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

[scroggin]

Not quite as the Italian and British Navy understood their strengths and weaknesses and tried to get one or the other to commit at a disadvantage that never truly ended up in a decisive fight. After all, the Royal Navy didn't have a real modern answer to the new Littorio Italian BB which had the range and hitting power not to risk some lucky salvos but they would have easily cleaned up the Mediterranean if the Italian Navy only had the 4 rebuild WWI ships to contend with and just modern Heavy Cruisers. Whether it was with more or less Luftwaffe support the Italians were not going to change their naval strategy and suddenly become as risky as the Germans were to send capital ships on convoy raiding missions. This view was further reinforced when they ventured further at Cape Matapan expecting some air cooperation of which where was none and the British had a Carrier. That experience proved that if the Italian Navy wanted to truly run free outside the Italian air umbrella they would have needed at least a Carrier which was sorely needed in that battle seeing as most ships of that era didn't exactly have a good amount of air defense guns on board.

While Cape Matapan was solid Italian loss, it was not the decisive engagement the British were looking for as the Italian navy prior to venturing forth already felt they were risking too much and cut their losses. It just reinforced the Italian Navy not to change their plans for the remainder of the war and this is reflected in the very heavy escort duty modern battleships were doing resupply to North Africa or causing some critical food shortages on Malta by threatening convoy with 3 modern BB with a ton of support ships and various air support within their strike range.

Ironically, since you brought it up, the Luftwaffe were the only one's to actual sink the Roma, the only Italian BB completely lost during the war. And, IIRC, no Littori Italian BB actual sunk another combat ship seeing as most engagements were done at range and couldn't hit much of anything without new radar or FC system.

Strategically The Italian Navy did the best thing they could. They kept their Battleships intact, so the British were forced to keep a large naval force in the Med. This allowed the Japanese to run rampant in the pacific. A perfect example of the "Fleet in being doctrine" used to good effect. It might not be heroic but it was the right tactic.

 

[Kovax]

Strategically The Italian Navy did the best thing they could. They kept their Battleships intact, so the British were forced to keep a large naval force in the Med. This allowed the Japanese to run rampant in the pacific. A perfect example of the "Fleet in being doctrine" used to good effect. It might not be heroic but it was the right tactic.

An unspectacular "tactic", but a good "strategy" for an otherwise outclassed combatant. Unfortunately for Italy, its poor performance on land and air eventually made the naval standoff a moot point.

 

[Secret Master]

An unspectacular "tactic", but a good "strategy" for an otherwise outclassed combatant. Unfortunately for Italy, its poor performance on land and air eventually made the naval standoff a moot point.

Well, and from a navy that simply didn't have the fuel to conduct lots of operations anyway, it's one of the only options.

While fuel was at premium for several combatants, the Italians were on the short end of the stick even in the Axis.

EDIT: I know the Regia Marina did a lot of stuff in the war, but there were periods of time it was idle because of lack of fuel.

 

[Zinegata]

Doesn't the Saar Offensive demonstrate the potential success of a continued assault? This was just another failure of the French high command. If you had competent leadership in place I think the French army could have made a breakthrough in Sept 39.

I'm being generous (I agree French command was wrong most of the time), and do note that the Soviets turned out to have no plans to backstab the Germans anyway (which was also what the French assumed since the Non-Aggression Pact made Germany and the Soviets defacto allies in the eyes of the British/French).

In short, it was an explanation of why the Germans were so apprenhensive about the Saar offensive; and how statements about German fears of this offensive was not proof-positive that it was a war-winner because the worst-case scenario the Germans envisioned wasn't going to happen.

 

[Klausewitz]

Doesn't the Saar Offensive demonstrate the potential success of a continued assault? This was just another failure of the French high command. If you had competent leadership in place I think the French army could have made a breakthrough in Sept 39.

The French suffered about 2000 casualties all told without even reaching the Siegfried line.
The Siegfried line which even though it was demobilized then, stopped the Americans for month in 1944.
In 1939 and 40 it would quite handily have stopped the French for long enough to bring back troops from the east (especially since the Saar and the areas behind it are neither 'tank country' nor terrain that favours the attacker, being heavily forested and broken).

 

[rafan]

France didt need to go for breakthrough
it only needed to make germans belive that witch agresive artilery and airforce bombardment of zigfrid line for Hitler and number of German generals that did take part in first world war it would make them send forces from poland to defend zigfrid line. That would also make SU hestinant about entering poland ( they enered after observing lack of France and UK comitment to war) and give more time for poland staling german ofensive on that front.

 

[Klausewitz]

France didt need to go for breakthrough
it only needed to make germans belive that witch agresive artilery and airforce bombardment of zigfrid line for Hitler and number of German generals that did take part in first world war it would make them send forces from poland to defend zigfrid line. That would also make SU hestinant about entering poland ( they enered after observing lack of France and UK comitment to war) and give more time for poland staling german ofensive on that front.

France did need the Breakthrough.
I know that a lot has been made of heroic polish resistance over the last years, but that is mainly a function of the relative strength:
For a fight between a modern and lagging army, between 80 million and 40 million (were the Poles even that many?).
In a fight between a man and a 12-year-old it is noteworthy if the 12 year old can hold out for a time.
Nobody would however doubt the outcome.
The same goes for Poland. Holding out against the Wehrmacht for 1 month and 5 days is noteworthy because Poland could field half the divisions (theoretically 2/3 but some never got constituted), half the guns, a fourth of the tanks and a sixth of the aircrafts.
It is noteworthy because they held out that long even while refusing to drawing back their line of defense to natural defenses and being caught out in the open.
The question was, always, about the length of time Poland could hold out (which was also the window of time France and the UK had to make their influence felt) never about whether or not Poland would fall.

 

[Secret Master]

France did need the Breakthrough.
I know that a lot has been made of heroic polish resistance over the last years, but that is mainly a function of the relative strength:
For a fight between a modern and lagging army, between 80 million and 40 million (were the Poles even that many?).
In a fight between a man and a 12-year-old it is noteworthy if the 12 year old can hold out for a time.
Nobody would however doubt the outcome.
The same goes for Poland. Holding out against the Wehrmacht for 1 month and 5 days is noteworthy because Poland could field half the divisions (theoretically 2/3 but some never got constituted), half the guns, a fourth of the tanks and a sixth of the aircrafts.
It is noteworthy because they held out that long even while refusing to drawing back their line of defense to natural defenses and being caught out in the open.
The question was, always, about the length of time Poland could hold out (which was also the window of time France and the UK had to make their influence felt) never about whether or not Poland would fall.

All of those are good points, but I'd like to add that even if Germany manages to strategically redeploy units quickly to counter a Franco-British attack, we start to get into weird territory with timing and application of concentration of force.

What really needs to happen, breakthrough or no, is that any Franco-British attack on Germany needs to draw off enough German firepower and manpower from Poland to make a difference. Not just to save the Poles, but because every division in transit between both fronts is a division not fighting or resting in reserve. And "make a difference" might not mean Poland stays in the fight. It might just mean that Poland ends up fighting for two months, or three, or four. And the longer Poland is in the fight (even with half the country occupied by the Soviets), the worse Germany's situation becomes.

A breakthrough would certainly achieve the desired result, but also consider that if German leadership get spooked and start reliving the last year of WWI, they might jump the gun and reinforce the west even before a breakthrough is achieved or about to occur. This changes the nature of the war. Whether it is for the better or not depends on what the Soviets do.

It also means that neither side gets to use the Phoney War to build up. Unless I am mistaken, the Phoney War benefits Germany a bit more than France and Britain (not enough Cash and Carry in play to make up the differences between them). So, keeping Germany grappled and in combat instead of leisurely building up while also trying to keep the fighting on German soil carriers some benefits if it can be sustained.

Unfortunately, even though I am a proponent of the "France wasn't full of cheese-eating surrender clowns in 1940, and things could have been different in the Battle of France," the issue with an early attack to draw off German firepower from Poland puts the Allies in an awkward position in terms of global politics. The less military strength the Germans leave on their border with the Soviets increases the likelihood of Soviet intervention. If the Soviets break the pact, the good news is that Germany collapses faster. The bad news is that the Soviets now stand to dominate Germany and Eastern Europe. France is saved, but now she's staring down a Soviet Union that is even more powerful and dangerous.

 

[Beagá]

Hardly a bad scenario.

Italy would probably join the Allies and US would still help as much as it could. Not to mention what wasn´t occupied of Germany. Yes SU wouldn´t suffer as much as in the historical Barbarossa route, but it wouldn´t be a cakewalk for them. Hell, maybe even Turkey could help.

Communist agression in 1940 was something ALL countries would oppose directly or indirectly. What the soviets could try to do was some land grabbing in Ostpreussen, but trying to put communists in Germany would result in nasty consequences for them. Even then a soviet backstab is one of my favorite what-if scenarios and I hope it´s well done in HOI4.

 

[misterbean]

Germany had the following in the west:

1. Armee: 16 infantry-divisions (Saarland region)
5. Armee: 11 infantry divisions (watching Belgium and Netherlands)
7. Armee: 5 infantry, 1 SS-regiment and 1 Landwehr-Division (Upper Rhein region)

Heeresgruppe C had 1 semi-motorised division in strategic reserve.
OKH reserves were 11 divisions spread out through the west.

Most of those were not frontline-divisions (I believe only 9 in total were non-reserve units), but any breakthrough would have to be fast and well coördinated.

 

[Klausewitz]

Germany had the following in the west:

1. Armee: 16 infantry-divisions (Saarland region)
5. Armee: 11 infantry divisions (watching Belgium and Netherlands)
7. Armee: 5 infantry, 1 SS-regiment and 1 Landwehr-Division (Upper Rhein region)

Heeresgruppe C had 1 semi-motorised division in strategic reserve.
OKH reserves were 11 divisions spread out through the west.

Most of those were not frontline-divisions (I believe only 9 in total were non-reserve units), but any breakthrough would have to be fast and well coördinated.

I doubt there could be a breakthrough.
The terrain immediatly behind the Saar is broken (hilly/mountainous and heavily forested) and historically one of the least infrastructurely developed areas of germany.
So the attacker faces a defender who can trade space for time (the border region was heavily mined to enable that) and then rest on fortifications (Westwall) and if those are overrun, behind that comes the forest and the hills...
So a rapid breakthrough is physically impossible.

 

[Jaxck]

The MP issue really isn't an issue. MP HoI is like Diplomacy, you know your opponents' options back to front but you don't know what they're going to do. France can try to be as prepared as they want, but Germany could do something completely unexpected that changes the pace of the game, exactly like in real life.

 

[misterbean]

I doubt there could be a breakthrough.
The terrain immediatly behind the Saar is broken (hilly/mountainous and heavily forested) and historically one of the least infrastructurely developed areas of germany.
So the attacker faces a defender who can trade space for time (the border region was heavily mined to enable that) and then rest on fortifications (Westwall) and if those are overrun, behind that comes the forest and the hills...
So a rapid breakthrough is physically impossible.

And without the BEF to try something totally unexpected, like a landing in Northern Germany (yeah, I know, Gallipoli all over again, but I am just strategizing) to draw off 5. Armee and any northern stragglers, I don't see it happening either. What's more, both UK and France insisted on Poland pulling back behind the rivers. That could have added a month or more to the German offensive.

 

[Klausewitz]

And without the BEF to try something totally unexpected, like a landing in Northern Germany (yeah, I know, Gallipoli all over again, but I am just strategizing) to draw off 5. Armee and any northern stragglers, I don't see it happening either. What's more, both UK and France insisted on Poland pulling back behind the rivers. That could have added a month or more to the German offensive.

I often heard about that Idea, but i really don't see a British invasion succeeding in Northern Germany.
They sail right into German aircover, minefields and all the torpedo- and u-boats the Germans can scratch up.
If anything i see that as a really expensive way to lose a couple of regiment.

 

[Secret Master]

Hardly a bad scenario.

Italy would probably join the Allies and US would still help as much as it could. Not to mention what wasn´t occupied of Germany. Yes SU wouldn´t suffer as much as in the historical Barbarossa route, but it wouldn´t be a cakewalk for them. Hell, maybe even Turkey could help.

Communist agression in 1940 was something ALL countries would oppose directly or indirectly. What the soviets could try to do was some land grabbing in Ostpreussen, but trying to put communists in Germany would result in nasty consequences for them. Even then a soviet backstab is one of my favorite what-if scenarios and I hope it´s well done in HOI4.

Hmm, I wonder if FDR could get Congress and the American people on board with supporting the Allies faster if the scenario I described above happened, or whether a swift defeat of Germany and a conflict with the Soviets would be taken up by the isolationists as a textbook case of why the US shouldn't bother getting involved, especially with Japan misbehaving.

See, this is one of the reasons I keep seeing the war in general in interesting terms, even if nothing goes as planned after September of 1939. HOI3 is fun, but it lacks some robustness when it comes to these kinds of questions. (Although TFH is better about it than FTM.)

I doubt there could be a breakthrough.
The terrain immediatly behind the Saar is broken (hilly/mountainous and heavily forested) and historically one of the least infrastructurely developed areas of germany.
So the attacker faces a defender who can trade space for time (the border region was heavily mined to enable that) and then rest on fortifications (Westwall) and if those are overrun, behind that comes the forest and the hills...
So a rapid breakthrough is physically impossible.

Question:

Is Hitler's grip on power seriously endangered by any significant loss of territory in the west? Even if there is no breakthrough in the "Holy crap, French tanks are running around Bavaria" sense of the term, if the Siegfried Line is even penetrated, would this create a domestic political crisis at a time when the people of Germany haven't seen Germany triumph over France in 1940, and are less willing to give everything to the war effort?

And are Hitler's choices to either execute key army leaders to prevent a coup, or suffer a coup that removes him from power?

 

[Klausewitz]

Question:

Is Hitler's grip on power seriously endangered by any significant loss of territory in the west? Even if there is no breakthrough in the "Holy crap, French tanks are running around Bavaria" sense of the term, if the Siegfried Line is even penetrated, would this create a domestic political crisis at a time when the people of Germany haven't seen Germany triumph over France in 1940, and are less willing to give everything to the war effort?

And are Hitler's choices to either execute key army leaders to prevent a coup, or suffer a coup that removes him from power?

I think the reverse is not serious enough.
There is a strong tradition in germany, even today, that just because it is unpleasant does not mean you can quite.
The Wehrmacht Resistance only got its shit together longer after it was clear that there would and could be no victory.
I doubt a French penetration of the Siegfried line that can be contained quite easily would rattle them enough to make them forget their oath on the Führer.

 

[misterbean]

The main threat would be the loss of the Ruhr industrial area, I think. Losing Bavaria might spark a little, because it's the original base of nazi power.
As for a military coup, I don't see it happening for one simple reason: throughout their history, the military plotters have unfortunately proven two things: their general ineptitude at something like this, and (dare I say it) their cowardice. Let's face it: if any of us would be face to face with a man we had sworn to destroy, we'd probably be happy to kill ourselves along with Hitler. Especially as military men.

Another reason for any coup's failure: Göring, at this point, still had most of his marbles in place, and his paws firmly on the seat as Hitler's designated heir. Even if he would get killed, I doubt it would seriously threaten the party's hold on power.
In fact, an interesting scenario might crop up. You see, Göring was against the war. Even in september '39, he was using his Swedish diplomat friends as intermediaries to try to come to some kind of arrangement with the Allies. This ended rather abruptly after Hitler found out about it.
Cue to Hitler dying before he finds out about it.
Germany surrenders, Göring blames it all on the nearest patsy, swears it will never happen again, the Allies are happy the war ends so soon. All well that ends well.
Except the nazi's remain in power hmy:

 

[jdavis86]

I often heard about that Idea, but i really don't see a British invasion succeeding in Northern Germany.
They sail right into German aircover, minefields and all the torpedo- and u-boats the Germans can scratch up.
If anything i see that as a really expensive way to lose a couple of regiment.

I don't think that was ever a serious strategy for many a reason. The British had their hands full in Norway (an often forgotten action), and it would get them too far away from the RAF and the escape route of the channel. Plus splitting off from the French army would never have been suggested, nor approved of by the French.

You can try it in HOI3 and even run into complications. That speaks a lot to its difficulty .

 

[Secret Master]

The main threat would be the loss of the Ruhr industrial area, I think. Losing Bavaria might spark a little, because it's the original base of nazi power.
As for a military coup, I don't see it happening for one simple reason: throughout their history, the military plotters have unfortunately proven two things: their general ineptitude at something like this, and (dare I say it) their cowardice. Let's face it: if any of us would be face to face with a man we had sworn to destroy, we'd probably be happy to kill ourselves along with Hitler. Especially as military men.

Another reason for any coup's failure: Göring, at this point, still had most of his marbles in place, and his paws firmly on the seat as Hitler's designated heir. Even if he would get killed, I doubt it would seriously threaten the party's hold on power.
In fact, an interesting scenario might crop up. You see, Göring was against the war. Even in september '39, he was using his Swedish diplomat friends as intermediaries to try to come to some kind of arrangement with the Allies. This ended rather abruptly after Hitler found out about it.
Cue to Hitler dying before he finds out about it.
Germany surrenders, Göring blames it all on the nearest patsy, swears it will never happen again, the Allies are happy the war ends so soon. All well that ends well.
Except the nazi's remain in power hmy:

True, but in that case, the war still ends on much more favorable terms for France and Britain. Goring surrendering to the Allies in 1939 or 1940 (or just negotiating an armistice) is better than France getting overrun and Britain spending 55% of her GDP for 6 six years funding a colossal war.

While I wouldn't want Nazis in power any more than than the next guy, a Germany without Hitler and with Goring in charge might be ever so slightly better. And, if you are an advocate of realpolitik as opposed to a Wilsonian idealist, a Nazi Germany that isn't defeating France and bombing Britain is a Germany that can at least counter-balance Soviet power in Central Europe.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that a military coup would result in a democracy for Germany anyway. My assumption is that a military coup would replace a Nazi dictatorship with a military dictatorship. Whether that's ultimately better for Germany and Europe as a whole is a difficult question, given the desire in military circles for a war in 1943 instead of 1939.

The real fear I would have is that a time-traveling German would steal my "Kinder, Gentler Germany" plan from the AAR forum, go back in time, take Hitler out of the picture, and plan for a much more aggressive and well executed war in 1943, complete with a real navy and enough panzers and manpower to be almost unstoppable. Oh, and have Germany act like the victim of imperialism by Western European powers to limit the support France and Britain can get from abroad.

And then throw it all away on a war with the Soviets in 1944, because there's no way to supply that many panzers past Kiev.

 

[JDNIGHT]

There is a problem with making France to powerful. That is that the game will no longer be very playable in MP. I think it is jju_57(???) that said this.

I play in large groups with 12+ players. France and Britain each have a player and sometimes even Poland does. If it is possible for Poland and France to win WW2, well, lets think about all the paying players that have invested hours of their time in this game that are playing Russia, the USA, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Canada,.... you get the idea?!?!

If a good/decent British player and a good/decent French player can stop an excellent German player even 35% of the time... We will have issues. Who wants to surrender before they get to use their brand new shiny Bismark battleship?

Although I think France should have a chance, it should be slim. It should have a good chance at hurting Germany which would give it purpose. But outright defeating it would be nearly game breaking for me. Historical or not.

By the way, I hardly ever play SP anymore. The AI is sooooo bad. Even a revamped AI will end up being fodder for many of the people I play with, so we must have our MP!!!

The answer --> Keep the AI easier. It will satisfy the masses and allow someone to play France and still beat Germany. However, the forces should still be stacked against France. Elsewise... no fun MP game.