How much of an advantage do the allies start with at the beginning of the game?

[Axe99]

But, you knew there would be a but .

Aye, I think we agree . From what we've seen, giving Germany 'boosts' through historical elements like division structure, more starting XP opportunities, leader capabilities and doctrines will hopefully do the trick. If they don't, then as Dalwin says the potential for modding to achieve this should be far higher this time around.

 

[Secret Master]

Aye, I think we agree . From what we've seen, giving Germany 'boosts' through historical elements like division structure, more starting XP opportunities, leader capabilities and doctrines will hopefully do the trick. If they don't, then as Dalwin says the potential for modding to achieve this should be far higher this time around.

This is kind of what I want to see.

It would be nice for Germany to start with better templates, further along on a doctrine path, and some leaders that would really make a difference.

You could also just retard France in doctrines in 1936. From what I can tell, the doctrine paths seem to have more visible impact on capabilities than before. (There is significant impact from doctrines in HOI3, but some of it isn't really easy to see if you aren't looking. Combat even selection chances are hard to grasp.)

 

[sunsterson]

Even though the French doctrines were bad in 39. They still would have put up a WAY better fight if they didn't make such gaping strategic mistakes. Human error is the hardest thing to represent in a game.

 

[misterbean]

Even though the French doctrines were bad in 39. They still would have put up a WAY better fight if they didn't make such gaping strategic mistakes. Human error is the hardest thing to represent in a game.

I have been told (but have not been able to confirm or deny it) that in the Battle of Jutland, part of the reason why so many British ships sank was that the guys responsible for loading the main guns, left the "doors" open to work faster. If true, it would be one of those things that are impossible to simulate in any kind of strategy game.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Which is why most game systems include things like critical hits. Sure, it's pretty difficult to model gunnery crew leaving bunker doors open but if every shot has a very small possibility of causing disproportionate damage, it works well enough "on the big picture" to model things like shoddy armour construction or poor damage control training and so on.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

So because the AI isn't great that means we should an AI vs. AI outcome that could never happen?


Many people say the Earth is flat. No way no how France defeats Germany in WW2. That is pure fiction.

Besides as I said we only have one outcome that we can use. Germans were in Paris in just 4 weeks and 5 days. Now if the game doesn't allow you to do that or the AI to do that then it is flawed many times worse then missing a few naval ships from the French OOB.

"No way no how" Germany wins WW2. The USA and USSR had far more industry and manpower, and quantity beat quality. Does that mean the game should be rigged so that cannot happen? It would not be easy for France to beat Germany, but it was not impossible. When I mentioned the French win in 1940, that was dependent on a Belgian alliance which admittedly was unlikely, but it was still possible, and I would say more likely than Germany launching a successful Sealion, as I have seen the AI do in HOI3.

I have defeated France in the historical time as Germany, but I have never seen the AI do so. Players can do any historical feat of WW2 if they want to. I have defeated Germany as France. But my point still stands that in a dumb AI bashing match between AI France and Germany, the fight should be far more even if Germany fights like WW1 (playing into France's hands) and refuses to use armoured breakthroughs to split and shatter the French. Maybe France does not win in the end, but it should be a long slog which leaves Germany badly damaged and in no shape for Barbarossa for a few years. Germany must play to its strengths to defeat France as fast as history, and the AI NEVER DOES. Therefore, it should suffer.

 

[misterbean]

"No way no how" Germany wins WW2. The USA and USSR had far more industry and manpower, and quantity beat quality. Does that mean the game should be rigged so that cannot happen? It would not be easy for France to beat Germany, but it was not impossible. When I mentioned the French win in 1940, that was dependent on a Belgian alliance which admittedly was unlikely, but it was still possible, and I would say more likely than Germany launching a successful Sealion, as I have seen the AI do in HOI3.

I have defeated France in the historical time as Germany, but I have never seen the AI do so. Players can do any historical feat of WW2 if they want to. I have defeated Germany as France. But my point still stands that in a dumb AI bashing match between AI France and Germany, the fight should be far more even if Germany fights like WW1 (playing into France's hands) and refuses to use armoured breakthroughs to split and shatter the French. Maybe France does not win in the end, but it should be a long slog which leaves Germany badly damaged and in no shape for Barbarossa for a few years. Germany must play to its strengths to defeat France as fast as history, and the AI NEVER DOES. Therefore, it should suffer.

I'm not sure if you're talking in-game or RL, but in-game, I think that Germany getting into a new trench war, would give France the victory. You've got to remember that most of Germany's MP boosts happen pre-war, and the rest of them during Barbarossa. So if an AI France could hold Germany in check, in the end they would have more MP to burn. WWI all over again.

edited to add: I am talking pure AI vs AI here.

 

[Dalwin]

I'm not sure if you're talking in-game or RL, but in-game, I think that Germany getting into a new trench war, would give France the victory. You've got to remember that most of Germany's MP boosts happen pre-war, and the rest of them during Barbarossa. So if an AI France could hold Germany in check, in the end they would have more MP to burn. WWI all over again.

edited to add: I am talking pure AI vs AI here.

To take that further, anything approaching stalemate in the west would have resulted in no Barbarossa. Germany was not going to initiate a two front war. The question then becomes how long will Stalin allow Germany to grind against the French before he intervenes?

 

[misterbean]

Judging from various documentaries, he was hoping they would mutually self-destruct. Not sure if he would have tried anything militarily after that happened, though. Maybe he was just trying to come out in one piece?

 

[Dalwin]

Judging from various documentaries, he was hoping they would mutually self-destruct. Not sure if he would have tried anything militarily after that happened, though. Maybe he was just trying to come out in one piece?

Perhaps. I think he wanted to keep the Baltics. I also think he would have siezed the opportunity to add Poland back into the empire.

EDIT: without the quick demise of France, I don't think the war would have changed into one where total victory was the only option. I think an armistice by '43 would have been quite possible.

 

[JDNIGHT]

And also since factories are split between land and naval this should resolve some of the issues. But, you knew there would be a but , if units are basically identical and France has a very large force then I naturally question how Germany will be able to duplicate it's historic results. Time will tell. All I'm saying is that somehow something will be put into place to enable Germany to win like it did historically. I have no clue how this will be done, what it includes but most likely Germany will get some type of boost.

Exactly. If we design a game that is historical according to the assertions brought up previously concerning France's army strength, then Germany will need to win based on some other sort of advantage. A human player will almost never (maybe once) make the same mistakes France made. So all MP games will have France playing much more effectively. This will require Germany to play even more effectively each game in order for them to win against France at all. As I have mentioned, this will cause serious problems in any MP game where these are players besides Germany, UK, and France.

Germanys advantage does not have to be in terms of IC, or military hardware. It could be combat experience, leaders, technology, or doctrines. Maybe there could be a factor put in to represent horrible French leadership. I am just saying, France should have a tough time in most MP games. It role should be very important though. Maybe even game deciding in some cases.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Exactly. If we design a game that is historical according to the assertions brought up previously concerning France's army strength, then Germany will need to win based on some other sort of advantage. A human player will almost never (maybe once) make the same mistakes France made. So all MP games will have France playing much more effectively. This will require Germany to play even more effectively each game in order for them to win against France at all. As I have mentioned, this will cause serious problems in any MP game where these are players besides Germany, UK, and France.

Germanys advantage does not have to be in terms of IC, or military hardware. It could be combat experience, or technology, or doctrines. Maybe there could be a factor put in to represent horrible French leadership. I am just saying, France should have a tough time in most MP games. It role should be very important though. Maybe even game deciding in some cases.

This has already been addressed in the Doctrine DD. The "blitzkrieg" doctrine that Germany has is "front loaded" with bonuses, while the French doctrine of superior firepower has more bonuses in the end. By the end of the game they are nearly the same.

Therefore French Doctrine is terrible and German doctrine awesome and Germany should have a much easier time taking on a opponent of equal power without any nerfs. It would be the same in HOI3 is France was given 1920 Doctrine techs, and Germany 1942 techs, Germany would have huge bonuses to morale, reduction in combat delay etc.

 

[misterbean]

Exactly. If we design a game that is historical according to the assertions brought up previously concerning France's army strength, then Germany will need to win based on some other sort of advantage. A human player will almost never (maybe once) make the same mistakes France made. So all MP games will have France playing much more effectively. This will require Germany to play even more effectively each game in order for them to win against France at all. As I have mentioned, this will cause serious problems in any MP game where these are players besides Germany, UK, and France.

Germanys advantage does not have to be in terms of IC, or military hardware. It could be combat experience, leaders, technology, or doctrines. Maybe there could be a factor put in to represent horrible French leadership. I am just saying, France should have a tough time in most MP games. It role should be very important though. Maybe even game deciding in some cases.

I am hoping that this new XP thing will make the SCW really useful for Germany.

 

[jju_57]

To take that further, anything approaching stalemate in the west would have resulted in no Barbarossa. Germany was not going to initiate a two front war. The question then becomes how long will Stalin allow Germany to grind against the French before he intervenes?

Stalin would let them bleed each other till the end of time. He will take his part of Poland and the Baltic States per the deal they had. And later he might go after Romania in part or all of it.

What is more likely is if France and Germany stalemate and then after a bloodbath Germany starts to win in 1941. He might then say he wants to 'help' France and attack Germany.

But see how this just completely wrecks the game, especially MP? France MUST fall.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Stalin would let them bleed each other till the end of time. He will take his part of Poland and the Baltic States per the deal they had. And later he might go after Romania in part or all of it.

What is more likely is if France and Germany stalemate and then after a bloodbath Germany starts to win in 1941. He might then say he wants to 'help' France and attack Germany.

But see how this just completely wrecks the game, especially MP? France MUST fall.

While I agree with you, I have never agreed that France must fall in 6 weeks as you have been pushing. That would mean you have to program the AI's to build historically and have historical associated bonuses such as bad doctrines, which I think is a real problem. We should be moving away from forcing the AI to build railroaded paths, and give it the ability to adapt and change builds compared to what is currently happening.

Also I disgaree with you that USSR would have have been able to smash Germany if France didn't fall. USSR would have run into the same exact problems that Germany did: logistics. USSR did not have the rail capacity to launch a major offensive, and would not have had it until 1945 or later.

If this was correctly modeled in HOI4, USSR would have to invest heavily in its infrastructure to do such a thing, just like Germany has to do to conquer USSR. If they fail to do so it would look more like WWI where Germany has a small force playing primarily defense on the East and destroying ill supplied units.

 

[jju_57]

While I agree with you, I have never agreed that France must fall in 6 weeks as you have been pushing.

This is a common misconception. I've said that was the historical numbers. What I said was that if it takes more than 6 months it will wreck the game.

Historical was under 6 weeks.
AI vs. AI is around 8 weeks plus or minus a week.
MP is usually 7-14 weeks depending on way many things and house rules.
Human Germany is 5 -10 weeks depending on skill.

All of that is fine right now. My concern is if you improved France then you increase these numbers. That might be OK but if they are increased to 6 months then that is very bad for the game.

Now as for rail capacity I posted in another thread somewhere that showed the Soviets ran TEN times as much over the same lines the Germans used. It was all substantiated and listed the logistical tonnage. SO the Soviets for a number of reasons were able to get way more out of the rail lines then the Germans did. They had the rail lines repaired and converted within days after taking it.

 

[Opanashc]

Now as for rail capacity I posted in another thread somewhere that showed the Soviets ran TEN times as much over the same lines the Germans used. It was all substantiated and listed the logistical tonnage. SO the Soviets for a number of reasons were able to get way more out of the rail lines then the Germans did. They had the rail lines repaired and converted within days after taking it.

Not to mention, that Germany could use the same railroad tie as the Soviets, because they used a narrower gauge, but the Soviets had to replace the tie, due to make wider tracks.

 

[Dalwin]

Not to mention, that Germany could use the same railroad tie as the Soviets, because they used a narrower gauge, but the Soviets had to replace the tie, due to make wider tracks.

Of course that really only applies to late '44 and '45 since before that the Soviets would have been retaking rails that had originally been laid for the wider gauge.

 

[Opanashc]

Of course that really only applies to late '44 and '45 since before that the Soviets would have been retaking rails that had originally been laid for the wider gauge.

Between the Rail War and German scorched earth policy - a lot of original tracks had to be repaired.

 

[Dalwin]

But those later items would not really have much to do with the different gauges would they? Destroyed is destroyed. At that point wider or narrower doesn't make a lot of difference.