Historical Accuracy of the Maginot Line Please

[Mendeth]

As a side note, the Germans occupied and maintained some of the Maginot bunkers in Northern France post-1940. I forget the name of the specific bunker that I visited, but the Americans had a hard time pushing the German remnants out come the end of the war, and the extensive visible (but not necessarily critical) damage to the bunker that remains is from American howitzers.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

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.

Well, by 1940 it should be somewhat possible. But they wouldn't have also the tanks, planes, etc...
I completely agree with your idea, that's what I want too, but only if better levels are worth somehow. See here for a fortifications discussion.

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.

Let's hope they'll do better this time, because if not, I won't buy their game. *Remembering the 50+ german mot/mec divisions floundering in the Norvegian snow for months and years.... in so many games....*

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.

That's why we can have that Maginot line historically accurate without experiencing any easy swinging WWII. I get your point of view, and perfectly understand that most games for most people would be rather traditional, but that doesn't imply that the devs should distort history, nor the game shouldn't be a bit sandbox at the very least.

If you want to be sure that France won't win the war in most of cases, why not this, for example :

France has all the advantages that it should have (no nerf, no scripted defeat, keep in mind, I'm talking to the dev team too, that French customers would be many )
BUT in the politics, you've a pretty impossible to budge general top of head quarters named Gamelin who causes a 10% malus on all French forces coordination factors, and a 5% defensiveness malus due to a fractured government (until you can clean it up) or something like that...

 

[FOARP]

It's interesting to think that the fortifications in the supposedly weakly defended Montmedy sector of the Maginot line were arguably more fortified than those of the Czechoslovak border which we have been discussing were at the time of the Munich crisis.

The Montmedy sector had a total length of roughly 60KM and a total of more than 70 blockhouses and 160 infantry shelters. By contrast, in 1938 on the Czech border 264 blockhouses and 10,014 light pillboxes had been completed for a border roughly 1000KM long (not including the Hungarian border).

 

[Mendeth]

In case anyone's interested, the bunker that I mentioned earlier is the Ouvrage de Hackenberg, in the Boulay sector. The relevance to this thread being that the Maginot line should not necessarily be forgotten later in the war either.

 

[jju_57]

Posts and threads like this are useless until someone actually defines what a fortification level is, how many there can be and what impact on the game.

Here is why it's useless. You say there should be fortifications in province X. Now to you that might mean blockhouses that increase defensive fire or something along those lines. But since it was never defined another person can read that and take it to mean some massive underground connected system where the AI is scared to even attack it.

So maybe some full, complete definitions are needed before a topic like this can actually be debated.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Posts and threads like this are useless until someone actually defines what a fortification level is, how many there can be and what impact on the game.

Here is why it's useless. You say there should be fortifications in province X. Now to you that might mean blockhouses that increase defensive fire or something along those lines. But since it was never defined another person can read that and take it to mean some massive underground connected system where the AI is scared to even attack it.

So maybe some full, complete definitions are needed before a topic like this can actually be debated.

I get what you mean. But this thread isn't useless at all : I ask to the dev team that they model this thing correctly, for once. And for now, from what I saw in some screenies, it doesn't seem to be the case, so it worries me a lot. How much defensive help should bring a lvl 1 fortif isn't my decision, it's dev team's one. What I say is just that the game should represent what actually was, whatever the form the devs would like to give to it. But it has to be something there. That's all. Even if it's not to me to decide this of course, it seems obvious that if the better sectors of the Maginot line provide a lvl 10/10, then there should be something in the northern sectors we were talking about. We really need some explanations on the whole infrastructure questions. I hope it will come soon in a DD.
I would like to add that in previous HoIs, the Maginot line was so basically represented, but not only at the handicap of France : the fortifications between the area of Strasbourg and Switzerland should be less important than at north of Strasbourg, yet they were lvl 10 everywhere.

 

[Federkiel]

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...

I read on your links (in English actually). If i haven't gotten it wrong, those makeshift defense positions were built AFTER the time the game begins. Firstly, there is no need for PI to represent something that did not exist yet. Secondly, if you want those particular defenses being represented in your game - build them and you will be fine. Thirdly, on the scale the game is supposed to represent, those defenses did not have any noticeable impact on the course of the campaign. Therefore i do not see any necessity to program AI to build them at all.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I read on your links (in English actually). If i haven't gotten it wrong, those makeshift defense positions were built AFTER the time the game begins. Firstly, there is no need for PI to represent something that did not exist yet. Secondly, if you want those particular defenses being represented in your game - build them and you will be fine. Thirdly, on the scale the game is supposed to represent, those defenses did not have any noticeable impact on the course of the campaign. Therefore i do not see any necessity to program AI to build them at all.

Sorry but false, possible but not legitimate and false.

1°) Read the OP please. My informations come from specialized sites (thousands of data for each Maginot sector, not in english but if you're able to read french language, you can easily find those very detailed informations.)

2°) Yes, it's possible, and that's what I do, when it's possible (modding when the dev team doesn't track correctly the province IDs through the game lifetime becomes impossible unhopefully). But again, as it's history, it should be. If I want to play online, and I bought the game, I would legitimately like to be able to play the France campaign in a decently accurate historical way.

3°) False, and pointless. Again, as pointed before from others on this topic, it's not because something substential didn't has the complete use it was designed for it shouldn't be reprensented. That's ridiculous.

 

[jju_57]

I get what you mean. But this thread isn't useless at all : I ask to the dev team that they model this thing correctly, for once. And for now, from what I saw in some screenies, it doesn't seem to be the case, so it worries me a lot. How much defensive help should bring a lvl 1 fortif isn't my decision, it's dev team's one. What I say is just that the game should represent what actually was, whatever the form the devs would like to give to it. But it has to be something there. That's all. Even if it's not to me to decide this of course, it seems obvious that if the better sectors of the Maginot line provide a lvl 10/10, then there should be something in the northern sectors we were talking about. We really need some explanations on the whole infrastructure questions. I hope it will come soon in a DD.
I would like to add that in previous HoIs, the Maginot line was so basically represented, but not only at the handicap of France : the fortifications between the area of Strasbourg and Switzerland should be less important than at north of Strasbourg, yet they were lvl 10 everywhere.

I think I understand your point. It does come down to what a level 1 fortification is compared to a level 10. But we aren't sure how many levels there will even be in the game. Some mods like Black Ice tried to do what you want. But the other big issue is province size. Take for example Luxembourg. Now I'm sure there were pillboxes and other types of fortifications present in that country. But at what point does it qualify for the whole entire province to have a fortification level?

A province in HOI3 represented around 900 sq. miles with some provinces way bigger than this. So even if that province had 100 blockhouses, 100 pillboxes etc. does that qualify for the entire province to have it? Metz in France is a good example. There was an old fort that could easily represent a level 5 fortification. But in reality is was very limited in size. Yes the US fought some hard battles there against the Germans in 1944. But they could have just as easily bypassed the whole complex. And that is the crux of the problem to a developer.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I think I understand your point. It does come down to what a level 1 fortification is compared to a level 10. But we aren't sure how many levels there will even be in the game. Some mods like Black Ice tried to do what you want. But the other big issue is province size. Take for example Luxembourg. Now I'm sure there were pillboxes and other types of fortifications present in that country. But at what point does it qualify for the whole entire province to have a fortification level?

A province in HOI3 represented around 900 sq. miles with some provinces way bigger than this. So even if that province had 100 blockhouses, 100 pillboxes etc. does that qualify for the entire province to have it? Metz in France is a good example. There was an old fort that could easily represent a level 5 fortification. But in reality is was very limited in size. Yes the US fought some hard battles there against the Germans in 1944. But they could have just as easily bypassed the whole complex. And that is the crux of the problem to a developer.

As I mentioned earlier, what you point is the entire fortifications problem in HoI (not the Maginot line one or anything else), and there is thread on this, where I suggest a system which would solve all that kinds of problems I believe, and would allow for a very accurate and realistic model of fortifications for all starting scenerios and games developement :

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?832053-Direction-of-Land-Fortifications

I recommend to read it if not yet, this thread is interestning.

 

[jju_57]

I'm reading that thread now. But here's an interesting question. Was there anytime during WW2 that a fortification actually worked in the long run? I can't think of any off the top of my head. All major fortifications and defensive lines were cracked by the attackers. So in reality maybe the only real difference is in more casualties?

 

[FOARP]

I'm reading that thread now. But here's an interesting question. Was there anytime during WW2 that a fortification actually worked in the long run? I can't think of any off the top of my head. All major fortifications and defensive lines were cracked by the attackers. So in reality maybe the only real difference is in more casualties?

Tobruk in '41, El Alamein in '42, Kursk in '43 are all examples of major fortified positions that were held. Of course, no fortified belt could be held permanently without counter-attack, but then this was equally true in WW1 also - even in battles like the Somme and Paschendale.

 

[Donkey Kong]

Tobruk in '41, El Alamein in '42, Kursk in '43 are all examples of major fortified positions that were held. Of course, no fortified belt could be held permanently without counter-attack, but then this was equally true in WW1 also - even in battles like the Somme and Paschendale.e

You could also argue Stalingrad,reduced to rubble, was a fort. The buildings provided cover for the defenders. Also, the French fortifications against the Italians

 

[Secret Master]

I'm reading that thread now. But here's an interesting question. Was there anytime during WW2 that a fortification actually worked in the long run? I can't think of any off the top of my head. All major fortifications and defensive lines were cracked by the attackers. So in reality maybe the only real difference is in more casualties?

Others have listed several cases where fortifications were held. I'll just add that portions of the Maginot Line refused to surrender even after the armistice. While placing so much faith in it to win an entire war was a bad idea, you can't say that it was overrun easily.

But I would further point out that the way HOI3 modeled their impact on combat was satisfactory. They are a force multiplier. No forts in HOI3 were immune to attack, but you would either need significant superiority in firepower to breech them, or you needed to cut off their supply to reduce their fighting effectiveness, or bomb them into oblivion. This is fairly historically accurate, I feel. You wanna storm fortifications, put some effort into it.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Tobruk in '41, El Alamein in '42, Kursk in '43 are all examples of major fortified positions that were held. Of course, no fortified belt could be held permanently without counter-attack, but then this was equally true in WW1 also - even in battles like the Somme and Paschendale.

The Germans weren't stopped by the extensive defences at Kursk. They were stopped by the allied landings in Sicily and by the Russian counter-offensive north of the Kursk salient.

The fortifications while useful were not as important as the fact the Germans were attacking at less then 1-1 odds at El Alamein.


Tobruk? Get serious. How was Tobruk able to prevent the Africa Korp from moving through the province? I would think the Australians deserve some credit in its defence

Units in the game get a defensive value for sitting. Don't confuse no fortifications with no defence works.
Stalingrad as well fell...except for a very narrow area close to the river. The 'fortifications' were taken.


I think the biggest problem with fortifications in HOI3 was how you could train troop experience by attacking them.

 

[Axe99]

Tobruk? Get serious. How was Tobruk able to prevent the Africa Korp from moving through the province? I would think the Australians deserve some credit in its defence

Tobruk actually is a pretty good example - it had a decent level of fortifications that had been put in place by the Italians, and it held out against a concerted effort by the Afrika Corps (at one point, German armour actually penetrated well into the outer defences only to be stopped by a combination of British tanks and artillery, but as you say, the Australians played a major role in the defence of the position, as well as smaller numbers of troops from a number of other Allied nations).

It also meant that Rommel couldn't actually continue his advance, as he didn't have the force level to both siege Tobruk and make a meaningful advance on Egypt, and leaving Tobruk would have meant giving the Allies free reign to plunder his supply lines. Holding Tobruk pretty much stopped Rommel from advancing much further at all. It was only after the second (and somewhat briefer, and far more successful for the Afrika Corps) siege of Tobruk that Rommel was able to advance on Egypt, as the fall of Tobruk meant he didn't have to worry about his supply lines (as much).

 

[wingo]

You can imagine the most critical situation in Stalingrad as 95% victory progression for Germany in HOI3, which got reduced when reinforcements arrived. Just a huge, protracted battle in which sides kept throwing reinforcements into the battle so it kept going. You can imagine any fights this way, forts or no forts, the critical difference being that forts/cities act like force multipliers - they will still fall if the enemy keeps throwing men/bombs at you and you do not reinforce your lines, just like in real life.

 

[Porkman]

Fortifications allowed the Japanese to win the Battle of Shanghai. It's not at the scale of the game, but for the first week, the Chinese had the majority of forces in Shanghai and their goal was to push the Japanese out of the 9 square mile section of the city that the Japanese controlled. They were unsuccessful because the Japanese concrete bunkers and pillboxes were impervious to most of the weapons that the Chinese had on hand. The delay prevented the Chinese from pushing the Japanese into the river before Japanese reinforcements could arrive.

Also, there's another aspect that's not talked about is the usefulness of fortification for partisan suppression. The Japanese did this in China a lot as a way to pacify the countryside, building huge lines of block houses and digging ditches and building walls to keep people from moving where they weren't supposed to. I think the Germans did something similar in Yugoslavia but I don't remember a source on that.

 

[jju_57]

Tobruk in '41, El Alamein in '42, Kursk in '43 are all examples of major fortified positions that were held. Of course, no fortified belt could be held permanently without counter-attack, but then this was equally true in WW1 also - even in battles like the Somme and Paschendale.

Love how you changed the definition of a fortification to now be a mine field. Kursk was not a fortification but instead a series of defensive lines. If Tobruk was so great then howd id it fall so easily the next time around? After all weren't the fortifications still there a few lousy months later? It wasn't fortifications the first time that stopped the attack.

SM, I'm not saying fixed fortifications are "easily overrun". I'm saying they were basically useless because you could bypass a fixed fortification and just ignore it. What can it do? Nothing. Eventually those in the Maginot line gave up. And when the attackers were properly prepared no fixed fortifications ever held.

But the argument is not a defensive line but fixed fortifications. And no fixed fortifications ever really worked in the long run.

 

[FOARP]

Love how you changed the definition of a fortification to now be a mine field.

. . . and the lines of trenches, bunkers, pillboxes etc. built behind them. I'm pretty happy with that being considered "fortification" - you aren't?

Kursk was not a fortification but instead a series of defensive lines.

What are defensive lines if not lines of fortifications?

If Tobruk was so great then howd id it fall so easily the next time around?

Because they hadn't been maintained properly. Funny thing about the desert is that if you don't keep the sand out, it gets in.

It wasn't fortifications the first time that stopped the attack.

History books tend to disagree with this - instead they point to the Germans and Italians becoming bogged down in attacking Australians dug in in bunkers and pill-boxes, and then forced back by counter-attacks.

SM, I'm not saying fixed fortifications are "easily overrun". I'm saying they were basically useless because you could bypass a fixed fortification and just ignore it. What can it do? Nothing. Eventually those in the Maginot line gave up. And when the attackers were properly prepared no fixed fortifications ever held.

Except where they did. Again: Tobruk in '41, El Alamein in '42, and Kursk in '43. You can probably add the battle of the Admin Box to this, and maybe the fighting on the ABC line. Or are you trying a "no true Scotsman"-type argument where every time attackers failed to take a fortified position they "weren't properly prepared"?

But the argument is not a defensive line but fixed fortifications. And no fixed fortifications ever really worked in the long run.

Again, this really depends: massive concrete fortresses did not pay off, but lines of concrete pill-boxes arguably did where properly situated. The Mannerheim line was definite force-multiplier for the Finns and more than repaid their (modest) investment in it, even if it did eventually fall. The fortified line prepared by the Germans in Italy prevented any break-out and slowed the Allied advance to a crawl. Even the bunkers on Utah Beach can be said to have paid for themselves, since they allowed a few machine gun teams sheltered within them to slaughter thousands of American soldiers, even if the Atlantic Wall as a whole was a monumental waste.