime Minster instead of Neville Chamberlain during this time, I know he would of supported the Czechs.

Click to expand...

The problem was not who was the leader of either France or Britain at the time, though. It was the public opinion there. Daladier was quite surprised to be acclaimed when he arrived at Paris after Munich (though there's apparently no sources that he actually said "Les cons!").

It's easy to blame Chamberlain for the appeasement, but we have to keep in mind the political reality of the time.

21oliver said:

Seeing as PI already crossed over into the what if by allowing National Spain and Turkey into the Axis (or Allies) without the restrictions they used to have, Id like to see them open up Czechoslovakia and Sweden as well. Even if they make it difficult to do Id like to see them able to join factions normally allowing for more diverse gameplay.

Click to expand...

And for more realism, as when we know a nation couldn't DoW we don't protect the borderline...

Centurion1973 said:

I agree.

Around the time of Munich conference, Czecholovak army was mobilized with total of around 1 000 000 men in arms - in case of war, Czechoslovakia would lose without external support, but for germans it would likely be very bloody victory.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Czechs had the world's best tanks at that time. This would indeed have been a fascinating what-if. Due to the size and shape of Czechoslovakia though I believe it would have been a bloody but quick affair. The fortifications would probably have been circumvented, just like the Maginot.

seattle said:

Don't forget that the Czechs had the world's best tanks at that time. This would indeed have been a fascinating what-if. Due to the size and shape of Czechoslovakia though I believe it would have been a bloody but quick affair. The fortifications would probably have been circumvented, just like the Maginot.

Click to expand...

If you look at german plans, they intended to assault the fortified line, because it was on best routes to Prague and other important targets. I would expect german victory in less than 2 months, but it would be very bloody victory with losses (killed an seriously wounded) of 100+K and large material losses.

And in case of war, army would likely also distribute weapons to many civilians - making potential partisan threat much higher.

Redy said:

In MP German player would have many options to ease penetration by prolongations of border - using Hungary and Poland.

Click to expand...

That's assuming that the Hungarian and Polish players are trying to join the Axis, and support it from the start. Historically, neither country would have willingly allowed German troops to go through their countries to attack another nation. Both were extremely wary of Hitler, but also had issues with CZE, including disputed border territories. Germany managed to play the various countries against each other, and offered both "incentives" and veiled threats, which made limited cooperation or at least grudging acceptance of Germany's actions a painful political necessity. Eventually, Hitler invaded and occupied all of them anyway.

Centurion1973 said:

If you look at german plans, they intended to assault the fortified line, because it was on best routes to Prague and other important targets. I would expect german victory in less than 2 months, but it would be very bloody victory with losses (killed an seriously wounded) of 100+K and large material losses.

And in case of war, army would likely also distribute weapons to many civilians - making potential partisan threat much higher.

Click to expand...

100k sounds realistic, after all the Wehrmacht lost 54.000 men in Poland IIRC. I expect a worse prepared Wehrmacht in 1938 and a tougher, better equipped opponent in Czechoslovakia.

seattle said:

100k sounds realistic, after all the Wehrmacht lost 54.000 men in Poland IIRC. I expect a worse prepared Wehrmacht in 1938 and a tougher, better equipped opponent in Czechoslovakia.

Click to expand...

That was a conservative estimate - things would IMO get much worse, if germans wouldnt penetrate those fortifications quickly.

Centurion1973 said:

That was a conservative estimate - things would IMO get much worse, if germans wouldnt penetrate those fortifications quickly.

Click to expand...

There's no telling though how determined the Czechs were to fight. It's not like they put up a ton of resistance in 1939. Maybe it would have been a blitzkrieg, maybe a prolonged bloody affair. I can see it going both ways.

seattle said:

There's no telling though how determined the Czechs were to fight. It's not like they put up a ton of resistance in 1939. Maybe it would have been a blitzkrieg, maybe a prolonged bloody affair. I can see it going both ways.

Click to expand...

True, but given state of Wehrmacht at that time, I wouldnt expect easy victory.

but given state of Wehrmacht at that time, I wouldnt expect easy victory.

Click to expand...

Thats what ive been saying all along. We are talking a full year prior to the invasion of Poland. The Blitzkrieg wasnt yet the Blitzkrieg and Germany wouldnt have all those Czech tanks either. Also when you look at the numbers and consider whom they were up against the Germans lost an alarming amount of aircraft taking Poland. This early on Germany was like a baby learning to walk, it would be several years before she begins to run. The question of the Czechs? I dont know the willingness to fight or how long, i dont have that information. Likely it would also be modified if they got any allied support.

FOARP said:

Were the Czechoslovaks really "better prepared and equipped" than the Poles? You often read about it being modern etc., but the evidence supporting this is minimal.

-other data-points that may be relevant to this include the relatively weak Czech resistance to occupation, Slovak collaborationism, poor performance of Slovak forces generally throughout the war including in defence of their own territory against the Hungarians, the general uselessness of the Czech border fortifications in 1945, and Germany's successful direct assaults on the Maginot line in 1940.

Click to expand...

It´s tough to hear for any Czech now and always will be, but these points are largely valid. The equipment was mostly on par (for 38´) with rest of the industrialized world armies. I dare say it´s was better off then Yugoslav or Polish armies at some aspects, but it did have many of their problems as well. Defense would be feasible for some time but it´s naive it would be for very long, those forts would buy time for maybe few weeks IF:
-the army would be mobilized and prepared in time ( yes I know we mobilized, it was even in the news...now how many troops were actually around those borders?)
-3 million german minority would not cause trouble
-quarter of the army wouldn´t defect or impair combat actions.
-there would be united political and military leadership

And yes internally the country was divided, with different issues and ideologies, nationalities and goals for major key figures in the state. Some kind of united front was largely unlikely. Under a wartime realities which would quickly sink in, no chance of quick relief I just don´t see it. Only possible positive outcame would be a shortened WWII by a quicker entrance of the allies to the war.

Centurion1973 said:

True, but given state of Wehrmacht at that time, I wouldnt expect easy victory.

Click to expand...

At best you could say that that Wehrmacht was on same equipment and training level as Czechoslovakia. Not the same thing can be said about tactical doctrines used by Germans and Czechs at the time. Czech army was modeled on French concept of WW1 defense with not much room for independent tactical thinking.
Individial morale and bravery asside, Czech army was just as tactically flexible as the French and Polish at the time. Basing your defense on static fort combat won´t help this.

The entire concept of Czechoslovakia defense is based on the premise "forts would buy time" and then everybody would come to help = WWII won.
At some key areas where the forts were strong yes, but the front would be 1000km long with numerous entry points for the germans. Only thing they would have to do would be a sufficient force concentration at one spot.
Then it´s 200-300km drive to main cities= war over, don´t expect stalingrad here.

Basic military thruth was that geographical location immensely favoured the attacker and seriously impaired the defender. With 1:1/2 ratio it could work. Not with 5:1 or 10:1 in terms of men and materiel.

It would be interesting if countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia could form some sort of an alliance/pact within the game to collaborate and resist together against aggression from the bigger players, in order to survive through 1939-41. At least some of them. Technology sharing, intel sharing, etc, etc... Historically this would have been their only chance to remain independent anyway, even though such a pact isn't very plausible given their common history, at least not one that would involve all of them together. It should be at the very least possible to do, so that it would make sense to try to play the smaller countries too. It's not completely unthinkable, they all felt threaten by Germany, and Poland and Romania were discussing such a pact in case of an aggression from the USSR.

This is the only reasonable way in which the game could handle the survival of any of these countries, without using obvious game exploits, as you had to use in HoI3. Otherwise, just by good gameplay and awesome organisation, even if troops training and equipment is top notch or above what the Germans can field, Czechoslovakia shouldn't be able to withstand the German advance indefinite, the manpower alone should favour the larger country.

BTW, I've excluded Greece, Bulgaria only because they would have felt less threaten by 1939, but all minor players should be able to do this within the game, given certain difficult to achieve conditions.

WDYT?

ASPGolan said:

It would be interesting if countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia could form some sort of an alliance/pact within the game to collaborate and resist together against aggression from the bigger players, in order to survive through 1939-41. At least some of them.
Technology sharing, intel sharing, etc, etc...

Click to expand...

Such pact indeed existed. It was just aimed at Hungary since it had a major beef with all countries around it + bloody communist terror in early 20´s.

I recommend checking out the Little entente. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Entente
Poland as a final member of the alliance is problematic but if territorial concessions were made by Czechs and different people were at the helm in Warsaw in-game, maybe. Of course any such major allience would be ill-received by SSSR. Even little-entente was purely defensive and cooperation in fields you listed was non-existant.

The Czechs could certainly have slowed down the Germans, especially on the defensive. Remember, the story of the ever victorious Wehrmacht hadn't been written yet in 1938.

The Czechs were watching the Spanish Civil War and the brutal fighting there, as well as the contemporary invasion of China. Neither of those were easy conflicts. The Czechs would have lost eventually but it would have been like the Battle of Shanghai for the Japanese, the Czechs ultimately losing, but costing the Germans far more casualties, time and material than they initially planned.

The lack of an airforce would only have been a minor issue. The Germans could certainly have bombed Prague into dust, but that doesn't actually do anything beyond reducing industry and hardening resistance. The 7 year long absolutely devastating carpet bombing of Chongqing didn't make the Chinese surrender. The Blitz of London didn't cause Britain to crack, nor did the day and night bombing of Germany force them to capitulate. Even the most famous example of "bombs = surrender," the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has the magic asterisk of the concurrent Soviet Invasion of Manchuria.


Game wise, I'd expect to see Czech resistance lead to a later date for Danzig or war! and maybe a more aggressive Soviet Union. It would also probably lead to a tougher Poland.

Porkman said:

The Czechs could certainly have slowed down the Germans, especially on the defensive. Remember, the story of the ever victorious Wehrmacht hadn't been written yet in 1938.

Click to expand...

It wasn´t written in 39´ as well. It´s never written unless it starts being written.

Porkman said:

The Czechs were watching the Spanish Civil War and the brutal fighting there, as well as the contemporary invasion of China. Neither of those were easy conflicts. The Czechs would have lost eventually but it would have been like the Battle of Shanghai for the Japanese, the Czechs ultimately losing, but costing the Germans far more casualties, time and material than they initially planned.

Click to expand...

Watching how nationalists won in 38´, China getting slowly occupied and losing every major battle (in 1938 it looked grimm), there would be losses sure, if Poland cost 50K then CZE could cost the same if you are optimistic. Very feasible number for Heer. Biggest worry would be perhaps mistrust of German generals here+ political consequences.

Porkman said:

The lack of an airforce would only have been a minor issue. The Germans could certainly have bombed Prague into dust, but that doesn't actually do anything beyond reducing industry and hardening resistance. The 7 year long absolutely devastating carpet bombing of Chongqing didn't make the Chinese surrender. The Blitz of London didn't cause Britain to crack, nor did the day and night bombing of Germany force them to capitulate. Even the most famous example of "bombs = surrender," the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has the magic asterisk of the concurrent Soviet Invasion of Manchuria.

Click to expand...

I wouldn´t be worried about brutal city bombing, more about army, logistics and forts getting bombed with local/total air superiority for wehrmacht (it would be achievable in 1-2 weeks). Also comparing endless China with it´s pop. almost half a BILLION to a 10 million, small european country is...impossible? Same goes for island Japan.

Porkman said:

Game wise, I'd expect to see Czech resistance lead to a later date for Danzig or war! and maybe a more aggressive Soviet Union. It would also probably lead to a tougher Poland.

Click to expand...

That I would like to see + boost for allies and SSSR.