Heavy tanks can bust through forts, but it's best to attack the tip of the Maginot where it touches 5ish German provinces so that you can reduce the fort malus substantially.
France game - why are Germans siting on hands?
- Thread starter NightRider
- Start date
-
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.
Heavy tanks can bust through forts, but it's best to attack the tip of the Maginot where it touches 5ish German provinces so that you can reduce the fort malus substantially.
You really need super-heavy tanks to "burst through forts," but you're going to be long passed the Maginot Line by the time you've developed those.
Then if they are higher than level 2 they can be added at game start or by event.
BTW if you want to get all historical tell me where super forts in WWII actually made much of a difference. Most of them were maneuvered around, bombed into rubble or penetrated at a weak point. The only super fort I can think of that actually put up a decent fight was the Russians at Brest. The Germans opted to siege it send the bulk of thier forces around it. And if memory serves me correct German special forces took out both the Neatherlands and Belgium super forts within 48 hours.
Last edited:
Yep just the ineptness of the AI showing its colors again. Another prominent example I've found is that paradox apparently hasn't told the AI about the implementation of the African "no mans land." Because everytime I defend el-Alamein the Italian/german forces always try to go "around" it and do this continual spaz jerky movement since they are trying to enter a non accessible space. pretty dumb indeed.
Not that they much of a difference to the final outcomes of anything, but the Soviet fortified ports of Odessa and Sevastopol both put up a determined resistance. Odessa in particular caused the Romanians serious losses.
Perhaps the game should differentiate between structures like Eben-Emael which took four years to build, and the stuff we can build?
Not really to do with your op but I suggest that buff your likely enemies by a minimum of two points on the slider.
Just had a go as France. Built level 3-4 forts before the Germans came. German forces did attack for a while, but stopped when my defence was reinforced (they were detered by the defending units). They also tried to attack the Maginot.
The Italians were the most aggressive. They attacked my forts in the Alps for a full year. One battle lasted 8 months. When I reinforced the Alps, Italy suddenly stopped.
In conclusion: The AI will attack forts, but wont if too many units are defending. Which seems pretty fine.
Btw: Italy should be nerfed slightly. They had 120 divisions in the Alps, all of them had OK templates. Italy is almost a greater threat than Germany.
The Italians were the most aggressive. They attacked my forts in the Alps for a full year. One battle lasted 8 months. When I reinforced the Alps, Italy suddenly stopped.
In conclusion: The AI will attack forts, but wont if too many units are defending. Which seems pretty fine.
Btw: Italy should be nerfed slightly. They had 120 divisions in the Alps, all of them had OK templates. Italy is almost a greater threat than Germany.
.png){kind=avatar}
Simple :
1) They will attack. And they could break your line if your forts are lvl 4-5.
2) Italy will be much more likely to waste their equipments/soldiers into this kind of battle than Germany, I don't know why, as said above, maybe Paradox coded it on purpose. (After all they quite did that exact thing IRL).
3) They both will be more and more unlikely to attack if your forts + forces are too huge. Which seems to be ok to me. BUT they should try other strategies for sure (strategic bombing, combining all forces, declare on Switzerland if they think it's their only chance to breakthrough, etc..)
1) They will attack. And they could break your line if your forts are lvl 4-5.
2) Italy will be much more likely to waste their equipments/soldiers into this kind of battle than Germany, I don't know why, as said above, maybe Paradox coded it on purpose. (After all they quite did that exact thing IRL).
3) They both will be more and more unlikely to attack if your forts + forces are too huge. Which seems to be ok to me. BUT they should try other strategies for sure (strategic bombing, combining all forces, declare on Switzerland if they think it's their only chance to breakthrough, etc..)
Hopefully the Italian diplomatic AI will be slightly tweaked. In previous HoI games Italy would only join the war if the Germans were making progress in France. This gave a France player the option to face the Germans in Belgium.
At the moment Italy always join the war in september, meaning a France player needs to keep a strong garrison in the Alps, meaning there is not enough divisions to face Germany. Italy having 130 divisions doesnt help.
A static fortified defence in Northern France seems to be the only option.
At the moment Italy always join the war in september, meaning a France player needs to keep a strong garrison in the Alps, meaning there is not enough divisions to face Germany. Italy having 130 divisions doesnt help.
A static fortified defence in Northern France seems to be the only option.
It's not an exploit. I Think if the a.i told itself to stop attacking with his infantry in order to limit casualities, but i doubt that the A.I is smart enough to tell itself "Okay, too much forts, time to build bomber and keep air superiorty and make tanks for breakthrough". Maybe it doesn't have the capabilites to raise tanks divisions because he is in the red (he lacks tanks) therefore he doesn't try to make division but more consolidate what he has.
Just a thought tho'
I've played as France, and as the UK helping out France, a few times and I'm totally convinced that Germany is hard-coded to avoid forts over level 4 so that they ignore the Maginot Line. In the release version of the game Germany and France both tended to bleed out early in the game attacking each others forts from the first day of WWII leading to France falling incredibly early and Germany having to deal with ~500K losses within the first couple of months of the war and I think they went too far the other way and just made Germany ridiculously averse to attacking any fort over level 4. I'm pretty convinced it's that number too, because whenever I play as France they're quite happy to attack my dug in lines right up until I build the 5th fort level, then they just stop dead.
Keeping France in the game seems to make a lot of things go haywire too. Every time I've done it Germany never looks to invade the USSR, instead the USSR invades them. And the US just stays out of everything until about 1943 (probably a world tension thing). But Germany is still totally gung-ho with the war declarations, declaring on Sweden and Turkey in all the games I've played where France doesn't capitulate....
Keeping France in the game seems to make a lot of things go haywire too. Every time I've done it Germany never looks to invade the USSR, instead the USSR invades them. And the US just stays out of everything until about 1943 (probably a world tension thing). But Germany is still totally gung-ho with the war declarations, declaring on Sweden and Turkey in all the games I've played where France doesn't capitulate....
As I mentioned earlier I just had a run as France.
-Germany did attack the Maginot on several occasipns, usually in provinces only defended by 2 divisions. Im convinced the combined strenght of forts and divisions makes the AI not attack, not the fort level alone.
Germany didnt dow Soviet Union, but that makes sense as a two front war should be avoided.
The US joined the war in 42.
AI is bad, it only attacks by pushing forward. No local superiority, no breakthroughs, no favorable attrition. It just keeps attacking mindlessly untill manpower runs out.
But there is one exception, if the front is empty AI stops, because obviously it's a trap.
But there is one exception, if the front is empty AI stops, because obviously it's a trap.
Make sure they were definitely German forces attacking - if anyone sends volunteers to them, the volunteers will be attacking the Maginot in the games I've seen, while the German troops just sit there. This happens even if you're playing Germany - if you accept the volunteers, they go straight to the Maginot and start trying to break through.
I'm hopeful for the next patch regarding unit AI. Daniel sent two Nazi tank divisions to the Spanish Civil War and not only did the AI surround them and force them to surrender, the Republicans actually won the Civil War.
Those things are basically impossible in the current patch.
Those things are basically impossible in the current patch.
Here, here! Yes, watching that was encouraging. The surround was probably compounded by the fact he's doing lots of things at once and playing at speed 5, but good to see none the less. The Republicans winning was awesome. That literally never happens in my games unless I make it happen.
I wonder if the AI is programmed to operate at different levels and if they 'talk' to each other? The OPs problem sounds like a tactical situation interfering with the strategic process. Generally speaking, what I would term 'the strategic AI', if it exists is pretty poor. Looking at you Japan and sit on my hands USA in particular! Hopefully 1.5 will give us an actual Pacific War.
Every time I extended the Maginot line North as France, I had the same sort of results. Germany tries half-heartedly to go through the line, but most of the action shappens South in the Alps. Which ends up in a bloodbath and Italy falling.
I'm wondering if being able to directly target the forts in the region with strategic bombing will help the AI deal with heavy fortifications like this.
That said, Germany's not exactly known for its big strategic bomber force, and CAS can't do strategic bombing for no good reason.
That said, Germany's not exactly known for its big strategic bomber force, and CAS can't do strategic bombing for no good reason.
The entire problem is that the Maginot Line was costly as hell. Not only that: the construction of comparable forts along the entire Belgian border, even assuming economical feasibility, would have given Belgium the (correct) feeling that they would be thrown under a bus in the case of war against Germany. Moreover, a Switzerland-to-Channel line would remove the one strategic advantage the Maginot Line gave: knowing where the enemy offensive will strike through. In short, the game fails to model why France didn't just bunker down within its borders - because, according to its rules, it is a sound decision with sound results.
France did prolong the line on the Belgian border when Belgium proclaimed neutrality in 36. But the fortifications were nothing like the Maginot in the East. In a sense you could argue that Belgium thought that it could stand in front of the bus and the bus would stop.
Granted, the original plan was to fight in Belgium, which was not a very pleasant idea for Belgians. Once they rejected that plan, bunkering down and going for attrition was not absurd.
Time and money are another question. It's not unconceivable to reach a higher fortification level in 3 years, but what would you sacrifice for that ?
Granted, the original plan was to fight in Belgium, which was not a very pleasant idea for Belgians. Once they rejected that plan, bunkering down and going for attrition was not absurd.
Time and money are another question. It's not unconceivable to reach a higher fortification level in 3 years, but what would you sacrifice for that ?