France has the wrong Land Doctrine

[Sir Garnet]

I'm interested in the issue of fitting doctrine together with compatible human material, equipment, technology, training capacity and restrictions etc. It sounds like methodical battle was well regarded abroad as well. Seems like the French couldn't carry it off well with what they had at the time and some division of opinion.

Do you have a synopsis of conclusions from those studies relevant to HOI 4 and doctrine issues?

 

[fredgiblet]

The Soviets did lose a lot during the battle, more than the Germans did by several hundred thousand; if I remember it correctly.

That was usually the case, but they always had more to lose.

"Send in another wave."

 

[Duritz]

I'm interested in the issue of fitting doctrine together with compatible human material, equipment, technology, training capacity and restrictions etc. It sounds like methodical battle was well regarded abroad as well. Seems like the French couldn't carry it off well with what they had at the time and some division of opinion.

Do you have a synopsis of conclusions from those studies relevant to HOI 4 and doctrine issues?

The thing is, HOI IV is a game so it can only simulate differences between nations so you'll have to play it to work out how best to play to the strengths of the nations. Training differences are difficult to refine to a nation within the game environment. I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere but in game you could set the French troops to exercise and they'll learn at exactly the same rate as the german player and to the same level. This just wasn't possible IRL so it has to be modded through the doctrine and the make up of the division templates for the countries. As for materiel, the game won't mimic the French armoured vehicles being designed and available from 1936. Instead you'll get the standard generic models with flavour names. You also wont be able to create variants until the war starts as the XP needed to make changes looks like its quite high...

So I doubt a detailed analysis of doctrines will assist in setting up templates and playing styles. Does that sort of answer your question?

 

[Sir Garnet]

Sort of - I realize that the doctrine and other tech trees are rather generic, but national focii could be used to provide modifiers representing national variations and their effects in this area, and in many other aspects of the game.

 

[ringhloth]

Doctrine is a really complex concept, encompassing so many factors that limiting it to 4 is never going to be correct. Attaching names to it isn't really that accurate, either. Even calling it a "doctrine" is a little extensive. It'd be more accurate to call it "the German one" than "Mobile Warfare" or "the American one" than "Superior firepower." Splitting hairs over names isn't useful.

 

[Federkiel]

I haven't followed the whole of the thread but i think that France definitely had no superior firepower doctrine in ww2.

Take USA as an example for that doctrine. They first turn the ground upside down with carpet bombing. Then they turn it downside up with artillery. After finishing this they move into the moonscape created with impressive masses of troops and equipment. I mean that serious: This is what i would call superior firepower.

In ww1 most warring powers went for superior firepower - France, too. Before and in ww2 they did spread their assets (especially tanks and artillery) along a big number of divisions and along a far stretched front. I suppose this to be the exact opposite of superior firepower - and one of several reasons for the swift decline of the French forces.

 

[Wraith11B]

But that's not the American style at all: what you describe is far more the Russian style of massed artillery (they put whole artillery divisions out there). The American "Superior Firepower" is more that "If I get into a fight, I get fire superiority immediately through calls for fire from artillery, from my air support, from any armor or mortars. It's basically that I'm going to use all my arms with a profligacy that no other nation can match, with a precision that will make the attacker feel like God Himself is bringing the pain.

 

[Klausewitz]

But that's not the American style at all: what you describe is far more the Russian style of massed artillery (they put whole artillery divisions out there). The American "Superior Firepower" is more that "If I get into a fight, I get fire superiority immediately through calls for fire from artillery, from my air support, from any armor or mortars. It's basically that I'm going to use all my arms with a profligacy that no other nation can match, with a precision that will make the attacker feel like God Himself is bringing the pain.

Or, shorter:
"Stumble into the enemy and call for artillery support."

 

[Wraith11B]

air-/naval-/artillery support FTW!

 

[Duritz]

"Fire kills", that was the French motto. I don't think they're wrong...

My first thoughts on playing France are this:

The Infantry template will be loaded up with artillery, anti tank, engineers and field hospitals. I'll wait to see the effects of support vs integrated before I decide the actual mix. As far as i can see, we'll need to make them tough to stand up to German superior doctrine and maintaining our manpower will be key. Then order them to dig in and see if they can't sustain the first shock of the German offensive...not too different from what the French actually planned, but hopefully more effective for me [crosses fingers].

Note to self - remember a strategic reserve in case of breakthrough.

Can't see myself using anything other than fighters and CAS too. Small airframes and pump out numbers.

National focus needs to work on removing the negative penalties but once that is done I'll consider switching to superior firepower land doctrine to support my big divisions.

If I can hold out, then tank forces will be built up ready for an offensive in War +2 years.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Methodical and coordinated divisional advances under extensive and amply prepared artillery support and with infantry tanks leading the advance of small units to halt lines beyond which the heavy artillery in position could no longer support a further advance would be the model of each step of a methodical battle. The commanders down the line would be extensively supplied with multiple alternative methods of communication. Groups of enemy tanks (of the thin armor of the prewar German panzers) would be defeated by the coordinated fire of anti-tank guns. Of course, in practice the material requirements might not be fully satisfied, but it is a logical and workable doctrine, and the coordination of the infantry and armor would improve with training and experience.

Therefore core divisional and corps assets would be ample artillery and anti-tank guns, along with modern communications.

 

[Duritz]

spot on my friend.

 

[joe9594]

I dont know if this has been mentioned but you also have to consider the french national spirit which makes doctrines slower to research. It is a huge 75% penalty so I think that it is assumed that you have to get the focus removing that in order to progress more than a few techs into the doctrines. So really only the first few grand battleplan parts have any relation to french strategy. If you have gotten beyond that it is assumed that you have changed the doctrine of the french by taking the appropriate focus.

 

[tommylotto]

I have a bigger issue with lumping Italy together with the other nations in the grand battle plan tree. Say what you will about the Regio Esercito's execution and various other deficiencies, but they were rather ahead of the game in trying to adopt a more modern doctrine. In 1938, they adopted the concept of guerra de rapido corso or “war of rapid decision” which would probably be more appropriately represented along the German / Manuever tree. They even devised division templates designed to implement this doctrine. This included the less forward thinking Celere divisions which combined cavalry, bicycles and tankettes. But it also included impressively well balanced armored divisions consisting of an armored regiment, a motorized Bersaglieri regiment and a motorized artillery regiment. The fact that the assault tanks were never provided and they had to make due with L.3's is besides the point of the doctrine they hoped to be able to implement. Maybe put them in the German tree but give them the WWI victors' malus so that they have difficulty progressing along the tree.

 

[Denkt]

You can change your doctrine tree if you wan't.

 

[Duritz]

I dont know if this has been mentioned but you also have to consider the french national spirit which makes doctrines slower to research. It is a huge 75% penalty so I think that it is assumed that you have to get the focus removing that in order to progress more than a few techs into the doctrines. So really only the first few grand battleplan parts have any relation to french strategy. If you have gotten beyond that it is assumed that you have changed the doctrine of the french by taking the appropriate focus.

I'm very aware of this penalty, check out post #50.

The penalty is a fair reflection of the issues affecting the funding, training and organisation of the French army in the 1930's. My issue is that the same argument could be made for the Superior Firepower doctrine path. The first few appear focused on artillery support so how is that not the appropriate path for France?

 

[Duritz]

I have a bigger issue with lumping Italy together with the other nations in the grand battle plan tree. Say what you will about the Regio Esercito's execution and various other deficiencies, but they were rather ahead of the game in trying to adopt a more modern doctrine. In 1938, they adopted the concept of guerra de rapido corso or “war of rapid decision” which would probably be more appropriately represented along the German / Manuever tree. They even devised division templates designed to implement this doctrine. This included the less forward thinking Celere divisions which combined cavalry, bicycles and tankettes. But it also included impressively well balanced armored divisions consisting of an armored regiment, a motorized Bersaglieri regiment and a motorized artillery regiment. The fact that the assault tanks were never provided and they had to make due with L.3's is besides the point of the doctrine they hoped to be able to implement. Maybe put them in the German tree but give them the WWI victors' malus so that they have difficulty progressing along the tree.

What little I know of Italian doctrine, I agree with you. The Italians launched a multiple division size armoured thrust in 1937 at Guadalajara in Spain. Of course it was terribly executed and ended in total defeat but the concept was there even that early.

I think the Italians should have a penalty relating to their Organisation rather than their doctrine research. I think this would better reflect their issues. Perhaps a research penalty on equipment techs? With the exception of their artillery it appears all their equipment was obsolete... but I'll stand corrected if that's not the case.

 

[Duritz]

You can change your doctrine tree if you wan't.

Why should I have to suffer an in game disadvantage by switching at a 75% research disadvantage to correct something that can be corrected up front? Isn't that what the game development phase is for?

My issue isn't that I prefer the superior firepower doctrine, it's that it is the most historically accurate for France in this time period.

 

[Shatterfury]

Why should I have to suffer an in game disadvantage by switching at a 75% research disadvantage to correct something that can be corrected up front? Isn't that what the game development phase is for?

My issue isn't that I prefer the superior firepower doctrine, it's that it is the most historically accurate for France in this time period.

I am very meh about all of this talk of firepower doctrine for France but seeing that doctrines have two paths maybe firepower doctrine can be split between American and French variation of superior firepower.

Even if France fell early, and is kind of slated to fall in the majority of games they deserve to be properly represented.

 

[MirageHarbinger]

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

However the theories of Jeune Ècole had been proven to be a mistake of French Navy development(Although it will work after WWII because of the rapid development of naval equipment).