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

[Big Blue Blob]

They might as well. What real life France did was to leave the front near Sedan empty. The HOI3 AI doesn't do that.

See this is where your logic fails. It wasn't some brilliant German plan. It was that the French had next to zero troops where the Germans attacked at. And then the real life French compounded their idiotic mistakes and rushed into Belgium to be trapped. Heck HOI3 AI is not even that dumb. If HOI3 AI sees German troops at Sedan it sends other troops there to fight.

And until you have a game that is as stupid as real life France is you will instead have a much slower battle, one province after the other.

The French defended Sedan. The Germans just attacked at that point in far more concentrated numbers than the French had. It was a doctrinal difference: the French spread out their tanks in support of their infantry along the front, while the Germans concentrated theirs for armoured breakthroughs. The French doctrine was outdated, so the French lost. But saying the French had "next to zero troops" anywhere is nonsense.

The German AI in HOI3 does not behave in this way, concentrating armour to punch through the French lines, so it should not be as successful.

 

[jdavis86]

That's not true. The French had defences at Sedan. Yes, it was not enough to stop 5 panzer+3 motorised divisions, but it was physically impossible to man every part of the frontline to defend against an attack of such strength. There was no "idiocy", there was simply the fact that Germans operated their panzers in army sized groups, while the allies had them in brigade sized formations and as infantry support.

The advantage the AI has in HOI3, is that it knows where your troops are to a much better extent that could be possible IRL, so it moves troops faster to react to your redeployments. HOI2 was in a way better, as the redeploying troops vanished from view, presenting a surprise when they popped up in a ready to strike somewhere you did not expect.

Some interesting perspective from The Last Lion Volume III:

"No one, not even Petain, had declared the Ardennes Forest to be absolutely impenetrable, though his error was equally egregious. What he had said was that the Ardennes was "impasable to strong forces." In fact it was good tank country, with many fields and trails. The French should have known that -- they had held maneuvers there in 1939. The forest's tress were actually an asset, serving to camouflage armor and troop movements from aerial surveillance...The French high command had estimated that it would take at least fifteen days for any strong enemy force to negotiate the thickets and deep wooded ravines fo the Ardennes. The Germans, who had rehearsed elaborately in the Black Forest, did it in two..."

Pretty damning of French generalship. The French counter attack had a lot of potential. Had they not dispersed their tanks, and actually had them equipped with radios so they could communicate with one another, the result would have been a lot better.

This is all doctrine stuff combined with intel and human error. The latter is so tough to replicate in game. It's really easy for the player to avoid these mistakes.

 

[misterbean]

IIRC, the French had 3 divisions in the general Sedan area.

 

[PanH]

Actually it did and that what served the Germans so well, namely that they had really big guns (the 155mm howitzer, the 170 mm Minenwerfer, the 210mm Mortar as well as the 310 mm mortar) they could either move as horse-teams (all up to the 210 mm mortar) or transport by truck and assemble quickly (the 310mm mortar).
Your view is also a bit simplistic:
Sure, artillery cannot hold ground, but then neither can infantry without artillery.
And nobody, or at least not me, is arguing for just artillery, but an infantry formation with ample artillery support is much more able to do pretty much anything whether it is holding ground or taking it. And the Germans started the war as the only nation with 'heavy field artillery' which i suppose means heavy guns that could actually be moved instead of having to be constructed and deconstructed to get into action.


I think this is another mistake in thinking that i see often:
Schlieffen-Plan was an utopian plan. It would have worked had everything gone right.
It makes sense to plan that why, but it also important to realize that it was, as far as Germany was concerned, more a statement of intent than a prediction or expectation how the war would go.
Even in 1870 the Germans had spent 3 months in front of Paris after the campaign had gone remarkably, while Schlieffen is very silent about what would happen if and when the German Armies reached Paris.
Given that peace had not been sought last time that happened it seems unlikely the German General Staff assumed that they just had to take Paris and the french would pack up and capitulate.
And for the intent of a plan of operation Schlieffen worked very well.
They swept through Belgium into France, were 'beaten' in a battle were they suffered 20% less losses than the supposed victors, then leisurely 'retreated' towards their ideal defensive position and pretty much stayed there for the Rest of the war.
Unless we assume that France could have been hit hard enough in 1914 to quit the war i think what the germans got in 1914 was best solution they could hope for.


@casualty figures:
I assume that is wounded + missing+ wounded, because German barely had in excess of 6 Million killed and wounded at all fronts.
But even then it seems unlikely that Germany would have suffered 2/3 of their casualties on the Western Front.
I find numbers of about 670.000 German war dead to nearly 2 million Allied dead (France 1,18 Million; UK 622.000, Belgium 24.000, USA 85.000) and 1,2 million wounded Germans for 5,5 million wounded Allied (3,5 mio for France, UK 1,8 mio, USa 240000).

Artillery : then I don't see what point you're making. I said that there was not enough corps (which include infantry + artillery), and you said that no, they had enough artillery, which would supposedly replace additional forces.

As for France, it would probably have fallen with Paris, which is significantly important for logistics and transport as well as the symbol of France. Even if France did not surrendered, it would have just opened the front to the south, giving the logistics advantage to the germans and preventing the french from efficiently mobilizing. The last ditch effort to repel the germans on the Marne (using taxis to transport the troops) just shows the importance of Paris. Even if it didn't surrendered, France would have fallen with Paris.

@casualties : Yes, it's killed, wounded and missing. Germany didn't have important forces on the Eastern front, where it was mostly AH troops. In fact, I only count 350,000 dead and missing for the Germans on the East. But nearly 5,000,000 dead/wounded/missing for the AH on the east (and the double for Russia + Romania).

He couldn't fit 48 Corps through the marching routes of the Schlieffen Plan in the first place. To execute the flanking movement so fancifully envisioned you needed a teleporter because the flankers had to march through spaces already occupied by existing Corps to meet the timetable.

This was the biggest and most spectacular failing of the version of the plan that keeps circulating; albeit there's good evidence it may not have been meant to be the real wartime plan to begin with.

Moltke was right to send more troops East, and in any case if he hadn't A-H would have collapsed in 1914 thanks to Conrad's utterly insane decision to engage in the dance of death around Premzyl.

I agree that Moltke was right to send more troops East. As for the doability of the Schlieffen plan, it would have been cluttered indeed, but they lacked troops at the place of the I and II army (where the Entente outnumbered them), where the advance failed. 48 corps was probably not doable, and all in all, I don't think any of the Schlieffen or Schlieffen-Moltke plans could have succeeded.

 

[jju_57]

The French may have had forces in the area but here is a quote from Wiki (and you can find this in many places):

"On 12 May, Sedan was captured without resistance. In the following days, the Germans would defeat the French defences surrounding Sedan on the west bank of the Meuse. This was largely achieved by the Luftwaffe. As a result of German bombing and low morale, the French defenders broke down psychologically and were unable to mount a coherent defence."

And this:

"Sedan sector as part of their concentrated effort, and only Brigadier General Pierre Lafontaine's French 55th Infantry Division, a category B division, was allocated to this sector."

"The defences at Sedan also lacked any mines."

" Reinforcements were minimal and those units were equipped with obsolete weapons. The resources at the disposal of the two Series B divisions, the 55th and later 71s Infantry Divisions, who were to bear the brunt of the attack, were weak. They had almost no Regular officers and they had not been broken-in to war conditions by being in contact with the enemy."

"To relieve the 55th Infantry Division, the French 71st Infantry Division was ordered out of reserve and into the frontline. The presence of the 71st Infantry shortened the front from 20 to 14 kilometres (12.4 to 8.7 mi) along the Meuse. This would increase the density of fighting strength in the immediate area, but such a move was only partially complete by 10 May, as it was scheduled to be completed on 13–14 May, three days after the German attack."

I think this proves the French in RL were dumber then HOI's French AI. They put two militia units there with 10 org and 20 morale. So I guess you guys are technically correct in saying that there were French forces defending. Old construction guys with no training, no officers who ran when the JU-87's appeared. So where do I fight those troops in HOI3???

 

[Secret Master]

No mines? Sounds like they didn't have the entrenching bonus, either.

In fairness to my earlier points, if portions of the French OOB were turned into MIL formations with bad leaders and techs, I'd be okay with that.

In fact, I might argue that giving France a larger OOB, but turning all category B divisions into GAR or MIL might give you a better Battle of France in the first place. There certainly were good French units, but a lot of them were just meant to hold static fortifications while better divisions did the heavy lifting.

A whole other question, which we can't address right now, is whether or not there will be any advantage to using division templates that have lousy equipment or manpower in HOI4. HOI3 just has a brigade type with different stats, but I'm kind of hoping that the game will have some way of simulating these category B divisions without them being just an inefficient use of manpower. (HOI3 made MIL cost less manpower, so if you used them, at least it wasn't a complete waste of manpower.)

 

[Big Blue Blob]

Some interesting perspective from The Last Lion Volume III:

"No one, not even Petain, had declared the Ardennes Forest to be absolutely impenetrable, though his error was equally egregious. What he had said was that the Ardennes was "impasable to strong forces." In fact it was good tank country, with many fields and trails. The French should have known that -- they had held maneuvers there in 1939. The forest's tress were actually an asset, serving to camouflage armor and troop movements from aerial surveillance...The French high command had estimated that it would take at least fifteen days for any strong enemy force to negotiate the thickets and deep wooded ravines fo the Ardennes. The Germans, who had rehearsed elaborately in the Black Forest, did it in two..."

Pretty damning of French generalship. The French counter attack had a lot of potential. Had they not dispersed their tanks, and actually had them equipped with radios so they could communicate with one another, the result would have been a lot better.

This is all doctrine stuff combined with intel and human error. The latter is so tough to replicate in game. It's really easy for the player to avoid these mistakes.

I agree with many people here on this particular issue. The French generals of WW2 were mostly stupid old guards who were not prepared for a mobile war. AI France can behave this way. But a player as France, starting in 1936, should be able to exert his influence and reform the army somewhat, though maybe not completely, and be smarter than the historical French (add radios to tanks, concentrate them more and so on). Therefore, if the German AI proceeds to act in the way it does in HOI3, bashing away like WW1, the player should be able to repulse them easily if he has taken the right steps to reform doctrine. In HOI3, France is gimped even when controlled by a player, and while it is not doomed (I have defeated Germany before) it feels far weaker than it could have been under more competent leadership. The whole point of the game is that the player can make different but plausible decisions to historical leaders, while (hopefully) having their historical resources and circumstances. France does not have its historical circumstances. Nor, I would add, does Germany, which is just about alright as an AI but feels far, far too strong in the hands of the player. Sealion, for example, is preposterously easy.

 

[misterbean]

The easy Sealion has more to do with the AI's feeble island defense routines than anything else.
And no matter how they program things, there will always be DDRJakes in every game in the world, who will find that one loophole. The main problem has always been that Germany could happily build a respectable surface navy in two years time, while still having plenty of time for the army and airforce.
In HOI4, with strategic resources not being stockpiled and used directly in every production, in stead of just feeding IC, Germany will (hopefully) have to choose which will take priority.

 

[jju_57]

In HOI3, France is gimped even when controlled by a player, and while it is not doomed (I have defeated Germany before) it feels far weaker than it could have been under more competent leadership.

So even you admit that you defeated Germany as France. heck I think 99%+ of players have. How much easier do you want it to be? Sounds to me like you think France should defeat Germany, go on to take Moscow and complete what Napoleon only dreamed of.

France in HOI3 is plenty strong enough.

 

[Dalwin]

So even you admit that you defeated Germany as France. heck I think 99%+ of players have. How much easier do you want it to be? Sounds to me like you think France should defeat Germany, go on to take Moscow and complete what Napoleon only dreamed of.

France in HOI3 is plenty strong enough.

Here is the problem I have with that. It is not that France in game is too weak. It is that it is weak for the wrong reasons. I think what many are really asking for here is a more historical France. Yes they should be easily defeated by the Germans most of the time, but the way to get there is not arbitrarily reducing their OOB or economy.

 

[jju_57]

Here is the problem I have with that. It is not that France in game is too weak. It is that it is weak for the wrong reasons. I think what many are really asking for here is a more historical France. Yes they should be easily defeated by the Germans most of the time, but the way to get there is not arbitrarily reducing their OOB or economy.

But there might not be any other way to do it. Will techs make that big a difference? Will the Blitzkrieg doctrine be that much better? It might be and that might resolve it.

I see no way that battle plans can or will resolve this. So it comes down to OOB, techs, leaders or modifiers to stats.

 

[Dalwin]

But there might not be any other way to do it. Will techs make that big a difference? Will the Blitzkrieg doctrine be that much better? It might be and that might resolve it.

I see no way that battle plans can or will resolve this. So it comes down to OOB, techs, leaders or modifiers to stats.

Would you at least agree that what you are proposing is the expedient solution rather than the ideal one? Would it not be better if they were able to pull it off in some other fashion? I am sure, however, that your explanation covers why HOI3 (and 2) were the way they were. This does not stop me from hoping they will come up with a clever solution for 4 instead of repeating the easy solution.

 

[jju_57]

Would you at least agree that what you are proposing is the expedient solution rather than the ideal one? Would it not be better if they were able to pull it off in some other fashion? I am sure, however, that your explanation covers why HOI3 (and 2) were the way they were. This does not stop me from hoping they will come up with a clever solution for 4 instead of repeating the easy solution.

Yes I do agree that I'm referring to an expedient solution. As for ideal solution I'm not sure what that might or might not even be. I am 100% sure about one thing. No matter what the choice is, some people will not like it.

 

[Dalwin]

It is obvious from the vagueness of my last post that I don't have a firm idea of what the ideal solution would be either. I do agree that whatever they do will fit Abe Lincoln's adage about not being able to please all of the people all of the time.

 

[jdavis86]

Worst case scenario, I like the idea of giving players the option.

An option for a game where Germany easily rolls over France, and an option for a more historical France that the player can better.

I agree that the current method for gimping France is lousy. The idea of adding "B divisions" of gar and mil to the OOB is a good one!

Gimping French leadership and manpower and then giving Germany awesome events ain't fun!

 

[PanH]

I agree that the current method for gimping France is lousy. The idea of adding "B divisions" of gar and mil to the OOB is a good one!

I think this might be the way to go and would be a step in the right direction.
Additionally, the French generals should be weaker (though they already are). I know that many were Old Guards in previous Hoi, and even though I understand, I just don't like that trait, and I'd rather have my generals have -1 skill than that (can you truly say that a general will never learn ? at least let the options to reform the generalship then or fire him, which happened to a lot of generals who failed).
The battleplan thing seems like it will also advantage the attacker (unless direct counter, which is luck), so that's another thing.

Another thing could be : fortifications maintenance. In reality, the Maginot line cost a lot of money to maintain and was a huge part of the military budget. Some generals (like de Gaulle) advocated for a reduction of the Maginot line in favor of mobile forces. There could be a level of built fortifications (lvl 10) and then maintained fortifications (which would cost money). France would always benefit from the line, but it would have to make some choices : more tanks and mobile infantry (or whatever the player choose, really), or a stronger line.

 

[jdavis86]

Yeah good ideas.

I think they should change the way General traits work.

Shouldn't traits influence how quickly and effectively troops react to battle plan changes? Instead of "old guard" being a lack of experience gain, it could be a lack of flexibility.

It's so easy for the player to never really use old guards in HOI3, save for the level 3 old guards and above in positions that won't gain much experience anyway.

Not sure how adding a maintenance cost to the Maginot would be represented in game. Of course the idea should be to keep the line as strong as possible with the fewest divisions possible manning it. Then take all those free divisions to the Dyle line or try to poke through Saar.

Dumbing down the line for a more mobile force is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it really serves France. I don't think it makes getting into Germany any easier.

The mobile action would happen in northern France and Belgium anyway, in which case a strong Maginot would be required.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Yeah good ideas.

I think they should change the way General traits work.

Shouldn't traits influence how quickly and effectively troops react to battle plan changes? Instead of "old guard" being a lack of experience gain, it could be a lack of flexibility.

It's so easy for the player to never really use old guards in HOI3, save for the level 3 old guards and above in positions that won't gain much experience anyway.

Not sure how adding a maintenance cost to the Maginot would be represented in game. Of course the idea should be to keep the line as strong as possible with the fewest divisions possible manning it. Then take all those free divisions to the Dyle line or try to poke through Saar.

Dumbing down the line for a more mobile force is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it really serves France. I don't think it makes getting into Germany any easier.

The mobile action would happen in northern France and Belgium anyway, in which case a strong Maginot would be required.

Both of your ideas on general traits are mooot because the CoC is gone, were going to only have a few generals to give orders to, maybe something like Army Group commanders in HOI3. You should watch the videos that have been posted.

 

[jdavis86]

Both of your ideas on general traits are mooot because the CoC is gone, were going to only have a few generals to give orders to, maybe something like Army Group commanders in HOI3. You should watch the videos that have been posted.

These Generals won't have traits? I still think my suggestion could apply to the top General in charge, and represent things quite well actually.

 

[D Inqu]

The French may have had forces in the area but here is a quote from Wiki (and you can find this in many places):

"On 12 May, Sedan was captured without resistance. In the following days, the Germans would defeat the French defences surrounding Sedan on the west bank of the Meuse. This was largely achieved by the Luftwaffe. As a result of German bombing and low morale, the French defenders broke down psychologically and were unable to mount a coherent defence."

So a massive enemy numerical and air superiority broke the defenders. Nothing unexpected. Not in any way supporting French "idiocy" theory.

And this:

"Sedan sector as part of their concentrated effort, and only Brigadier General Pierre Lafontaine's French 55th Infantry Division, a category B division, was allocated to this sector."
"The defences at Sedan also lacked any mines."

You have over 500km of front and just over 100 divisions. You cannot possibly defend every portion of that front-line to withstand a potential assault by 8 divisions with heavy air support. Even at Kursk, where the soviets knew the general location of the planned assault, and had much stronger forces and more reserves than the French, the main defence lines were breached. Both in the north and the south, the assaults were contained by powerful counterattacks with Tank Armies, which the French simply did not have.

You may be surprised to know, but even at Kursk, there were sectors with no mines, which ended up being a battlefield. Again, because it is simply not possible to cover every section of the front with sufficient mine density.

" Reinforcements were minimal and those units were equipped with obsolete weapons. The resources at the disposal of the two Series B divisions, the 55th and later 71s Infantry Divisions, who were to bear the brunt of the attack, were weak. They had almost no Regular officers and they had not been broken-in to war conditions by being in contact with the enemy."

"To relieve the 55th Infantry Division, the French 71st Infantry Division was ordered out of reserve and into the frontline. The presence of the 71st Infantry shortened the front from 20 to 14 kilometres (12.4 to 8.7 mi) along the Meuse. This would increase the density of fighting strength in the immediate area, but such a move was only partially complete by 10 May, as it was scheduled to be completed on 13–14 May, three days after the German attack."

The fact that 9 months after the declaration of war the French still had poorly equipped divisions demonstrates that the French war capacity was low, but these divisions had to go somewhere (and so were place in what was thought to be a secondary location). Unfortunately, even if these divisions were full regular divisions, the massive air and armor superiority of the Germans would have ensured victory at Sedan regardless.

They put two militia units there with 10 org and 20 morale. So I guess you guys are technically correct in saying that there were French forces defending. Old construction guys with no training, no officers who ran when the JU-87's appeared. So where do I fight those troops in HOI3???

Series B divisions were not militia. They could best be represented as lower tech garrisons. They were not "old construction guys", and they broke as would any infantry formation of the time, under such and intense air campaign. You do realise the Luftwaffe flew over 5000 missions over Sedan, around 1 for very 3 French soldiers in the area? And that this was followed by and armored assault by a force which outnumbered the French defenders around 4:1 (before even accounting for equipment difference)? If you fight like that in HOI 3, you will find that you will win rapidly too.