France better than Germany?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: France better than Germany?

Originally posted by De Gaulle
As far as France declaring war on Germany all the time, I do agree that France did it. However, these wars had been prepared and made inevitable by the actions and ambitions of Germany I believe.
Yes, France did declare war in 1939... after Germany had taken over Austria, the Sudetes and was sarting to gobble Poland. Who really was the agressor in this case? In civ III, we would call it being drawn in by an MPP...

While France's declaration of war in 1939 was justifiable, the situation was greatly France's fault in the first place. Had France and Britain (but especially France) not been so vindicitive in the Versailles peace terms, the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power would not have existed and WWII would probably never have happened.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"Preventable? Well, with Hitler at the wheel bent on conquering most of Europe I fail to see how it was preventable..."

when Hitler came to power Germany wasn't in very good shape, especially militarily. If his military buildup would have been stopped immediately, they could probably have had a case to force Hitler out of power, make a deal or keep troops stationed. Britain and France at the time weren't going to intervene until there was absolutely no doubt. I actually can't imagine what the top officials at the time were thinking.

OK, I agree with you but only with 20/20 hindsight... You are right but it is often very hard to do something like what you describe unless there is absolutely no doubt as you said (and by then it is too late). Look at Iraq in RL.

Originally posted by bobbo008

To the de Gaulle comments:

I never said he was stupid. His choice regarding Algeria wasn't much of a choice. He did kick NATO out, increased the military, and, if my sources are right, started the French nuclear program, with strong disapproval from most World powers. The French people did give him broad powers, and it is very commendable that he turned them down, however.

Yes, he did all these things because they gave France more of a voice on the international scene which he thought was a good/necessary thing. Otherwise, France would have turned into a satellite of the US like most other European countries. Countries fight militarily, diplomatically and economically for their own interests. It is just naive to think that your best interests can be defended by any other country. That's why he desired to be a friend of the US, but not their valet.

Originally posted by bobbo008

And yeah, he was a tank commander for the Free French. Would you happen to know if he encountered any Vichy French forces?

Actually, he was the leader of the Free French, not a tank commander. But he did lead a battalion of tanks in May 1940 in the original French army and was very successful at doing so.
He did order some battles between Allies against the Vichy French. Some were lost (Dakar,1941), others were won. He never forgave them for giving up against Germany.

[De Gaulle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: France better than Germany?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


While France's declaration of war in 1939 was justifiable, the situation was greatly France's fault in the first place. Had France and Britain (but especially France) not been so vindicitive in the Versailles peace terms, the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power would not have existed and WWII would probably never have happened.

Agreed
Everybody agrees nowadays that the Versailles Treaty achieved little more than setting the stage for WW2.

At the same time, I know that in the small village where I come from (about 700 inhabitants in 1914) there are 86 (!!) names of fallen soldiers on the War monument. This doesn't take into account all the crippled... It is difficult for me to imagine the devastation (both human&economic) this must have meant for most of the country. I imagine that resentment towards Germany must have been so high that the demand for harsh terms was huge.

I am not trying to justify this disastrous treaty, but just to understand how it came to be.

[Patroklos]

Germany, though it may not have started wars, finishes them and examining any of the conflics gives germany a 4 to 1 kill ratio. They may have lost some of those wars but it was obviously due to attrition not from lack of skill. Militaristic is most definetly a trait they possess.

Agressivness of 5 is only relevant it you are thinking of the ancient germaic tribes (which you might be doing and would make the agressivness more than rational). In the last 1000 years Germany has not been more or less aggressive than anyone else. In fact, the three most recent major wars they have been involved in, The Franco-Prussian (1877) WWI and WWII, were all started by France. Yes WWI can be blamed on all of them but it was France/Russia who decided to enact the alliance system. Germany was more than happy to allow an isolated Austo/Serbian or Austro/Russo war to take place. WWII austensibly should be blamed on Hitler, but then again that whole chain of events was brought on be French egotism at the negotiation table at the end of WWI. ALL major statesmen agree that WWII was started there.

As a side note, because I hate the Frenchies , they lost all three of those major wars. In the Franco/Prussian the Germans captured Paris and the emperor, and in WWI and II France's allies won and France got royaly beaten. Saying France won WWI or WWII is like saying the Dutch or Denmark did the same.

Thats what you get for being a cheese eating surrender monkey.

[Patroklos]

"My point exactly, they went around it because it denied them their numerical and material advantage. That was a pretty efficient counter-measure, I would say"

Not exactly true.

It is a fact that the best army in the world in 1939 belonged to France. It had numbers and material on its side, and had a vastly larger tank force than Germany. France's problem, the problem it has had since Napolean, is that it has incompotent leadership. Germany outfout France, and it bookies were taking bets alot of people would have laost alot of money.

A good example of French tactical retardation. There was no such thing as a french armor unit above battalion level, they were dispersed throughout the infantry units where they could be easily isolated and destroyed. The German Pazer DIVISIONS, slaughtered the French and they can't blame anyone but themselves. I actually give the most credit for the French defeat to the French, the Germans were just lucky.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos

In fact, the three most recent major wars they have been involved in, The Franco-Prussian (1877) WWI and WWII, were all started by France. Yes WWI can be blamed on all of them but it was France/Russia who decided to enact the alliance system. Germany was more than happy to allow an isolated Austo/Serbian or Austro/Russo war to take place. WWII austensibly should be blamed on Hitler, but then again that whole chain of events was brought on be French egotism at the negotiation table at the end of WWI. ALL major statesmen agree that WWII was started there.

Didn't you read my last post? I tried to give a glimpse of the amount of destruction suffered by the French in WW1. As you surely know, this war of attrition was fought at 90% on French territory. ~20% of the country was totally trashed with a huge loss of life and traumatism of the society. The main idea was to make Germany pay for all the damage caused. Bad Idea? Yes, really bad. Surprising that it happened? No, not all.
Unfortunately, in RL things seem to to follow a similar course of events since 9/11. "You hurt us? OK, we'll make you pay the price with mucho interest. " Further escalation/hatred ensues...

Originally posted by Patroklos

As a side note, because I hate the Frenchies , they lost all three of those major wars. In the Franco/Prussian the Germans captured Paris and the emperor, and in WWI and II France's allies won and France got royaly beaten. Saying France won WWI or WWII is like saying the Dutch or Denmark did the same.

Thats what you get for being a cheese eating surrender monkey.

You know what? France is still around (could that be a good example for culture flipping? ), largest country in Europe, and leading the EU with Germany. People do learn their lessons.
As for the cheese, you just don't know what you are missing...

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos

A good example of French tactical retardation. There was no such thing as a french armor unit above battalion level, they were dispersed throughout the infantry units where they could be easily isolated and destroyed. The German Pazer DIVISIONS, slaughtered the French and they can't blame anyone but themselves. I actually give the most credit for the French defeat to the French, the Germans were just lucky.

Yes, France was fighting a remake of WWI while Germany was fighting WWII... You know why? Maybe because we won WWI (yes we did despite what you say ) As a result the military leadership was worshipped and stayed in place 'til WWII. The situation was opposite on the German side... They got young blood and new ideas... Poor leadership can really do you in... I also still believe that equipment should not be assessed only numerically but also quantitatively.
For example in the Gulf War, Irak had similar numbers of planes and more tanks than the US. And also at least 5 times the number of soldiers, but it did them absolutely no good. Technology was the key enabler here.

[Patroklos]

Sorry De Gaulle, not trying to be hostile, sarcasm doesn't convey well through text.

"I also still believe that equipment should not be assessed only numerically but also quantitatively."

Also a fact recognized by all authorities was that the Allied tanks were technologically and capability wise superior to the German Panzers in 1939. The French/British Matilda is a good example, it was tactics that did the French in (the whole battalion spreading out deal). Planes, well, who was better is up for debate, I maitain they were equal in everything by tactics as far as the air is concerned (close air support). The debate pretty much ends up with everyone standing in awe of what the Germans did and sending France to the corner with a dunce cap, though Germany would earn that "honor" a lot more times by the end of the war.

I like cheese, just not monkeys.........

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Sorry De Gaulle, not trying to be hostile, sarcasm doesn't convey well through text.

No problem. I had surrendered anyway!

Originally posted by Patroklos

Also a fact recognized by all authorities was that the Allied tanks were technologically and capability wise superior to the German Panzers in 1939. The French/British Matilda is a good example, it was tactics that did the French in (the whole battalion spreading out deal). Planes, well, who was better is up for debate, I maitain they were equal in everything by tactics as far as the air is concerned (close air support). The debate pretty much ends up with everyone standing in awe of what the Germans did and sending France to the corner with a dunce cap, though Germany would earn that "honor" a lot more times by the end of the war.

OK, I see your point more clearly now. Tactics were bad, that's a fact.
To relate back to Civ III, would you consider that the allied were mostly depending on conscript troops while the Axis had veteran (Spain for the air force, Poland for all others) troops and leadership?

Originally posted by Patroklos

I like cheese, just not monkeys.........

I am glad you see the light.

[Patroklos]

This board is turning into a slightly lslower IM

As far as Civ III goes we can never get the traits right because every civ has been Industrious, Religious, Scientific or Expansionist at one point. I have never had a problem with the was the civs are balanced, and if I did I would jut do it myself via the editor.

The points everyone is expounding are centered around characteristics of WWII era cives, and these can be relevent only too a WWII mod or scenario. In that case I deal with the Allied (to include France) vs Germany problem by make German units powerful and expensive and Allied units weaker and cheap. It reflects botht the training and tactical superiority of the Germans as well as the atttrition strategy of the Allies, not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The points everyone is expounding are centered around characteristics of WWII era cives, and these can be relevent only too a WWII mod or scenario. In that case I deal with the Allied (to include France) vs Germany problem by make German units powerful and expensive and Allied units weaker and cheap. It reflects botht the training and tactical superiority of the Germans as well as the atttrition strategy of the Allies, not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

Looking forward to such a scenario. I suppose the allies will have a tech tree allowing them to get progressively better units as the war progresses to model RL WWII, right?
I have no problems whatsoever with the germans starting with better units...

Interestingly, the AI unability to mount successful overseas invasions means that the first part of the war (overrunning most of Europe bare England) will probably go according to plan.

[Action]

This thread is stupid.
Almost any of the civ traits could be applied to Germany. Two had to be picked, and they couldn't be duplicated.

expansionist: heck, they coined the term "lebensraum", and tried to expand repeatedly. Fits perfectly.

Militaristic: Until the post world war two era, Germany had an extremely formidable military, and they used it.

Scientific: During world war two they made major scientific breakthroughs and modern germany is also a scientific power.

Industrious: Today and during world war two germany has been an industrial world power.

Commercial: Modern day germany is a top commercial power. Isn't the main bank of the EU in Germany?

Religious: This one only sort of fits, but a case could be made; Martin Luther was German.

All 6 traits could easily be assigned to America as well, religious would fit even easier. So for civs like America and Germany where multiple traits fit they just picked the ones that weren't taken I'd guess.

Some civs only a few traits really fit so for those their options were limited and they needed to avoid duplicates.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Patroklos
not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

I know a bit about air power in World War 2, and I will tell you why the Germans lost the air war. The Germans had 2 planes that were the staple of their air force: Me 109 and Focke Wulf 190. (The Fw even less so.) They never tried new fighter designs, they were happy with what they had and all new fighters they got were just upgrades on those planes. America, now, had the P-51, P-38, and P-40. These planes complemented each other much better than Germany's two fighters could, each complementing anothers weakness. And when the Me 262 rolled out, a plane which would have tilted the air in Germany's favor, Hitler ordered it to be used as a bomber. That was very fortunate for the allies. Another reason the Germans lost was short-sightedness. This could be seen in Poland, where they were thinking of a short war that would not last over a few years that would reinstate Germany as a world power. They did not think that the world would rise up against them, Hitler was too arrogant. This style of thinking resulted in dive bombers such as the Stuka and medium bombers such as the Me 110, the Dorniers and the Junkers. Short and medium range bombers are good for a short war in close proximity, but were not nearly as effective as B-17s which could fly in over great distances and delive a huge bomb load onto targets.

Ok, end of rant. You can come out now, Patroklos

[Patroklos]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, though I believe the FW190 to be superior to all allied fighters bar the P-51, and maybe the Thunderbolt (big maybe). I too believe that the failure to design a long range bomber with high payload was a major blunder by ther Germans, and the result was the loss of teh Battle of Britain. Once again though, even with the admition to the P-51's superior performance, numbers tell the tail. Loss to loss the germans still enjoyed a 4/1 ratio. This can be greatly attributed to the obsolete airforces of Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war, but still 4/1 is damning.

I am biased towards the Germans (if you couldn't tell), but I will admit that no matter how good your equipment or how elite your men, when one Tiger can take on fifty Shermans and destroy 20 odd of them (Normandy) and still you lose the day, you just got outproduced. Some say winning by attrition is ignoble, but then again as much as I admire the WWII German military, it lost.

[TheStinger]

The first FW190 were better then the spitfire at the time, latter versions(of the spitfire) matched it and from then on little improvements gave each fighter an advantage until a new one was thought up.

The Battle of Britain was not lost because of a lack of a long range bomber. It was lost because of superior stretery and tactics by the British and because of Radar.

The BOB was not about bombing it was about gaining air superiority to invade England.