Sorry if I led you to the wrong conclusion. I was implying that making France tougher "where it takes 6+ months" kills the game "MP version" as a whole. Hopefully we have this cleared up.
How much of an advantage do the allies start with at the beginning of the game?
- Thread starter I_AM_King_Midas
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Sorry if I led you to the wrong conclusion. I was implying that making France tougher "where it takes 6+ months" kills the game "MP version" as a whole. Hopefully we have this cleared up.
This, this and this. If the HoI4's game systems are up to the task, it should be incredibly difficult for the Axis to win outright (well, unless they get the USSR in the Axis or something like that - but for the sake of this argument, lets assume all the majors are aligned as they were historically). It worked in HoI3 because the Axis were given a good leg-up to get over the line, but if we want a historically-inspired set-up, rather than an Axis fantasy game, then it should be incredibly difficult to win as the Axis (not impossible, but so tough that in an MP game an outright war win isn't the 'win' condition of the scenario for the Axis). Have victory conditions for the factions that reflect this, rather than a somewhat simple "you only win if you conquer a large proportion of the world as your faction" approach. For an incredibly detailed and in many places very clever game, HoI3's victory conditions were more simple than those in your average game of Call of Duty.
In terms of the 'not nerf France' thing, it's less a case of making France stronger, but more making HoI4's systems better so that France can have a historic order of battle/amount of military resources and Germany is still able to win the vast majority of the time, at least with a 1939 start. So while France would be stronger in HoI3 terms, their chances of success wouldn't be any better (and could well be worse).
If they did that their sales would suck. Sorry but EVERY game on WW2 makes it possible for the Axis to win around half the time. The majority want to play out the big fights. They even want Japan to have a chance to defeat the US. I'm not talking about invasion of USA but defeating their navy where the US can't do squat in the Pacific.
So sales and gameplay win.
I thought I did, but I will answer them plainly and in order.
1) Human France defeats AI Germany by using bizarre builds and gamey tactics. This is subjective, certainly, but if I can't even get to France's historical army size in 1939 without refusing to build any ships at all, then we're talking about a gamey set up or bizarre builds.
2) Eh? Most reasonably skilled players I know who play Germany can easily equal Germany's historical performance against the AI. There are some players who can't, especially very new players who don't understand key mechanics (officer ratio gets a lot of them), but then again, it's not like key German historical leaders were noobs, either. Seriously, if you want historical German performance, you should be prepared to be at least somewhat skilled.
3) I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but I'm certainly not the MP expert around here. If I take your word for it, let me ask you a question before I answer: are we talking about all MP? Games that start in 1936 and actually start the war in 1939? 1939 starts? Games where the Phoney War actually happens? I suspect that some of these games involve hyper-accelerated wars (shooting starts in 37 or 38) or wars were there are some other substantial changes. I haven't seen too many MP games start in 1936, war beings in late 39, with a Phoney War in-between. If MP folks are changing the parameters of WWII a bunch, then a lot of assumptions go out the window.
Beyond that, however, I will say that 8-14 weeks is not a critical, war losing difference for Germany, especially in games where Germany launches the attack on the west in the middle of 1939. Now, if the German player is losing 1000 manpower in 8-14 weeks, I'm just going to have to say, "Step up your game next time. You don't get to win every game."
4) Yes, but with this caveat: I want a better representation of France's weaknesses. I don't want to win or lose the Battle of France with a stupidly small army and bizarre build schemes if I start in 1936. I also don't want magic bonuses for anyone. I want to win knowing that my maneuvers, my choice in leaders, and my choice in doctrines made a difference. I don't want to win because I figured out how to game the brigade upgrade system to allow me to mechanize the entire French army by 1940 so I can meet the Germans with a swarm of armor behind the river lines.
I can't stress this enough; I don't like bonuses or penalties being conjured out of thin air. If HOI3 is claiming to historically represent a bunch of stuff, I'd like to at least be able to have a historically sized OOB for land, air, and sea. And I'd like to meet the Germans on fairly historical terms if I so choose. I don't want to be counting down months and days until German special bonuses wear out, and then launch my counteroffensive into the Rhineland. I don't want to count on the RAF to bomb Germany into rubble thanks to special bonuses while I attack on land.
5) Of course it should. That's a rather odd question. Should a human France be able to beat Germany with British support? Sure. Should it be easy? Nah. Should it carry a high cost in manpower and IC? Yes. Should an average player be able to pull it off? Probably not. If HOI was an MMORPG, playing France as a human in 1940 should be Hard Mode boss fight. But, continuing the analogy, winning shouldn't rely on hiding in a the corner of the room to spoof the AI and win the encounter easily, either.
Both me, TheBromgrev, and some others don't think there's enough French manpower or IC to reach historical build levels by May of 1940. The French OOB in HOI3 lacks divisions in the first place, so she doesn't even start with enough troops. I haven't tried it in so long, though. If anyone doubts the veracity of the claim that France cannot reach her historical army, navy, and air force OOB by the time the Phoney War ends, I'll be more than willing to raise the discussion in the Naval Build Thread and try it out.
I should point out that in some cases, it may not be insufficient IC so much as insufficient starting practicals. I think the relative IC of France and Germany is about right (assuming IC correlates in any way to GDP), but France should probably have better practical knowledge in both army and naval categories than she does in the actual game. A similar case can be made for Britain, but Britain starts with several useful strategic effects.
Again, this is where I think battleplans and leaders and internal politics could really make HOI4 more interesting. Instead of having the French nerfed in silly ways, she is weakened in the areas that make the most sense.
Maybe these days, but definitely not back in the day. The board game I used to play, World in Flames, had victory conditions in line with the strategic imbalance (you win as the Axis if you're not defeated by date X), and the first computer WW2 game I played (Clash of Steel, around 20 years agol) was also along those lines. I dropped out of WW2 video gaming for a bit after that, and when I came back everyone had gone all 'Axis and Allies' with the victory conditions.
If you have to, you could always have an 'Axis and Allies' mode that gave the Axis buffs (or Allies nerfs) to make it a fair fight, with victory conditions along the lines of "whichever side is better off at the end wins" and a historical mode that had victory conditions more in line with the strategic balance. You still get the big fights in either game - it's just that in the historical game the Axis player knows that in the long run they're unlikely to achieve outright victory (which, short of beating the Allies to the A-bomb, was the historical situation). In my view, the historical view makes a lot more sense for a prolonged game as well - if you're just playing for an outright win, then once either the UK or USSR goes down, then it's pretty much game over, start again. With the more historical (whether you're looking at historical in terms of WW2 strategic gaming or actual history) approach of 'the Axis win if they're not defeated by date X' then it's a knock-down fight right up until the line, retaining gameplay tension all the way through to either Axis defeat or Axis victory. It makes for a far better game, even if it requires a smidgeon more emotional development to enjoy at the same level.
You'd make Axis and Allies mode (called something a dash more tactful, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings
) the default setting, and no-one need know there's a historical wargame underneath that folk who know to look for can still play .
I agree.
The allies have the industrial and economic base that their victory condition should be total victory. The Axis should be happy to score a white peace.
But this is a game after all. And people like to win at games.
I guess building land forces over a navy is gamey? I don't think it's bizarre. But you can win by extending the Maginot line to the coast also. And I noticed you mentioned you can't build France's historical army. What country's historical army can you build by their start date of war? I don't think any. I know USA can't. I know SU can't. Neither can Italy or Japan. I admit I haven't compared Germany game OOB vs. historical but I know I can't build Germany's OOB for Barbarossa by June 1941. So this leads me to a logical question.
If France is to be made stronger and have their historic OOB shouldn't all countries get their historic OOB's? Besides France has more IC what stops the player from doing that "gamey" thing and building even MORE land units where it takes Berlin in 1939?
I used a range of 5 to 10 weeks. Historic was 4 weeks and 4 days to get IN Paris and 5 weeks and 5 days for France to actually surrender. Not sure how many players actually capture Paris in just over 4 weeks. But my point is pretty clear. Right now WITH the German buffs and your missing French OOB the results are historical to slightly longer than historical. But you want to change that. Making France stronger (more units) means you now can't ever get the historic outcome. Here is PROOF. Play BICE where France has lot's more units. Now measure that with your time lines. France in BICE almost always takes around 8-10 weeks for the best players. I don't ever recall anyone causing France to surrender in under 6 weeks in BICE. It just doesn't happen.
EDIT: My 8-10 weeks for France includes Belgium and Netherlands. After all Germany in RL attacked those also on May 10th.
I'm using length of time and not specific dates. The fight against France can start October 1939 or anytime the players want it to. Point is how long does the fight take. And in that my numbers are accurate. Heck just go look at a few MP AAR's on this to verify.
I had to clear this up before and I'll do it again. My point is simple. Right now things are good. It takes 8-14 weeks. What I said was that if it takes 6+ months that will wreck the game. Now I raised the concern that if you increase the power of France too much it will no longer be 8-14 weeks but might double in length. And if that extends it beyond 6 months it wrecks the game. Hopefully it is clear now.
So you actually admit that you want to defeat Germany as France and do it consistently. Thank you for being honest. In HOI3 it was pretty easy and you want it easier,
HOI3 claimed first and foremost to be a game about WW2.
Question 4 was should it be easier and you said yes with caveats. Now you say the average player should be able to. But in HOI3 the average player could simply by building more land units OR building up the Maginot line till you got more land units. But since this is the latter answer I'm glad to hear that it should be very hard to do and not possible for new players or less skilled players to do.
But that leads me to how to accomplish this. You make France stronger with more units. You take away the bonus for Blitzkrieg (magic numbers) but somehow Germany does the same?
Battle plans seem to me to be a way to stop the "skill" and micromanagement of HOI3. The things that gave a human player a distinct edge. In HOI3 we would micro each unit and right after it's battle delay expired use it on another attack or advance. We would hold back the faster units as exploit divisions. Will battle plans take that away? To me battle plans seem more like how it would happen in real life. You give higher level orders and then the AI takes over to execute them. I think it was John Tiller's Operation Art of War games that used a type of battle plan. You laid out a plan and then the AI did the rest and some generals executed it perfectly others delayed doing what you wanted or even refused to carry the orders out or maybe never got them.
My point is in HOI3 we accomplished much because a human could micro way better than the AI. With battle plans that might be taken away from us. Almost like playing HOI3 on AI vs. AI at theater level. Now if that is true then how will you ever enter Paris in 4 weeks and 5 days?
Wait. Before we go any further, I must object.
Are you telling me that players cannot reach the historical Soviet OOB by the time Barbarossa starts? I thought the only people who failed were those using specialist training.
Seriously, if there is a dearth of Soviet historical OOBs by June of 1941, I will go do it.
Surely between Misterbean, TheBromgrev, and Cybvep, I can get an OOB translated into HOI3 terms, and then I can build it. I never bothered before, because I figured it had been done, and, of course, the historical Soviet OOB is absolute trash in HOI3 terms. (Including the starting divisions... thank podcat for CGM.)
Then I will do a historical US build for 1941. (The catch here is that a historical build for 1941 for the US might make it harder to get to 1945 production levels, depending on how practicals shake out.)
I won't discuss this particular topic further until we resolve some of this "historical OOB" disagreement.
Using minimal training, playing with the laws and doing all the practical tricks will probably get you to historic OOB's, especially if you remove the one thing that is hardest to "trick" which is naval units. Vanilla SU MP is not realistic to what they actually had. And building an OOB as you pointed out needs to be carefully defined.
For example we can get the June 1941 soviet OOB but when you lose those units it's impossible to build the OOB the Soviets had on November 1st 1941 with just the production the game gives you from June 22nd till then. The Germans and other armies had halftracks and mech units in 11939/1940 but you can't research them till late 1940 (rushing) or 1941 otherwise.
If you use a 1939 start date can you build the US OOB's for what they had by January 1944? I'm curious as I don't know. And please don't use CGM as that won't be available in HOI4 (at least initial release) and MP games don't use it. CGM can be easily exploited to remove AA, forts and even some airbases to get lot's more IC to build things.
Now I want to try to take France in vanilla on normal and see how close I get to what their OOB should be. Can you point me to what I need to build from 1936 till May 10th 1940 to meet this?
For example we can get the June 1941 soviet OOB but when you lose those units it's impossible to build the OOB the Soviets had on November 1st 1941 with just the production the game gives you from June 22nd till then. The Germans and other armies had halftracks and mech units in 11939/1940 but you can't research them till late 1940 (rushing) or 1941 otherwise.
If you use a 1939 start date can you build the US OOB's for what they had by January 1944? I'm curious as I don't know. And please don't use CGM as that won't be available in HOI4 (at least initial release) and MP games don't use it. CGM can be easily exploited to remove AA, forts and even some airbases to get lot's more IC to build things.
Now I want to try to take France in vanilla on normal and see how close I get to what their OOB should be. Can you point me to what I need to build from 1936 till May 10th 1940 to meet this?
Yes, it does. And when I do any build related to historical OOBs, I call in outside experts to help. This is the relevant thread I've created in the HOI3 forum to specifically discuss this.
Well, you initially said "By start date of the war." That's all I'm really concerned about in this particular discussion. Historical OOBs by the time the shooting starts.
I did the German build back in January when 1axeley suggested it could not be done: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...it-be-done&p=16813058&viewfull=1#post16813058
In that case, we were talking about Barbarossa and not the Battle of France, though.
But no one said anything about entire MECH brigades. Probably could have squeezed some out.
I don't ever use CGM for this sort of thing. I use the vanilla 1936 start (especially since the Soviets finished a Five Year Plan, it makes perfect sense to control that Five Year Plan through the 30s). When I did the US here, I even used the training laws agreed upon by the people who know the historical OOBs.
As for France's OOB, I don't have that information handy. Misterbean, Cybvep, and TheBromgrev all have that data (French naval data can be found converted into game terms here.)
Well that is my point. Mechs are a 1941 tech and take 160 days base to build. I doubt if any OOB we build can match the numbers actually built. The 1st Panzer Division used them in 1939. So it's a technicality but no OOB that we can build can match historic OOB's.
Well then a simple solution is to give France these ships. The French navy was not even a player in WW2 so that won't impact gameplay or balance. When France falls just scuttle the ships or handle them historically.
But is this the real concern? All this because France can't build all it's ships?
The term "Mech" also depends on the real life term. AFAIK, the Soviet Mechanised divisions were actually Larm/3Mot.
How small was the US Army from 1936-39? I know it came from a very small base But haven't been able to find figures on its size ?
The French navy was the biggest reason for the friction between the Free French and the UK in the war (when the UK decided to take care of them when they were worried about them falling into Axis hands) - the French Navy were definitely a key strategic asset that both sides were interested in at the fall of France.
What a Mech might look like:
Defining the divisions is important, as even I can't build multiple divisions of these things. But perhaps we should adjourn the Soviet OOB discussion to the Soviet OOB build thread.
Well Soviet mechanized units either used trucks or lend-lease M2/M3's from the US. They had trucks like the Zis-33 and Zis-42
I also did lot's more research and you can forget trying to duplicate the mech's. While the vehicles were available to build much earlier than in HOI3 there simply weren't that many built except for the US forces. Even elite units like Grossdeutschland had only a few companies with them spread out over their two regiments. The 1st Panzer Division in 1939 and 1940 had them but again 1-2 companies were equipped. The rest used trucks. So this is a non-issue for you as you don't have to really build them outside of maybe a couple of regiments.
I also did lot's more research and you can forget trying to duplicate the mech's. While the vehicles were available to build much earlier than in HOI3 there simply weren't that many built except for the US forces. Even elite units like Grossdeutschland had only a few companies with them spread out over their two regiments. The 1st Panzer Division in 1939 and 1940 had them but again 1-2 companies were equipped. The rest used trucks. So this is a non-issue for you as you don't have to really build them outside of maybe a couple of regiments.
Going back to OPs original question, I think that the obvious answer (with the exception of Japan) would be: Power Projection. In 1939 and 1940, the French and British navies combined were a really frightening prospect in terms of sheer numbers.
You can see this in some AARs as well, such as the wonderful Carnage MP series. The British Flying circus can be devestating if handled properly. Combine that with a proper build-up of air power, which is less of an advantage against the Luftwaffe.
Of course, that didn't really help them against an enemy who can reach you overland.
You can see this in some AARs as well, such as the wonderful Carnage MP series. The British Flying circus can be devestating if handled properly. Combine that with a proper build-up of air power, which is less of an advantage against the Luftwaffe.
Of course, that didn't really help them against an enemy who can reach you overland.
The "Historical" ww2 is like that, but the game is supposed to allow diplomatic variations, right?Maybe these days, but definitely not back in the day. The board game I used to play, World in Flames, had victory conditions in line with the strategic imbalance (you win as the Axis if you're not defeated by date X), and the first computer WW2 game I played (Clash of Steel, around 20 years agol) was also along those lines. I dropped out of WW2 video gaming for a bit after that, and when I came back everyone had gone all 'Axis and Allies' with the victory conditions.
If you have to, you could always have an 'Axis and Allies' mode that gave the Axis buffs (or Allies nerfs) to make it a fair fight, with victory conditions along the lines of "whichever side is better off at the end wins" and a historical mode that had victory conditions more in line with the strategic balance. You still get the big fights in either game - it's just that in the historical game the Axis player knows that in the long run they're unlikely to achieve outright victory (which, short of beating the Allies to the A-bomb, was the historical situation). In my view, the historical view makes a lot more sense for a prolonged game as well - if you're just playing for an outright win, then once either the UK or USSR goes down, then it's pretty much game over, start again. With the more historical (whether you're looking at historical in terms of WW2 strategic gaming or actual history) approach of 'the Axis win if they're not defeated by date X' then it's a knock-down fight right up until the line, retaining gameplay tension all the way through to either Axis defeat or Axis victory. It makes for a far better game, even if it requires a smidgeon more emotional development to enjoy at the same level.
You'd make Axis and Allies mode (called something a dash more tactful, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings
A good look at the economies actually shows that the reason Axis was so out-produced was 3 fold:
1. Axis didn`t use their available resources very good, particularly Germany didn`t ramp up production as fast as it could.
2. Axis lacked resources.
3. Allies had USA.
Strike USA our of equation, and suddenly, the war is perfectly winnable for Axis, not to mention it will take USA at least a year to build the needed transports to actually actively participate in a war with decent land forces.
So ideally, any "good" Axis strategy should be based around this 3 pillars:
1. Delay USA entry at whatever the cost.
2. Try navigate the diplomatic game better, in particular, invading Nederlands is a terrible idea, keeping them neutral and allowing them to profit from selling resources to Japan and Germany may be a good strategy.
3. Hit UK harder with subs, preferably secure all the Mediterranean, and invade Russia better, in particular with Japanese assistance.
If Axis manages to capture Caucasus it denies huge amount of oil to SU, which may very well be fatal to Soviet war effort, as it was the majority of Soviet oil supply at the time.
Basically, this is how the majority of HOI3 MP games develop. Can Axis crush SU before USA will come in, in force, if yes, they win, if no, they lose.
Agreed that historical variations should be possible (and encouraged, the idea behind the game is to play your own way, after all
). That said, there's a decent chance that the US and UK could have out-produced Germany, Italy and Japan even if the USSR fell (as there would be a huge garrison requirement in a conquered USSR, and very little manpower and production advantage immediately following conquest) - the only real strategic long-term chance that the Axis had historically, outside of knocking the UK out early, was to get one of the powers to switch to their side (which I agree should be possible in-game).That said, if it _doesn't_ happen in-game, and the powers line up the same way they did historically, then long-term, if the Allies want to fight until the end, even if the USSR goes under (which itself should be pretty unlikely) and aren't repeatedly completely incompetent, they will win, if the game has any sense of a historical strategic balance.
I do find it a little odd that we're talking about detailed OOBs and whether the Wehrmacht had brigades or companies of mechanised infantry in 1940 (incredible levels of detail, which I'm a fan of), and then people paper over the strategic differences like they don't matter, in a game that's primarily focussed on historical strategy. This isn't me being rhetorical, I honestly find it a little confusing.
Actually it ties in. This started because of an argument about France retaining HOI3 nerfs or being stronger. I said that Germany needs to defeat France in under 6 months (faster better) to stand a chance against SU and eventually USA. This led to discussion that France can't build it's OOB with led to mechs etc.
But it does tie back to strategic levels of how much can be produced and when.
- Status