Originally posted by King
I fyou think about it here. I am a minor state and my forces are trained in French docterine, and I wish to improve these of my own back. What will I be researching here? Also as the French I wish to train my armies in the Blizkrieg, it is not a 'French Tech' should I not be given the option? The nation speicifc techs strike me as being a minefield which will detract from the game. Some countires will be given an inherent advantage which would be impossible to overcome. Why can't I if I choose try to overcome it myself?
On minors, some minors should fine it very very difficult to go it alone. However it should not be made impossible. I am talking about a fanatsy situation here. Where Mexico has a massive armaments industry and Brazil has shit hot tanks. You can manufacture a lot of weapons of war without either. It should be in my opinion possible for a minor to do better, even technoloigcally. To force it to be not so, is limiting in my opinion.
Your point regarding training is an aside from equipment, but an interesting one, and it is something that can be resarched. Blitz warfare and French Training were as you said in Doctrine, but the outcome in the west also has much to do with deployment and strategic position.
In your example, France starts in 1936, and wishes to research “blitz” warfare. Although France has a good number of tanks (heavier tanks than many German ones), it lacks mobility, and the basics of the Army are still centered on WWI style warfare. So, it decides to concentrate on mobile warfare, at the cost of the Maginot line. (Remember, as the leader of France, your budget is limited, it is a parliamentary democracy). Then so be it. In 1940, there are two extra French armored divisions, and the French units get a tactical bonus modifier for all of their Mobile and Armored Divisions in combat resolution when attacking. That is fine.
What still needs to be considered is that many of those units will be lead by the old-timers (Not many De Gauls) , and the leaders that you will be able to promote, at the Division level, are still part of that old school too. Also, there had to be sacrifices, because your Pre-war production will be limited by the Parliament, and you will need to make changes. You should also perhaps try to improve the anti-tank capability, but that may mean a delay on a tank development, within the limited context of the French Military development; still a lot of very cool decisions can be made within that context.
So, Germany sees this, decides that it will not force the Danzig issue (no fight with Poland), and decided to hold off the war till 1940, and hit France first. Many of the issues will still be there. You will have a more open Front, and France is still forced to face the Blitz, not use the Blitz. BUT, as the French player, you decide not to swing into the Low Countries, and instead leave the Bulk of the French 7th, 1st and 9th Army as well as the BEF WEST of the Somme. Wow, that move alone will play out the war differently. So, there are lots of great options.
Now, if you wish to attack Germany without provocation prior to the attack on Poland, the UK decides to leave you, Germany’s designs on Russia are put off permanently, and perhaps they even assist Germany, and seeing this, all of the sudden, the French Communist, the Left, and even the Far right, form a coalition with the rest of the center who are pissed off, and perhaps force the French Administration out of office.
The point of all the above discussion is that with any nation, within its historical context, there are a ton of great historical options and trade offs, which the Player can decide on. That is the fun of such a game.
Your point on the minors is true. They will find it very difficult if not impossible in many ways to go it alone. That is one of the great challenges of playing the minor nations. Using Diplomacy, and strategic position to guide your nation.
As far as the manufacture of weapons without great industry, some of this is true too, but then again, these were minor weapons, usually small arms ( rifles etc…) What is Fun is that if I am Poland, and I decide to go with a smaller force, and buy more trucks for Transportation, build less Cav, and add 50 or so more planes to the inventory, and begin to research mounting heavy guns on my existing tanks (whish they did do and had few at the Start, but they should have speed the process up two years before, bit too late), then my nation will do better. When the war starts, I decide to deploy the Pozman Army and the forces in the Danzig corridor closer to the Vistula, as well as mobilizing earlier, then, I as a minor Nation of Poland will do better, then it did historically.
You are also correct that it is limiting. That is the point. The above example is a minor nation doing better than it did in 1939. Can you do better within the historical confines of that minor nation’s position in 1936, or 1939? That nation’s position, its limitations, location, etc…bring with it the fun in trying to do better. Those limitation are just it position in 1936 or 1939, and define it as the Nation of “Brazil” at that point in time. That is what truly test the player’s leadership, and what makes a game set in WWII fun.
-Jason
) and TOAOW both tracked equipment per tank. But they didn't have any identifying change when tigers or me262 appeared. It was all abstracted into the attack / defense factors and resource pool. I mean, did anyone really micromanage replacements in War in Russia. And if they did would they represent a significant fraction of the HoI potential purchasers
