Maginot Line accuracy

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I just would like the Maginot Line, for each starting date scenario, to be as accurate as possible depending on history.

3 things come to my mind for 1st january '36 scenerio :

1) The east part of it (main one) wasn't homogeneous as it was drawn on previous HoIs. It shouldn't be "lvl 10" everywhere like it was, so was overestimated.

2) There were other fortifications in north of France : "Secteur fortifié de Maubeuge" : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secteur_fortifié_de_Maubeuge, "Secteur fortifié de l'Escaut" : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secteur_fortifié_de_l'Escaut ; "Raismes", etc. Or not in north of France but more in north than it was modelled in previous HoIs : "Secteur fortifié de Montmédy", some were heavy ones even if most of the time it was some quite light fortifications, intended to be a continuous defensive line.

3) It seems that Alpes fortifications were underestimated a bit also.

Please devs, make the Maginot Line historically realistic.

In the last days of HoI3, I wasn't even able to mod that correctly for my own games because of the province IDing chaos that appeared with the map redefining.

 

[Axe99]

Nice one Ibn_Solmyr . I'm not up to speed on the development of various elements of the Maginot line at different dates, but I'd definitely be a fan of having it represented appropriately in game, as well as other fortifications (although the other fortifications would be contingent on the AI's ability to cope with them, but hopefully HoI4 will be a good deal better than this than HoI3).

 

[Kallar]

I fear u dont want it to be drawn as on that picture... This would basicly mean Germany will breach through in 16/17/18 giving france a lesser chanche of survival.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I fear u dont want it to be drawn as on that picture... This would basicly mean Germany will breach through in 16/17/18 giving france a lesser chanche of survival.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean exactly.
But is the picture you're refering to this one :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/CarteLigneMaginot.png

Because, as indicated, it's the final '39 version of the whole work.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Sorry I don't understand what you mean exactly.
But is the picture you're refering to this one :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/CarteLigneMaginot.png

Because, as indicated, it's the final '39 version of the whole work.

He says that sectors 16, 17 and 18 ("secteurs sans artillerié") would enable the germans to breach through the Maginot line, thus leaving france more vulnerable in the east than it was in older HOI games.

 

[Kallar]

Exactly

 

[Lifthrasil]

Exactly

I'm still not sure if this is a bad thing. If France and all other countries are given their historical strength but if you leave out some of their weaknesses at the same time, the German player will have a hard time making any progress.
Germany mostly won due to superior military planning, surprise and better tactics. All this is void if you play against humans, because they all know what will happen and they all know good or optimal strategies to play the game.

 

[safe-keeper]

Yup, better to give them historical strengths and weaknesses than to do things like nerf their military ahistorically.

 

[MagnusStultus]

I'm still not sure if this is a bad thing. If France and all other countries are given their historical strength but if you leave out some of their weaknesses at the same time, the German player will have a hard time making any progress.
Germany mostly won due to superior military planning, surprise and better tactics. All this is void if you play against humans, because they all know what will happen and they all know good or optimal strategies to play the game.

France doesn't have the historical strength. Along with the BEF RAF deployment and own military France had an easy ability to invade Germany while it was entirely concentrating on Poland; using up more fuel than it anticipated requiring an easily interupted supply line, more ammunition requiring the same and losing more machines than anticipated.

France did not take advantage of it's own historical strength during this but the invasion of Poland was a massive gamble because the French could have won easily in that opening phase of war.

Historical strength?

I playing as France should have a BEF and RAF assistance invading Germany and stopping more supplies reaching Poland and ultimately win because I know what the result of waiting for a German offensive directed through Belgium will do. However that isn't good game play and neither is making things too easy for Germany.

If you are having trouble getting through the Maginot Line good; it would have been extremely difficult for the Germans not to use the Ardennes Forest and Belgium for a pincer movement to surround and cut off the French armored and mechanized units; which is why the Germans chose to wage war intelligently and do that.

The AI might give you a slip but you should if playing Germany have enough superiority to just surround and destroy the French Army later if they do; it really isn't a hard opening, even the AI that routinely fails in Russia gets it done routinely; and this is coming from a player who confesses to sucking and has managed to lose as Japan.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

He says that sectors 16, 17 and 18 ("secteurs sans artillerié") would enable the germans to breach through the Maginot line, thus leaving france more vulnerable in the east than it was in older HOI games.

Exactly

Ok, seemed to me like you were talking about the years ! ^^
So, no it wouldn't make France that vulnerable in the East ; it's said "without artillery" but means only that some of the bunkers weren't equipped in 75 cannons. And this one was very effective because very precise. There were other artillery types in the area though. This line wasn't weak, by far : there still is the Rhin, and the Vosges not far back. And if you look at both the invasive plans (Von Schleiffen variant and the historically actual one, breakthrough the Ardennes), none of those was only conceiving any offensive through the Maginot line.

I'm still not sure if this is a bad thing. If France and all other countries are given their historical strength but if you leave out some of their weaknesses at the same time, the German player will have a hard time making any progress.

Yes, but you as human German player will not make same errors neither. What you say about [historical errors] <-> [human intelligence in HoI4] is right for all countries. Or will you let the Britains and French leave Dunkerque (about 350 000 men) without giving your best at destroying them ?

Germany mostly won due to superior military planning, surprise and better tactics. All this is void if you play against humans, because they all know what will happen and they all know good or optimal strategies to play the game.

It's not void, just a human player could try to do better as French. Because there is a huge room to manoeuvre. But those avantages you're reffering to will exist : better doctrines, better generals, better surprise effect at tactical scale (better dorctrines again so). But others also : Better fighters, better communications...

Yup, better to give them historical strengths and weaknesses than to do things like nerf their military ahistorically.

This, in any case.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Yes, but you as human German player will not make same errors neither. What you say about [historical errors] <-> [human intelligence in HoI4] is right for all countries. Or will you let the Britains and French leave Dunkerque (about 350 000 men) without giving your best at destroying them ?

It's not void, just a human player could try to do better as French. Because there is a huge room to manoeuvre. But those avantages you're reffering to will exist : better doctrines, better generals, better surprise effect at tactical scale (better dorctrines again so). But others also : Better fighters, better communications...

Problem is: I'm not even going to get to Dunkerke if I play against a French Human Player with historical strength.

I'm also LIKE YOU, more in favor of historical strenghts and weaknesses, but this will inevitably mean that WW2 in HOI4 will never even be close to how it went down in reality.

Germany will never be able to invade Poland, because the French will pressure the Westfront hard. A player has no problem sacrificing millions of "lives" ingame, unlike the allied politicians in RL because they were reluctant to enter another horrible war. That's why the devs had to induce the World Tension Feature, to simulate at least a bit the worlds reluctance to wage war again.

So, for sandbox that's no problem since things will go wonky anyway, but if you want to play a somewhat historical WW2, certain countries need to be nerfed to enable early Axis victories to get the thing started.

 

[Tasmosunt]

Germany will never be able to invade Poland, because the French will pressure the Westfront hard. A player has no problem sacrificing millions of "lives" ingame, unlike the allied politicians in RL because they were reluctant to enter another horrible war.

It is myth that France had to capacity to launch an offensive in 1939 but lacked the will to do so. The French reservists that made up the rest of the army lacked the training necessary to be fielded in combat because of the pre-war policy of training en mass but limiting the amount of training that was received, this was to be over come with more training during mobilisation.

 

[Lifthrasil]

It is myth that France had to capacity to launch an offensive in 1939 but lacked the will to do so. The French reservists that made up the rest of the army lacked the training necessary to be fielded in combat because of the pre-war policy of training en mass but limiting the amount of training that was received, this was to be over come with more training during mobilisation.

The German Army was inexperienced as well. Many soldiers were even trained while marching on Poland.
Maybe a French offensive would have been costly, but I don't believe they just were incapable of attackin Germany due to untrained troops.
Even rookies can make war. Every Civil War has huge contingents of militia that is barely trained and they still often manage to conquer huge strips of land.

The French just didn't want to die for the Poles and thought the WW2 would be another trench warfare like WW1.

 

[MagnusStultus]

It is myth that France had to capacity to launch an offensive in 1939 but lacked the will to do so. The French reservists that made up the rest of the army lacked the training necessary to be fielded in combat because of the pre-war policy of training en mass but limiting the amount of training that was received, this was to be over come with more training during mobilisation.

Like all appeasement apologists you are dead wrong. The French troops had as good training as the German ones (as has been noted already thank you Lift). The Germans also had just about everything in Poland where they used up more supplies than they anticipated or had on hand; an offensive aimed at German industry would have been effective yet the French and RaF didn't even bomb Germany.

When Germany invaded Belgium France came to the rescue (getting her troops cut off and surrounded thanks to the Manstein Plan which anticipated exactly that). Had the French taken the need to defend Poland as seriously as Belgium Germany would have been decisively defeated in 1939. Before getting surrounded however the French soldiers outperformed the German ones in Belgium; showing there was no obvious superiority to German soldiers; there was a superiority in German officers.

As for Germany not being able to invade Poland simulated bad Generals with an inferior French AI could do the job of giving the Germans the chance?

 

[Klausewitz]

The German Army was inexperienced as well. Many soldiers were even trained while marching on Poland.
Maybe a French offensive would have been costly, but I don't believe they just were incapable of attackin Germany due to untrained troops.
Even rookies can make war. Every Civil War has huge contingents of militia that is barely trained and they still often manage to conquer huge strips of land.

The French just didn't want to die for the Poles and thought the WW2 would be another trench warfare like WW1.

To be far though the area the French would have needed to fight in lend itself to that conclusion.
From Alsace into Germany you are either smack into a hill range with broken terrain and few infrastructure (Pfalzer Wald/Hunsrück-Taunas) or over a river and then into a hilly forest area with little infrastructure (Schwarzwald).
The Germans had seeded that area with bunkers (Westwall) and, more importantly, lots of mines.
The area they would have had to advance through is the same or very similar to the are the Americans fought the Battle of Hürtgenwald in.
And in 1944 the Americans did not do well in that area even though they had drastically more equipment and assets at their disposal than France in 1939.

 

[Tasmosunt]

The French troops had as good training as the German ones

The standing army did, I'm talking about the reserves.

Before getting surrounded however the French soldiers outperformed the German ones in Belgium

Which was months latter, after the reserves got the training they needed.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Too more things to say about what I can read there.

Just for fun though : The French army was near 4 millions soldiers in may '40. Many many of those french soldiers were brave and kind paysants though. There is one who explains what kind of troops they were : He lived at a farmer quite far from the border, helped her in her work all day long, had 1 cartridge belt with only 10 cartridges. And he was defended to use it by his hierarchy.

Clearly, some people overestimate the French military capabalities in '40. Offensive while "Phoney war" ? Extreme cold winter, Siegfried line, plenty of outdated generals, aviation not equipped, etc...

Please all, I would like you to stay on the topic : historical accuracy of the Maginot line, and more generally, the historical accuracy of all fortifications lines in the game, depending on starting date scenario...

 

[Lifthrasil]

The standing army did, I'm talking about the reserves.
.

I don't know about the state of the french army in Sept. 1939, but
you want to tell us that the whole standing french army (supported by huge reserves, even if they were untrained) was unable to attack a barely fortified position in western Germany, while most of the best German troops were in Poland? And all France had to do was to advance a few hundred km and take the industrialized Rhineland. Take also in consideration, that even if WW1 was already over for 20 years, there were A LOT of men in France who earned combat experience back then. So it wouldn't even have been total Newbz.

The French and British just dicked out of upholding Polish independence. A few thousand dead french soldiers could have prevented millions dieing in WW2.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Clearly, some people overestimate the French military capabalities in '40. Offensive while "Phoney war" ? Extreme cold winter, Siegfried line, plenty of outdated generals, aviation not equipped, etc...

Please all, I would like you to stay on the topic : historical accuracy of the Maginot line, and more generally, the historical accuracy of all fortifications lines in the game, depending on starting date scenario...

I think this all belongs together. If you accurately depict the defensive lines, this changes the game balance. Also, why not also correctly depicting military strength ect? While I'm really IN FAVOR of this reality thing, one has to consider the consequences of that. And I fear that this will lead to a crippled Axis in Multiplayer, as the all-knowing players will use this knowledge to further strengthen the Allied position.
So what we should actually be debating is: How can we correctly depict the situation at this time (maginot line, military strenght ect) while at the same time not making the game boring because one side clearly gets an "unfair" advantage.

 

[Klausewitz]

I don't know about the state of the french army in Sept. 1939, but
you want to tell us that the whole standing french army (supported by huge reserves, even if they were untrained) was unable to attack a barely fortified position in western Germany, while most of the best German troops were in Poland? And all France had to do was to advance a few hundred km and take the industrialized Rhineland. Take also in consideration, that even if WW1 was already over for 20 years, there were A LOT of men in France who earned combat experience back then. So it wouldn't even have been total Newbz.

Take a map of Germany.
All the area between the french border and Cologne is hill chains and woodland.
Hunsrück, Taunus, Eifel, Westerwald and Rheinisches Schiefergebirge.
That terrain is a defenders dream comparable to the Vogessen; only few roads, poor visibility, lots of chokepoints.
A small force can bleed a larger force all the way to Cologne, thats a hundred-fifty, 200 kilometers.
And the French would have no chance of breakthrough or annihilation since the terrain would allow a defender to slip away again and again.
So they would be fighting (and getting blown up by mines and bombed by the Luftwaffe still left in Western germany) all the way from the border to Cologne.
The professional armies of 1944 had problems in that field against far lighter resistance.
I doubt the French Army of 1939 would be able to do it or if they, against all odds, were to do it, i doubt they could live with the casualties.
No, really, going through a good part of the German Mittelgebirge in Winter is not a good way to guarantee Polish independence.
The way through Belgium would have been much nicer and lots easier (only one or two rivers and some swamps) but Belgium was neutral and quite commited to staying that way.