James Holland's A War in the West

[Animum24]

I have just started reading James Holland's The War in the West. I must say from the first few pages I thought that this book will probably be the equivalent to what HOI4 should be.
A focus on strategy and tactics and to bring them together also on the operational. From the politicians and industrials over the field marshals and generals down to the pilots, sailors, soldiers and civilians.
I don't know if in the end the book is indeed a good read, but the start is promising.
If anyone has read it, could you tell me, if I am correct in my assumption?

Otherwise, what I really want to say with this, is that I feel like HOI4 is missing this kind of balance between the macro and the micro. It is either to much macro, where details would add immersion, or too much micro, where there is no need of such.

They completely omitted supply and fuel, but you have to manage your airplanes in stacks of 20. There is no OOB that brings much needed immersion, but there are air aces that you don't care about. You are supposed to let the AI lead your armies, whilst it doesn't have any sense of strategic thinking. And so on. I don't want this thread to become another one of these "boohoo the game is broken" - threads, because they are not constructive or helpful.

I want this thread to be more about how the devs could learn from real history and how everybody on this forum can profit form it as well. I will read this book now and if I find something noteworthy concerning the game, then I will share it with you. And you are also invited to share your inputs here to get a proper debate going, maybe even having the devs join in? Maybe someone on this forum has also read this book and can share his opinion?

 

[Khevenhuller]

I have just started reading James Holland's The War in the West. I must say from the first few pages I thought that this book will probably be the equivalent to what HOI4 should be.
A focus on strategy and tactics and to bring them together also on the operational. From the politicians and industrials over the field marshals and generals down to the pilots, sailors, soldiers and civilians.
I don't know if in the end the book is indeed a good read, but the start is promising.
If anyone has read it, could you tell me, if I am correct in my assumption?

Otherwise, what I really want to say with this, is that I feel like HOI4 is missing this kind of balance between the macro and the micro. It is either to much macro, where details would add immersion, or too much micro, where there is no need of such.

They completely omitted supply and fuel, but you have to manage your airplanes in stacks of 20. There is no OOB that brings much needed immersion, but there are air aces that you don't care about. You are supposed to let the AI lead your armies, whilst it doesn't have any sense of strategic thinking. And so on. I don't want this thread to become another one of these "boohoo the game is broken" - threads, because they are not constructive or helpful.

I want this thread to be more about how the devs could learn from real history and how everybody on this forum can profit form it as well. I will read this book now and if I find something noteworthy concerning the game, then I will share it with you. And you are also invited to share your inputs here to get a proper debate going, maybe even having the devs join in? Maybe someone on this forum has also read this book and can share his opinion?

It is a great book, I enjoyed it thoroughly and I really hope you do as well.

But, sadly, HOI4 is not going to satisfy your desires if they are whetted by the writing. HOI4, I am constantly told, is not a historical game, it is just 'historical flavour'. I will keep beating my head against the wall until something gives, probably my sanity which is parlous at best, whilst PDX continue to ignore people out there like you with a yearning for something 'more'. I have just been told elsewhere that if i want historical accuracy i should read a book.

So enjoy Holland. Immerse yourself in it and let the characters come alive for you.

K

 

[davidc929]

I have just started reading James Holland's The War in the West. I must say from the first few pages I thought that this book will probably be the equivalent to what HOI4 should be.
A focus on strategy and tactics and to bring them together also on the operational. From the politicians and industrials over the field marshals and generals down to the pilots, sailors, soldiers and civilians.
I don't know if in the end the book is indeed a good read, but the start is promising.
If anyone has read it, could you tell me, if I am correct in my assumption?

Otherwise, what I really want to say with this, is that I feel like HOI4 is missing this kind of balance between the macro and the micro. It is either to much macro, where details would add immersion, or too much micro, where there is no need of such.

They completely omitted supply and fuel, but you have to manage your airplanes in stacks of 20. There is no OOB that brings much needed immersion, but there are air aces that you don't care about. You are supposed to let the AI lead your armies, whilst it doesn't have any sense of strategic thinking. And so on. I don't want this thread to become another one of these "boohoo the game is broken" - threads, because they are not constructive or helpful.

I want this thread to be more about how the devs could learn from real history and how everybody on this forum can profit form it as well. I will read this book now and if I find something noteworthy concerning the game, then I will share it with you. And you are also invited to share your inputs here to get a proper debate going, maybe even having the devs join in? Maybe someone on this forum has also read this book and can share his opinion?

It's an excellent book. Some thought provoking points. I'm just about to start the second volume.

 

[Tarnoyan Warrior]

I'm intrigued. What is this book about?

 

[epicmemory]

I have just started reading James Holland's The War in the West. I must say from the first few pages I thought that this book will probably be the equivalent to what HOI4 should be.
A focus on strategy and tactics and to bring them together also on the operational. From the politicians and industrials over the field marshals and generals down to the pilots, sailors, soldiers and civilians.
I don't know if in the end the book is indeed a good read, but the start is promising.
If anyone has read it, could you tell me, if I am correct in my assumption?

Otherwise, what I really want to say with this, is that I feel like HOI4 is missing this kind of balance between the macro and the micro. It is either to much macro, where details would add immersion, or too much micro, where there is no need of such.

They completely omitted supply and fuel, but you have to manage your airplanes in stacks of 20. There is no OOB that brings much needed immersion, but there are air aces that you don't care about. You are supposed to let the AI lead your armies, whilst it doesn't have any sense of strategic thinking. And so on. I don't want this thread to become another one of these "boohoo the game is broken" - threads, because they are not constructive or helpful.

I want this thread to be more about how the devs could learn from real history and how everybody on this forum can profit form it as well. I will read this book now and if I find something noteworthy concerning the game, then I will share it with you. And you are also invited to share your inputs here to get a proper debate going, maybe even having the devs join in? Maybe someone on this forum has also read this book and can share his opinion?

It's a fascinating read.

Right, so what do you suggest?

A streamlined OOB, perhaps? Something where divisions are automatically assigned a commander, and where Lt. Generals, Generals, and so on can only control X amount of divisions/brigades/units? Perhaps a mechanic where we assign a single commander to control an entire theatre and where that commander's bonuses apply to all the units assigned to that particular area? Nation-specific OOB/organization mechanics? Germans get a special Kampfgruppe mechanic after researching the land doctrine tech where a new "army" of X amount of divisions gets a short boost to its combat effectiveness and planning speed to reflect the ad hoc nature of the formation?

How about supply? Looking at HOI4 as it exists now, how would we add in a better supply system that isn't already rendered redundant by the infrastructure mechanic working in tandem with naval bases? Perhaps...dedicated supply depots that are constructed using CIC that can be built in currently occupied land and where these depots give a significant boost to supply in that particular area?

Okay, fuel. There's a strong link between rail transport and fuel, and we all know what happened on the Eastern Front with the railroads, not to mention Allied bombing of rail systems on the Western Front to disrupt German logistics. Okay, how do we model this in-game? Perhaps we change infrastructure to 2 separate mechanics, where we have dedicated rail systems along single provinces that can be deliberately targeted by air using new air mechanics that would enable player to choose if they want to attack MIL factories, CIC, or general population centers to act as a mix of infrastructure destruction or apply a small (and I do mean small) debuff to National Unity overtime? Now we would have dedicated rail mechanics to act in tandem with overall region infrastructure, which might help.

This forum and these discussions are often too far removed from the actual gameplay mechanics we have facing us right now. I think a lot more constructive work can be done in these discussions if we try to ground the conversations in the actual game we have with us, not the mythical game some people want. I think this thread could help by grounding overarching, theoretical discussions in terms of actual gameplay mechanics.

Edit: This might not be the best thread for this, actually. Sorry!

 

[Axe99]

I haven't read it, but @adski42 recommended it to me, and that's a good sign (as are the recommendations above).

It is a great book, I enjoyed it thoroughly and I really hope you do as well.

But, sadly, HOI4 is not going to satisfy your desires if they are whetted by the writing. HOI4, I am constantly told, is not a historical game, it is just 'historical flavour'. I will keep beating my head against the wall until something gives, probably my sanity which is parlous at best, whilst PDX continue to ignore people out there like you with a yearning for something 'more'. I have just been told elsewhere that if i want historical accuracy i should read a book.

So enjoy Holland. Immerse yourself in it and let the characters come alive for you.

K

That's what mods are for . While it may be frustrating, with the structure of HoI4, I actually think it's better to have a '1936-48 sandbox' and then put together mods with a more historical focus (and, as you know, I'm currently muddling away on a mod that's specifically centred around historical plausibility, with a naval emphasis). Think of the sandbox as the foundation, and the mods as the different iterations. By being a sandbox, the modding tools are 'deeper' (enable greater flexibility with changes to what we want to make), as a more strictly historical WW2 game might have certain things like the Soviet Union declaring war on Germany in 1942 hardcoded (*cough* HoI3 *cough*) - and it need not be something as straightforward as this - things like scripting what we were talking about in the PM about a compromise peace in 1940 and the flow-on effects from that are much easier in a HoI4 style environment.

It'll take time (years) to refine to the level of detail we're hoping for in the end, but at the moment, I'd rate HoI4 as the best foundation for a historically plausible WW2 GSG we've got (and I still enjoy it a lot as a game, even though I have to suspend disbelief a bit ).

 

[Sanny]

There's a lot of factual and historical inaccuracies in the first book.

And the whole "Britain wasn't doomed and would have won the war either way" argument in the book is just wrong. But that's just Holland's opinion as a historian.

 

[davidc929]

There's a lot of factual and historical inaccuracies in the first book.

And the whole "Britain wasn't doomed and would have won the war either way" argument in the book is just wrong. But that's just Holland's opinion as a historian.

I'd don't get the Britain would have won arguement. It was more that it couldn't have been defeated.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I'd don't get the Britain would have won arguement. It was more that it couldn't have been defeated.

Yep. It struck me as odd. The British did not really have to win, they just needed to refuse to lose. Eventually, the dynamism in National Socialism would bring it into conflict with the USSR, and the crab-wise moves by Roosevelt and his team of interventionists would have eventually brought in the USA. Britain just had to cling on.

But competing opinions drives on debate and forces a re-evaluation of evidence.

K

 

[adski42]

There's a lot of factual and historical inaccuracies in the first book.

And the whole "Britain wasn't doomed and would have won the war either way" argument in the book is just wrong. But that's just Holland's opinion as a historian.

Out of interest, what inaccuracies do you mean? I didn't get that Britain would have won the war anyway from it, just that the UK is often painted as weaker than it was (it wasn't doomed). Great read, though and a really interesting way of looking at the conflict that really chimed with HOI4.

 

[davidc929]

Out of interest, what inaccuracies do you mean? I didn't get that Britain would have won the war anyway from it, just that the UK is often painted as weaker than it was (it wasn't doomed). Great read, though and a really interesting way of looking at the conflict that really chimed with HOI4.

I thought there were some interesting interpretations in it especially when comparing British industrial output to Germany and that it wasn't as bad as commonly thought.

Been a while since I read it but I can't think of any major mistakes that jumped out. Of course there is a lot of discussion of various parts of industrial output which unless you have a name in depth knowledge could easily be wrong without you knowing it. But even those values have been open to interpretation over the years.

 

[koba134]

I just started to read Holland's book, in his introduction he writes that France was "one of the Allies to begin with, then on the Axis side (...) (albeit with elements fighting for the Allies), and then back with the Allies towards the end."

This is completely incorrect, Vichy France never joined the Axis.

 

[Thorpe]

It's been some time since I read the book, but I recall at the time that he repeated some common myths about German preparations for the eastern front that made me raise an eyebrow. Stuff about how they unnecessarily delayed their invasion by intervening in Greece and the like, all of which has been debunked by David Glantz (the premiere ostfront historian today). I'm less familiar with the war in the west, but it's enough to make me take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

 

[adski42]

I just started to read Holland's book, in his introduction he writes that France was "one of the Allies to begin with, then on the Axis side (...) (albeit with elements fighting for the Allies), and then back with the Allies towards the end."

This is completely incorrect, Vichy France never joined the Axis.

I see what you mean, but the Vichy French did fight against the Allies - you could therefore argue that they were on the same side as the Axis despite never officially joining them.

 

[Tarnoyan Warrior]

So this is just a history book? As a person interested in history, I would much appreciate knowing what it's about.

 

[davidc929]

I just started to read Holland's book, in his introduction he writes that France was "one of the Allies to begin with, then on the Axis side (...) (albeit with elements fighting for the Allies), and then back with the Allies towards the end."

This is completely incorrect, Vichy France never joined the Axis.

It depends how it is worded. That is an accurate description. Vichy France was on the axis side. Their economy served the German economy. Their military helped keep the peace in France and the French empire to prevent their resources being used by the allies.

It is true they were not in a formal military alliance but Vichy France was very much on the axis side.

 

[davidc929]

It's been some time since I read the book, but I recall at the time that he repeated some common myths about German preparations for the eastern front that made me raise an eyebrow. Stuff about how they unnecessarily delayed their invasion by intervening in Greece and the like, all of which has been debunked by David Glantz (the premiere ostfront historian today). I'm less familiar with the war in the west, but it's enough to make me take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

I've been interested in reading some of Glantz's books but the price is a bit much. Could you recommend one of his books that is good to start with?

 

[Tisifoni12]

I've argued elsewhere for theatre commanders and field commanders rather than field marshals and generals. The rank thing is a bit 'generalised', there were no field marshals in the American Army, but different ranks of general. Montgomery wasn't made a field marshal until 1944 and Alanbrooke was made a field marshal at pretty much the same time, after all he was Monty's boss. With experience field commanders could gain additional skill, additional traits or the ability to command larger forces.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I've argued elsewhere for theatre commanders and field commanders rather than field marshals and generals. The rank thing is a bit 'generalised', there were no field marshals in the American Army, but different ranks of general. Montgomery wasn't made a field marshal until 1944 and Alanbrooke was made a field marshal at pretty much the same time, after all he was Monty's boss. With experience field commanders could gain additional skill, additional traits or the ability to command larger forces.

There were no 'active' Field Marshals in the British army in 1939. You had some old boys down at the Army & Navy club drinking gin and re-fighting the Boar war from Chesterfield armchairs but that's your lot. One of the big problems in 1939 for the British Army is: 'who will lead the BEF?' I've gone through the political machinations elsewhere, but it comes down to a choice between Ironside and Gort. Now, in HOI4, you do not get that choice as you cannot have Ironside as a General. the British lacked leaders for large armies in the early part of the war. I think Rundstedt was dredged out of retirement, and I do not think he was alone in 1939.

Things are even more challenging for the USA.

So it would be a nice system to have the OOB whereby rank is linked to role (not wholly accurate but possibly the best you could do with HOI) , and also XP is needed to promote?

K

 

[Animum24]

So this is just a history book? As a person interested in history, I would much appreciate knowing what it's about.

It is quite literally about what the title says, the war in the west
The first volume goes from the start of the war (or shortly before that) to shortly before Barbarossa, if I can trust the book's description.

There's a lot of factual and historical inaccuracies in the first book.

And the whole "Britain wasn't doomed and would have won the war either way" argument in the book is just wrong. But that's just Holland's opinion as a historian.

I'd also like to know, what historical inaccuracies to expect.
And of course, everyone can justify his own opinion, as long as he backs it up with some kind of empirical evidence. Yet I must say that the statement of Britain winning the war anyways, if nothing would have changed after the fall of France, can definitely be regarded as true.
Would be interesting to test out in game, but as HOI4 probably doesn't really care about historical accuracy or probability, it sadly is not worth trying it out. (Maybe only in MP?)