Maginot Line accuracy

[safe-keeper]

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.

But that's what I'm saying about simulating both strengths and weaknesses. The French political situation can be simulated in-game. BlackICE gave Frence a hefty army, I seem to recall, but also gave them not just one, but several sets of penalties. For example, there was a malus for "defeatism", and they were hit with an event that simulated a loss of morale if the Germans managed to break through the Maginot Line.

It shouldn't be impossible for a skilled designer or modder to give France her historical strength, but make it undesirable even for a human player to invade Germany early. There are lots of ways to do this.

 

[Czert]

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.

well, only theoreticaly france have power to invade germany when concetrated on poland. in reality frogs were to deep in thier molerat mentality - to hide behind maginot line, so any thinking about attack given them headachce, and when they did thier offensive against germany, it uterly failed, even when encoutering weak resistance and they were figting against uncompeted sigfried line.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

It shouldn't be impossible for a skilled designer or modder to give France her historical strength, but make it undesirable even for a human player to invade Germany early. There are lots of ways to do this.

It will be in the vanilla game, for sure.
I would like to see a deep DD on land and coastal fortifications soon. I hope it will come in the few next weeks. This is a "Devs, get yourselves noticed"

 

[LordOfWar16]

Having historical strenght and weaknesses is a good thing, yes. But giving them "10/10 Forts everywhere" would be silly, i agree. As with all defensive lines you have weakpoints, which can and will be exploited by the enemy. The marginot line, just as the german Hindenburglinie from ww1, which the idea of the marginot was based on, werent impenetrateable and had their flaws and weaknesses. One was of course the belgium section and the lightly defended ardennen section. Another problem was that the bunkers didnt withstand german stuka, 88mm flak and hollowcharges for long. Bunkers without high calibre guns were defenseless against german 88m flak since they outranged their mg and low calibre guns.

In HoI an "10/10" would mean that the region is insanely well defended and pratically inpenetrateable.

Anyway, to the balance now.

In HoI IV the French start with an semi-debuff due to the maginotline, which slows down their planning speed by 25% but also increases the overall cap by 25%. That means that the french player is more likely tempted to wait longer since their invasions arent fully planned yet. Other than that they have the "victor of ww1" spirit, which slows down their doctrine research by 75%, which will last until you remove it with an national focus later on. Besides that the neutrality also prevents france from simply steamrolling germany in the beginning. Attacking germany earlier will result in an more costly and more difficult war, since you are not finished planning and your doctrines are, which they also were historicaly, outdated.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Having historical strenght and weaknesses is a good thing, yes. But giving them "10/10 Forts everywhere" would be silly. As with all defensive lines you have weakpoints, which can and will be exploited by the enemy. The marginot line, just as the german Hindenburglinie from ww1, which the idea of the marginot was based on, werent impenetrateable and had their flaws and weaknesses. One was of course the belgium section and the lightly defended ardennen section.

We agree so. I wasn't asking for "10/10 Forts everywhere"..

 

[LordOfWar16]

We agree so. I wasn't asking for "10/10 Forts everywhere"..

sorry, missread the "shouldnt" as "should". My bad.

 

[Liquid Sky]

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.

You keep saying that the Germans were weaker in this area then in 1939. That is false. The Germans had 23 divisions total on the entire western front in '39. Against just the americans in Hurgen forest they had 14 divisions.
You say that the Americans had a hard time through this area...that is true, but they still won. Attacking in September, by March they were in Cologne.

The French would have rolled over the Germans. There would have been some disasters, but there also would have been successes. And more importantly, they would have learned at a time when those mistakes wouldn't have been as costly. They would have learned to concentrate their tanks for example. Incompetent officers would have been replaced. May '40 would have been a different battle.

The French airforce did very well against the Luftwaffe, destroying a third of it in May '40. They would have done very well against the third that was left to guard the west while the other 2/3rds fought the Polish.


It should also be noted that the French did start an offensive...the Saar offensive. The Germans retreated from the French and did not 'bleed the larger force'. No doubt they would have retreated unitl reinforcements could arrive from Poland. By then their industry would have been in ruins.

 

[Tasmosunt]

The Germans had 23 divisions total on the entire western front in '39.

They actually the Germans had 49 divisions on the western front in Sept '39, rising to 67 and 68 in Oct and Nov respectively before reaching 98 in Dec. Source.

 

[Secret Master]

I want to add to my agree of the OP's main point that I think that the level 10 forts in HOI3 were a kind of shortcut in game balance.

If you use CGM in TFH to remove just half of them, it liberates a significant amount of IC for use in other things, like planes and tanks. By forcing level 10 forts down France's throat on the Maginot Line, while "nerfing" her practicals a bit to make it harder to produce other things, it helped prevent the player from doing certain ahistorical things, like stopping construction on the Maginot Line in 1936 and diverting funds to other projects.

I also half-way agree that the forts on the Alps were a big underwhelming in HOI3; however, I want to point out that they are also more than sufficient to stop the Italians. In every French game I've played since TFH came out, I have no problem not only stopping Italian offensives, but using those forts as a springboard to invade Italy. The only problems I ever have are when the Luftwaffe and Panzers show up to back the Italians (and one time, they showed up to late to stop Italy's surrender. ).

 

[Lifthrasil]

But that's what I'm saying about simulating both strengths and weaknesses. The French political situation can be simulated in-game. BlackICE gave Frence a hefty army, I seem to recall, but also gave them not just one, but several sets of penalties. For example, there was a malus for "defeatism", and they were hit with an event that simulated a loss of morale if the Germans managed to break through the Maginot Line.

It shouldn't be impossible for a skilled designer or modder to give France her historical strength, but make it undesirable even for a human player to invade Germany early. There are lots of ways to do this.

Ok if you know how do to it, I'm all for it
Historic strenghts are mostly cooler than just a nerf, as long as gameplay is still enjoyable

 

[Lifthrasil]

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.

That's true, the area is pretty ugly for an attacker.
But determined Allies could still have hassled the Germans. Why was there no massive bomber campain/campagne (?) against Germany? Why didn't they invade Luxemburg?
Even Belgium could have been invaded by determined Allies, but that was maybe not possible for political reasons...

 

[Czert]

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.

well, that have two faults, first againstfrance were depoyed only reserve units, with poor training and not fuly equped, so frogs will have theoreticaly way easier to defeat them than in 44 if they realy wanted to fight. and even if these units will be able to delay them, it will be imposible for them to stop them, if frogs realy meaned to push to rhineland, onlyest way for germans to stop tehm will be to move units from poland, giving poles at least hope of defending, and way more imortantly,m it will show that frogs are honoring thier alliances, and not betraing them as they did.
and more importantly, if frogs realy pressed and theatened ruhr area with poles holding ground, tehre will be very lkikely coup against hitler wich will practicaly end war.

 

[MagnusStultus]

well, only theoreticaly france have power to invade germany when concetrated on poland. in reality frogs were to deep in thier molerat mentality - to hide behind maginot line, so any thinking about attack given them headachce, and when they did thier offensive against germany, it uterly failed, even when encoutering weak resistance and they were figting against uncompeted sigfried line.

Well it never actually got to the point of encountering resistance so for every officer it was a super failure; but the major point of that is we the human player who have the full strength France did are not going to make the same blunders, which is possibly why paradox makes it harder than that by not giving France her full strength but making the Maginot Line strong enough to force Germany players to use their head.

The standing army did, I'm talking about the reserves.
Which was months latter, after the reserves got the training they needed.

None of the Rhineland troops were trained on the German side, and the troops in Poland often had poor training resulting in panics whenever they ran into setbacks. The French Army in 39 had problems but so did the German one.

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.

Yamashita was supposed to have been stopped by the jungle, Homma was supposed to have been stopped by geography and prepared fortification, Mac Arthur was supposed to have had his advantages negated by the geography of Luzon etc.

Relying entirely on geography with poor troop quality, low number of them and awful supply failed each time in that war and 1939 would not have been an exception.What is more important is the fact that the Luftwaffe was single focused entirely on Poland; bomb airports, bomb highways (hurting vital logistics) bomb factories; i.e. win the war by fighting a war. War is mostly logistics and the western allies waist a golden opportunity to take advantage of Luftwaffe's Polish focus.

There is of course even ignoring the possibility of RaF attack backed by the French the fact that Romania was on the allied neutral side of things at this point and Germany had limited oil supplies, so say they halt the Polish campaign, redeploy and the French face a stalemate; Germany just uses up it's oil supplies on account of not capturing Poland's stockpile of it.

 

[Klausewitz]

You keep saying that the Germans were weaker in this area then in 1939. That is false. The Germans had 23 divisions total on the entire western front in '39. Against just the americans in Hurgen forest they had 14 divisions.

The professional armies of 1944 had problems in that field against far lighter resistance.

You say that the Americans had a hard time through this area...that is true, but they still won. Attacking in September, by March they were in Cologne.

Yes, the US Army of 1944 with support of the USAAF needed six month against depleted German reserves which were short on just about everything.
The French in 1939 would not have 6 month, because by then the bulk of the Wehrmacht would be west again.

The French would have rolled over the Germans. There would have been some disasters, but there also would have been successes. And more importantly, they would have learned at a time when those mistakes wouldn't have been as costly. They would have learned to concentrate their tanks for example. Incompetent officers would have been replaced. May '40 would have been a different battle.

Again, there is little space to 'roll over', what there is is woods and fortifications and minefields and chokepoints.

The French airforce did very well against the Luftwaffe, destroying a third of it in May '40. They would have done very well against the third that was left to guard the west while the other 2/3rds fought the Polish.

IIRC they did that over their own lines.
A difference.
I am not able though to tell how much of a difference it would have made in 1939 if they had been force to fly over German AA against german fighters.

It should also be noted that the French did start an offensive...the Saar offensive. The Germans retreated from the French and did not 'bleed the larger force'. No doubt they would have retreated unitl reinforcements could arrive from Poland. By then their industry would have been in ruins.

Yes, the germans did retreat.
And the French failed to even reach the Siegfried line.
They lost 2000 casualties for something like 12 villages and a penetration of 8 km.
And that mostly due to mines and accidents.
And to add in insult to injury the Germans counterattacked and grabbed some square kilomteres of French territory for 650 casualties.
Now imagine a push against the Siegfried line and German troops actually ordered to defend instead of yielding.

 

[wingo]

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.

So, basically, it is all Belgium's fault!

 

[Centerbe]

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.

interesting links Ibn... we previously discussed the lack of accuracy about the fortifications in the game. In the thread "alpine wall" we discussed about sectors where fortificazions are overestimated and sectors where are underestimated, other areas where are totally absent historic fortifications present in '36.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-alpine-wall.882373/#post-19957412

 

[Klausewitz]

So, basically, it is all Belgium's fault!

Yeah, sure, whatever.
I actually was not aware we were discussing guilt.

 

[MagnusStultus]

Yeah, sure, whatever.
I actually was not aware we were discussing guilt.

Don't worry we were only talking about if France had other options then either through Belgium or not at all; nobody is defending the coward king here

 

[Lifthrasil]

Don't worry we were only talking about if France had other options then either through Belgium or not at all; nobody is defending the coward king here

Check your priviledges , bro. France is actually stunning and brave and beautiful and an example to us all!
Regarding resistance and whatnot ;-)

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Stop the childishnesses, guys...

About the topic, does someone remember a screenshot on which we can see if there actually are some represented fortifications above Metz etc ?

I'm afraid dev team didn't plan to improve the Maginot line (1st January '36) historicity :
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...evelopment-diary-23rd-of-october-2015.888041/