James Holland's A War in the West

[Animum24]

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



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 ).

The problem is that hardcoded mechanics are also seriously flawed and the game design philosophy in several parts of the game more than questionable for myself.
I haven't actually bothered buying it, because I noticed quickly during the first WWW streams that it just utterly bored me watching the game, whilst all other games I have so far enjoyed playing, also entertained me to the same degree when watching someone else playing. As it did happen with HOI3.

 

[Animum24]

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!

First of all, sorry for spamming, but there are so many comments I want to answer that I lost overview and I thus need to do it in separate comments. Please forgive me, forumites and mods

I normally enjoy discussing game mechanics on a deeper level, so I'm going to do it, no matter if it belongs here or not.

For me the OOB system would be a hybrid between 3 and 4. Leave out the divisional commanders, as they really are just annoying to assign and you don't really care about them. Instead, I would say to introduce a more in-depth system of staff, having a commanding officer and his chief-of-staff for corps and up. They would then have different functions, traits and capabilities. Also, instead of having leaders, divisions can gain traits for different accomplishments that would give them boosts for different things. Additionally, I think facilitating or just completely leaving out on-map HQs would be best.

For supply, I would just add in two more "equipment" types, general supplies and fuel. Each unit on the map needs supplies and the motorised ones need fuel(including ships and planes). And like in the old system, the fuel and supplies would be transported over the map individually, as well as the needed equipment now. Of course the old system was flawed in some points, but nothing that could not be fixed, and some of the oddities could actually bring in some flavour. Want to launch an offensive in the russian steps. Awww, too bad that we couldn't stockpile enough supplies and fuel and now we are stuck after one province. Such things happened in real life and should also happen in game.
I still feel however that, if the player wanted to take over some control it would be great to give a certain amount.
Creating supply hubs or adjusting supply priority to certain units of the OOB would be great already.It would help steer the supply in the right direction. It would also be interesting to see what happens, when you let the supply run along the chain of command, meaning the supply running from HQ unit to HQ unit until it reaches the divisions.
It could be possible to stockpile supplies with the divisions preparing for an offensive, which would result in them sucking in all supplies from multiple surrounding provinces. The amount of supplies and spare equipment they can stockpile, depends on the size of their supply unit that is attached similar to a support battalion. This would in turn need more manpower and also trucks or other ways of carrying supplies. It would also mimic the Allies in the late war for example that would be masters of logistics, but also have a huge amount of material and manpower engaged in it, quite opposite to the Germans, who just couldn't do that, and therefore even worsened there already bad supply situation considerably.
And of course also introducing some kind of rail system you suggested that would be on a single province basis, would be fairly high in volume of supply throughput, but would be very costly to build. Also it would not be able to supply the troops directly and the amount of supply that a division receives still depends on the infra.

I guess those are some basic ideas on how the game could be a lot more engaging and also a bit more challenging.

 

[davidc929]

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

To add to what you have said British policy in WW2 was just the culmination of British policy since at least the war if Spanish succession.

Keep the war going until a large enough coalition can be built to keep the most powerful continental European country in it's place, preferably without damaging it so much that it benefits one of the other large continental powers.

This has often allowed Brian to be perceived as standing up to the tyrants of Europe. Which it generally has. However not through some altruistic desire in itself but through the necessity of preventing any one.power in Europe being.dominant and threatening British trade.

The main difference between WW2 and the previous version of this policy is that allow the war was won it left Britain in a weaker position than before it started and unable to take advantage of the political and economic situation.

In effect Britain did what it also wanted to avoid. Defeat their enemy so effectively that other powers could step in to take advantage.

 

[Tisifoni12]

UK policy on military involvement in Europe:

The continual British (also Commonwealth) attempts to invade Europe before the US joins the allies are an insane waste of resources and contrary to British priorities, which are to hang on, maintain support from the Empire and Commonwealth (e.g. Mediterranean focus and protecting supply traffic in the Atlantic) and wait for the situation to change.

 

[spartansociety]

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.

In which book did he do that? (I want to read it, or re-read if I have forgotten that bit)

 

[spartansociety]

To add to what you have said British policy in WW2 was just the culmination of British policy since at least the war if Spanish succession.

Keep the war going until a large enough coalition can be built to keep the most powerful continental European country in it's place, preferably without damaging it so much that it benefits one of the other large continental powers.

This has often allowed Brian to be perceived as standing up to the tyrants of Europe. Which it generally has. However not through some altruistic desire in itself but through the necessity of preventing any one.power in Europe being.dominant and threatening British trade.

The main difference between WW2 and the previous version of this policy is that allow the war was won it left Britain in a weaker position than before it started and unable to take advantage of the political and economic situation.

In effect Britain did what it also wanted to avoid. Defeat their enemy so effectively that other powers could step in to take advantage.

You are saying that Britain left ww1 in a more positive position and able to take advantage of the political and economic situation?

 

[Tisifoni12]

You are saying that Britain left ww1 in a more positive position and able to take advantage of the political and economic situation?

End of WW1; no Ottoman Empire, no German Empire, no Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia humiliated and replaced by USSR, France bled white. British Empire still standing !

 

[Khevenhuller]

End of WW1; no Ottoman Empire, no German Empire, no Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia humiliated and replaced by USSR, France bled white. British Empire still standing !

And a huge amount of debt. In the 1920's 40% of the British budget was devoted to debt servicing. Britain too is bled white. In the meantime, military operations do not cease. Having an Empire is expensive and a source of weakness, so the demands of Imperial policing are very high, even with the RAF proving that it can be done cheaply from the air by indiscriminate bombing.

Britain is only interested in Europe through a prism of Balance of Power. She is a Global Power, and has global interests and responsibilities. The appreciation that the Empire cannot be effectively defended by Britain with her relative economic decline is central to British policy in the thirties. Like Poland, in the twenties she 'got away with it' as the Italians were very inward looking, so was the USSR, Germany was militarily anaemic and Japan quiescent. The British were also excellent diplomatists and were good at bluffing people into thinking they were stronger than they were. WW2 exposed the bluff.

K

 

[Tisifoni12]

Britain is only interested in Europe through a prism of Balance of Power. She is a Global Power, and has global interests and responsibilities. The appreciation that the Empire cannot be effectively defended by Britain with her relative economic decline is central to British policy in the thirties. Like Poland, in the twenties she 'got away with it' as the Italians were very inward looking, so was the USSR, Germany was militarily anaemic and Japan quiescent. The British were also excellent diplomatists and were good at bluffing people into thinking they were stronger than they were. WW2 exposed the bluff.

And the Brexiters think that's still where we're at . . .

While we are actually in a situation more similar to Britain in 1617 or 1717 than in 1917.

 

[Khevenhuller]

And the Brexiters think that's still where we're at . . .

While we are actually in a situation more similar to Britain in 1617 or 1717 than in 1917.

I think the difference currently is the British have bluffed themselves into thinking they are stronger than they are: last night may be a sign of that attitude diminishing somewhat...

One thing I think HOI4 can develop, and it already has some elements of this, is the Imperial concerns and responsibilities of the Brits mean you are probably the most stretched major, you have these Dominions to look out for as well, and the Raj. Really, it is a strong, historical alliance within an alliance. Some partners, like New Zealand, are very anti-fascist and bullish, others like South Africa have internal political issues that make them potentially unreliable if the shooting starts. If HOI4's diplomatic and political element was further developed at some stage, one big challenge for the British should be that if she goes to war, going with all the Dominions united behind her is a big factor in the eventual decision. In 1938, only New Zealand said, unequivocally, that they would fight. In contrast, Mackenzie King is convinced that there is 'good' in Hitler and he is just trapped by inner demons. Another aspect of Munich and the British deal that is often overlooked by people who do not take into consideration the global nature of British policy.

K

 

[davidc929]

You are saying that Britain left ww1 in a more positive position and able to take advantage of the political and economic situation?

I would say it did. Only just but it did. It had been able to keep the balance in Europe to a large extent without outside powers being able to take it's place as the external power of influence. After WW2 Britain was effectively a 2nd tier power in Europe having been replaced by the Soviet union and USA as the major external influences.

 

[spartansociety]

I'm with K on this one. The war wrecked the British, even if their empire survived for the moment. The only ones who benefited in a big way from ww1 was the US.

 

[hkrommel]

I'm with K on this one. The war wrecked the British, even if their empire survived for the moment. The only ones who benefited in a big way from ww1 was the US.

On that note Britain finally paid off its WWI debt to the US in 2015.

While we are actually in a situation more similar to Britain in 1617 or 1717 than in 1917.

Largely due to the Suez Crisis IMHO (which kicked off a string of events leading to where we are). Biggest mistake in US foreign policy history in my opinion.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I'm with K on this one. The war wrecked the British, even if their empire survived for the moment. The only ones who benefited in a big way from ww1 was the US.

On that note Britain finally paid off its WWI debt to the US in 2015.

WW2 for both of these

 

[hkrommel]

WW2 for both of these

Did you look at the link? The headline states clearly "Government to pay off WW1 debt."

 

[davidc929]

I'm with K on this one. The war wrecked the British, even if their empire survived for the moment. The only ones who benefited in a big way from ww1 was the US.

After WW1 the UK was still the leading power politically. After WW2 it most defiantly was not. WW1 had set the stage for that decline to happen but it hadn't quite happened yet.

It should be noted many commenters ain the twenties and thirties thought war between the USA and UK, as the new took over from the old, was highly likely. WW2 prevented that being necessary as it shifted power from the old to the new.

 

[hkrommel]

It should be noted many commenters ain the twenties and thirties thought war between the USA and UK, as the new took over from the old, was highly likely. WW2 prevented that being necessary as it shifted power from the old to the new.

That was extraordinary a couple of ways. One being that the transfer of the position of primary superpower happened peacefully (between the two nations), and the second being that the invention of a new weapon (the nuclear bomb) was not used to usurp that position or to defend it aggressively (ie it wasn't used on the Soviets when they became a rival superpower).

 

[Zarathustra_the]

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



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 ).

Precisely @Axe99 I knew there was a reason I liked you!. Now as some of you probably know, I myself am a Historian (not just a neurotic Modder.) And for me the use of the Clausewitz games is their provision as a story telling mechanism. I am willing to suffer historical indignities, if it means I have a better and more capable tool for telling the stories of the second world war that I wish to communicate...

 

[Tisifoni12]

Did you look at the link? The headline states clearly "Government to pay off WW1 debt."

Apologies, I had long been under the impression that the debt was from WW2 not WW1.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Did you look at the link? The headline states clearly "Government to pay off WW1 debt."

That is after, in the early 20's, the British government writing off wartime debt owed to it by other countries that was greater than it owed. The UK did end WW1 a wartime creditor. The problem is that the countries it had loaned to (Italy, France, Belgium etc) were disinclined or incapable of paying it back. Debt poisoned politics through the twenties.

K