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

[Dalwin]

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.

Very good point and why I often ascribe the German success in 1940 as having more than a small dose of luck involved. So many things had to go a certain way (and nearly didn't) for things to work out the way they did.

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.

I agree with this point. I think the purge discouraged initiative because it left those remaining with the idea that if they stuck their head up it might get chopped off. There has, of course, been plenty of discussion on whether initiative in one's battlefield commanders is a good or bad thing.

 

[Opanashc]

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

Yes it did. But not in the way of destroying the best of Soviet officers - but scaring the rest into blind following of orders from above, lack of initiative. The purge is much more complex, then just one man's paranoia. Settling of scores, NKVD's fabricating of charges to make themselves look good, actual plots against the regime - all factors came into play.

 

[Secret Master]

Yes it did. But not in the way of destroying the best of Soviet officers - but scaring the rest into blind following of orders from above, lack of initiative. The purge is much more complex, then just one man's paranoia. Settling of scores, NKVD's fabricating of charges to make themselves look good, actual plots against the regime - all factors came into play.

Settling of scores certainly is hard to quantify. I brought up Kulik specifically for this reason. Kulik was liquidating his own enemies periodically, which was not really related to other aspects of the Purges. It's not like Stalin did it all himself (although keeping a guy like Kulik around and giving him responsibilities certainly is Stalin's fault).

 

[Gethsemani]

Yes it did. But not in the way of destroying the best of Soviet officers - but scaring the rest into blind following of orders from above, lack of initiative. The purge is much more complex, then just one man's paranoia. Settling of scores, NKVD's fabricating of charges to make themselves look good, actual plots against the regime - all factors came into play.

Not only that, it also tore down whatever semblance of structure the Red Army had in the 30's. The purge was aimed at high level officers, district commanders, army and corps commanders etc., and replaced them with lower level officers that were unprepared and untrained for the positions they were suddenly launched into. Such a sudden and extensive replacement of all high level commanders had a disastrous effect on the organization of the Red Army and its' capability to do pretty much anything, as many of these commanders had to figure out for themselves what their new job entailed (asking for advice at this point was probably a good way of getting a one way ticket to Siberia).

It isn't just about terror, it is also about suddenly removing all the leadership from an organization without a clear plan on how to replace the leadership. But your argument that it didn't remove the good leaders is probably largely sound, since it is doubtful if the Red Army had many good officers at that point.

 

[D Inqu]

Not only that, it also tore down whatever semblance of structure the Red Army had in the 30's. The purge was aimed at high level officers, district commanders, army and corps commanders etc., and replaced them with lower level officers that were unprepared and untrained for the positions they were suddenly launched into. Such a sudden and extensive replacement of all high level commanders had a disastrous effect on the organization of the Red Army and its' capability to do pretty much anything, as many of these commanders had to figure out for themselves what their new job entailed (asking for advice at this point was probably a good way of getting a one way ticket to Siberia).

One thing you are forgetting, is that the organisation and size of the Red Army changed beyond recognition. From a <100 division force of mostly territorial militia they rapidly grew to a 300 division force. There had to be a lot of officers to be promoted from lower ranks regardless of the purges.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

Surely you would at least partially blame the purges for the awful Soviet performance at the start of the winter war and Barbarossa. Not only were many generals dead, the others were terrified of doing anything that went against Stalin's at the time often unwise orders.

As for French doctrine, undoing it should be an investment, but should not be impossible, like that daft "irreplaceable minister" idea.

 

[jju_57]

Here are some major facts on why Germany defeated France that the game in all likely hood can not replicate.

1) At Sedan the Germans conducted a river crossing and the French weren't even there to stop it. So the Sedan province was basically empty and abandoned.
2) The French sent in some of their absolute worst divisions. These divisions basically dropped their rifles and ran away. So the game would have to send in a militia type unit to fight 3 panzer divisions.
3) The French changed their generals during Germanys drive to the coast. The new general instead of trying to counterattack and take open sections delayed this. By the time they did attack the Germany infantry was there to defend.

Now will the game leave this critical province empty? Will the game send in a militia level unit to try to take it back? Will the game not counterattack to cut off the German panzer divisions from their supply?

There was massive luck, French stupidity and a little German ingenuity involved in the win.

BTW in many board games that use dice and combat results tables they solve this problem by giving Germany a +2 dice roll or a CRT column shift to replicate the luck advantage.

But as for France going on the offensive and taking Berlin that is a whole alternate reality.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I have seen the AI leave critical provinces open, or defended only by militia or poor infantry (as it was at Sedan, the area was not completely undefended, just defended by very poor divisions). I have not seen it exploit these openings properly. As I said, it is easy to program a dumb AI and make France use it. It is hard to program a good AI and make Germany use it.

Chaos theory means that from a 1936 start, any player actions will change things so events like Sedan will not happen absolutely as in history. Luck can swing either way.

France defeating Germany is alternate history. Germany winning WW2 is alternate history. Why are you not equally bothered by the idea of Germany winning the war? It seems just as unlikely in hindsight.

 

[jju_57]

France defeating Germany is alternate history. Germany winning WW2 is alternate history. Why are you not equally bothered by the idea of Germany winning the war? It seems just as unlikely in hindsight.

Because the Germans got to within 15 miles of the center of Moscow. The French never made it more than 15 miles past the border. Hugh difference.

 

[Secret Master]

Here are some major facts on why Germany defeated France that the game in all likely hood can not replicate.

1) At Sedan the Germans conducted a river crossing and the French weren't even there to stop it. So the Sedan province was basically empty and abandoned.
2) The French sent in some of their absolute worst divisions. These divisions basically dropped their rifles and ran away. So the game would have to send in a militia type unit to fight 3 panzer divisions.
3) The French changed their generals during Germanys drive to the coast. The new general instead of trying to counterattack and take open sections delayed this. By the time they did attack the Germany infantry was there to defend.

Now will the game leave this critical province empty? Will the game send in a militia level unit to try to take it back? Will the game not counterattack to cut off the German panzer divisions from their supply?

This is where I think battleplans for the AI can be useful. Depending on the granularity of the mechanic, you could hypothetically assign a battleplan to the French AI that leaves Sedan virtually without protection.

In a case where France is run by the AI, this meets literally all the criteria you outlined (you could build in a failure to counter-attack into the plan as well without even talking about what specific general is where).

This would neatly solve all the problems without arbitrary silliness like bonuses. And a human Germany versus AI France would still have to work for victory, since the whole French army isn't squashed by Germany bonuses.

But as for France going on the offensive and taking Berlin that is a whole alternate reality.

Well, I've never advocated for that. Germany would have to fail badly to see Berlin occupied by French and British forces in 1940.

Badly, as in losing the same number of divisions to encirclements that the French lost, plus losing Luftwaffe wings on the ground to advancing Allied forces.

 

[scroggin]

France defeating Germany is alternate history. Germany winning WW2 is alternate history. Why are you not equally bothered by the idea of Germany winning the war? It seems just as unlikely in hindsight.

The issue is that if you are playing as one of the allies other than France or if you play as the soviets. Fighting against a Germany that doesn't defeat France is far too easy. The challenge of WWII has been removed altogether. If you play as France having to do everything well to defend against Germany is an awesome challenge.

 

[Secret Master]

The issue is that if you are playing as one of the allies other than France or if you play as the soviets. Fighting against a Germany that doesn't defeat France is far too easy. The challenge of WWII has been removed altogether. If you play as France having to do everything well to defend against Germany is an awesome challenge.

So, the Pacific Theater is nothing? Operation August Storm is nothing?

The entire war needs to be interesting, not just Barbarossa. If you stake the entire game on Barbarossa being fun, then why bother including the entire planet?

 

[scroggin]

So, the Pacific Theater is nothing? Operation August Storm is nothing?

The entire war needs to be interesting, not just Barbarossa. If you stake the entire game on Barbarossa being fun, then why bother including the entire planet?

Of course the whole war needs to be interesting. Having a challenging War in Europe doesn't prevent a challenging war in the pacific. Actually one of the things that made the pacific war more even was the fact that the allies were fighting a powerful Germany that took a lot of their effort away from the pacific.

 

[scroggin]

I think that there is a big difference between the historical reality and what will make an interesting game.

The historical reality is that it took a lot of skill a lot of luck and some seriously poor performance from the French For the Germans to be able to defeat France.

For a more interesting game with an AI Germany if France doesn't fall there is far less of a challenge.

If Im playing as Germany that is a different situation . Then it should be as difficult to win as the historical reality.

 

[Secret Master]

Of course the whole war needs to be interesting. Having a challenging War in Europe doesn't prevent a challenging war in the pacific. Actually one of the things that made the pacific war more even was the fact that the allies were fighting a powerful Germany that took a lot of their effort away from the pacific.

Fair enough, but I think some players are basing their view of what's possible with what has come before.

In HOI3, the US has such an easy time defeating AI Japan that if the Germans fail in France, there's "nothing to do" as jju_57 and a few others argue.

But in reality, with Germany tied down in France or defeated, the Pacific shouldn't be a cake walk. This is especially the case if the Soviets have decided to pursue an Asian strategy in light of Germany's weakness. Invading Japan without the atomic bomb (or without 5 years of B-29 raids) should be a tactical challenge. defeating Germany in a way that doesn't hand all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets should also be a challenge.

In all honesty, a German failure to defeat France in a timely manner should make for an interesting game for entirely different reasons. What should France and Britain do if the Soviets attack anyone in Europe? What if Japan attacks the US, but not the Allies while the war in Europe isn't decided? What if Germany is stonewalled in Benelux for 18 months, and Japan instead attacks DEI but not anything connected to the US? Historically, the war going bad in Europe for France and Britain helped reduce isolationism among US electorate, but if that doesn't happen, would they be willing to intervene against Japan if Japan doesn't attack the US directly? (And keep in mind that even FDR didn't think he could get Congress to authorize a war over an invasion of the Philippines in 1940...)

None of this even addresses Italy. Would Italy join the war if France didn't fold ASAP? If they don't, how does that change everything else?

 

[D Inqu]

Here are some major facts on why Germany defeated France that the game in all likely hood can not replicate.

You list no facts.

1) At Sedan the Germans conducted a river crossing and the French weren't even there to stop it. So the Sedan province was basically empty and abandoned.

The fact is that both the 10th and the 2nd Panzer have failed to cross the Meuse, the attemptes beaten off. The 1nd Panzer Crossed, but even after the huge air preparation, it was not an unopposed crossing.

2) The French sent in some of their absolute worst divisions. These divisions basically dropped their rifles and ran away. So the game would have to send in a militia type unit to fight 3 panzer divisions.

We've been through this. The French divisions were not "worst". They were typical second line infantry, who were subjected to what was the most intense air bombardment to that date, with thousands of air missions carried out by the Luftwaffe.

In-game, this would look like having your attack preceded by around 16 air units carrying out "ground support" driving the enemy 2 divisions org to almost 0, before your assault begins.

3) The French changed their generals during Germanys drive to the coast. The new general instead of trying to counterattack and take open sections delayed this. By the time they did attack the Germany infantry was there to defend.

That was not a major issue in Germany's drive to the coast. What was a problem was the lack of a couple of Tank corps to mount a counteroffensive. Historically even a brigade sized counter at Arras was enough to stop a whole Panzer division.

 

[jju_57]

This is where I think battleplans for the AI can be useful. Depending on the granularity of the mechanic, you could hypothetically assign a battleplan to the French AI that leaves Sedan virtually without protection.

In a case where France is run by the AI, this meets literally all the criteria you outlined (you could build in a failure to counter-attack into the plan as well without even talking about what specific general is where).

This would neatly solve all the problems without arbitrary silliness like bonuses. And a human Germany versus AI France would still have to work for victory, since the whole French army isn't squashed by Germany bonuses.

I'm only guessing here but my guess is based on doing extensive modeling work in previous HOI games and knowing how the AI was programmed. You can launch a battle plan that tells the French units to do exactly what we want done. But every so many game ticks the AI reevaluates it's position and changes plans. We do know that we can modify our battle plans on the fly at some cost. So that means the AI can also modify their battle plans on the fly as some cost. Now how do we prevent the AI from seeing Sedan captured by the Germans and then redirecting their forces there? I really doubt if this is possible or that PDS will even want to do this. So based on my past knowledge and experience I do not see battle plans as the solution to this problem.

The fact is that both the 10th and the 2nd Panzer have failed to cross the Meuse, the attemptes beaten off. The 1nd Panzer Crossed, but even after the huge air preparation, it was not an unopposed crossing.

Nice that you cherry pick things because the 2nd was late in their attempt since the 1st and 10th already made their crossing. The 10th wasn't even going against the 55th or at Sedan but instead the 71st near Bazeilles.

Now if you read what I wrote I said Sedan. As for facts how do you explain that on the night of May 12th as the German troops entered Sedan there were NO, zero, nada, French troops there?

We've been through this. The French divisions were not "worst". They were typical second line infantry, who were subjected to what was the most intense air bombardment to that date, with thousands of air missions carried out by the Luftwaffe.

Yea and you'll never admit that they were terrible. How else do you explain the panic of Bulson which wasn't subjected to prolonged air attacks?

I understand that to some "The Greatest Army" and it's defeat is hard to swallow. It's most likely a pride thing. But history is unkind and based on results and facts. Wishes, hopes, excuses are just that.

 

[Klausewitz]

That was not a major issue in Germany's drive to the coast. What was a problem was the lack of a couple of Tank corps to mount a counteroffensive. Historically even a brigade sized counter at Arras was enough to stop a whole Panzer division.

Stop, sure.
The question would be if they could be kept stopped (and history shows that the answer was no).
It is in fact pretty common for almost any kind of (counter)attack almost independent of size to slow or even stop the attacking side; very few armies have ever managed to simply drive through people fighting them without slowing down.

 

[1alexey]

On "quality" of Soviet army, there was a great act drawn up by Marshall Timoshenko in 1940, the
"Акт приема и сдачи дел по Наркомату обороны от 7 мая 1940 года" document, that anyone can google the text of, in Russian.

It mentioned terrible organisation of Soviet army, it had huge number of obsolete statutes, that were never updated, lack of any kind of cooperation of ground troops, artillery and air force, that training programs were inadequate, logistics was ill-prepared, communication lines were lacking, airfields are ill-prepared on the west, troops lack basic maps of places where they are supposed to fight(!), that army lacked ~23% of it`s supposed quantity, and the number of officers trained was inadequate even to just replace retiring, any kind of reserve was absent, and many other problems.

So, it`s not like the state of Soviet army was not known to Soviet leadership in 1940, and the later war showed most of mentioned problems very well.
The thing is, to blame it solely on the purges is incorrect. What is described in the document, is more or less typical state of Russian army in 19-20 century, it`s just that in 1940, Soviet leadership "suddenly" figured out that the state was unacceptable, with war looming on horizon. Soviet army had great structural problems, many of which date at least 5 years before purges stated, and that gimped it`s efficiency in 1941-1942.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

Because the Germans got to within 15 miles of the center of Moscow. The French never made it more than 15 miles past the border. Hugh difference.

Taking Moskva does not equal beating USA in the atom bomb race. And USA had no qualms with using atom bombs at the time. Germany was essentially doomed unless it took the UK, removing the US unsinkable aircraft carrier, and that was generally unfeasible.

The way the AI was programmed in previous HOI games is not the only possible way to program an AI. This is a new game, not an HOI3 expansion. And it is certainly possible to make an AI which sticks to a battle plan, more or less, and does not recalculate from scratch every single day.