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

[D Inqu]

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.)

The best (and closest to history) solution, was the one done in DH. The allied doctrine only allowed them to build armored brigades, not form full armored divisions. That way the historical breakthrough could be achieved. 3k tanks attached to different divisions lose to to 3k tanks in a Panzer Group.

HOI4 could also make formation of Panzer divisions/corps/armies doctrine limited. The German doctrine is the one which will allow the earliest access, other doctrines catch up later. That way historical battle of France can be made without idiotic buffs/debuffs

 

[Secret Master]

Series B divisions were not militia. They could best be represented as lower tech garrisons.

And what is militia?

I'm asking, because in HOI3, MIL can represent different formations depending on the doctrines you have in place. I've argued before that MIL, with certain doctrines in place, represent either out of date formations with tactics and equipment that go back to WWI (human wave doctrine with large formations), or they are asymetrical warfare formations (guerrilla warfare and people's army).

The best (and closest to history) solution, was the one done in DH. The allied doctrine only allowed them to build armored brigades, not form full armored divisions. That way the historical breakthrough could be achieved. 3k tanks attached to different divisions lose to to 3k tanks in a Panzer Group.

Well, we don't know much about HOI4 doctrines, so you could hypothetically hamstring anyone with lousy doctrines by making it harder for them to utilize armor in the division planner.

But I also keep hearing Rommel and Monty screaming "Reinforcement chance! Cripple them on reinforcement chance!" so that French with bad doctrines have a hard time containing breakthroughs.

 

[Big Nev]

A lot of this thread seems to have devolved in to how to nerf France properly.

I had the idea (posted elsewhere) that to stop Nat China making tanks, you could introduce a 1940s tech’ “How to Make Tanks” that the majors start with. You can do a lot of interesting things with the tech’ tree if you’re prepared to misuse it like this.

In order to represent France not putting radios in their armour. OK, make it a tech’. Make it a tech’ that has pre-requisite tech’s (maybe a doctrinal one) that France also doesn’t start with so a player who wants his tanks to talk to each other needs to research the tech’s sequentially. Some countries will start with all or some of these tech’s whilst others, like France, won’t. They can get them, but it takes time to research these things and France, and the French player, need to prioritise.

France could also start with the ability to put tanks only in the Support slots of their divisions. You would need to research some form of Combined Arms to put tank battalions in the brigades section of the division in order to build an armoured division.

I also really like the idea that maintaining forts costs IC. Maybe to have them cost supplies would be sufficient.

Other musings on Maginot.

The ability to build forts is a tech’. You could also make each level of fortification a tech’. France (& most Majors) can start with 8, 9 or 10. If the France player wants to complete the Maginot line, then he has yet another choice of where to spend his limited research capability.

You could give “garrison” troops a bonus when defending in a fort. Preferably a larger dig-in bonus that they accrue over time.

Finally, in order for the AI to research these tech’s & doctrines, it needs a minister with certain traits (which all the majors except France have) but, as always, the player can do whatever he wants.


Just a few random thoughts

 

[Cybvep]

An interesting discussion. My two cents... I will keep it very short:

1) France should have its historical strengths and weakness represented. Crappy doctrines, leaders, division templates etc. are fine. Artificially lowered MP or IC is not.
2) I have absolutely no problem with giving some bonuses to Germany in case of AI GER vs AI FRA fights in order to increase the chance of German victory in an average game. Let's face it, AI Germany will most likely need it. The player can always play on a higher difficulty level (let's hope that they are better balanced this time), but AI-vs-AI is a different story.
3) The game shouldn't break when the Allies win or when the Battle of France takes much longer than IRL. Victory conditions, dynamic diplomacy and reactive AI should keep things interesting. No Germany-performs-Barbarossa-in-1941-or-you-have-to-restart-your-game thinking, please. Oh, and the surrender system shouldn't mess up the game!

 

[misterbean]

An interesting discussion. My two cents... I will keep it very short:

1) France should have its historical strengths and weakness represented. Crappy doctrines, leaders, division templates etc. are fine. Artificially lowered MP or IC is not.
2) I have absolutely no problem with giving some bonuses to Germany in case of AI GER vs AI FRA fights in order to increase the chance of German victory in an average game. Let's face it, AI Germany will most likely need it. The player can always play on a higher difficulty level (let's hope that they are better balanced this time), but AI-vs-AI is a different story.
3) The game shouldn't break when the Allies win or when the Battle of France takes much longer than IRL. Victory conditions, dynamic diplomacy and reactive AI should keep things interesting. No Germany-performs-Barbarossa-in-1941-or-you-have-to-restart-your-game thinking, please. Oh, and the surrender system shouldn't mess up the game!

absolutely this

 

[Jazumir]

EDIT: 1 x-post

On 2): I still think that at least in AI vs. AI the battleplans could provide for an almost guranteed german victory over france, without the need for any extra-nerfs introduced for this special case, simply by having each follow the historical plans, as close as their (hopefully dynamic) build-up allows at that point. I think, that would be the ideal solution, cause in HoI3, we are facing a paradox, when it comes to AI-germany vs. AI-france: We want germany to win, despite the fact, that they conduct the campaign in exactly the way, the french would have anticipated and maybe even would held themselves against IRL - the german AI attacks in pretty much WWI-fashion, which is exactly what the french had prepared for. We still want france to lose, though, even and especially in that case, when for realisms-sake, their chances of losing in this case should be relatively small. That would totally change, if both AI-nations would direct their troops in a historical fashion, e.g. france forces moving like it´s WW1 all over again, and the germans trying to take the most advantage out of it.

For a setup, where one nation is AI, the other is human, i think the HoI3 (TFH) balance is okay, at least in its results. It´s okay for a german player to beat the french AI in about historical time-frames, and it is also okay for a human france to be able to hold up and eventually defeat the german AI. How this is achieved may very well be debatable (i dont like it, mostly), but the result is okay.

Problem is, when both nations are played by humans and enforced when other players participate in the game as well. I guess, the only real solutions will either be houserules or avoiding certain player-setups: Maybe, if 3 are playing and two of which play france/germany respectively, the third should not play the US or the USSR, but maybe rather britain or italy (or belgium). If you have players for most of the major countries and most want to play a semi-historical match, leave france to the AI.

 

[Big Nev]

EDIT: 1 x-post

On 2): I still think that at least in AI vs. AI the battleplans could provide for an almost guranteed german victory over france, without the need for any extra-nerfs introduced for this special case, simply by having each follow the historical plans, as close as their (hopefully dynamic) build-up allows at that point. I think, that would be the ideal solution, cause in HoI3, we are facing a paradox, when it comes to AI-germany vs. AI-france: We want germany to win, despite the fact, that they conduct the campaign in exactly the way, the french would have anticipated and maybe even would held themselves against IRL - the german AI attacks in pretty much WWI-fashion, which is exactly what the french had prepared for. We still want france to lose, though, even and especially in that case, when for realisms-sake, their chances of losing in this case should be relatively small. That would totally change, if both AI-nations would direct their troops in a historical fashion, e.g. france forces moving like it´s WW1 all over again, and the germans trying to take the most advantage out of it.

For a setup, where one nation is AI, the other is human, i think the HoI3 (TFH) balance is okay, at least in its results. It´s okay for a german player to beat the french AI in about historical time-frames, and it is also okay for a human france to be able to hold up and eventually defeat the german AI. How this is achieved may very well be debatable (i dont like it, mostly), but the result is okay.

Problem is, when both nations are played by humans and enforced when other players participate in the game as well. I guess, the only real solutions will either be houserules or avoiding certain player-setups: Maybe, if 3 are playing and two of which play france/germany respectively, the third should not play the US or the USSR, but maybe rather britain or italy (or belgium). If you have players for most of the major countries and most want to play a semi-historical match, leave france to the AI.

Brilliant!

Especially this bit.

... the battleplans could provide for an almost guranteed german victory over france, without the need for any extra-nerfs introduced for this special case, simply by having each follow the historical plans, ...

 

[jju_57]

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

It completely supports it, or the theory that these troops ran at first fight. Here is an excerpt on how poor these troops fought.

"The Luftwaffe cowed the defenders, breaking them psychologically. The gunners, the backbone of the defences, had abandoned their positions by the time the German ground assault had begun. The cost to the Luftwaffe was just six aircraft, three of which were Ju 87s."

"The French 55th Infantry Division was not prepared for such an attack. French soldiers had commented on the massive psychological effect of the bombardment, in particular the siren of the Ju 87. However, after the war, it was discovered that none of the bunkers had been destroyed by direct hits. Moreover, just 56 French casualties were suffered."

These were militia level or worse. German Stukas dropped some bombs with few actually doing any damage only to see the French defenders run and abandoned the defenses even before the ground attack started. Now how can you claim these were better than militia. As I said they need 10 org and 10 morale tops. Unfortunately in HOI games one division is identical to the next, even across all countries. So there is no easy way to show units of this "caliber" in the game.

 

[Kovax]

....., please. Oh, and the surrender system shouldn't mess up the game!

This, more than ANYTHING else.

I can't count the number of games in HOI3 which were "broken" by bad surrender mechanics. In my last "kinder, gentler form of tyranny" GER attempt, I decided to try something "different" by guaranteeing the independence of Finland, so "Barbarossa" would be the Soviets' fault, not mine (WWII was already technically "the UK's fault" for rudely declaring war on me over my minor invasion of YUG). Shortly after both Poland and France capitulated, the SU launched the Winter War, I became the "war leader" for "the usual reasons", and I responded by overrunning or encircling and destroying a bunch of Soviet divisions. Things were going fairly smoothly when suddenly the occupied territory all changed back to Soviet colors. Much to my dismay, my troops were "out of supply" in "neutral" territory. The Finns had surrendered, and the Historical Winter War conditions were enforced, including a truce between all participants, no matter that I was supposed to be handling negotiations for the war.

The scripted events and war resolutions REALLY need to be redone in HOI4 to make some sense under a variety of conditions. The war resolution mess in HOI3 was a conglomeration of patches and half-implemented steps taken along the way, rather than a well-thought-out and comprehensive system done from the beginning.

Never mind that I was not playing "historically". If I'm playing ahistorically, but the AI will always respond in the same historical manner regardless of the situation, with scripted events and game mechanics which ONLY allow for a totally historical course, then it might as well be a movie, not a game. "Sorry, you're not allowed to win this battle, even though you've got a 4:1 numerical advantage, better troop quality, superior equipment, and excellent leadership, because historically your side lost it."; anything else would run the risk of deviating from history, and result in possible absurd behavior by the AI in the aftermath, UNLESS the game and AI are written to accommodate changes in the situation.

 

[jju_57]

On 2): I still think that at least in AI vs. AI the battleplans could provide for an almost guranteed german victory over france, without the need for any extra-nerfs introduced for this special case, simply by having each follow the historical plans, as close as their (hopefully dynamic) build-up allows at that point.

I'm not sure what people think these Battle Plans will end up being. Right now we have very limited knowledge on what they can and can't do. So this is one big assumption.

After all it has been stated that battle plans can change during the battle. Common sense and logic dictate this. And battle plans are really the AI fighting the AI following some orders that were given. But we have no clue how detailed these orders can be. And of course battle plans have zero bearing on where you place troops.

Now let's add in that the AI can change them on the fly. How do you force the AI to continue with the original plan and make the same idiotic mistakes that the French did? You can't is my guess.

So I have a feeling that this is pie-in-the-sky wishing.

Others have said radios as a tech. Fine but if HOI3 is followed that difference will be minor. Something along the lines of +10% HA value. Here is the reality that most of you ignore. HOI is a game and therefore based on stats and formulas. That means a battle can only be influenced by the following:

Unit stats - These are the attack values, defense values, piercing, armor, morale and organization.
Terrain modifiers - These just influence the unit stats.
Leader modifiers - These just influence the unit stats.
Doctrines - These will either influence the unit stats or influence coordination of units, or both.
Techs - These will influence unit stats and/or allow certain units to be built.
OOB/IC - This will dictate how many units can be built or given.
Bonus or Malus - These just influence unit stats.

You can clearly see that ultimately it comes down to unit stats or number of units. Sorry but this is just how things work. I may get people saying that I'm wrong but I challenge you to prove it by showing how something else could handle it.

 

[D Inqu]

And what is militia?

I'm asking, because in HOI3, MIL can represent different formations depending on the doctrines you have in place. I've argued before that MIL, with certain doctrines in place, represent either out of date formations with tactics and equipment that go back to WWI (human wave doctrine with large formations), or they are asymetrical warfare formations (guerrilla warfare and people's army).

To me, militia are irregular formations, without the full command hierarchy or heavy support that regular unit has. Thus Volkshhturm are militias as they were essentially riflemen with no command hierarchy above batallion level, no artillery no medical, communication or logistics.

Currently the best way to represent second line divisions is garrisons. Garrisons are cheaper, but not very mobile, not as powerful as regulars, and very poor in attack, while remaining adequate in defence.

There is an important distinction from obsolete regulars and militia, as the former would still be able to fight in a coordinated manner, even if inefficiently. Obsolete infantry divisions are still superior to even "high tech" militia.

Well, we don't know much about HOI4 doctrines, so you could hypothetically hamstring anyone with lousy doctrines by making it harder for them to utilize armor in the division planner.

But I also keep hearing Rommel and Monty screaming "Reinforcement chance! Cripple them on reinforcement chance!" so that French with bad doctrines have a hard time containing breakthroughs.

I never quite got "reinforcement chance" from HOI3. If a division is there, it will join the battle asap. In should happen in the manner of amphib assaults in TFH. A reinforcing divisions starts only using a small part of its strength and gradually increases as more units arrive. Doctrine should affect the speed and efficiency of this reinforcement.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I'm not sure what people think these Battle Plans will end up being. Right now we have very limited knowledge on what they can and can't do. So this is one big assumption.

After all it has been stated that battle plans can change during the battle. Common sense and logic dictate this. And battle plans are really the AI fighting the AI following some orders that were given. But we have no clue how detailed these orders can be. And of course battle plans have zero bearing on where you place troops.

Now let's add in that the AI can change them on the fly. How do you force the AI to continue with the original plan and make the same idiotic mistakes that the French did? You can't is my guess.


So I have a feeling that this is pie-in-the-sky wishing.

Others have said radios as a tech. Fine but if HOI3 is followed that difference will be minor. Something along the lines of +10% HA value. Here is the reality that most of you ignore. HOI is a game and therefore based on stats and formulas. That means a battle can only be influenced by the following:

Unit stats - These are the attack values, defense values, piercing, armor, morale and organisation
Terrain modifiers - These just influence the unit stats.
Leader modifiers - These just influence the unit stats.
Doctrines - These will either influence the unit stats or influence coordination of units, or both.
Techs - These will influence unit stats and/or allow certain units to be built.
OOB/IC - This will dictate how many units can be built or given.
Bonus or Malus - These just influence unit stats.

You can clearly see that ultimately it comes down to unit stats or number of units. Sorry but this is just how things work. I may get people saying that I'm wrong but I challenge you to prove it by showing how something else could handle it.

Surely the weaker French forces could be covered by forcing the AI to research rubbish doctrines and choose rubbish generals, and not to research things like radios in tanks. The doctrines could, for example, leave infantry vulnerable to air assault by not training them for it. No gimping of industry, manpower or intrinsic units is necessary, or was ever necessary. The player can, from a 1936 start, remedy these problems, albeit slowly and not all at once. As for the battle plans, I would imagine it would not be too hard to tell France to move loads of divisions into Belgium. The hard bit will be coding the German AI to attack properly with armour and air power.

French infantry were not militia, they were poorly organised infantry not trained for modern warfare. This is a doctrinal difference. Making all French units objectively worse is not the solution, since this was not the case. The general problems lay in their leadership, training, deployment and organisation.

 

[jju_57]

Surely the weaker French forces could be covered by forcing the AI to research rubbish doctrines and choose rubbish generals, and not to research things like radios in tanks.

And this has what a 5-10% increase in attack values or defense? A drop in the bucket. besides from the tech trees revealed so far for HOI4 it won't get to this small detailed level. Their goal is less techs not more. Or do you disagree that radios would impact unit stats and using something else? If so what?

The doctrines could, for example, leave infantry vulnerable to air assault by not training them for it.

Again this seems like it just impact the unit stats for air defense. Now there are two problems. First off severity. Unless the impact is great it won't matter much. Secondly, is that it impacts ALL troops for France including ones that would not run away. Not to mention it also impacts say UK troops that are in the same doctrine tree. Remember there are very limited doctrine paths from what was shown so far. So many countries will react the same as the French B divisions at Sedan. I don't see this as a solution.

As for the battle plans, I would imagine it would not be too hard to tell France to move loads of divisions into Belgium. The hard bit will be coding the German AI to attack properly with armour and air power.

Yes you tell them in hour one to move into Belgium. Now the AI sees all these German divisions at Sedan and the BP is modified in hour two to not move there and instead move to Sedan.

As I said BP's won't work because for them to work means they can't change or be modified once put into place. Now maybe this is how they will work but I doubt it as it doesn't make any logical sense.

French infantry were not militia, they were poorly organised infantry not trained for modern warfare. This is a doctrinal difference. Making all French units objectively worse is not the solution, since this was not the case. The general problems lay in their leadership, training, deployment and organisation.

Then that means a leader/training/etc. in HOI4 will need to have an impact many times greater then in HOI3. In HOI3 a leader gave you +10% SA or some value. It will take way more then how HOI3 adjusted unit stats to make up for the changes in other areas like IC.

Also you use words like "poorly organised infantry not trained for modern warfare", but what does that actually mean in game terms. Does that mean their SA is half? Does it mean their org is 25% of the German units? I'm not really asking for the exact value but instead what stats are you actually talking about. Unit stats that mattered in combat for HOI3 were:

SA, HA, piercing, armor, air attack, air defense, defensiveness, toughness, armor, softness, organization, morale and terrain modifiers. The other unit stats had little to no influence on actual combat.

 

[D Inqu]

It completely supports it, or the theory that these troops ran at first fight. Here is an excerpt on how poor these troops fought.

"The Luftwaffe cowed the defenders, breaking them psychologically. The gunners, the backbone of the defences, had abandoned their positions by the time the German ground assault had begun. The cost to the Luftwaffe was just six aircraft, three of which were Ju 87s."

"The French 55th Infantry Division was not prepared for such an attack. French soldiers had commented on the massive psychological effect of the bombardment, in particular the siren of the Ju 87. However, after the war, it was discovered that none of the bunkers had been destroyed by direct hits. Moreover, just 56 French casualties were suffered."

This is a nice wikipedia quote, but it completely misses the point. The Germans overall did around 5000 missions over Sedan. 1 for every 4 soldiers. Or to put it other terms, with a comparable intensity to the flights at either pincer at Kursk. Where, for example, the veteran and well equipped 51st Guards Rifle Division was shattered in a single day. By the time the armoured assault started, the division had already lost most of its C&C, and much of its artillery. German qirstikes in the sector delayed powerful counterattacks the soviets planned as early as July 6.

For a non-veteran division, panic was inevitable in such a situation. The wikipedia account only shows the part of the effect on strike on bunkers, but they were by far not the only targets. The strikes hit the divisional and even regimental HQs of both the 55th and the 71st, their artillery, their communications. While the bunkers were not destroyed, they did not have to be.

Even regular divisions can panic when the enemy is attacking in large numbers and planes bomb you indiscriminately. Panic with divisions fleeing without much battle have happened during Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Bagration etc.

These were militia level or worse. German Stukas dropped some bombs with few actually doing any damage only to see the French defenders run and abandoned the defenses even before the ground attack started. Now how can you claim these were better than militia. As I said they need 10 org and 10 morale tops. Unfortunately in HOI games one division is identical to the next, even across all countries. So there is no easy way to show units of this "caliber" in the game.

These are not militia level. The Luftwaffe performed several thousand missions, hitting the virtually every part of the division, from the divisional HQ, through the communication and support all the way down the infantry in the trenches. Take a HOI3 infantry (or obsolete garrison) division, and subject it to airstrikes for a day by 15 air wings. Watch the org drop to almost 0. Rush in with several panzer divisions. Get your historical result

 

[frolix42]

Balancing from 1936 to 1940, specifically in regard to Germany vis-à-vis Britain and France. Instead of "what advantage do the allies start with", maybe a more rational way to phrase this question might be "What advantages should Germany start with in order to punch far above her weight?" A lot of what I think answers this question is already in previous iterations of HoI.

1) In 1936 Germany, the UK and France have a similar sized military. It's composition should be drastically different. UK should have a high naval focus, while Germany should have a high ground focus.

• Germany, compared to the western democracies, starts the game able to spend more nominally on it's military, and much more relatively. This leads to the gap which creates the conditions for German military success on land from '39 - '41.
• In the 1936 - 39 portion of the game, a significant portion of France's and especially Britain's military IC should be directed towards maintaining their colonies and surface fleets. Not garrisoning or protecting colonies should cause the AI to react intelligently, leaving no garrison or a small token force in India at any point in the timeline should have consequences.

2) When revanchist actions are taken by Germany, it should be when the German AI or player chooses.

• If Germany does not concentrate on producing arms and units for the immediate invasion of Czechoslovakia, but instead prioritizes research, infrastructure and long-term capacity, the Allies should call Germany's bluff.
• Revanchist actions by Germany should increase the amount of IC France + Britain are able to spend on their military. Britain and France should not be able to spend IC on military at the same rate as Germany until Germany completes the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
• Once Europe is on the brink of war, the rate at which Germany can increase their military strength should decrease relative to the Allied nations.
• If Germany tries the "peaceful" strategy and does not invade Czechoslovakia or Poland, over time it should lose National Unity (or it's HoI4 equivalent) as it's population wonders why so much of their net national product is being used for the military, while no military expansion is taking place.

3) After the complete occupation of Czechoslovakia, the land strength of France and England together should increase relative to Germany. Therefore the longer Germany waits before attacking France, the more difficult it should be.

• If United States has close relations with the Allies and low relations with Germany, British and French power should be supplemented in large part by the actions by the USA, who historically began to export a significant amount of raw materials and airplanes to the Allies before the battle of France. Over time this support would've increased, and did increase to Britain until the US joined the war.
• Germany's victory over France should be attributable to three things:
  
  
  

  • Germany's higher military-industrial mobilization and land focus relative to France and UK from 1936 - 1939.
  • Germany using the bonuses from the 'Mobile Warfare' Land doctrine intelligently.
  • The France AI and British AI making some of the same tactical and doctrine reseach decisions as they historically did.

Hopefully the effect of this would be that if Germany uses the strategies of 1914 again in 1940, as the HoI3 German AI does, a stalemate might result. This stalemate would be disastrous for Germany as by this point the Allies had begun to outproduce it.

 

[jju_57]

This is a nice wikipedia quote, but it completely misses the point. The Germans overall did around 5000 missions over Sedan. 1 for every 4 soldiers.

Two things. First off it was 500 JU-87 sorties on that crucial day. You imply way more.

Secondly, the "nice Wikipedia quotes" are actually taken from other source documents namely:
Hooton, E.R. Luftwaffe at War; Blitzkrieg in the West. London: Chervron/Ian Allen, 2007. ISBN 978-1-85780-272-6.
Ward, John. Hitler's Stuka Squadrons: The Ju 87 at war, 1936–1945. London: Eagles of War, 2004. ISBN 1-86227-246-8.
Frieser, Karl-Heinz. The Blitzkrieg Legend. Naval Institute Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1-59114-294-2

So wiki just did us the favor of putting them in one nice spot. The quotes are accurate and are spot on. Now you claim the strikes hit all these other areas but only 56 casualties were recorded. The Germans did NOT conduct 5000 sorties on May 13th which was the critical day in question where the French basically ran away.

Then how do you explain this:
"At about 19:00 on 13 May, a report by a French artillery observer was passed on incorrectly. There was a rumour that German tanks were approaching the town of Bulson. The false reports spread and the French 55th Infantry Division deserted their positions. German sources say that the first German tank crossed the Meuse River 12 hours later.[51] By the time the error was realised, most of the artillery and infantrymen had abandoned their heavy equipment."

Yes another wiki quote that is also referenced. If these are real infantry divisions then the French army sucked more than the Italians.

 

[Secret Master]

An interesting discussion. My two cents... I will keep it very short:

1) France should have its historical strengths and weakness represented. Crappy doctrines, leaders, division templates etc. are fine. Artificially lowered MP or IC is not.
2) I have absolutely no problem with giving some bonuses to Germany in case of AI GER vs AI FRA fights in order to increase the chance of German victory in an average game. Let's face it, AI Germany will most likely need it. The player can always play on a higher difficulty level (let's hope that they are better balanced this time), but AI-vs-AI is a different story.
3) The game shouldn't break when the Allies win or when the Battle of France takes much longer than IRL. Victory conditions, dynamic diplomacy and reactive AI should keep things interesting. No Germany-performs-Barbarossa-in-1941-or-you-have-to-restart-your-game thinking, please. Oh, and the surrender system shouldn't mess up the game!

Are you quoting my posts again?

Basically, make the whole war interesting, not just the war on the continent.

The scripted events and war resolutions REALLY need to be redone in HOI4 to make some sense under a variety of conditions. The war resolution mess in HOI3 was a conglomeration of patches and half-implemented steps taken along the way, rather than a well-thought-out and comprehensive system done from the beginning.

Which is why I want to see better diplomacy and politics.

I have hope that better things are on the way. Podcat already said somewhere that factions and the triangle are getting an overhaul, and that countries will all have things they are interested in doing. It sounds like countries will get their own war goals, and they aren't committed to a faction in the ridiculously absurd ways they were in HOI3.

I'm hoping that more options for switching sides when things go bad are present; it would be nice to force Germany to "police" its allies a bit more.

These were militia level or worse. German Stukas dropped some bombs with few actually doing any damage only to see the French defenders run and abandoned the defenses even before the ground attack started. Now how can you claim these were better than militia. As I said they need 10 org and 10 morale tops. Unfortunately in HOI games one division is identical to the next, even across all countries. So there is no easy way to show units of this "caliber" in the game.

Let's see what the division builder has in store for us in HOI4. With battalions and doctrine paths, perhaps these lousy formations can be represented better than in HOI3.

To me, militia are irregular formations, without the full command hierarchy or heavy support that regular unit has. Thus Volkshhturm are militias as they were essentially riflemen with no command hierarchy above batallion level, no artillery no medical, communication or logistics.

I won't dispute that your answer represents some formations, but can you also look at the doctrine tree and see that MIL can represent other formations, too?

Currently the best way to represent second line divisions is garrisons. Garrisons are cheaper, but not very mobile, not as powerful as regulars, and very poor in attack, while remaining adequate in defence.

Do keep in mind that GAR has a better SA/IC-day ratio than INF. GAR in HOI3 aren't as bad as the performance jju_57 outlines above.

I never quite got "reinforcement chance" from HOI3. If a division is there, it will join the battle asap. In should happen in the manner of amphib assaults in TFH. A reinforcing divisions starts only using a small part of its strength and gradually increases as more units arrive. Doctrine should affect the speed and efficiency of this reinforcement.

Well, there wasn't that kind of granularity in HOI3 until TFH. And even then, the amphibious mechanic you mention is kind of ad hoc. Although, I do like it as a step above reinforcement chance. And perhaps, if that rate can be modified by leader and doctrine, it would be great.

 

[D Inqu]

Two things. First off it was 500 JU-87 sorties on that crucial day. You imply way more.

You do know the Ju-87 was not the only aircraft in the Luftwaffe? There were bombers like Ju-88, and He-111, and even fighters did strafing runs.

Secondly, the "nice Wikipedia quotes" are actually taken from other source documents namely:
Hooton, E.R. Luftwaffe at War; Blitzkrieg in the West. London: Chervron/Ian Allen, 2007. ISBN 978-1-85780-272-6.
Ward, John. Hitler's Stuka Squadrons: The Ju 87 at war, 1936–1945. London: Eagles of War, 2004. ISBN 1-86227-246-8.
Frieser, Karl-Heinz. The Blitzkrieg Legend. Naval Institute Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1-59114-294-2

So wiki just did us the favor of putting them in one nice spot. The quotes are accurate and are spot on. Now you claim the strikes hit all these other areas but only 56 casualties were recorded. The Germans did NOT conduct 5000 sorties on May 13th which was the critical day in question where the French basically ran away.

First of all it's not "I claim" it's simple facts. The Luftwaffe conducted airstrikes on all targets. The section just above the one you quoted quote just above the part you quoted kindly says:

"Luftflotte 3 (commanded by Hugo Sperrle), supported by Luftflotte 2 (commanded by Albert Kesselring), executed the heaviest air bombardment the world had yet witnessed and the most intense by the Luftwaffe during the war. The Luftwaffe committed two Sturzkampfgeschwader (dive bomber wings) to the assault, flying 300 sorties against French positions, with Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 alone flying 201 individual missions. A total of 3,940 sorties were flown by nine Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) units often in Gruppe strength."

Furthermore, from the text it is evident that the 56 causalities refers only to the attack on the fronline forts, not the whole areal assault.

Then how do you explain this:
"At about 19:00 on 13 May, a report by a French artillery observer was passed on incorrectly. There was a rumour that German tanks were approaching the town of Bulson. The false reports spread and the French 55th Infantry Division deserted their positions. German sources say that the first German tank crossed the Meuse River 12 hours later.[51] By the time the error was realised, most of the artillery and infantrymen had abandoned their heavy equipment."

Exactly identical to some German units collapsing during Bagration, or numerous second-line divisions in early 1945. Getting attacked from air with no AA weaponry and by tanks while having little AT weaponry can incite total panic. The German "reserve" divisions on the fairly substantial fortification in Eastern Prussia, collapsed, panicked and had whole units surrendering without fighting.

The early stages of Barbarossa also had numerous occasions of rumours casing panic and retreat before the enemy even appeared. Virtually word for word accounts of "tanks far behind our lines" as the ones in France.

You may note there is little mention of the French command of the 55th ID during the panic. That's because the chain of command was completely broken with the airstrikes hitting the divisional and regimental HQs.

 

[D Inqu]

I won't dispute that your answer represents some formations, but can you also look at the doctrine tree and see that MIL can represent other formations, too?

That's why I don't like the doctrine tree as it was shown and hope it's an alpha image that will improve. TBH, with the division builder on a batallion level, I don't get whether the doctrines affect batallions in a divisions or the whole divisions.

Do keep in mind that GAR has a better SA/IC-day ratio than INF. GAR in HOI3 aren't as bad as the performance jju_57 outlines above.

Gar also have very low speed, so once you take their org, you overrun them without further casualties. I do hope, that support will take a big role in the division designer, so something like a second line division with AT or AA battalions will perform less well than a proper dedicated garrison.

 

[Secret Master]

That's why I don't like the doctrine tree as it was shown and hope it's an alpha image that will improve. TBH, with the division builder on a batallion level, I don't get whether the doctrines affect batallions in a divisions or the whole divisions.

Right. We lack information here.

Gar also have very low speed, so once you take their org, you overrun them without further casualties. I do hope, that support will take a big role in the division designer, so something like a second line division with AT or AA battalions will perform less well than a proper dedicated garrison.

Yes, I agree with you here. (And the slow speed of GAR is the only reason it's not the best brigade in the game. Sheesh, don't get me started on manpower and leadership economization.)

Division building will be really important in this regard.