Meanwhile, CP Denmark is left high and dry, gaining nothing despite using precious fuel to move their ships...places...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, in 9 games Italy has been CP and entente roughly equal number of times. Italy has been CP before and usually suffered from serious invasions (and defeat) from France and the UK when they were left alone with a "Russia first" attack. The CP's may however be too strong with a CP Italy IF they go France first.
How many units do the Brits have at the start of things? Would their forces have held the Italians in place? Would the thus freed up French units have been enough to stop the German attacks in the north?
Maybe 2-3 corps? A better use is probably against the Germans, they are the best troops the entente have. Blocking the key weak points on the line with Brits is probably their best chance
It was never an issue of quantity, but sheer quality. 2 German divisions can effectively oust 5 divisions of Frenchmen out of a province. It takes about 8 French ones to beat 1 German division defending a plains province. Even the British elite divisions didn't fair much better. More numbers wouldn't have helped, nothing really would have helped, the Germans basically win every time, especially with Dizzle being an dirtbag and attacking through my attacks
Hmm how is that possible? A combination of training laws, combat experience, better leaders maybe? Or did division composition have to do with it? I mean the German army might be good, but this is a bit insane don't you think?
The German army in the west was 100% Inf Inf Art/Hart. The French was maybe 20% with art, 50% inf inf, and the rest militia, cavalry, Belgians or other trash.
It's hard to defend France, even with a huge army where you can't defend certain key provinces. Having said that, I think the position, size and use of the BEF was far from optimal
The Germans also have 140% officer ratio while France was just pushing 110%. And France has about 3 generals with the defensive trait in its entire army.
Yes. I think that it's a fair reflection of reality that the French army was not equipped to fight toe to toe with the Germans in 1914. Badly led, under-equipped and slightly wobbly morale, and being very offensive- focused are all represented ingame.
Not sure how fair it is to say that the BEF saved the day in 1914, or is that my British-centric version of history?
Lol it's rather British-centric of you. The Battle of the Marne (both of them) were brilliantly planned and competently executed French battles (the 2nd one more-so, but that's only because a very ballsy German decided to attack during the 1st one, he single handedly saved the German army). Nor would I say the French were badly lead, they were just offensive minded at the expense of their defense at the start of the war, something which Joffre quickly adapted to. Plus you had excellent field commanders such as Foch and D'Espery, who are every bit as good as their German friends across the trench line. The Germans were however, better "equipped" not in the quality of their weapons, but they did have far more Machine Guns and artillery at the start, which meant that the French's offensive tactics were doomed from the start.
The BEF certainly gave a good show and had some great delaying actions, but in the end all they did was help, they weren't the single deciding factor (For all the huff and puff over Mons, the French victory at St. Quentin probably was a more important action, if for no other reason than a good spirit booster). Also, French was probably one of the most painful Entente commanders during the great retreat, so -1 for that ya limey
But I also don't think the Germans stood a snowballs chance in hell of actually pulling it off in Fall of 1914 as it was planned on paper (something magical could have happened in the heat of battle I suppose), if for no other reasons than the Belgians and French had neglected to build enough roads to accommodate a proper German invasion force
The BEF certainly gave a good show and had some great delaying actions, but in the end all they did was help, they weren't the single deciding factor (For all the huff and puff over Mons, the French victory at St. Quentin probably was a more important action, if for no other reason than a good spirit booster). Also, French was probably one of the most painful Entente commanders during the great retreat, so -1 for that ya limey
But I also don't think the Germans stood a snowballs chance in hell of actually pulling it off in Fall of 1914 as it was planned on paper (something magical could have happened in the heat of battle I suppose), if for no other reasons than the Belgians and French had neglected to build enough roads to accommodate a proper German invasion force
Lol it's rather British-centric of you. The Battle of the Marne (both of them) were brilliantly planned and competently executed French battles (the 2nd one more-so, but that's only because a very ballsy German decided to attack during the 1st one, he single handedly saved the German army). Nor would I say the French were badly lead, they were just offensive minded at the expense of their defense at the start of the war, something which Joffre quickly adapted to. Plus you had excellent field commanders such as Foch and D'Espery, who are every bit as good as their German friends across the trench line. The Germans were however, better "equipped" not in the quality of their weapons, but they did have far more Machine Guns and artillery at the start, which meant that the French's offensive tactics were doomed from the start.
The BEF certainly gave a good show and had some great delaying actions, but in the end all they did was help, they weren't the single deciding factor (For all the huff and puff over Mons, the French victory at St. Quentin probably was a more important action, if for no other reason than a good spirit booster). Also, French was probably one of the most painful Entente commanders during the great retreat, so -1 for that ya limey
But I also don't think the Germans stood a snowballs chance in hell of actually pulling it off in Fall of 1914 as it was planned on paper (something magical could have happened in the heat of battle I suppose), if for no other reasons than the Belgians and French had neglected to build enough roads to accommodate a proper German invasion force
Yeah Von Kluck"s moves were pretty awsome
That being said the first battle of the Marne would probably not have even happened if the French had not recovered german maps detailing the gap between the first and second army. That being said I don't know of the Germans had weakened Alsace Lorraine in favor of a stronger right wing would have made the difference. Though it could have if you take into account the reluctance of the French to break off the attack in lieu of the german onslaught maybe they would have just kept pressing the german frontier and got caught in schlifens sack so to speak. Maybe if Von Moltke hadn't transferred troops east to fight the Russians it could have made a difference. Probably not
But the first Marne is hardly a good example of the French army, they knew right where the Germans were, how strong their forces were and what their orders were. It's kinda like the perfect set piece battle so not even the French could jack it up
Edit-
And second Marne really? The starving Germans more concerned about eating captured rations then fighting the allied lol. And by the way
It was all due to the US 3rd infantry division rock of the Marne! America f** yeah!
The right wing was as strong as it could logistically possible, wasn't much more stuffing troops in would have done. They could have actually followed the original plan and ignored Paris, but the copious amounts of French troops sitting in its cafés would have had something to say about that much as scheifllen knew they would. There was just to much that could go wrong really, hence why ol schief had himself written the plan off and pigeon holed it.
Also don't see how having great intelligence takes away from a great operation. Last I checked getting Intel and using it is a sign of a competent military.
As for your account of the second Marne.... Ummm just no. To everything.
Also don't see how having great intelligence takes away from a great operation. Last I checked getting Intel and using it is a sign of a competent military
.As for your account of the second Marne.... Ummm just no. To everything.
Last edited:
The French army was actually quite good in 1914. I would also add in Lanrezac as another good French commander as he arguably did more than anyone to save the army in those frightful first months.
IMHO the French army doesn't need to be behind in tech at the start (except maybe colonial troops), the differences in number of artillery brigades, starting officer ratio and leader skills + the starting german temporary boost should be enough to give the German a nice headstart
The right wing was as strong as it could logistically possible, wasn't much more stuffing troops in would have done. They could have actually followed the original plan and ignored Paris, but the copious amounts of French troops sitting in its cafés would have had something to say about that much as scheifllen knew they would. There was just to much that could go wrong really, hence why ol schief had himself written the plan off and pigeon holed it.
Also don't see how having great intelligence takes away from a great operation. Last I checked getting Intel and using it is a sign of a competent military
As for your account of the second Marne.... Ummm just no. To everything.
obviously your not sensing the sarcasm, Germany was completely spent by second Marne come on man both examples are very weak to justify the "quality" of the French Army.
To be fair everyone got thrashed by the German army as it was one of the best fighting forces in world history. France was easily the second most effective army of the period since the BEF is tiny in 1914.
And even though Germany had early success, the French did manage to fight the Germans to a stalemate in the most critical part of the war with very little British help.
Come on man, both examples are fine to show the "quality" of the French Army. "OMG France actually scouted! Weaksauce newbs!" is not a valid argument for discounting the first battle of the Marne, and it's not that the French held the Germans back at the 2nd Marne, it's the magnificently planned and executed counterattack that they launched. If you want we can go with Verdun, The Battle of the Hills, La Mansion, the 100 Days....
Last edited:
IMHO, neither side was properly prepared for the kind of war that developed, but the French may haven been even worse at that, at least initially. During the war, despite all criticism, they evolved to a formidable fighting force, on par with the best any other country could offer.
The fact that they were tactically inferior is represented by inferior doctrines, officer ratio and avarage leader skill. However I wouldn't say that the avarage French soldier was inferior to the avarage German soldier, nor their equipment. Also, even during the retreat of the first weeks, the French front didn't break and kept slowing the Germans down and made them pay for every defendable position they were assaulting. It has never been easy to perform an effective fighting retreat (yeah maybe during WWI it was easier that any other time but still...)