I don't think it's flawed. There's plenty of historical research that goes into excruciating detail regarding good and bad decisions made by commanders on all sides of the conflict. Now, we can debate whether certain decisions were good or bad, but surely you're not suggesting that we can't make ANY determination as to the quality of various decisions made on all sides of the conflict?
But you can easily debate how much time saved or not each decision would have. In fact that's all you could do because there is no way you could quantify that decision X shaved 28.367 hours off the time it takes to take France.
Now consider the situation of a French player. You get a series of nerfs handed to you before the game even starts. Your success or failure, or the chance of success of failure, is in part determined by arbitrary nerfs that have nothing to do with the historical situation as covered by game mechanics like IC, manpower, doctrines, and leaders.
And yet even with all those nerfs it was plenty easy to win as France. That in itself is the single biggest reason France should be nerfed. If I can win as France WITH nerfs then why do I need even BETTER conditions? This is one question that everyone ducks. Should a human France player easily beat a German AI? In HOI3 you can win with some difficulty but without the nerfs it's a cakewalk.
Now, I completely fail to understand your logic. You want the "historical" outcome for Germany (quick Battle of France, Germany ready to do Barbarossa), but you also think it's good for the game to design itself in such a way that the absolutely best strategy for Britain is to abandon France? If I didn't know any better, I would think you were advocating for an entirely German-centered HOI experience.
Historically it would have been better for UK to do that. Remember it was stupid Germany that didn't totally destroy the Brits and allowed their escape. Now in our games we do trap and destroy the Brits. That is one reason why we easily invade UK in 1940 in HOI3. They don't have the ground forces to stop us.
So, if you just have a 1 on 1 between France and Germany, it doesn't make sense (I've done this before). But consider what else I said about there being other MP people involved....
Answer my question: Shouldn't the game be interesting beyond Barbarossa, Husky, and Overlord? If the rest of the game was interesting, would it matter as much if things went off the rails in 1940?
I think you and I agree that MP games are basically Axis vs. Allies + Communists. 6 players take US/France, UK, SU, Italy, Germany, Japan. So I was saying that the France only vs. Germany is not really what happens in MP.
As for your question, I've been in games where due to bad play Germany gets really beaten early by UK/France. As a US or SU player it was terrible. It's game over already and we restarted it. Now in a 2 player MP (Axis vs. Allies) it might be OK as the Allies can claim victory. But these games are over in 1940/41. Japan hasn't even attack PH yet and the game is over. It might be interesting but it sure isn't fun.
The best MP games, and the AAR's show this, is where the game goes to 1943, 1944 and 1945. Even games where Germany defeats SU in 1941 are many times restarted. But people do NOT play on if France is still alive in 1941.
So? Human players win Barbarossa in MP as Germany. Does Germany need a nerf now?
Well one reason is most likely because France fell quickly. And Germany doesn't ALWAYS defeat the SU. It's a razor's edge. That's why it's so fun. It can go either way. The race is on by the UK/USA players to help out as much as possible. BTW IF Germany wins those are usually in 1942 or even 1943. As I said before a 1941 game is restarted and a new SU player picked.
Human players of Japan annex all of China and the warlords without house rules in MP and start the war early because they increase threat against the US. Does Japan need a nerf? Italy seals the Med sometimes in MP. Does Italy need a nerf because the player actually does a good job for once?
Please we were having a decent argument but now you want strawman's to enter into it. It has no bearing on France.
I'd like to also note for the record that Italy's army has a rather poor performance record in various parts of the war (not all of it), but Britain doesn't get a decision like Blitzkrieg to improve her performance in North Africa. Or a buff to make invading Sicily possible.
Again strawman arguments because the point is should France have nerfs. We're not discussing any buffs or other countries.
It has to do with how long should France survive against Germany and why.
Human players who are good at the game should be able to do better than their historical counterparts.
Now here is the point you can't win. With all these nerfs and buffs for Germany against France in HOI3 how long does it take a human player on average to defeat France? And be honest. Now I know someone will yell "I won in 4 weeks!!" but on average it takes a human vs. the stupid AI WITH all the buffs and nerfs 6-7 weeks. Many, many games it takes closer to 8-9 weeks. So how can you claim that if you did not nerf France that you could win in 6 weeks without some gamey tactic like paradropping on Paris? This point alone PROVES that to get a historical result the nerfs and buffs were necessary even against the AI.
My assumption is that you can just literally feed the French AI the Dyle Plan and tell it to use it. If that's not how it works, then you are right. But surely one of the advantages to the new battleplan set up is that you can give the AI historical instructions. I mean, I'm not making a giant leap of logic, am I?
Not sure. How does the AI develop battle plans? They can't be done before a game plays out because who know what the other side will do? So it has to be AI based and like you said there will only be one AI so whatever battle plan it comes up with will be the one it uses. I really really doubt that battle plans will be used to "nerf" countries. Especially since we and the AI can change them on the fly anyway (at least the DD said this).
Yes, haven't we all beat Germany as France. That doesn't mean I have to like how it's set up.
No but it proves that even in HOI3 France was too powerful unless you honestly think France should be able to defeat Germany. If that is the case then that's a whole different argument.
Are you telling me that there is nothing interesting to do in HOI3 MP if France does not lose to Germany in 6 months? If yes, then would it not be reasonable to make the rest of the war more interesting in MP? If no, then there are other interesting things to do in an MP game even if Germany doesn't win quickly.
Read what I said. Interesting isn't the same as fun. If Germany takes 6-12 months to defeat France then the rest of the war is basically predetermined. No way Germany has a shot against the SU. It's over. Do we play MP because it might be an interesting way to lose? I guess some do. But most play to have a chance to win. In the average MP game (guestimate here) France lasts for about 12 weeks or so. This actually shows something pretty interesting for you. A human France does just a little better (4-6 weeks) than an AI France WITH the nerfs and German buffs. This is with UK support. Where is the evidence that France needs to be STRONGER? Please answer that question.
Thee questions you dodge are these:
1) Human Germany defeats AI France in 6-8 weeks WITH nerfs and buffs. Why does France need to be stronger if that means it takes 2-3 months then?
2) Human France DEFEATS German AI with nerfs so why does France need to be stronger when they already can defeat Germany?
3) Human France lasts for about 12 weeks against Human Germany. Twice as long as historically. Why does France need to be stronger?
You seem to be saying you don't care about the outcomes but just because some French division was not in the OOB that means it's wrong?
You can't be serious; surely having viable start dates beyond 1936 and 1939 would benefit MP?
Go through the MP AAR's and tell me how many are not these starting dates. People don't play them (post 1939) period. The only time the 1942 start date was picked is if it was Japan vs. US only. The other start dates were picked so rarely that in reality is was a waste of resources to even have them in the game. But that is just my opinion.
Or even why bother having a Battle of France?
In fact, why not create a mod for HOI3? The "No France Mod" that just annexes France to Germany when Poland either surrenders or goes GiE. It replaces the special buff Germany gets, assigns 25% of the pre-existing French army to Vichy, and occupies the historical occupation zone. Then you can have your Barbarossa without even worrying about nerfing France or buffing Germany.
You're sounding petulant now.
If you just want a pointlessly easy Battle of France, why bother fighting it at all?
So how is a 12 week Battle of France "pointlessly easy"? Even in the SP games of 8 weeks how is that "pointlessly easy". Now I'll be petulant. Then let's take out Poland, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Finland, Norway as these "pointlessly easy" fights should also be removed.
No my friend, you know you are ducking the issue here. Right now with the nerfs and buffs it takes 5-10 weeks in SP and 8-14 weeks in MP to defeat France. That is with the nerfs and buffs. So what is you argument to make these even LONGER? Your whole argument is based on something missing from their OOB. But that same argument can be made for ALL OOB's.
) - I think the whole 'France must be nerfed' argument rests on a very German-centric view of HoI. Much better to fix later start scenarios (all being well, with battle plans but not much in the way of a chain of command, it'll be easier for the scenario starting positions to be a bit more on the money, as there'll be less fiddly chain of command work, and more of a focus on Germany having X many divisions of X type on the polish border and the like). The examples provided at the bottom of the post highlight the end of the chain of reasoning that nerfing France (rather than reflecting poor leadership, doctrine and battle plans in-game, which is imo the way to go) to force the historic outcome ends up, where at the end of the day we press one button and watch WW2 happen one event at a time.
