Historical Accuracy of the Maginot Line Please

[Ibn_Solmyr]

In HoI2 and 3, Maginot line wasn't accurate unhopefully. (I remember a time when there even weren't any fortifications in the Alps, facing the Italian border). And even in the end of the HoI3 developpement, there was no trace of the French fortifications in the north.

I would like to draw attention of the devs to this particular point : please, don't build us a poorly accurate Maginot line in HoI4 !!

In global terms :

1°) There should be some Franco-Belgium fortifications, even january 1st 1936, but they were way less strong and efficient, and auto-sufficient than the Lorraine ones, for example. But there were, until North Sea.

2°) What we call "Maginot line" actually was a very complex unequal bunch of fortifications. Maybe not easy to deal with in your developpment, but you have to deal with it. o

 

[Aleksi_i]

In HoI3 one fort in province was some amount of bunkers pillboxes tank obs. etc.
That means 1 fort is one ready defence system in that province, so in the Belgium front there was no ready systems.
You can think there was some stuff there, but it is not counted as even one fort level in the game.

Or something

 

[alkls1234]

The fortifications in the north were very small because they didn't want to anger Belgium by building fortresses at the border. It would also break the game, because if there were any significant forts at the border the germans couldn't make their breakthrough and we would end up with trench warfare, which would be horrible for all the other nations

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

In HoI3 one fort in province was some amount of bunkers pillboxes tank obs. etc.
That means 1 fort is one ready defence system in that province, so in the Belgium front there was no ready systems.
You can think there was some stuff there, but it is not counted as even one fort level in the game.

Or something

The fortifications in the north were very small because they didn't want to anger Belgium by building fortresses at the border. It would also break the game, because if there were any significant forts at the border the germans couldn't make their breakthrough and we would end up with trench warfare, which would be horrible for all the other nations

Guys, there were fortifications in the north. I'm aware it weren't heavy operational ones, but saying not even a lvl 1/10 would be worth, would be ridiculous. And Dyle-Breda plan limitations in accordance with Belgium came later.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secteur_fortifié_de_Montmédy
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secteur_fortifié_de_Maubeuge

Even if it wasn't the Alsace/Lorraine oganisation and quality, it still was concrete bunkers, anti-infantry and anti-tank structures that deserve at least a 3/10 IMO.

And German forces still could do their breakthrough, as they did, where the defensive system was poor. Why should we get an inaccurate WWII game just to "script" the fall of France ? And by the way, Germany has others arguments to pass...

 

[TheDerpyBeagle]

I agree with this. I also don't see why minor fortifications would stop a German advance. In HOI3 as Germany you have no problem breaking through the Liege and Namur forts, so you shouldn't have problems in minor forts that are in wider terrain, allowing for more panzer mobility. But honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing every once in a while the war stalling into Trench Warfare. That would be a really interesting game. It would be especially a good game for Stalin, who wanted the war in the west to be a repeat of WW1, so he could build up while Germany was busy. I'd love playing a WW1 western front game in HOI4.

 

[Rommel41]

I hope they do not do this. Is the Belgian fortresses or Dutch canal-defense system represented by fortifications on map? No. Because they were not relevant in the scale of this game. Besides. Most of the "defenses" north of the Maginot were simple blockhouses (small, concrete-MG bunkers) that were often bypassed or obscured with smoke. French infantry (particularly some colonial units) were the sole source of delay for the German units in Panzergruppe Kleist. The defenses were much less formative than the system along the German border. And for gameplay purpose, there is little reason to give France more chances to defeat the German AI and ruin World War II.

I play HoI because it's about that war. Not a WWI game. The closest thing to "trench warfare" during WWII in Europe was the Italian Campaign, and even in that, the Allies advanced the entire year and a half.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I agree with this. I also don't see why minor fortifications would stop a German advance. In HOI3 as Germany you have no problem breaking through the Liege and Namur forts, so you shouldn't have problems in minor forts that are in wider terrain, allowing for more panzer mobility. But honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing every once in a while the war stalling into Trench Warfare. That would be a really interesting game. It would be especially a good game for Stalin, who wanted the war in the west to be a repeat of WW1, so he could build up while Germany was busy. I'd love playing a WW1 western front game in HOI4.

Absolutely agreed on all points. And by the way both Germany and France really could have stalled into trench warfare, as rythmn of casualties was pretty much the same as during same offensive during WWI, which pulled away both forces to dig in, and as Germany supplies for its offensive were short (in terms of fuel at least).

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I hope they do not do this. Is the Belgian fortresses [...] represented by fortifications on map? No.

Sorry but yes, it is.
Then as said, it's not a lvl 2 on whole border and lvl 3 on a few segments, with a hole in the defensive system at Sedan, which will stop German forces. You say yourself it wasn't that efficient, and by far, so why fall into contradiction by asking the history to be misrepresented in the game ?? You say you want to play WWII, ok, we all want it I guess, so let's play how it was, not "how you would like it to be cause a tiny risk of being different from what you want it to be"... Another contradiction.

 

[Rommel41]

Sorry but yes, it is.
Then as said, it's not a lvl 2 on whole border and lvl 3 on a few segments, with a hole in the defensive system at Sedan, which will stop German forces. You say yourself it wasn't that efficient, and by far, so why fall into contradiction by asking the history to be misrepresented in the game ?? You say you want to play WWII, ok, we all want it I guess, so let's play how it was, not "how you would like it to be cause a tiny risk of being different from what you want it to be"... Another contradiction.

There is nothing contradictory about my statement. It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results. Giving the French more defenses because you think they were "misrepresented" is not reason enough to do it. And since Case Yellow and the Battle of France did not turn into Trench warfare, it is strictly speculation to assume it was possible.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

There is nothing contradictory about my statement. It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results. Giving the French more defenses because you think they were "misrepresented" is not reason enough to do it. And since Case Yellow and the Battle of France did not turn into Trench warfare, it is strictly speculation to assume it was possible.

Ok, so first you say something that is wrong : There is some Belgium fortifications represented in the game at Liège.

Then, nothing contradictory in your statement ? You say it's almost useless, but you don't want them in the game because "for gameplay purpose, there is little reason to give France more chances to defeat the German AI and ruin World War II." And by the way, it's not because you said it was useless that it really was. I began saying that : "1°) There should be some Franco-Belgium fortifications, even january 1st 1936, but they were way less strong and efficient, and auto-sufficient than the Lorraine ones, for example. But there were, until North Sea." So we can agree I guess. I don't wan't a fantastic impenetrable wall, I just want the historicity to be represented. I don't "think it's misrepresented", it is.

Finally, I can't get that point : "It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results." That's just insane... Why should the devs distort history just because it didn't eventually get the expected efficiency ?!

 

[Felicity84]

There is nothing contradictory about my statement. It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results. Giving the French more defenses because you think they were "misrepresented" is not reason enough to do it. And since Case Yellow and the Battle of France did not turn into Trench warfare, it is strictly speculation to assume it was possible.

I can't help but think you are still in HOI 3 mental framework. I.e comparing the issues of HOI 3 vs HOI 4 and assuming new one will have same problems.

 

[TheDerpyBeagle]

There is nothing contradictory about my statement. It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results. Giving the French more defenses because you think they were "misrepresented" is not reason enough to do it. And since Case Yellow and the Battle of France did not turn into Trench warfare, it is strictly speculation to assume it was possible.

So with that logic, we should just take out any decisions for making the Atlantic Wall or the Molotov Line because they didn't work. The German army in general was expected by the Germans to win, but it's actual result was failure, so let's just take out the whole German army, and let the allies win.

 

[Rommel41]

Ok, so first you say something that is wrong : There is some Belgium fortifications represented in the game at Liège.

Ok. I loaded AoD and HoI 3 back up. You are correct about most forts. Depending on the scenario and the game, there are either forts right where you say there should be some (try HoI3 "Attack on the West" 1940 scenario) while my games versus the AI, France and Belgium did not build the forts in Sedan and Maubeuge and Hasselt, respectively. In AoD, yes there is a lvl 2 fort in Liege. And in HoI 3 it's Liege and Namur with 3 and 1 default. So I yield on that issue.

Then, nothing contradictory in your statement ? You say it's almost useless, but you don't want them in the game because "for gameplay purpose, there is little reason to give France more chances to defeat the German AI and ruin World War II." And by the way, it's not because you said it was useless that it really was. I began saying that : "1°) There should be some Franco-Belgium fortifications, even january 1st 1936, but they were way less strong and efficient, and auto-sufficient than the Lorraine ones, for example. But there were, until North Sea." So we can agree I guess. I don't wan't a fantastic wall, I just want the historicity to be represented. I don't "think it's misrepresented", it is.

I know we have a language barrier, and I have a little trouble understanding what you mean, so bear with me. I understand you agree, but I have to call into question the need for more forts.

By "it's", I assume you refer to the fixed defenses? And yes. I think they are generally unnecessary for the scale of the game and the goal of the entire first year of the war. To say that most people really want France to stop the Germans somehow and have a WWI v.2 is ambiguous at best. And France, like much of Europe, need to be designed so Germany can actually become a threat to countries like Russia and the US. I know the people who play those countries don't want to see the Red's and French shaking hands in Torgau in 1942. Booooring! Might as well dump the entire Heer in Norway in April 1940 and call it a day!

I still question the giving of France (and Belgium by the basis of your argument) these forts in 1936. So a human player can ramp up the "Maginot to the Sea" by 1940? Are you concerned that the number of fortifications in France are the root cause of a French defeat? More would mean a bigger chance of the AI Germany dropping the ball in 1939/1940 and by 1941/1942 Russia moves in and it's game over December 1942. Less would actually be better for people who want to make sure WW2 starts and doesn't fizzle as some regional conflict. Much as I say to the people who want the Czechs and Poles to "defeat" the Germans, it just doesn't make for a fun WWII game.

Finally, I can't get that point : "It would be a contradiction of history to represent something for it's expected function as opposed to actual results." That's just insane... Why should the devs distort historicity just because it didn't eventually get the expected efficiency ?!

I'm referring to the idea that making something in a game because it was historically intended to do something, yet did not. The main Maginot Line was very successful in it's purpose to deter attacks across directly into France. The line to the north, whatever it consisted of, was wholesale cracked and bypassed in such a way that, to increase a generalized representation of fortification present on the line, would risk ahistoric French/Belgian/Allied success. That which a factually numbered French army would also do. If all INF being equal (as so far as tech goes) then even without any fortifications, HoI games would most certainly turn to stalemate quite often in 1940 (assuming France's huge army wouldn't just walk to Berlin while the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland). It's a historical equalizing. Unless you know how to represent the many nuances that actually led to French defeat, I'm glad it works the way it does.

So yes. The devs have to distort history to create a game with a period setting.

There are many things that surround creating a fun and believable scenario for Germany and France in 1940. I certainly don't want an easy fight (I've been as late as November 1940 to beat them once!), but I don't want a walk in the park either (5 days to Paris, 10 days to Vichy is my best).

Thanks for the links to those articles by the way. Some nice maps and good info the en/wiki doesn't have.

 

[Rommel41]

So with that logic, we should just take out any decisions for making the Atlantic Wall or the Molotov Line because they didn't work. The German army in general was expected by the Germans to win, but it's actual result was failure, so let's just take out the whole German army, and let the allies win.

Those shouldn't be decisions. Those should be player initiated.

 

[Donkey Kong]

Level 1 or 2 forts along the Franco-Belgian border wouldnt breake the game. However, giving France the option to build level 5 forts by 1940 would (it would be very easy to upgrade to level 5 if you start off at level 2 in 1936).

A possible solution: Make upgrading forts more expensive as the forts grow stronger. Upgrading a fort from level 2 to 3 should be more expensive than building a level one fort.For instance: level 0-1 costs 5 ICs. Upgrading from level 1 to 2 costs 7 ICs and so on.

Building a Maginot Line strong fort (level 10) should cost more than building 10 level one forts in ten provinces.

 

[Rommel41]

I can't help but think you are still in HOI 3 mental framework. I.e comparing the issues of HOI 3 vs HOI 4 and assuming new one will have same problems.

And why not think that this game might have similar or familiar issues? Supply, AI, map design, etc. There are hundreds of resources for this game based off of over a decade of past development. I believe there are tendencies to follow certain patterns or have similar goals in design of a game. I think that there is an inheritance factor in these games. Brace yourself, there will be bugs. The AI will send the entire US army to Bermuda if Liberia joins the Axis. Supply will pile up in Vladivostok yet convoys running to Sakhalin will be OOS! Zoom in too close on Newfoundland and it turns into the ocean! Order a division to attack Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo and the movement arrow will wrap around the map and point to Siberia! Watch as Japan invades Estonia! I look forward to them all, eventually.

 

[Felicity84]

And why not think that this game might have similar or familiar issues? Supply, AI, map design, etc. There are hundreds of resources for this game based off of over a decade of past development. I believe there are tendencies to follow certain patterns or have similar goals in design of a game. I think that there is an inheritance factor in these games. Brace yourself, there will be bugs. The AI will send the entire US army to Bermuda if Liberia joins the Axis. Supply will pile up in Vladivostok yet convoys running to Sakhalin will be OOS! Zoom in too close on Newfoundland and it turns into the ocean! Order a division to attack Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo and the movement arrow will wrap around the map and point to Siberia! Watch as Japan invades Estonia! I look forward to them all, eventually.

Still, all you say is just assumption.

 

[Rommel41]

Still, all you say is just assumption.

I think the last 3 games they made and the numerous spin-offs and official mods would speak to veracity of it being more than assumption.

 

[oribiasi]

Remember, the Wermacht of 1940 still had a lot of horses. In RAC Parker's WW2 history book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-World-War-Struggle/dp/0192802070) he notes that the German army of WW2 was almost two different armies. An advanced, modern and mobile half and an old-school, almost WW1 army of infantry.

 

[Rommel41]

Remember, the Wermacht of 1940 still had a lot of horses. In RAC Parker's WW2 history book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-World-War-Struggle/dp/0192802070) he notes that the German army of WW2 was almost two different armies. An advanced, modern and mobile half and an old-school, almost WW1 army of infantry.

Exactly. On paper, the war in the west should have turned into WWI again. The French prepared for it, but the Germans did everything in their power to not have that happen. Which is why they took a long-shot gamble with most of their motorised forces in the Ardennes. Well. History proved that German innovation in the use of combined arms and mobile warfare trumped a French plan for static conflict.