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

[Axe99]

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?

And what happens when Stalin intervenes? If Stalin is able to go and run amok through Eastern Europe and into Germany, and put together a German communist puppet state, then it could make for quite the interesting conflict on the continent if France/UK decide to oppose him, with the US sitting out until things got very ugly. If the game was set up (AI/Victory conditions/the US not joining in straight away) to allow this to happen if Germany crashes and burns, then you've still got a very interesting game on your hands.

 

[Beagá]

Yeah, that alternative scenario SHOULD happen in the game. It would be very, very interesting, specially if US takes a long time to intervene, or not at all. Playing UK can be very boring, it´s nice to have variety.

 

[Opanashc]

And what happens when Stalin intervenes?

And why would Stalin intervene? No war, means SU can catch up on technologies, develop its industry, strengthen its armed forces, not to mention have a diplomatic advantage over the Allies and Germany, due to them being at war with each other.

 

[Axe99]

And why would Stalin intervene? No war, means SU can catch up on technologies, develop its industry, strengthen its armed forces, not to mention have a diplomatic advantage over the Allies and Germany, due to them being at war with each other.

I'm not suggesting, historically, that Stalin would have stepped in - this is more to provide alternative mid-to-late games that are interesting in the context of the game, if France/UK hold up or even get the edge on Germany, in the context of concerns raised in the tread relating to how to deal with France. There is a chance Stalin may have intervened in these circumstances (the other major European powers locked into a nasty war, and there's Eastern Europe ripe for liberating from the capitalists/monarchists) but I'm not suggesting it's a sure thing, or even reasonably possible.

 

[Klausewitz]

And what happens when Stalin intervenes? If Stalin is able to go and run amok through Eastern Europe and into Germany, and put together a German communist puppet state, then it could make for quite the interesting conflict on the continent if France/UK decide to oppose him, with the US sitting out until things got very ugly. If the game was set up (AI/Victory conditions/the US not joining in straight away) to allow this to happen if Germany crashes and burns, then you've still got a very interesting game on your hands.

Couldn't the SU do all that without intervening?
Well, maybe not the East German puppet state (though with another Versailles like treaty Germany as a whole would be ripe for pickings) but taking Eastern Europe under the wings of good Mother Russia?
The Germans and the Allies are tearing each other apart and the only way not to either jump into the German (the germans had a nasty habit of being able to paddle Eastern European opponents with comparativly small forces, even back in WWI) or the Allied Meatgrinder (turning towards the Germans for help means fighting the Allies) is to be open to soviet 'suggestions'.
It would also help that neither Powerblock in the war would be able to spare much diplomatic (or any) manpower for the peripheral theaters of Eastern Europe.

 

[Axe99]

Couldn't the SU do all that without intervening?
Well, maybe not the East German puppet state (though with another Versailles like treaty Germany as a whole would be ripe for pickings) but taking Eastern Europe under the wings of good Mother Russia?
The Germans and the Allies are tearing each other apart and the only way not to either jump into the German (the germans had a nasty habit of being able to paddle Eastern European opponents with comparativly small forces, even back in WWI) or the Allied Meatgrinder (turning towards the Germans for help means fighting the Allies) is to be open to soviet 'suggestions'.
It would also help that neither Powerblock in the war would be able to spare much diplomatic (or any) manpower for the peripheral theaters of Eastern Europe.

Aye, this would work too . Just have something in place that pushes things towards a broo-ha-ha between the US/UK/France and the USSR (with Japan doing it's own thing and being opportunistic) if Germany trips and does itself an injury early in the war. I'm not saying it's terrible historically accurate (although I'm not saying it isn't, it's always a minefield getting into that what-if side of things), but it's plausible (particularly with someone like Stalin in charge) and would make for an interesting game if the Germans went under to or struggled against just the French and Brits. As per earlier in this thread, though, this should be very unlikely .

 

[Big Blue Blob]

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.

How does this wreck the game? Alternative history of one kind (France beats Germany) wrecks the game, while alternate history of another, also unlikely kind (Germany wins WW2) does not?! Both scenarios involve the historical losers winning, but only one is allegedly game-wrecking. The whole point of a Paradox game is that pretty much anything can happen by the end of the game (Ryukyu world conquest in EU4). You seem like you want artificially ensured history until late 1940, and only then the ability to explore alternate history. Why not just play a late 1940 start date?

You still have not answered my argument that if Germany plays a WW1-style bashing match, they are playing into France's hands and should lose, or be very badly mauled at best and not invade the USSR for several years.

 

[Bridget]

They was a quality training superiority in the German military though. The Heer had higher morale, better training and could almost always win in a one on one fight with the French Army. German Infantry destroyed fortifications , previously thought impenetrable during violent hand to hand fighting.

 

[Bridget]

How does this wreck the game? Alternative history of one kind (France beats Germany) wrecks the game, while alternate history of another, also unlikely kind (Germany wins WW2) does not?! Both scenarios involve the historical losers winning, but only one is allegedly game-wrecking. The whole point of a Paradox game is that pretty much anything can happen by the end of the game (Ryukyu world conquest in EU4). You seem like you want artificially ensured history until late 1940, and only then the ability to explore alternate history. Why not just play a late 1940 start date?

You still have not answered my argument that if Germany plays a WW1-style bashing match, they are playing into France's hands and should lose, or be very badly mauled at best and not invade the USSR for several years.

You don't consider that France nearly lost WW1 in the first place, several times. They had to rely on throwing manpower, British economic support and a lack of internal dissent.

France in WW2 was suffered a manpower shortage, low quality soldiers and a major issue in their soldiers. (Not to mention they would have still lost the air war entirely)

While if France had no done such idiotic things in placing their forces into Belgium, they still would have most likely ultimately lost, just add 4 months.

 

[PanH]

You don't consider that France nearly lost WW1 in the first place, several times. They had to rely on throwing manpower, British economic support and a lack of internal dissent.

Considering the lack of artillery and equipment for France in the WWI, and that the Germans thought that France would fall in 2 months, WWI France held quite well. It had much less manpower, a smaller economy, less equipment, and there is no significant difference in casualties on the Western front (around 400,000 more casualties for the Entente). There was nothing like "throwing manpower" to stop the enemy advance, though generals on both sides did made suicidal assaults.
As for internal dissent, there was much less in France, but that is also due to not being blockaded (less than Britain, but it's a country that's invaded directly too).

As for WWII, France had an issue with training, same or better equipment. And they should have held the Dyle line in Belgium, just not going into the Netherlands.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I agree that I maybe overstated the chance of a French victory overall. But a WW1 style bashing match should be very difficult and costly for Germany, since it plays into French hands. Yes, France almost lost WW1, but a German win would likely have hurt Germany a lot, too, and as PanH says, France did not lose more men than Germany on average. Currently, Germany can easily crush France while playing to France's strengths and not using theirs. It is hard to imagine Germany breaching the forts without splitting the French armies with an armoured thrust first, since it was that split which threw the French into disarray, and the Maginot forts did not fall until after that.

 

[Klausewitz]

Considering the lack of artillery and equipment for France in the WWI, and that the Germans thought that France would fall in 2 months, WWI France held quite well. It had much less manpower, a smaller economy, less equipment, and there is no significant difference in casualties on the Western front (around 400,000 more casualties for the Entente). There was nothing like "throwing manpower" to stop the enemy advance, though generals on both sides did made suicidal assaults.
As for internal dissent, there was much less in France, but that is also due to not being blockaded (less than Britain, but it's a country that's invaded directly too).

As for WWII, France had an issue with training, same or better equipment. And they should have held the Dyle line in Belgium, just not going into the Netherlands.

This is not a WWI discussion but it is strange that IF Germany thought France would buckle within the first 2 month, Moltke tried to get more ammunition for a 'long and difficult war' in 1913(?) and talked about a 'long war on three (!) fronts'.
The Entente also consistently lost almost a third more men than the Germans, irrespective of offense or defense.
The reason France stayed in the war is that the Western Front hemoraeged troops in favor of the eastern Front since early 1915.

 

[Axe99]

This is not a WWI discussion but it is strange that IF Germany thought France would buckle within the first 2 month, Moltke tried to get more ammunition for a 'long and difficult war' in 1913(?) and talked about a 'long war on three (!) fronts'.
The Entente also consistently lost almost a third more men than the Germans, irrespective of offense or defense.
The reason France stayed in the war is that the Western Front hemoraeged troops in favor of the eastern Front since early 1915.

It sounds awfully like a WW1 discussion from this angle . Might be getting a dash off-topic, unless we're relating the allied advantage/disadvantage at the start of the game in the context of the fallout from WW1 .

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I find nothing wrong with discussing WW1. I am no expert on the period and can improve my knowledge, while hopefully the historical focus will turn away those who would justify black being white for "gameplay balance" while ignoring blatant evidence that it makes no sense.

The hypothetical wars discussion is also very informative.

 

[Dalwin]

Couldn't the SU do all that without intervening?
Well, maybe not the East German puppet state (though with another Versailles like treaty Germany as a whole would be ripe for pickings) but taking Eastern Europe under the wings of good Mother Russia?
The Germans and the Allies are tearing each other apart and the only way not to either jump into the German (the germans had a nasty habit of being able to paddle Eastern European opponents with comparativly small forces, even back in WWI) or the Allied Meatgrinder (turning towards the Germans for help means fighting the Allies) is to be open to soviet 'suggestions'.
It would also help that neither Powerblock in the war would be able to spare much diplomatic (or any) manpower for the peripheral theaters of Eastern Europe.

But I think "intervention" would make a good pretext to gobbling up eastern Europe. It would play better in the press than blatant imperialism. They start by hitting Germany in western Poland. This had belonged to the Russians 25 years earlier anyway. By the time they sweep into Hungary and Romania, they would have already established themselves as being Allies to the West just as during the Great War. If the British and French had been struggling against the Germans, it would be hard for them to raise political support for opposing the Soviets until things got truly out of hand.

Another way this scenario could turn is that Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Italy, Greece, and Turkey all form an alliance to oppose the Soviets. They would essentially be on the German side even if it were not in name. Or if Germany had caved at that point, this Balkan alliance could seek help from Britain and France or even America.

EDIT: Also, unlike in the old thread about different scenarios involving Spain and Portugal, this situation does not park an aggressive and hostile neighbor next to Spain as the fall of France does. Getting the Iberian countries to rally against the communists does not seem too far fetched to me.

A bit further out on the hypothetical branch, but if the West offered to resume shipments of oil etc. to Japan in exchange for tying up the Soviet Far East, there may have been enough participants to make a good fight against the Russians even without Germany.

 

[Klausewitz]

@Dalwin:
Why fight if you don't have to?
Why 'hit' Germany (still in remembrance as a pretty nasty foe from WWI) in the East, if you can get the Baltic and Eastern Europe without a shot fired?
Germany, when at war with the Allies, will, if rational, not go to war over the SU scavenging in Eastern Europe.
There also does not need to be a 'gobbling up'.
They are friendly communist republics (after a while).

@Axe99:
WWI relates to WW2 as far as the old adage of the cheese eating surrender monkeys and there supposed inability to learn goes.
In WWI the French army had pretty much bled itself against the Germans from day one.
Often with little to no gain and pretty much the same went for the Brits (who smoked their 'professional army' up until mid 1915 and then managed to waste to other armies til the armistice).
The French did that because they had a alliance with Russia and that required them to put pressure on Germany (read: attack).
They were however woefully unequipped for that task.
The result was the 1917 mutinies (which was the French poilus vote of non-confidence in their general staff) and a change doctrine, but in the end England and France were still unable to beat Germany without the assistance of the USA (which is another important factor since WWI demonstrated that the two big old powers, France and England were no longer capable of containing the upstart Germany on their own, even with their colonies).
The French drew the correct lessons from WWI, but they failed to evolve.
The Maginot line was well and good... before the advent of serious airpower, paratroopers and hollow charges, but even then it would have served its purpose.
The command system was adequat... before the advent of the radio, but nothing substantial kept the General staff from applying modern communications.
Etc.

@Blobbleu:
I would like you to read John Mosiers The Myth of the Great War.
If you look at Wikipedia, my favourite example being the Siege of Liege, there is strange dissonance whenever the germans did win or the Allied 'won' but somehow did not conquer anything worthwhile (Passchendale for example was a town in the middle of nowhere; no strategic value, no railroad connection) and suffered severe losses.
Let me highlight the example of the Siege of Liege:
There is lots of information, troop depositions, etc. and then we start with 'Battle': German Attack 6-7 August
You read of retreat for the Germans, them being repulsed, disorganized, suffering heavy casualties, back and forth, running the gauntlet. Advances are checked, casualties inflicted, everything reeks of the Germans doing a very poor job and being outclassed.
And then suddenly they are in Liege, having knocked out two forts (no mean feat) and have suffered only 5000 casualties (which would be, as per the era, between 66% and 75% wounded and about one in 4 dead).
The rest of the siege is swiftly falling forts.
Which leaves a dissoance:
The germans were doing so poorly, how did Liege fall?

And it goes on.
Mosier does a good job of providing an alternate look (based on French sources, which for the most part are bared to the anglophone internetsphere) and explaining the dissonance.

It might even explain why nearly everyone has an 'remembrance day' on 11.11. and silence at 11 o'clock and why Germany does not but Karneval (Germany mardi gras, more or less) is starting on 11.11. at 11 past 11 o'clock.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

If you mean that the Germans took their chances and attacked while the French did not, then you are right. German doctrine was far more offensive than French, which was stuck in WW1 and very static.

 

[Opanashc]

France was attacked by Germany. Germany took French territory, that contained quite a bit of French industry. Thus, France HAD to attack - its popular opinion, and this political leaders, demanded it.
Liege fell after being bombarded by 420-mm howitzers. Defended by an army, that got told 2 days prior, that it was at war. Defended by underfunded, under equipped forces. Compare that to Passhendale, where Germans knew the enemy was coming (3 years of war happen to do that), and had equal strength available. Why won't you compare Liege with Osowiecs? Both had German army assaulting an enemy fortress.

 

[frolix42]

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 agree beating AI Germany as human France isn't so hard, I think the reason is that while HoI3's German AI generally builds and takes technology and weapons as it did historically, strategically once German AI blasts across Belgium's border the fight in France develops into a familiar slogging match similar to every AI vs AI fight until Germany reaches Paris and triggers French capitulation. So in my experience, the HoI3 France campaign is mostly the same as the history though I wouldn't call it a 'Blitzkrieg', it lasts longer than the historical 2 months and there is no huge envelopment, the BEF isn't trapped at Dunkirk. As much as I don't want the same historical strategies used by Germany to be replayed every game, I would like even less ahistorical strategies such as the one described above be replayed every game.

I'm hesitant to suggest how improvements should be made since HoI4 will certainly have a radically different AI.

 

[PanH]

This is not a WWI discussion but it is strange that IF Germany thought France would buckle within the first 2 month, Moltke tried to get more ammunition for a 'long and difficult war' in 1913(?) and talked about a 'long war on three (!) fronts'.
The Entente also consistently lost almost a third more men than the Germans, irrespective of offense or defense.
The reason France stayed in the war is that the Western Front hemoraeged troops in favor of the eastern Front since early 1915.

Because Moltke was an idiot. He tried to do the Schlieffen plan, knowing that he had not enough troops, and that it would fail. Schlieffen's original plan asked for 48 corps, and Moltke had only 34 ! That's not even counting that the Entente avoided the decisive battle that the Germans wanted and retreated on the Marne.
As for Western Front losses, I'm finding numbers of : Entente 3,600,000 to 4,000,000. Germans : 3,300,000 to 3,700,000.

@Dalwin:
The result was the 1917 mutinies (which was the French poilus vote of non-confidence in their general staff) and a change doctrine, but in the end England and France were still unable to beat Germany without the assistance of the USA (which is another important factor since WWI demonstrated that the two big old powers, France and England were no longer capable of containing the upstart Germany on their own, even with their colonies).

Well, it wasn't only Germany, but also AH and the Ottoman (though the Ottomans were on the decline). In terms of population and economy/industry, it's a huge difference.
E.g. France + UK in 1914 is 40 + 45 million people. Germany + AH is 67 + 52. And Germany + Bohemia etc were heavily industrialized, while France had half of its industry in the region that would be occupied. It would have been impossible for them to win against the Central Powers after 1917 without the USA.

Also, I'm looking here at 2,000 to 3,000 wounded or killed and 4,000 captured for the Belgian, versus 2,000 wounded or killed for the Germans at the battle of Liege, so if you have a source, it'd be appreciated.