France has the wrong Land Doctrine

[Duritz]

It's one of those things that bugs you without really working out what it was but after watching the latest World War Wednesday and doing some rereading of the Dev diaries I'm prepared to say it:

France has the wrong Land Doctrine.

Far from being focused on Grand Battleplan Doctrine, inter war France was obsessed with a defensive doctrine that was designed to blunt the German offensive and hold the enemy until the blockade and allies created the overpowering firepower and numbers needed to win the war.

Their land warfare doctrine was called the Methodical Battle but this has obviously been misunderstood. It doesn't mean the sort of battle planning that the British used but instead it was designed to place severe limits of French commanders to ensure lives were not wasted through ill planned offensives. Instead of being "Grand", the methodical battle was designed to limit French offensive action to small counter attacks or where local superiority of geography created an opportunity for an easy victory.

Their focus was on firepower and, to them, maneuver was designed to bring superior firepower to bear rather than as some sort of attempt to break through the lines of the enemy.

It is for these reasons that France should be placed on the Superior Firepower doctrine.

I ask that Paradox reconsider their decision in this regard as it is historically inaccurate. If their decision was based on game balance considerations then I'd accept that but I believe it is an actual misread of the evidence.

In support I ask them to view the writings of Doughty http://www.amazon.com/Robert-A.-Doughty/e/B001ITRGAE; and Kiesling http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=eugenia+kiesling.

Duritz.

 

[Victor Cortez]

I have no idea whether you're right or not, but I would imagine that at this point of development "historical accuracy" has a rather low priority compared to playability/balance/fun.

 

[Surimi]

Since I'm pretty sure plans can be used defensively, grand battleplan seems equally appropriate.. Once the doctrine tree splits it starts to look less appropriate, sure, but things like being able to build up a larger planning bonus would seem to work really well with a defensive focus.

In game, it seems like superior firepower is built around nations with insane industrial capacity like the USA which can churn out equipment and aircraft, so an issue might also be that France just wouldn't be very good at using it.

 

[Anichent]

maybe the French AI just made a different choice this time around? Or maybe I'm missing something.

 

[GsusNSV]

maybe the French AI just made a different choice this time around? Or maybe I'm missing something.

France is 'scripted' (don't find a better word right now ) to go with Grand Battleplan Doctrine.

[...]
Grand Battleplan: This could be thought of as the traditional doctrine path, and is the default choice for Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. This doctrine path gives you larger planning bonuses and boosts Infantry and Artillery. It is a bit weak on the offence to begin with, but has some defensive bonuses. The split offers the choice between increased offensive potential and steadily improving all unit types with the Assault path, or focusing heavily on Infantry with the more frontloaded Infiltration path.[...]

 

[Zaku]

First part of the Grand Battleplan is basically WW1 trench warfare, which is what the French were trying to use in WW2.
Superior firepower on the other hand is a quite agressive doctrine(I assume), with shock and awe or airland battle.
I don't think the current system can simulate every historical doctrine, but I think France is fine with Grand Battleplan.

 

[kviiri]

France is 'scripted' (don't find a better word right now ) to go with Grand Battleplan Doctrine.

One might accurately say Grand Battleplan is their default doctrine. The one they start with, and actively need to discard to pick something else - I wonder if the AI will ever do that.

 

[Lither]

The US pinched a fair few ideas from the French during the rearmament, so it would make more sense for Superior Firepower.

Especially if de Gaulle gets his way before the Fall of France.

 

[draske]

I think the naming is causing the confusion. You could say the Russians use Superior firepower plan as they rely so much on artillery. The Grand Battleplan seems to revolve around a WWI thinking on war, which the French did. It would of course be cool to see some French specific items in the battelplan research tree , but if I remember correct this is already done with the national focusses.

 

[Lither]

Well, Mobile Warfare is actually the best tree for Deep Operations to be under; both German and Soviet doctrines share the same mother of military cooperation in the Union.
They also share a great deal of doctrinal similarities, such as an overreliance on offensive manoeuvres and mobility, the use of tanks to force a spearhead open and encircle defenders to be eliminated by reserve troops, paralysing the enemy forces with shocking aggression and speed,
Really the big difference was that German style thinking only had a single Schwerpunkt where force was to be concentrated, while the Soviets emphasised multiple penetrations over a broad front.

The only way Mass Mobilisation could be justified is in the military incompetence of the post-purge Red Army. But the game currently hamstrings a non-purge Union down the same path when they definitely would not have followed it.

I plan on modding a fix to this.

 

[frolix42]

Superior Firepower: This is the American default path. This doctrine focuses on big, well-equipped, but expensive divisions and gains a bonus when fighting in areas with friendly air superiority. The first split offers the choice between adding more support units to each division, or focusing on independently deployed support brigades. The second split will let you pick between Airland battle (for increased cooperation with the air force for combat support) or Shock and Awe (which keeps the majority of your focus on ground-based firepower).

Grand Battleplan: This could be thought of as the traditional doctrine path, and is the default choice for Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. This doctrine path gives you larger planning bonuses and boosts Infantry and Artillery. It is a bit weak on the offence to begin with, but has some defensive bonuses. The split offers the choice between increased offensive potential and steadily improving all unit types with the Assault path, or focusing heavily on Infantry with the more frontloaded Infiltration path.

I personally wouldn't get distracted by the names of Land Doctrines.

"Grand Battleplan", at least in the early stages of the game, is the one that is focused on defense firepower. That would mean giving your units Hard + Soft Defense and entrenchment bonuses.

"Superior Firepower", well you can read it for yourself. We won't know for sure if that would fit France better until HoI4 is released.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

They also call the non-existent German doctrine "Blitzkrieg" when Germany in fact had no formal militay doctrine, nor did they ever call what they did have "Blitzkrieg". We all must suffer with our own peculiar hangups ;p

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Really the big difference was that German style thinking only had a single Schwerpunkt where force was to be concentrated, while the Soviets emphasised multiple penetrations over a broad front..

Or other way around maybe? This is a plan for Operation Barbarossa.

You can see that each phase has multiple spearheads. I believe it was Soviets who wanted to concentrate everything on 1 big spearhead and rest attacks would only be supportive. That is certainly what i have heard from documentaries.

 

[Opanashc]

I believe it was Soviets who wanted to concentrate everything on 1 big spearhead and rest attacks would only be supportive. That is certainly what i have heard from documentaries.

You belief is wrong. Soviet doctrine implemented ideas from Brusilov Offensive. Multiple penetration points, utilizing reserves to expand them etc.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Or other way around maybe? This is a plan for Operation Barbarossa.

You can see that each phase has multiple spearheads. I believe it was Soviets who wanted to concentrate everything on 1 big spearhead and rest attacks would only be supportive. That is certainly what i have heard from documentaries.

You're both right and wrong about the Germans, but you're mistaken about the Soviets.

German scwherpunkt did call for one major thrust, but, in Russia that transformed one major thrust per army group. Due to the scope of the front, strategic width had to be established and one giant push up the middle would have left the flanks precariously exposed, so that's why you have all these different army groups doing their thing.

The Soviets were less of a rapier thrust like the Germans were, and more of a series of sledge hammer blows. The first wave would attack, on a broader but still focused front. It would go as far as it could or until it reached its objective, and then a second wave would be launched to the next set of objectives through the first wave, so on and so forth.

The reason for these staggered hammer blows is probably command and coordination at the regimental and lower level. The Soviets had to adhere to much stricter and rigid incremental offensives, but they could achieve astonishing complexity by conducting these attacks in concert with one another.

Bagration is probably the best example to study on how Soviet doctrine worked, when it worked at its highest level. The overall operation is incredibly complex, detailed, but the individual component pieces are simplistic and not expansive. It's how they weaved all the parts together that gave it complexity. Compared to the Germans which had basically complete creative freedom to operate as expressively as they wanted to on the attack. That individual unit initiative is a big part of German early war success. A good example of this is Rommel in France. Ignoring orders and just putting the pedal down taking massive risks.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

You're both right and wrong about the Germans, but you're mistaken about the Soviets.

German scwherpunkt did call for one major thrust, but, in Russia that transformed one major thrust per army group. Due to the scope of the front, strategic width had to be established and one giant push up the middle would have left the flanks precariously exposed, so that's why you have all these different army groups doing their thing.

The Soviets were less of a rapier thrust like the Germans were, and more of a series of sledge hammer blows. The first wave would attack, on a broader but still focused front. It would go as far as it could or until it reached its objective, and then a second wave would be launched to the next set of objectives through the first wave, so on and so forth.

The reason for these staggered hammer blows is probably command and coordination at the regimental and lower level. The Soviets had to adhere to much stricter and rigid incremental offensives, but they could achieve astonishing complexity by conducting these attacks in concert with one another.

Bagration is probably the best example to study on how Soviet doctrine worked, when it worked at its highest level. The overall operation is incredibly complex, detailed, but the individual component pieces are simplistic and not expansive. It's how they weaved all the parts together that gave it complexity. Compared to the Germans which had basically complete creative freedom to operate as expressively as they wanted to on the attack. That individual unit initiative is a big part of German early war success. A good example of this is Rommel in France. Ignoring orders and just putting the pedal down taking massive risks.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Zaku]

They also call the non-existent German doctrine "Blitzkrieg" when Germany in fact had no formal militay doctrine, nor did they ever call what they did have "Blitzkrieg". We all must suffer with our own peculiar hangups ;p

Just some minor nitpicking: The doctrine is called Mobile Warfare, and Blitzkrieg is only the name of a specialization inside it. (The other one is called mobile infantry)

 

[Flayer92]

France should probably be on a Sealane Interdiction doctrine as far as naval stuff goes. They were the originators of the "Jeune Ècole" theories.

 

[mursolini]

Well, Mobile Warfare is actually the best tree for Deep Operations to be under; both German and Soviet doctrines share the same mother of military cooperation in the Union.
They also share a great deal of doctrinal similarities, such as an overreliance on offensive manoeuvres and mobility, the use of tanks to force a spearhead open and encircle defenders to be eliminated by reserve troops, paralysing the enemy forces with shocking aggression and speed,
Really the big difference was that German style thinking only had a single Schwerpunkt where force was to be concentrated, while the Soviets emphasised multiple penetrations over a broad front.

Not really, the doctrines are quite different. Both in terms of troops that are supposed to do the breakthrugh (Soviet one demanded infantry break lines, armor exploit lines, German used armor spearheads, assisted by motorised infantry ). German doctrine emphased encirclements and destruction of emeny forces. Deep battle emphased conquering enemy supply lines and as such, deemed engaging the main forces unnecessary since they will simply run out of supplies, Stalingrad is actually a great example of perfect execution of Deep battle. Soviets managed to trap major German force in defencible position, after which, Soviet troops simply kept a token force to pin down defenders, while estabilishing as large of a gap between Stalingrad and the rest of German army, as possible. Germans eventually surrenderd. That, is quite different from how Germans themselves used much smaller encirclements, after which, the encircled were quickly assaulted and destroyed.

The only way Mass Mobilisation could be justified is in the military incompetence of the post-purge Red Army. But the game currently hamstrings a non-purge Union down the same path when they definitely would not have followed it.

Soviets used Mass Mobilisation, it was always supposed to be a part of Deep battle, otherwise it was impossible to achieve advantage needed. Just look how much equipemnt SU had in stores before war. That equipment was supposed to be used! Besides, nobody said the doctrine relied that much on good training and cooperation. Soviet army was cronically underequiped with radios, and was quite a bit less agile. That was supposed to be compensated with having more equipment, better artillery conventration and the fact that fast frontall assaults require large cassualties, and can be done by under-trained troops.

You belief is wrong. Soviet doctrine implemented ideas from Brusilov Offensive. Multiple penetration points, utilizing reserves to expand them etc.

You are both worng actually. Soviets initially attempted to implement multiple penetrations, but the concept proved unworkable, hence after Stalingrad, the idea of secondary attack axises was abandoned. You cal clearly see that in 1943-1945 offencives, empasing only one peace of frontline.

 

[Opanashc]

You are both worng actually. Soviets initially attempted to implement multiple penetrations, but the concept proved unworkable, hence after Stalingrad, the idea of secondary attack axises was abandoned. You cal clearly see that in 1943-1945 offencives, empasing only one peace of frontline.

Aye, one piece of a 3000-km front line, one piece that stretched for like 500-700 km.