Screenshot 020918

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by Panzer39


Why wouldn't the provinces in the US just be the 48 mainland states? In Eu2 this was not the case because only a few states were around. Keeping the provinces like they were in Eu2 would just be silly. There are no indian nations in WWII. Well except the wind talkers The only other option I could see is dividing the US into 10 or so sections. South East/South West/North East/ North West etc.

To illustrate the problems with this, a simple example suffices:
The state of Texas is 20% larger in landmass than the French Republic in its entirety.

I'm not asking for detail on the Czech scale, just enough provinces to accurately model the US- let me pull out the EU2 map and make an estimate.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by Petrarca

To illustrate the problems with this, a simple example suffices:
The state of Texas is 20% larger in landmass than the French Republic in its entirety.

I'm not asking for detail on the Czech scale, just enough provinces to accurately model the US- let me pull out the EU2 map and make an estimate.

I think I see where you are going with this. France looks a little bigger than the provinces that make up Texas in EU2. Maybe 30%? However, If you look at the world map in the screen shot it looks like the scale is on par. Anything smaller than state size might be unwanted since the real campain is not likely to end on American soil. I dont see why they would opt to give the USA more than 48 mainland provinces for the 48 states though, except maybe the big ones like Texas and California. I would like to see them there as states instead of provinces in case someone wants to recreate a Turtledove novel

 

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by Panzer39


I think I see where you are going with this. France looks a little bigger than the provinces that make up Texas in EU2. Maybe 30%? However, If you look at the world map in the screen shot it looks like the scale is on par. Anything smaller than state size might be unwanted since the real campain is not likely to end on American soil. I dont see why they would opt to give the USA more than 48 mainland provinces for the 48 states though, except maybe the big ones like Texas and California. I would like to see them there as states instead of provinces in case someone wants to recreate a Turtledove novel

How about provinces that roughly correspond to the states? So merge Conn. & RI, Vermont and New Hampshire, Delaware and Eastern Maryland, etc. while dividing the bigger states. I'm just asking for a good division of the US that respects most state boundaries while follows natural features, so if I want the Lone Star Republic to be aided by US troops in putting down a rebellion, it'll be realistic in terms of province divisions. Like a fort in San Antonio with a coonskin cap as an icon.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by Petrarca

How about provinces that roughly correspond to the states? So merge Conn. & RI, Vermont and New Hampshire, Delaware and Eastern Maryland, etc. while dividing the bigger states. I'm just asking for a good division of the US that respects most state boundaries while follows natural features, so if I want the Lone Star Republic to be aided by US troops in putting down a rebellion, it'll be realistic in terms of province divisions. Like a fort in San Antonio with a coonskin cap as an icon.

Reasonable enough. Rommel taking all of Texas in a single battle might be a bit much

 

[unmerged(8622)]

Re: fortifications ALLOVER switserland ????

Originally posted by snailtrailer
why is switserland full of fortresses ?

The fact that there are high mountains doesnot necessarily mean that it is difficult for an army to conquer !!

It comes down to the DEFENSES built in the mountains that could make it difficult (bunkers, roaddefenses, etc..)!
And those weren't there..
Also switserland had good roads/infrastructure..it is NOT a desolate mountain range region (like in pakistan or Peru or whatever..)
..and knowing of the Swiss army organisation (calling up civilians) I DOUBT if especially in those days the swiss 'army' could build a stiff resistance to any invador!!

Well now. Use your imagination, why would Switzerland be represented by a nation of forts? Think about, and also learn to spell the things you dont like, it makes it easier for everyone to take you seriously.
-SS

 

[Maximilian I]

@snailtrailer (again! )

shadow soldier is correct, get some facts straight before you start bitching...


the swiss had a standing army of 6 divisions and 3 mountain bgds in 36, 8 divs and 3 mountain bgds in 39. Additionaly they could call 450000 soliders (your so called "civilians"). they also had a impressive net of reduits and forts in the mountains (fortresses in the defense area of the 6. Infanterie Division). it is absolutely historically correct to give them their fortifications.

Parts of those fortifications are still in use today and switzerland was definitely not a walkover in those days!

 

[unmerged(10761)]

switserland..

...and their perfect running army and fortifications set-up;
sounds pretty much like how the french thought of their Maginot fortifications..n'est-ce pas?
..and somehow, that didnot work..

What startled the 1940 contemporary armies was the MOBILITY warfare of the Germans ..
Why should I want to attack with infantry head on to a mountain ridge fortification, if I can drop paratroopers in Geneva , Bern, Luzern ??
Send some alpine troops (French, Italians, Germans, had them in 1940 allready) here and there..

and bombard some cities to hell if they don't want to open some passes (like otterdam, Warschau, etc..)..

My judgement is that in those days an army as brutal as Germany is POTENTIALLY well capable to bring the Swiss nation to its knees..



..and the fact that Switserland is politically neutral and indeed usefull to Nazi germany (and other nations) in those days mustnot be interpreted by fortifications..
..then pogram a huge 'stability' drop if you'd attack switeserland, and leave the 'ordinary' mountain difficulties modifiers (slower advancements, defender bonus) in tact.

 

[unmerged(10761)]

..mountain as such = not fortification per se

..(sorry for the typo errors)

Just think of the 180 men of Francisco Pizarro who conquered the Inca empire (INCLUDING the mountain provinces).. the incas had mountains, but were not able to defend ...how come ?

Just think of Alexander the great where he assaulted some mountain 'fortresses' (more like a village with some walls) in I believe in Tadjikistan.
On this program on TV it looked like an easy to defend mountain ridge (rather steep slopes around the village site)..
..yet Alexander's armees succeeded..


Therefore it is not the mountain PER SE that makes a FORTRESS !!

And yes, there may be bunkers in Switserland in 1940 on tactical important locations...but so were there in Holland in the West...but that doesn't mean that the WHOLE province should be represented by a FORTIFICATIOn marker.
THAT should only be reserved for provinces that denies ANY free/uncovered movement in the WHOLE province.
THEN the Maginot line bunker COMPLEXES (!) in 'Arlon' makes sense to have a Fortress marker placed.

 

[Maximilian I]

Re: switserland..

Originally posted by snailtrailer
...and their perfect running army and fortifications set-up;
sounds pretty much like how the french thought of their Maginot fortifications..n'est-ce pas?
..and somehow, that didnot work..

What startled the 1940 contemporary armies was the MOBILITY warfare of the Germans ..
Why should I want to attack with infantry head on to a mountain ridge fortification, if I can drop paratroopers in Geneva , Bern, Luzern ??
Send some alpine troops (French, Italians, Germans, had them in 1940 allready) here and there..

and bombard some cities to hell if they don't want to open some passes (like otterdam, Warschau, etc..)..

My judgement is that in those days an army as brutal as Germany is POTENTIALLY well capable to bring the Swiss nation to its knees..



..and the fact that Switserland is politically neutral and indeed usefull to Nazi germany (and other nations) in those days mustnot be interpreted by fortifications..
..then pogram a huge 'stability' drop if you'd attack switeserland, and leave the 'ordinary' mountain difficulties modifiers (slower advancements, defender bonus) in tact.

about fortifications: following your argumentation, paradox should remove the maginot line, because it didn`t work ... now, back to something serious. the swiss defense plan called for a retreat back into the mountainuous regions, leaving bern (hilly, and to some degree open ground - which was also only lightly defendend) open to an invader. from then on it would be impossible to the aggressor to accomplish anything like mobile warfare. it would have been something like the "Alpenfront" in WWI.



and the mountain is not PER SE a fortress (as you stated correctly), it`s the fortress, that makes a fortress

 

[Nikolai II]

Re: switserland..

Originally posted by snailtrailer
...and their perfect running army and fortifications set-up;
sounds pretty much like how the french thought of their Maginot fortifications..n'est-ce pas?
..and somehow, that didnot work..

Although the main reason they didn't work was that they didn't go all the way to the coast.

They would likely not have worked anyway, but they would likely have handed the german armies the equivalent of a bloody nose and a sprained wrist in a bar fight, but on a army scale.


Also, if you pass by the fortifications in France you are on (relatively) open terrain, if you pass them by in Switzerland you are facing more mountains and more fortressess.

 

[unmerged(10761)]

Re: Re: switserland..

Originally posted by Nikolai II

if you pass them by in Switzerland you are facing more mountains and more fortressess.

more mountains yes,..more fortresses..no.

Indeed it would be reminiscent of WW1 'alpenkrieg'..that is; no use for tanks..
But without a bunkercomplex, there is no 'fortress'..(o) just the mountain with the usual defense benfit for the defenders..


(But maybe the 'fortresses' in HOI come in different strengths/sizes/upgrades and the ones shown in switserland are the 'smallest' types. ??)

 

[Maximilian I]

Re: Re: Re: switserland..

Originally posted by snailtrailer


more mountains yes,..more fortresses..no.

Indeed it would be reminiscent of WW1 'alpenkrieg'..that is; no use for tanks..
But without a bunkercomplex, there is no 'fortress'..(o) just the mountain with the usual defense benfit for the defenders..


(But maybe the 'fortresses' in HOI come in different strengths/sizes/upgrades and the ones shown in switserland are the 'smallest' types. ??)

HOW do you know, that there are no bukercomplexes? look at the link I provided before! the things you say are
1.) wrong, historically incorrect,
2.) only wild guessing.


that`s a list of all bunkers in the defense area of 6th division:



Truppe Ref Bunker Mg Lmg PzK Ik FKan

*) (11) 24mm 4,7cm 7,5cm

Kampfabschnitt 1 Schindellegi 1 1 1 1 - ---

?Rechts? 2 Schindellegi 2 1 2 1 - ---

Inf Rgt 28 3 Schindellegi 3 1 2 1 - ---

(- Füs Bat 71) 4 Schindellegi 4 1 1 1 - ---

5 Schindellegi 5 1 1 1 - ---

6 Schindellegi 6 2 2 1 - ---

7 Rossberg Ost 1 1 1 - ---

8 Schwantenau 2 3 2 - ---

9 Kaltenboden 1 - 1 1 - 1

10 Kaltenboden 2 - 1 1 - 1

11 Biberbrücke 1 - 1 1 - 1

12 Biberbrücke 2 2 2 1 - 1



Kampfabschnitt 13 Käfigbach 1 1 1 1 - ---

?Mitte? 14 Käfigbach 2 2 (1) 1 1 - ---

Inf Rgt 27 15 Alosen 1 1 1 - ---

(- Füs Bat 67) 16 Gschwänd - 1 1 - 1

- Tkb-Stände:

17 Gschwänd 1 - - 1 - ---

18 Gschwänd 2 - - 1 - ---



selbst.Abschnitt 19 Hinterwald 1 1 1 1 - ---

?Hinterwyden? 20 Hinterwald 2 1(2) 2 1 - ---

Füs Bat 106 21 Hinterwald 3 1(2) 2 1 - ---

22 Feuerschwand 1 - 1 1 - 1

23 Feuerschwand 2 - 1 1 - 1

24 Schurtannenweiden - 1 1 - 1

- Tkb-Stände:

25 Schurtannenweiden - - 1 - ---

26 Zinggenbach - - 1 - ---



Kampfabschnitt 27 Philippsburg 2 2 1 - ---

?Links? 28 Windegg 1 1 1 - ---

Inf Rgt 26 29 Sigristboden 1 (a) - 1 1 - 1

30 Sigristboden 1 (b) - - - 1 ---

31 Sigristboden 2 - 1 1 - 1

32 Zugerberg 1 - 1 1 - 1

33 Zugerberg 2 - 1 1 - 1

- Tkb-Stand:

34 Vordergeissboden - - 1 - ---



Rückwärtige 35 Äussere Altmatt 1 1 2 1 - 1

Sperre 36 Äussere Altmatt 2 2 2 1 - 1

Füs Bat 71 37 Äussere Altmatt 3 1 2 1 - 1

38 Schönenboden 1 - 1 1 1 ---

39 Schönenboden 2 1 1 1 - ---

40 Schönenboden 3 1 1 1 - ---



Rückwärtige 41 Raten 1 2 3 1 - ---

Sperre 42 Raten 2 2 2 1 - ---

Füs Bat 67 43 Raten 3 1 1 1 - ---

44 Raten 4 1 1 1 - ---

45 Raten 5 1 1 1 - ---

46 Raten 6 1 2 1 - ---

47 Raten 7 2 2 1 - ---

48 Raten 8 1 1 1 - ---

(effektiv laut Dr.Stadlin/MHSZ) SUMME 39 (40) 59 48 2 15



so, this is no bunkercomplex? every other division also had a definite area of defense and forts, bunkers and reduits as support.

perhaps I should also add the number of independent fortress bn`S...

 

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Originally posted by KonigMaximilian
Good lol, was think ing the worst, was thinkning that Germany is behind in Air tech could be that, but the ME109 was not around in 1936 that I know beacuse Germany wasnt allowed an active airforce, and the tech wasnt thier ME109 was around in 1939 that i know so I think my answer I jut asnwered myself lol, but yea ME109 was round in 1939, but was not around in 36, Germanywas using though in 36 those old fockers and gleiders for training, but dont need that in this game so I gues thier using the the old Fockers until 1936 area, then it will change gif picture to ME109 its a posibilitie....

I don't know if someone has answered you, but Me109 was used first in 1936 (maybe 1937, but not later) in Spanish Civil War. I don't know the exact version of the plane (B or C, I think), but I'm pretty sure Germans used them in Legion Kondor sent to help Nationals. They used too He111 and Ju87.

-edited-

And this leads me to an interesting question. If the game begins in 1936, there is the Civil War running in Spain... with the two sides. Will the players playing any nation be able to support any of the sides, or just the one that falls into their specific alignment? (if you're USA, just help Republicans, and if you're Italy or Deutschland support Nationals). And... will be implemented a kind of Society of Nations?. I say this because I remember that all nations agreed not to interfere in Spanish Civil War. So, is gonna be something like monthly gatherings in "Society of Nations" or something like that? Or just one-on-one messages. I don't know if you understand what I mean.

And I know that this will be a little off-topic on this exact thread... but... does anyone know how the two Spanish sides at this time will be implemented?

 

[unmerged(6160)]

I saw something on the History Channel, about swiss fortifacations in WW2, they where quite impressive, lots of forts above and underground. This swiss where worried about a Nazi invasion.

 

[unmerged(4848)]

Originally posted by spizzer
I'm Happy to see the boundaries...

Great shot, thanks.

As I already mentioned in former threads, I am very curious of a map of Central Europe. However, I assume that the peaceful change of boundaries are triggered by events (Munich conference, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

 

[unmerged(4848)]

Originally posted by Kiith

Well the 50 US destroyers were more of a exchange. From memory the British gave the US 90 year leases on some of their bases and Gold as payment. So I'd think that this exchange would be an event in HOI (well in EU terms).

Events like this will be in. I have no doubt.

 

[unmerged(4848)]

Re: fortifications ALLOVER switserland ????

Originally posted by snailtrailer
why is switserland full of fortresses ?

The fact that there are high mountains doesnot necessarily mean that it is difficult for an army to conquer !!

It comes down to the DEFENSES built in the mountains that could make it difficult (bunkers, roaddefenses, etc..)!
And those weren't there..
Also switserland had good roads/infrastructure..it is NOT a desolate mountain range region (like in pakistan or Peru or whatever..)
..and knowing of the Swiss army organisation (calling up civilians) I DOUBT if especially in those days the swiss 'army' could build a stiff resistance to any invador!!

I totally agree with your description. However, the forts might be in for gameplay reasons (in order to deter the German AI from attacking Switzerland)

 

[Petrarca]

Re: Re: Re: switserland..

Originally posted by snailtrailer


more mountains yes,..more fortresses..no.

Indeed it would be reminiscent of WW1 'alpenkrieg'..that is; no use for tanks..
But without a bunkercomplex, there is no 'fortress'..(o) just the mountain with the usual defense benfit for the defenders..


(But maybe the 'fortresses' in HOI come in different strengths/sizes/upgrades and the ones shown in switserland are the 'smallest' types. ??)

To sum up everyone else's posts: There are Swiss fortifications in the mountains. Very heavy. And it's rather hard to launch a blitzkrieg around the fortifications when they cover the entire country.

Also, I would like to see the effects of a German high-alititude paradrop into the Swiss Alps! Into a nation whose male population is conscripted and trained in the army and remains on reserve duty until they're senile!

I don't care if they are citizen-soldiers, the Swiss have a good track record of beating back invaders, whether Burgundian, Austrian, etc. And I wouldn't want to attack half a million soldiers, who, as citizen-soldiers, will fight for every inch of ground, in the middle of the Swiss Alps!

 

[Maximilian I]

Re: Re: Re: Re: switserland..

Originally posted by Petrarca

To sum up everyone else's posts: There are Swiss fortifications in the mountains. Very heavy. And it's rather hard to launch a blitzkrieg around the fortifications when they cover the entire country.

Also, I would like to see the effects of a German high-alititude paradrop into the Swiss Alps! Into a nation whose male population is conscripted and trained in the army and remains on reserve duty until they're senile!

I don't care if they are citizen-soldiers, the Swiss have a good track record of beating back invaders, whether Burgundian, Austrian, etc. And I wouldn't want to attack half a million soldiers, who, as citizen-soldiers, will fight for every inch of ground, in the middle of the Swiss Alps!

thanks for that summary.

 

[Spruce]

IMHO some people are taking the discussion about the Swiss fortifications out of context.

The question is = what's a fortification and what not?

In Belgium there were some defense lines with bunker complexes (around the Albert canal f.e.). These defense lines were blitzed by the Germans...

Now, a fort is a real fort. Like the fort of Eben Emael (also Belgium fort) but that was also blitzed by the Germans.

The HOI programmers didn't allocate any fortifications to the Belgium provinces?

The Swiss provinces got some fortifications and some forum members found some pictures about bunker complexes on the net...

This topic is far from "summarised", and still open for discussion...