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

[Secret Master]

The 55th was a very poor division, but had these men been given proper officers and training, they could have made a decent fighting force. They were still an infantry division, just a rubbish one. Individual divisions should have their own level of officers, training and so on to reflect this.

I don't mean to be picky, but MIL in HOI3 is a foot infantry formation with fewer officers (literally, as in lower officer cost per brigade) and worse training (in the form of lower ORG).

Your own definition sounds like an even more textbook case for HOI3 MIL than anything I did in the Soviet build thread recently.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

In that case that division of French infantry may best be classed as MIL in HOI3 terms, but the difference is that the division was not intended to be this way.

Having the same AI for everyone really does not make a lot of sense. Even within 1 country, USSR with or without the purge should behave very differently (an unpurged USSR would be far better at defending in depth and would stop the Germans much quicker, while a historical purged USSR would be unprepared, falter and lose hundreds of thousands encircled and captured or killed). The French and Germans had very opposed military doctrines (static lines of infantry and tanks supporting each other against armoured breakthroughs followed by infantry splitting and encircling the enemy, supported by air attack). Obviously programming different AI for all nations would take too long, but reflecting the major powers' doctrines would be a good step forward, and would end Germany playing a WW1 style game against France.

 

[Opanashc]

Why does everyone talk about the purge like it destroyed every officer in the Soviet Army? ~10,000 officers were fired and arrested, of them half returned to the army by Barbarossa, and most of those who did not return were NOT the brightest officers to begin with!

 

[Jazumir]

Back to france (before this thread explodes), please, once more:

I dont see why partially scripted troop-movement (aka historical battleplans enacted by the AI) is a pipe-dream, when it is quite obviously a much more simple solution than any convoluted or arbitary work around could ever be?

You wanna dish out advantages in the 1936 scenario that neither will enable germany to roll over france in 1937 (e.g. tech/doctrine advantages in the absence of practicals) nor will ever be out-of-time due to the game taking a different course (+/- x% combat effeciency in 1940), or simply feel arbitiary since they are mandatory (nerfing-events)? Seriously, good luck with that.

The fact remains: If both AIs are the same, playing both at the same strength, france should actually win. Germany won in 1940, because it made the right moves, and france made the wrong ones. It just boils down to that.

Since the fall of france may be pivotal to some games, the player(s) should have at least the option to have it occur. The way to do it, is to tell the french AI, in case of war with germany before a certain date, to have one army group in the maginot line defending, and another at the northern border preparing for an invasion of belgium, to be executed as soon as the germans invade it - and then have that army group run for quite specific targets, not changing its orders for a week or so, after the execution of the invasion has been triggered. All of this only, when a tick has been set in the game options (and accordingly for germany).

EDIT - BTW: If the AI will ONLY try to be smart, what will the chances of Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor occuring be? How likely will WW2 start at all? Should the german AI declare wars in a smart of in a historical sequence up to barbarossa? Should it be prepared for the war it chooses to fight in whatever way?

 

[Secret Master]

Why does everyone talk about the purge like it destroyed every officer in the Soviet Army? ~10,000 officers were fired and arrested, of them half returned to the army by Barbarossa, and most of those who did not return were NOT the brightest officers to begin with!

It might have something to do with the fact that 10,000 officers were arrested, and the ones that did not return were not the brightest, while guys like Kulik were named Marshal of the Soviet Union... after leading the abysmal attack against the Finns. It might also have something to do with the loss of officers while the Red Army was growing in size. Even with half those officers returning to duty, the Red Army did have a leadership deficit that was exacerbated by the Purge.

It's easy to overstate the percentage of officers lost in the Purge, but Bob's point is that a Soviet Union that does not undergo the Purge would have an advantage in the development of doctrines and better leaders compared to a Purged Soviet Union. Thus, the AI should behave differently.

Are you suggesting that the Purge had no, or should have no, measurable impact on doctrine development or leaders in general?

 

[frolix42]

Just looking at the early war icons of the doctrine which podcat stated the French (and UK & Japan) will follow.

Bonuses to entrenchment, perhaps fortified entrenchment, and bonuses to machine guns, perhaps soft-firepower in a prepared defense.

 

[jju_57]

I dont see why partially scripted troop-movement (aka historical battleplans enacted by the AI) is a pipe-dream, when it is quite obviously a much more simple solution than any convoluted or arbitary work around could ever be?

because an AI is FLUID. It recalculates at least once per day. It has to in order to have any hope at combat. What you want is not really possible from this viewpoint. The AI can be given an order but at the very next AI review it will CHANGE it's orders.

The fact remains: If both AIs are the same, playing both at the same strength, france should actually win.

So this is a fantasy game now? We have history to show reality. Your comment is at best based on hopes and dreams.

Germany won in 1940, because it made the right moves, and france made the wrong ones. It just boils down to that.

And what makes you think that in 1939, 1937, 1941 the same thing wouldn't have happened?

EDIT - BTW: If the AI will ONLY try to be smart, what will the chances of Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor occuring be? How likely will WW2 start at all? Should the german AI declare wars in a smart of in a historical sequence up to barbarossa? Should it be prepared for the war it chooses to fight in whatever way?

There is this thing called an "event". In all previous HOI games there were two ways a war starts. One is via an event. The other is where a defined set of circumstances are met. A good example of this one is the UK DOW'ing Germany based on threat and aggression levels.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

because an AI is FLUID. It recalculates at least once per day. It has to in order to have any hope at combat. What you want is not really possible from this viewpoint. The AI can be given an order but at the very next AI review it will CHANGE it's orders.

You wanna dish out advantages in the 1936 scenario that neither will enable germany to roll over france in 1937 (e.g. tech/doctrine advantages in the absence of practicals) nor will ever be out-of-time due to the game taking a different course (+/- x% combat effeciency in 1940), or simply feel arbitiary since they are mandatory (nerfing-events)? Seriously, good luck with that.

I think it is quite possible, given everything we know.

There is a maximum of 30 battalions in the division planner, and I assume there will be some sort of combined arms bonus. Germany will gain some X amount of XP from the war in Spain, let's say 15 XP total, which from the DD would allow 3 new battalions to a division, while France will have earned 0.

Now lets say both countries can earn some X amount from training, but since Germany is rearming in 1936 at full speed, France only earns 50%. So again Germany gains more battalions then French.

Now if you Frontload the Blitzkreig doctrine with bonuses to combined arms, mobile units, and close air support, while the French only receive bonuses to dig-in bonuses and infantry. Germany would end up with let's say 5 battalions more then French in 1 template, even if they started with the same # in 1936. Combined arm's bonuses go up due to this, and then get increased again from doctrine, and now you have properly buffed Germany over France in the way that they were, through doctrine.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

because an AI is FLUID. It recalculates at least once per day. It has to in order to have any hope at combat. What you want is not really possible from this viewpoint. The AI can be given an order but at the very next AI review it will CHANGE it's orders.


So this is a fantasy game now? We have history to show reality. Your comment is at best based on hopes and dreams.


And what makes you think that in 1939, 1937, 1941 the same thing wouldn't have happened?



There is this thing called an "event". In all previous HOI games there were two ways a war starts. One is via an event. The other is where a defined set of circumstances are met. A good example of this one is the UK DOW'ing Germany based on threat and aggression levels.

I am not an expert at AI programming, but I cannot understand why the AI cannot recalculate using the input of programmed orders and doctrines. Just tell it never to concentrate its armour and push. This assumption that AIs constantly recalculate from absolute scratch does not make much sense to me, and though I am no expert at AI programming I am fairly sure it is perfectly possible to make it so France's reaction to a German attack is never to launch an armoured thrust through the German lines, or to concentrate its troops much at all for that matter. Those will just not be options for it to do unless it has different doctrines. The doctrines could decide AI behaviour simply by having them as variables (if France has doctrine=WW1, stay in lines; if it has doctrine=blitzkrieg, attack with concentrated armour and air).

France did not defeat Germany. But Germany winning WW2 seems equally impossible when all is considered (after all, the USA got the atom bomb first, and the Germans were nowhere close). That, too, is a fantasy, but it is not absolutely impossible, at least not when compared to Albanian world conquest or similar nonsense from HOI3. Germany had the advantage going into France, in leadership, organisation and strategy. But from a 1936 start, under the player's leadership, France could have reformed, if not to become as strong as Germany, at least to become competent enough to avoid history's mistakes. I do not think the French AI should go marching into Berlin if Germany acts historically. But a historical defeat should only happen if Germany also plays its historical role, punching through the French lines and encircling their troops, well supported by air power.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I am not an expert at AI programming, but I cannot understand why the AI cannot recalculate using the input of programmed orders and doctrines. Just tell it never to concentrate its armour and push. This assumption that AIs constantly recalculate from absolute scratch does not make much sense to me, and though I am no expert at AI programming I am fairly sure it is perfectly possible to make it so France's reaction to a German attack is never to launch an armoured thrust through the German lines, or to concentrate its troops much at all for that matter. Those will just not be options for it to do unless it has different doctrines. The doctrines could decide AI behaviour simply by having them as variables (if France has doctrine=WW1, stay in lines; if it has doctrine=blitzkrieg, attack with concentrated armour and air).

France did not defeat Germany. But Germany winning WW2 seems equally impossible when all is considered (after all, the USA got the atom bomb first, and the Germans were nowhere close). That, too, is a fantasy, but it is not absolutely impossible, at least not when compared to Albanian world conquest or similar nonsense from HOI3. Germany had the advantage going into France, in leadership, organisation and strategy. But from a 1936 start, under the player's leadership, France could have reformed, if not to become as strong as Germany, at least to become competent enough to avoid history's mistakes. I do not think the French AI should go marching into Berlin if Germany acts historically. But a historical defeat should only happen if Germany also plays its historical role, punching through the French lines and encircling their troops, well supported by air power.

The differences are not going to be in the AI programming for attacks, but in the divisional templates. You can change the AI for Germany's Template builder to build a Focused Tank division, where it's mainly mobile forces and Panzers. You can tell the AI France to build templates with 1 to 1 ratios for Tanks to infantry.

This could possibly be broken down into the doctrine path's, and would probably make a lot of sense doing that. However, There won't be a completely different AI for the nations themselves involving combat. That is simply WAY too time consuming, and crazy.

 

[Opanashc]

It might have something to do with the fact that 10,000 officers were arrested, and the ones that did not return were not the brightest, while guys like Kulik were named Marshal of the Soviet Union... after leading the abysmal attack against the Finns. It might also have something to do with the loss of officers while the Red Army was growing in size. Even with half those officers returning to duty, the Red Army did have a leadership deficit that was exacerbated by the Purge.
It's easy to overstate the percentage of officers lost in the Purge, but Bob's point is that a Soviet Union that does not undergo the Purge would have an advantage in the development of doctrines and better leaders compared to a Purged Soviet Union. Thus, the AI should behave differently.
Are you suggesting that the Purge had no, or should have no, measurable impact on doctrine development or leaders in general?

Every year in the 1930's, about the same % of officers have left the Soviet Army - purge or no purge. Most of those affected, made their careers during the Civil War, had little education in the doctrine making (has anyone read Tukhachevskiy's works? pure propaganda, no military detail).

 

[kashkin]

Most of those affected, made their careers during the Civil War, had little education in the doctrine making (has anyone read Tukhachevskiy's works? pure propaganda, no military detail).

True, it surely explains why people like Kulik, Budenny and Voroshilov deserved to become Marshals of the SU. And to say Tukhachevsky's writings are pure propaganda is absurd.

And even if a relatively small amount of officers were arrested/killed/etc, the effect it had on doctrinal thought and innovation was immense. No officer wanted to be associated with ideas associated purged officers. Also, even if the ones who stayed out were not the brightest ones (any evidence for this? and how is it measured?), the loss in terms of experience alone is immense. Erickson estimates that in '39 the average Soviet division commander was 10 years younger than their German counterpart.

 

[JDNIGHT]

I will make one last comment, as I really don't have much more to add. I still believe Game Play should be what decides this in the end.

However, since everyone is so into nit-picking about specific events in history I thought I would add one thing. France as a country prepared for WW2 as if it was going to be WW1. Germany did not do this. Frances' doctrines, the way in which its leader thought, and the set up of its units was fully integrated into this approach... preparing for another WW1.

Think about it. France set itself up for a slow moving struggle in the trenches. Lots of artillery, heavier tanks. The fast moving German army took it by surprise. Literally, things moved so fast it didn't have time to think. Also, fearing another WW1, France wanted to make certain that the war was fought in the low lands, not France, as the devastation would have been just about complete. This explains so many of the moves that it made after Germany invaded the low lands. Also, Belgium's border with France is 620km long. Yes, I know, there were many divisions there during the war. However, the odds that there would be thin points in that line after France had moved its troops up into new positions in Belgium was almost 100%. The German commanders (if not Hitler) were ready for this. Their approach and doctrines fed on this. One way or another, France was doomed unless it got over the fact it wasn't going to fight WW1 again.

To model this, I suggest the game causes the French doctrines to demonstrate this. It should be possible for a player to change the approach France will make. However, like Germany building CVs, it should generally not be worth the enormous costs associated with it.

You can keep the awesome French tanks and their OOBs. Just model Frances' overall approach to the war and make this limit both the AI and the Player. Then you will get a very historical outcome.

 

[misterbean]

A little side note concerning Germany here, if people don't mind. A lot of people seem to take Germany's ultra-fast drive to the coast for granted, when, in fact, Von Manstein was repeatedly told to shut up by the OKW. When he wouldn't, they banished him to command a division standing guard in East Prussia. It was sheer luck of the draw, that Guderian got on board and managed to "leak" the plan to Hitler in person.
Another example of history being a hair away from being radically different.
And France's Dyle-plan was set to counter the first battleplans the OKW drew up. It could have worked.

 

[JDNIGHT]

I was thinking about ways to model this in HOI3. You could set up a French minister of the armed forces that provides a bonus to entrenchment, but negatives to movement, combat movement, and gives horrible attack delays. This minister could not be changed (as many could not in HOI3) unless France underwent a major political shift. You could then set up an event which triggered if certain areas of Belgium were to fall. This event would cause terror and panic in the French people as they would fear the horrors of WW1 were coming their way and would be in France soon. This could cause a large drop in national unity and significant dissent.

Now, if I can model this in HO3, it should be easy to do in HOI4.

 

[JDNIGHT]

A little side note concerning Germany here, if people don't mind. A lot of people seem to take Germany's ultra-fast drive to the coast for granted, when, in fact, Von Manstein was repeatedly told to shut up by the OKW. When he wouldn't, they banished him to command a division standing guard in East Prussia. It was sheer luck of the draw, that Guderian got on board and managed to "leak" the plan to Hitler in person.
Another example of history being a hair away from being radically different.
And France's Dyle-plan was set to counter the first battleplans the OKW drew up. It could have worked.

I think someone already brought up that the French didn't even stick with the battleplan they had that was current in 1940. As far as I am concerned what ever the French thought up before the war, what ever ideas they tossed around, were irrelevant. French leadership was a mess. I am not talking about leadership on an officers level. I am talking about at the highest levels.

However, you bring up a great point in that there were so many times that things could have gone differently. However, that is how good leaders are made. They don't just sit back and wait to be chosen to lead.

 

[D Inqu]

It might have something to do with the fact that 10,000 officers were arrested, and the ones that did not return were not the brightest, while guys like Kulik were named Marshal of the Soviet Union... after leading the abysmal attack against the Finns. It might also have something to do with the loss of officers while the Red Army was growing in size. Even with half those officers returning to duty, the Red Army did have a leadership deficit that was exacerbated by the Purge.

It's easy to overstate the percentage of officers lost in the Purge, but Bob's point is that a Soviet Union that does not undergo the Purge would have an advantage in the development of doctrines and better leaders compared to a Purged Soviet Union. Thus, the AI should behave differently.

Are you suggesting that the Purge had no, or should have no, measurable impact on doctrine development or leaders in general?

IIRC the size of the officer corps of the Red Army in 1941 was around 350k (which included some officers who were purged, but later released). So we are talking about around 3% of the officer corps being purged. Does it have an impact?

Well, it could have an impact if there is a case that the ones purged were far brighter than the ones who are not. However it does not seem to be the case. Some of the purged officers were smart, others (like Blucher and his entourage) were just incompetent old guards.

The Soviet problem was not the doctrine (the Deep Battle doctrine was as cutting edge as you can get), it's the tools to enact the doctrine. The SU desperately lacked industrial capacity, hence the lack of motor vehicles, radios, halfracks, aluminium for planes... And, most importantly, the lack of skilled personel. Universal education only appearing in the mid 20-s, in 1941, up to a half of personel in divisions would have only primary school education. And only 5% would have secondary education.

 

[Axe99]

IIRC the size of the officer corps of the Red Army in 1941 was around 350k (which included some officers who were purged, but later released). So we are talking about around 3% of the officer corps being purged. Does it have an impact?

The purge most likely would have had an impact on the behaviour of those not purged - less dissent, less people talking up if they thought something wasn't being done well. This cultural impact on those remaining could be even larger than the impact of the loss of officers, in terms of military effectiveness.

 

[D Inqu]

The purge most likely would have had an impact on the behaviour of those not purged - less dissent, less people talking up if they thought something wasn't being done well. This cultural impact on those remaining could be even larger than the impact of the loss of officers, in terms of military effectiveness.

This effect is hard to quantify. Almost always, virtually all deficiencies of the Red Army are blamed on the purges, but the problems are much deeper. It's not that "officers very scared to speak up", it was more "officer not realising things are not done well, because he only had a 1 year officer course in the 20-s on top of his primary school education".

 

[Secret Master]

Every year in the 1930's, about the same % of officers have left the Soviet Army - purge or no purge. Most of those affected, made their careers during the Civil War, had little education in the doctrine making (has anyone read Tukhachevskiy's works? pure propaganda, no military detail).

So, are you arguing that the Purge had little or no impact on Soviet leadership or doctrines?

This effect is hard to quantify. Almost always, virtually all deficiencies of the Red Army are blamed on the purges, but the problems are much deeper. It's not that "officers very scared to speak up", it was more "officer not realising things are not done well, because he only had a 1 year officer course in the 20-s on top of his primary school education".

In game terms, it's very hard to quantify. The HOI3 solution was a flat 15% penalty to leadership. You could spend leadership on whatever you wanted, but you had 15% less of it.

I felt that this was fair and a reasonable game implementation of something hard to quantify.