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

[Axe99]

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.

I sympathise with this view, but what you're saying is to move away from history to provide MP balance. If the aim is a balanced MP game with a WW2 flavour, rather than a WW2 game that's as historical as possible but the mechanics are still fun, then we're taking a whole 'nother approach to game design than HoI has traditionally.

 

[JDNIGHT]

I sympathise with this view, but what you're saying is to move away from history to provide MP balance. If the aim is a balanced MP game with a WW2 flavour, rather than a WW2 game that's as historical as possible but the mechanics are still fun, then we're taking a whole 'nother approach to game design than HoI has traditionally.

Fair enough. I don't think that HOI4 should stay historical as much as possible. However, many in this thread have brought up that Germany really only beat France quickly by luck.(or amazing skill, your choice) We also know that without a quick victory over France, Germany is done for. So... If we stay completely historical, this game will likely end almost before it starts in many cases where the "luck is not there".

Although we want this to mimic history as much as possible, this has to be a game. Not a computer simulation of something that could very easily go boring.

 

[Zinegata]

Fair enough. I don't think that HOI4 should stay historical as much as possible. However, many in this thread have brought up that Germany really only beat France quickly by luck.(or amazing skill, your choice) We also know that without a quick victory over France, Germany is done for. So... If we stay completely historical, this game will likely end almost before it starts in many cases where the "luck is not there".

Although we want this to mimic history as much as possible, this has to be a game. Not a computer simulation of something that could very easily go boring.

You know, all of this commentary on how Germany is doomed if the French hold out long is making me question the idea in the first place; because I don't think we really have an iron-tight case that a historical Germany loses automatically if France holds out for six months (a year though and yes the Germans are definitely doomed).

 

[Axe99]

Fair enough. I don't think that HOI4 should stay historical as much as possible. However, many in this thread have brought up that Germany really only beat France quickly by luck.(or amazing skill, your choice) We also know that without a quick victory over France, Germany is done for. So... If we stay completely historical, this game will likely end almost before it starts in many cases where the "luck is not there".

Although we want this to mimic history as much as possible, this has to be a game. Not a computer simulation of something that could very easily go boring.

Aye, I agree - it's an issue that's complex and I don't really have a position, per se (I have faith that HoI4 will be fun in SP, while MP sounds awesome, I'll have to wait until I'm retired to have any reasonable chance of ever playing it that way). The easy way around it is to have a game start date of June 1940, once the luck has played out and France is pretty much done and dusted, but I do like the idea of maybe having an optional event (Dalwin was describing something like this from another game he'd played) that forces France to invite a large part of its force to be encircled, to stop the early war going ahistorical.

 

[Secret Master]

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.

:sigh: So, you're saying the German player needs all those special buffs Germany gets in HOI3 to defeat France, even though France in HOI3 has fewer troops than she did historically and some other weaknesses?

We're back to, "Nerf France for MP reasons," even though playing Germany should actually require some skill, not "Well, I just fired the Blitzkrieg decision, so now my divisions are practically invincible. Who needs Rommel or Guderian, since there is almost nothing France can do to win, unless a human France abuses 20 exploits."

I'll say it again: I'm not asking for France to get a buff. There are a ton of problems in the French military in 1939, not the least of which include key leaders and doctrines. But she did have a large army, lots of armor, and a decent navy. But I can't even hit historical production levels with France in HOI3. (If someone can reach historical production levels by middle of 1940, show me the build scheme because I want to replicate it.) It would be nice to have a historical France, including both her strengths and weaknesses.

Look, even in MP, I want to defeat France as Germany without the benefit of magical rainbow and unicorn decisions that grant super buffs to my units. I want to look at it and say to myself, "Aha, I have equaled Guderian's brilliance and wiped out the cream of the French army in a few weeks. Well done, me." I don't want to say, "Well, Secret Master, remember to fire that blitzkrieg decision on day X so you can overrun both Poland and France at the same time."

That's not strategy. It's not fun. Most important, it doesn't stroke my ego as an armchair general. It's Harry Potter and the Special Decisions to Buff German Forces While France is Weaker Than She Should Be.

 

[scroggin]

Its not good if France is Nerfed in a German Player, Single player game. It should need all the skill and strategy of history.

France should be Nerfed if the Player is any other country just to make WWII more even, more Epic and more historical. How boring to play as the USA only to find that WWII is over and We didn't even get to Fight.

 

[Axe99]

That's not strategy. It's not fun. Most important, it doesn't stroke my ego as an armchair general. It's Harry Potter and the Special Decisions to Buff German Forces While France is Weaker Than She Should Be.

Hahaha, this brought a smile, well written .

Its not good if France is Nerfed in a German Player, Single player game. It should need all the skill and strategy of history.

France should be Nerfed if the Player is any other country just to make WWII more even, more Epic and more historical. How boring to play as the USA only to find that WWII is over and We didn't even get to Fight.

France nerfed or Germany temporarily buffed? It's probably a good deal easier to balance buffing Germany, as what we're trying to do is to replicate Germany's temporary 'luck' (I still think a good deal of this can be replicated with leaders and doctrines as well - don't forget Germany rolled over the top of the Brits in Africa, Norway and Greece as well - they clearly had something going for them beyond Guderian not being able to hold himself back) at the outset of the war. If this was an optional decision for players in the SP game it would be more the better, so that players who were going for a sandbox game weren't locked into the "everyone knows France falls, and we really want that to happen, so let's lock it in regardless of how well the in-game France has prepared", and make it a decision taken on set-up of the MP game, and it's all good.

Also - for those players concerned that the USA won't get any action - there's always the opportunity for the Comintern to run riot if a defeated, weak Germany is all that's in the centre of Europe, allowing for plenty of interesting times in a sandbox-style game, particularly if Japan uses this opportunity to still go all Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

 

[misterbean]

What was wrong with France in '39 and '40? Apart from the wrong plan, they had lousy communication and a rather obsolete doctrine. This would suggest giving them a penalty at the start of the game in the area of Doctrine Research to replicate that they still thought in WWI terms and had maybe gotten a little complacent behind the Maginot Line.

What was good about Germany in '39 and '40? Good training, good soldiers, good doctrines. If the early benefits of Blitzkrieg far outweigh the early benefits of the other doctrines, then maybe there is no need for any further, artificial buff or nerf on either side. It all depends on how Podcat & co balance the game.

 

[safe-keeper]

That's not strategy. It's not fun. Most important, it doesn't stroke my ego as an armchair general. It's Harry Potter and the Special Decisions to Buff German Forces While France is Weaker Than She Should Be.

Hated that book. Very predictable and with no plot twists.

 

[1alexey]

The discussion about what would`ve happened in France tried to push into Saar seem quite wierd.

A nice look at what actually happened, reveals that Polish army, 2 weeks into the invasion, bu 14 september was already crushed, huge portion of it was surrounded and Poland lost huge territory and simply couldn`t mobilize any more forces.

Considering Allies only managed to start Saar the offensive on 7th of September, Allies basically had 7 days to make Germans radically review their plans, which is doubtful.

French army couldn`t attack at similar to Wehrmacht speed, and it would see opposition. Yes, those were not Best German forces, but even bad forces, can hold the line for long if sufficient morale is present, and Germans had prepared defense line to fall back on, and did I mention Germans could fight in Urban areas for very long, forcing allies to commit huge forces to surrounding the cities.

Most probable outcome would be French simply failing to make enough progress in the 1-2 weeks they had to make it meter. Neither French, nor british were really capable of fast offensive, and it is quite questionable if the French even had the necessary spare parts and repair capacity for their tanks, considering how hard they failed at using them in their own soil, in 1940.

We're back to, "Nerf France for MP reasons," even though playing Germany should actually require some skill, not "Well, I just fired the Blitzkrieg decision, so now my divisions are practically invincible. Who needs Rommel or Guderian, since there is almost nothing France can do to win, unless a human France abuses 20 exploits."

But that line of arguing is silly, you`re suggesting that German player needs a skill advantage, which shouldn`t be necessary. Also, you may want to look at MP games, France tends to hold way more than historical in HOI3, despite your claim that the German buffs make his army imbalanced.

Look, even in MP, I want to defeat France as Germany without the benefit of magical rainbow and unicorn decisions that grant super buffs to my units. I want to look at it and say to myself, "Aha, I have equaled Guderian's brilliance and wiped out the cream of the French army in a few weeks. Well done, me." I don't want to say, "Well, Secret Master, remember to fire that blitzkrieg decision on day X so you can overrun both Poland and France at the same time."

France falls in MP games, but the importance is not IF it falls, but how it falls and how much did Germany lost. I can`t see how you, of all the people fail to see the difference.

Magic modifiers are bad, but do be fair, Allies, and especially SU rely on those even heavier. The game mechanics simply doesn`t allow SU to rebuild army as fast, needing to give them magical buff making their militia as good as infantry, while their tanks super cheap and fast to produce, but only for a year.

 

[Donkey Kong]

Hated that book. Very predictable and with no plot twists.

Are you still talking about the book or fall Gelb in HoI 3? ;-)

 

[Praetori]

That sounds good except for one major point.

If the armies are well represented vis a vis history, how is Germany supposed to fare well assuming the French player does not advance heavily into Belgium allowing most of his forces to be cutoff? If the French simply hold at the Belgian border and have enough defense in depth to avoid breakthrough and encirclement, Germany is then forced to slog its way to Paris. Even if they are able to do this it will be much slower and costlier than history.

That's where battleplans come into play. If every indication to the French and BEF are telling them that the Germans are going through Belgium then their battleplan will probably be set up to defend there. Once the German offensive begins and they're proven wrong (if they are) they'll need to switch to a different battleplan and since it's not prepared beforehand then they won't have any bonuses compared to the Germans which will enjoy full bonuses provided by following their pre-planned battleplan.
At least that's how it's been hinted it will work.

 

[Beagá]

The funny thing about that Saar plan is that even HOI 3 dumb AI prepares for it

IF you DO station troops for na attack the AI will reinforce the border in advance, and it´s not easy to do any breakthrough there. Even worse because if the British put troops there they will suck YOUR fuel and thus France ends up with no fuel of its own.

And considering Poland was too weak, I´d say it´s better as France to make the germans bleed attacking and then conter-attack than pushing hard in bad terrain. It´s also worth noting that France was NOT as well armed in september 1939 as in may 1940.

 

[Klausewitz]

So, France comes from the South.
See that big brown part there?
That is the Eiffel.
The red dots in the green above are the Ruhrgebiet.
If France doesn't cut through Belgium (unlikely) they need to get through at least part of these brown area (signifying mountains up to 700 meters and lots of forest) the Eifel and the hünsruck among others.
This is not tank country.
This is hardly even Infantry country.
There are hardly any roads, lots of trees and quite a few well-sighted German bunkers.
It can be breached, surely, but as i said before, Volkssturm and 2nd and 3rd row units held the Americans for months in this area, known as the Schlacht im Hürtgenwald.
France would have better luck trying to go up the Mosel Valley but that gets awfully narrow, awfully quick and would mean violating Luxembourgs neutrality.
All in all France is set to either attack into the Saar and then into the Mittelgebirge, country made for a defender.
Or east over the Rhine (no small feat when you get shot at) and then over the Schwarzwald... also not exactly terrain favouring the attacker.
Sure, if the French and British are willing to pay the price in blood they might even force their way into Germany, but an breakthrough is unlikely for the simple reason that roads are few and relativly easily blocked and the area already (lightly) fortified, while the way up the Rhine might look got for a while but also gets very narrow quick.
All in all a 'Breakthrough' here is an illusion.
The country favours the defender to heavily.
If France and Britain want to blitz into Germany they need to convince Belgium to let them through: Around Liege there is a very nice flat plain going directly into the Ruhr.
But if they were to try and force Belgium, Belgium might end up fighting alongside Germany.

 

[Dalwin]

All this makes it obvious that when the British and French made their alliance with Poland they should have thought far enough ahead to see that it was essential to bring Belgium into that alliance.

 

[PanH]

All this makes it obvious that when the British and French made their alliance with Poland they should have thought far enough ahead to see that it was essential to bring Belgium into that alliance.

Until 1936, Belgium had an alliance with France, which said that if the Germans invaded, the French army would reposition in Belgium and help to hold the line. But seeing the increasing power of Germany, Belgium scrapped the alliance and declared its neutrality, believing it would be better protected that way. Belgium was very reluctant to fight alongside the allies, which proved a mistake, but it would have never fought alongside Germany, and even the Netherlands which relied heavily on Germany for trade had begun to rearm because of Germany (though it was really paltry in comparison of other countries). So, Belgium fighting with the Allies was a possibility, but along the Axis, it would have been impossible (it was a democracy too).
In game, I'd like to see those different possibilities, like a less aggressive Germany could get military access through Belgium, or Belgium allying with France, etc.

 

[Klausewitz]

Not fighting alongside the Germans as in 'Hey, Arian brothers, so great to see you.'
But if France violated their neutrality, would they just have let it happen?
And if the Uk would not have done anything to stop it (which they wouldn't) isn't German then the last place to turn to?

 

[jju_57]

:sigh: So, you're saying the German player needs all those special buffs Germany gets in HOI3 to defeat France, even though France in HOI3 has fewer troops than she did historically and some other weaknesses?

No that is not what I'm saying. There are many reasons to 'nerf' France but only one scenario not to. Also there are many ways to 'nerf' them and I'll discuss a few.

1) AI Germany vs. AI France. This needs nerfs else the whole game is busted if France survives.
2) Human Germany vs. Human France (MP). Again you need to have France lose fairly quickly else the whole rest of the game is busted.
3) Human France vs. German AI. Heck even in HOI3 WITH the nerfs you could still win. Now you want to make it easier? At least the nerfs offered a somewhat harder game as France.
4) Human Germany vs. French AI. This is the ONLY scenario where an argument can be made to make France stronger.

Now I'm not going to get into which army was better etc. But we do know Germany defeated France in 6 weeks. That can't be denied.

There are many ways to do this 'nerf'. HOI3 picked one way. But I've played board games where either Germany got a +2 to die rolls and France a -2 or if they had CRT's with multiple columns the Germans got a positive column shift and the French a negative one.

We can't force the French AI to make stupid decisions when playing against the AI but smart ones against a human so nerfs based on those (like battle plans) will most likely apply across the board. Maybe the combat formulas for HOI4 will be very different from HOI3 but who knows.

The bottom line is this. For all but one scenario France needs to lose and lose historically fast. So it really falls on those that don't want a nerf to France to come up with ideas where the rest of the scenarios don't break. HOI3 took an easy route to do this. Most likely HOI4 will also pick a method that doesn't require lot's of programming, balancing and other issues.

 

[Dalwin]

That's where battleplans come into play. If every indication to the French and BEF are telling them that the Germans are going through Belgium then their battleplan will probably be set up to defend there. Once the German offensive begins and they're proven wrong (if they are) they'll need to switch to a different battleplan and since it's not prepared beforehand then they won't have any bonuses compared to the Germans which will enjoy full bonuses provided by following their pre-planned battleplan.
At least that's how it's been hinted it will work.

I do not think this is where battle plans cone into play. Unless you are saying the French AI should be stuck with the plan that lets their army get cutoff in Belgium. No human player controlling France is going to setup a defensive battleplan that does not leave his strength facing the expected (with historical hindsight) avenue of attack.

To say the battle plan system will help us recreate history here invovles some very weak logic.

 

[Praetori]

I do not think this is where battle plans cone into play. Unless you are saying the French AI should be stuck with the plan that lets their army get cutoff in Belgium. No human player controlling France is going to setup a defensive battleplan that does not leave his strength facing the expected (with historical hindsight) avenue of attack.

To say the battle plan system will help us recreate history here invovles some very weak logic.

Well that's the thing with battleplans as far as has been advertised. You can create empty battleplans for every eventuality but your included divisions won't be getting any bonuses unless they are actually allocated to that plan for some time. Meaning you will have to assign at least the main units intended for the plan to work if you're going to get any bonuses at all. Any additional divisions you throw in once committed will start from scratch.
If Germany starts pushing into the Netherlands and you don't assign units to your "Belgian" battleplan then by the time the Germans reach the border your units will be at a disadvantage even if you throw in the lot to stop them. Intelligence will be the key here. If you, or the AI, can predict the correct action to be taken by the enemy (through intelligence, possibly even stealing real, or fake[sic]? battleplans) then you'll be at an advantage (Kursk style). If you however make a strategic error of judgement then you'll be forced to activate a whole new plan that fits the situation and assign units to it which will come unprepared and piecemeal, just as what happened during the Battle for France.

Scenario A: Germany makes a Battleplan for the lowlands through Belgium and assigns divisions and airforces well in advance. These forces build up their bonuses (practice and coordination). France and the UK suspects a ruse and creates a battleplan spreading out the forces along the Maginot all the way up to the Belgian border but with the main force assigned to meet spearheads through the Ardennes and assigns all units which start building up their bonuses.
When war hits the German forces advance and clash en-masse at the Belgian border with the BEF and French forces spread thinly. The Allies then active their reserve plan to reinforce the Belgian front, this plan however is unprepared (as all forces were allocated to the original plan) and the units now enter combat with no bonuses giving a huge advantage to the Germans.

Scenario B: Germany makes a Battlesplan for the lowlands which "leaks" to the Allies (unconfirmed). The allies, seeing the potential German avenue of approach then prepare a Belgian battleplan in order to crush the German invaders in Belgium. The real German plan however has it's main push through the Ardennes and has plenty of divisions and aircraft allocated beforehand. Once the battle is committed and the Germans start pushing through the Allies either need to abandon their Belgian battleplan and create a completely new one dealing with the situation south (losing all bonuses) or keep the Belgian plan as is but divert all available reserves to the new "Sedan" plan. Again the newly assigned Allied divisions will then start with 0 bonuses compared to the German armored spearheads following their "Fall Gelb" plan.
That's the idea as far as we've been told.