I think there is a good way to finally get rid of the Doctrine question.
World War Two had six major titans, each with their own doctrine, style and equipment:
France
Japan
Germany
Britian
America
USSR
I think there should be six doctrines, each representing a titan:
Axis- Germany
Allies- America
Comintern- USSR
Pan-Asian- Japan
These doctrines already represent four titans, but the problem can be seen in the Allied doctrine. It is simply too large.
Therefore we can split the Allies doctrine to represent France and Britain:
Commonwealth- Britain
Pan-French- France
This would make Allies less and evenise the field, make the game more historic and fun
In HWW Commonwealth could be extended to:
Egypt
Canada
Australia
New Zea Land
India
South Africa
Maybe even Greece
Etc
Pan-French could extend to:
Canada (It can be either Commonwealth or Pan-French)
Belgium
Poland
Netherlands
Portugal
Denmark
Etc
Doing this would solve the following issues:
The Huge number of Allies in any map, specially 100 p
Historical issues
The fewness of Pan-Asian and to a lesser extent Axis since now Allies is split up and fewer
Funner
Etc
I know this is unlikely but please consider
Please log in to post a reply.
the maginot line was an actual good line of defence but they didn’t connect it to belgium so when the germans went through the ardennes and belgium . French political tension was high but now politics were mixed with french high command action , causing lots of confusion and a lot of unclear orders from different people.
I think the reason they didn't extend it was because they wanted to fight with the Belgians.
In fact the Maginot line did its job its the Belgian who didn't do it because the maginot line was designed to defend France and Belgium from a German agression, the project was to put the maginot line in front of the French border and prepare a defensive line on the river of the meuse but the Belgian who wants to stay neutral broke the defensive pact with france and demilitarized its border allowing the german to invade belgium and the ardenne weren't defended because the french high command think the german couldn't pass througt the ardenne so it was a complete mess
Sorry if i have done a mistake I'm French
What do you mean, no military leader or high command was so foolish. They knew that the superior Germans could crush the Belgies in 1 week.Blackchastel wrote:
the french high command think the german couldn't pass througt the ardenne so it was a complete mess
vietcong2005 wrote:
Hoi4 is much more complex yet much more people play it.Maybe thats because it ends in like, a couple of hours?
PS- the second line was written by me, I dont know why it came inside the quote itself.
belgium not guarding itself properly is one , french high command being incompetent is another, they had intel on germany striking through the ardennes , yet they continue going to belgium . But everyone in france was fighting for power( political instability) so no coordinationBlackchastel wrote:
In fact the Maginot line did its job its the Belgian who didn't do it because the maginot line was designed to defend France and Belgium from a German agression, the project was to put the maginot line in front of the French border and prepare a defensive line on the river of the meuse but the Belgian who wants to stay neutral broke the defensive pact with france and demilitarized its border allowing the german to invade belgium and the ardenne weren't defended because the french high command think the german couldn't pass througt the ardenne so it was a complete messSorry if i have done a mistake I'm French
Firstly this is partly wrong, for a fact I'm Belgain.Blackchastel wrote:
In fact the Maginot line did its job its the Belgian who didn't do it because the maginot line was designed to defend France and Belgium from a German agression, the project was to put the maginot line in front of the French border and prepare a defensive line on the river of the meuse but the Belgian who wants to stay neutral broke the defensive pact with france and demilitarized its border allowing the german to invade belgium and the ardenne weren't defended because the french high command think the german couldn't pass througt the ardenne so it was a complete messSorry if i have done a mistake I'm French
There was a defensive network of forts and citadels along the Meuse river.
The Ardennes were considered as impregnable as the terrain is impossible to move trough with armored vehicles. For this reason the French didn't believe the scout report that had spotted a lot of armored vehicles in the Ardennes.
I agree with that but the problem is during the 18 day invasion the german took a important fort with paratrooper even if they were in inferior number this allow the german to cross the meuse riverBMfox wrote:
There was a defensive network of forts and citadels along the Meuse river.
Fun fact a plane report more than one thousand tank and the french high command didn't believe the report and another fact if i remember is the belgian or the french shot a german plane and discovered the german plan but thought it was a fake one they destroyed it .BMfox wrote:
The Ardennes were considered as impregnable as the terrain is impossible to move trough with armored vehicles. For this reason the French didn't believe the scout report that had spotted a lot of armored vehicles in the Ardennes.
The Belgians had only a small standing army and wouldn't have been able to stop the Germans even with all the fortifications you can imagine.Blackchastel wrote:
I agree with that but the problem is during the 18 day invasion the german took a important fort with paratrooper even if they were in inferior number this allow the german to cross the meuse river
It's not that they did not believe the scout plane. they thought it was a diversionary attack not that main one. once they finally realized it was the main attack it was far too lateBMfox wrote:
For this reason the French didn't believe the scout report that had spotted a lot of armored vehicles in the Ardennes.
I know that but i mean that if the belgian hold this fort it would have allowed the french and the british to help the belgianBMfox wrote:
The Belgians had only a small standing army and wouldn't have been able to stop the Germans even with all the fortifications you can imagine.
Even if they thouht it was a diversionary attack the french high command should have known that the german pass throught the ardennes in the franco prussian war of 1870 and in 1940 so it was obvious that the german will go throught in this warAMG Morgan wrote:
It's not that they did not believe the scout plane. they thought it was a diversionary attack not that main one. once they finally realized it was the main attack it was far too late
Lol what??? 
Blackchastel wrote:
Even if they thouht it was a diversionary attack the french high command should have known that the german pass throught the ardennes in the franco prussian war of 1870 and in 1940 so it was obvious that the german will go throught in this war
and sorry i made a mistake i wouldmean in 1914 so in conclusion the french high command was a big mess
French high command was an absolute mess your right, and so was the British (don't get me wrong I am British) they presumed to think that the Germans would give up, they were so determined to not get stuck in the trenches again which is what they thought would happen a repeat of 1914, however unlike the french who had a larger but more outdated military than the germans and the British who were busy trying to make new technology do outdated stuff, the result the french were overthrown and the British pushed back to there island, the difference french surrender versus the British will to "never surrender"
For what it's worth I really like the idea of a French and English Doctrine. I especially like the idea of the French doctrine countries being able to build buildings faster. As for a naming the French Doctrine; someone with a similar idea suggested the name "entente." Even if that term has WWI baggage I think it's a good name.
Actually that's a pretty good idea.
That's said a bit too easy. Of course the French had to capitulate with German division after division closing in on Paris. It's easy to say Britain will never surrender when they never had a German boot on soil. I'd like to know what Churchill would have said if the Germans would have been at a pissing distance from London.Zaktty wrote:
the result the french were overthrown and the British pushed back to there island, the difference french surrender versus the British will to "never surrender"
Honestly (in my opinion), the battle of London would have either been
A) Stalingrad 2.0 with the Brits literally fighting til all of Britain burned to the ground
B) A complete evacuation with the government escaping to hidden bunkers and the SAS carrying out raids
C) Churchill suddenly turning around and agreeing to split the world with Germany
A is the most likely, the British public would have literally thought to their last dying breath, they hated the fascists, B could be possible but unlikely, there were plans to evacuate the Royal Family to Canada. And C Churchill wouldn't have done that, he could have been pushed out of office, as many British politicians (the more powerful one's) wanted to give up, anyway this would have never happened as the Kriegsmarine (German navy) was either 1/8 or 1/16 of the Royal Navy, and they would have had to destroy the RAF which they could have if it wasn't for Hitlers terrible decision to stop bombing airfields and to start bombing cities
Please log in to post a reply.
