French army at COH 2 ?

The problem with adding the french is that like many other said they actually did not posses any unique WW2 tanks.

Their tanks were post WW1 tanks that could compete quite well with the German early war tanks. Yet CoH2 does mostly use late war models, against which these tanks would perform horribly. The only way I could see it working is giving them some of the early tanks in a lower tier and high tier then Shermans and other American equipment. Basically a mix of their original unique early war equipment and the late war equipment they received after the liberation of France. Overall I do not think this would create a unique enough playing experience to really justify this work.

I think something that could work quite well for the new US faction is giving them a French commander that for example has something like the partisans (Resistance) and a call in B2 or such which performs similar to a KV-1, heavily armored, but mostly an anti-infantry tank since it lacks the penetration to battle others.

I'm much more worried about the balance. How do you want to balance a COH Game with more than 4 factions properly??

Think of all the angry Frenchmen on metacritic LOL

Even better than the angry russians!

The problem with adding the french is that like many other said they actually did not posses any unique WW2 tanks.

This is honestly the problem with any army in WW2 that isn't Germany, Russia, America, or Britain. These 4 titans had all the good armour, everyone else had scrap metal on tracks in comparison.

Germany's allies are the worst, they all used German vehicles, so trying to get a unique feel out of them would be difficult as they would all be using Panzer IV's and the like...

I'm much more worried about the balance. How do you want to balance a COH Game with more than 4 factions properly??

The easy way would be to make sure everything is designed in a way that nothing is too strong against another thing. Then, add tons of modifiers to various units to make sure they're in-line with each other. That's the easy way, and it'd still be hard as hell, but it's possible.

wtf did i just read

*Chuckles*
I think a Finnish axis faction would make more sense than either adding AGAIN the USA or a implementing a French faction, thus keeping Coh2 more about the eastern front.

To answer the OPs question ; the French army of the Third Republic could only be added for a Theater of War Scenario, seeing the battle of France only lasted over a month. After that the French Third Republic was abolished and replaced by the Vichy Regime. Consequently the French State lost any manufacturing infrastructure necessary to upgrade their tanks and armament as the war raged on.

Thus, Free French Forces / French Army of the Liberation faction are the only possibility for Multiplayer, yet there would be little to add besides unique infantry (Résistants, Colonial troops and French soldiers) considering the CoH franchise multiplayer is set in 1944-1945 there’s little balance in putting a Renault B1 or D2 vs a Tiger Tank. The Free French Forces mostly used armour and aircraft provided by the USA or UK, so there’s little novelty there for the Coh2 gameplay formula, unless you loooove Shermans.

Little precision, the Free French forces where under Général De Gaulle until 1943, then they reunified with the rest of the French forces in the mainland and became known as “l’Armée Française de la Libération” henceforth, but Anglo Saxons did not make the distinction and kept calling them Free French Forces.

Now to rectify some broad-minded thing said in the posts:

"A tous les Français.
La France a perdu une bataille! Mais la France n'a pas perdu la guerre! Des gouvernants de rencontre ont pu capituler, cédant à la panique, oubliant l'honneur, livrant le pays à la servitude. Cependant rien n'est perdu! Rien n'est perdu, parce que cette guerre est une guerre mondiale."
Charles de Gaulle declared in June 1940.

Contrary to popular belief (symptoms of brainwashing by anglo-saxon media a la Saving private Ryan/Band of Brothers = All WW2 history), France did not lose the war in 1940 nor gave up, the leadership did, but the rest kept fighting major battles in several theatres, notably north Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Italy, southern France and the liberation of Paris.
It was the Free French Forces and New Zealand troops that captured Montecasino, and most of Italy, not the USA, the French berber colonial troops (Tirailleurs Nord-africains) excelled in mountain skirmishes in Italy and desert combat in North Africa, also they were the only ones to seriously threaten the Gustav line; whereas Parisians, Londoners or kids from Brooklyn were out of their element and could not maneuverer properly.

As for the French tanks being crap, it’s an uneducated affirmation, French and British post-war tanks where better than German Panzer II & III or Czech LV 35 /LV 38 (Which were superior to German panzers at the time). Same 37mm or 45mm guns but much better armour, however they were intended as infantry support tanks ( Tuned for moderate speeds in order to accompany jogging troops) not as tank destroyers. Furthermore, every western army had tanks equipped with radios just not all of them, for instance Charles de Gaulle’s Tank battalion was heavily with equipped with radio command tanks. Contrary to popular belief not every Nazi tank had a radio. French & British armies relied on towed anti-tank guns to deal with armour during 1939-1941 as did the USA in 1944, it was mainly the soviets and Germans that used tanks more often as AT.

For those who still doubt me on this last paragraph, read “Le fil de l’épée “(1932) and “Vers l’Armée de Métier(1934) by Charles De Gaulle, he basically invented the Blitzkrieg and implemented it for his battalion, alas the archaic French High Command never took him seriously stuck in their WW1 strategies, but Guderian did, copied it, adapted it to the Wehrmacht and applied it successfully. Later on the British Liddel Hart and J.F.C Fuller kept theorizing on the Blitzkrieg but after WW2.

Cheers.

Depends on what you see as military succes, you definatly have to include medieval times if France is even considered as most succesful military.
Probably British are most successfull military or even germany depending on how you define succes. Their kills per death were insane.

Historians start speaking of nations in the mid 15th century for a select few, France and England only became nations due to the fact that 100 years wars bolstered their nationalism and allowed them to identify themselves as English and French. Medieval Europe was Feudal for the most part people considered themselves normans, burgundians, bohemians, Scottish, welsh etc... Anyways France had most of it's great victories after the Medieval era which ended in 1453, it was from 1453 to 1815 that France became a superpower, succeeded by the United Kingdom (1815 -1939) and then Soviet Union/USA (1945-1990/today).

Wars are not won by K/D, one can lose all the battles and win the war, war is a continuation politics, the military is subordinated to political aims. Guess why USA hasn't won a single war since WW2, the military is tasked bad political aims that cannot be translated into military objective by inept Statesmen.

I can't speak for best military in the world as I lack understanding of most Asian and Eastern history, China, Siam and the Ottomans (Turks) must be in the top 5, they could be very well superior to westerners in warfare.

But when it comes to the greatest military nation in Western history, it's France. The French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. Then come the British as second, and thirdly I would put the Russians (Muscovy). The Germans are far, far off, they weren't an unified Nation-State until 1870, furthermore their war score is pitiful: 4 wars fought; 1 won against the French in 1870, 1 against the Spanish in 1936 and lost 2 World Wars at great price leaving the country either under a horrible war burden or split in 4 then 2 amongst the allies during 50 years.

According to british historian Niall Ferguson, "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty – more than both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three). And they’ve achieved an impressive batting average: out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost forty-nine and drawn ten."

The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Triumphs at Waterloo and Trafalgar and in two World Wars easily make up for losing at Hastings, yet most british wars are fought in coalitions or diplomatically bought or persuaded other nations to war for them, as Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire(Austria) declared after losing at Austerlitz "The english are dealers of human flesh they pay others to fight in their place". Which is very smart, but I reveals the inherent weakness of the UK, their lack of manpower, sensibility to casualties, lack of endurance.

But at school the history class never mentions the battle of Tours in 732, when Charles the Hammer, king of the Franks, defeated the Moors and saved the whole of Christendom from the grip of Islam. While every Anglo-saxon schoolboy was once able to recite the roll-call of glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poiters (1356) and Agincourt (1415), no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon in 1453, where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe.

The Duke of Enghien annihilated the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1603, ending a century of Spanish dominance. What about the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 in which General Comte de Rochambeau defeated the British and paved the way for American independence? Under Napoleon, France crushed the might of Austria and Russia simultaneously at Austerlitz in 1805, and, at Verdun in 1916, the French pushed the Germans back decisively in one of the bloodiest battles of all time.

The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but this was only because they realised they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French army has, for most of history, been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, during Louis XIV it warred successfully alone against the whole of Europe, and later on led by Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

And to conclude another quote by Niall Ferguson :

"These remarkable achievements help explain another French military victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain,corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet,epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in one language: French."

Hope this long post was informative for most.

As for the French tanks being crap, it’s an uneducated affirmation, French and British post-war tanks where better than German Panzer I (you mean I i guess)I & II or Czech LV 35 /LV 38

The thing is that Nazis used Panzer III, Panzer IV and Skoda tanks during the battle of France which had no equivalent in fire power or armor in the French army.
Yea, our tin cans were better than theirs, but we only had tin cans, while the had the fucking PIV already.

The thing is that Nazis used Panzer III, Panzer IV and Skoda tanks during the battle of France which had no equivalent in fire power or armor in the French army.
Yea, our tin cans were better than theirs, but we only had tin cans, while the had the fucking PIV already.

at the time panzer 4s didn't have the feared anti tank gun but the stubby one .

at the time panzer 4s didn't have the feared anti tank gun but the stubby one .

Well said, during the battle of France the Panzer IV had an equivalent gun to the Renault R35 and Renault D2 while the Renault B1 had better cannons, a 47mm and a secondary 75mm one (used more often for indirect fire ala ZiS-3).

Panzer III and Skoda tanks were light tanks, equal to British and French light tanks and inferior to British and French Heavy tanks.

The 75mm cannon on the Panzer IV was a desperate response against the T-34/76s in 1942. Also the PIV has never been praised for it's armour, British/French heavy tanks still had thicker armour, the PIV's had to be constantly upgraded throughout the war in factories, and sometimes with improvised skirts on the field (Vet 2). The revolutionary thing about the Panzer IV is that every single one had a Radio. Still during the Battle of France they had few PIV in comparison to PI, PII and PIII, and thus served more as command tanks than breakthrough tanks due to having radios.

"According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s"

As I said, during the early stages of WW2, tanks were countered by towed AT guns, the french army had plenty SA-L modèle 1934 AT guns in varying calibers from 25mm to 47mm. Until 1941, the 47mm SA-L modèle 1934 was considered amongst the best AT guns alongside the PAKs, a bigger caliber than 47mm was overkill for all tanks but the T-34.

Cheers.

The biggest problem with the French armored force (like the BEF, and Soviets in 1941...) was inferior armored doctrine, formations, communication, and training, not the tanks themselves. French tanks were competitive and the french military was overall a bit more mobile than the German.

The French scattered their armor as infantry support while the Germans supported & concentrated their armor in large sized, combined arms panzer divisions. This proved to be fatal for the French in the Battle of France.

A 1940 COH2 might be a lot of fun.

^ ^^

It would certainly be cheap for Relic to create.

For the French: Britz mechanics based on the Maginot Line with the Hotchkiss and the Char (K35 reskinned)

Voice acting? "How near is Dunkerque?" "I should be on holiday in the Rivieira" "C'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre"

For the Wehrmacht: vCoH Wehrmacht/Ostheer. And the same voice acting

"Very Well! Let us get this over, shall we?" "This is a nice piece of land and it is German" " This is German territory now" "Like hunting in the countryside" "Gay Paris? never a true word better spoken in jest"" I hope Francois has my coffee waiting on the Champs Elysees"

^ ^^

It would certainly be cheap for Relic to create.

For the French: Britz mechanics based on the Maginot Line with the Hotchkiss and the Char (K35 reskinned)

Voice acting? "How near is Dunkerque?" "I should be on holiday in the Rivieira" "C'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre"

For the Wehrmacht: vCoH Wehrmacht/Ostheer. And the same voice acting

"Very Well! Let us get this over, shall we?" "This is a nice piece of land and it is German" " This is German territory now" "Like hunting in the countryside" "Gay Paris? never a true word better spoken in jest"" I hope Francois has my coffee waiting on the Champs Elysees"

That would be a nice change. Maybe a 1940 ToW(or something else) with French forces and early war german weaponry. It would be balanced then.

Hope this long post was informative for most.

Thanks for posting it. You have made me interested in investigating French military history.

I rather Relic to focus on other significant battles and armies, but I'm sure someone will create a mod some time of the french army.

Historians start speaking of nations in the mid 15th century for a select few, France and England only became nations due to the fact that 100 years wars bolstered their nationalism and allowed them to identify themselves as English and French. Medieval Europe was Feudal for the most part people considered themselves normans, burgundians, bohemians, Scottish, welsh etc... Anyways France had most of it's great victories after the Medieval era which ended in 1453, it was from 1453 to 1815 that France became a superpower, succeeded by the United Kingdom (1815 -1939) and then Soviet Union/USA (1945-1990/today).

Wars are not won by K/D, one can lose all the battles and win the war, war is a continuation politics, the military is subordinated to political aims. Guess why USA hasn't won a single war since WW2, the military is tasked bad political aims that cannot be translated into military objective by inept Statesmen.

I can't speak for best military in the world as I lack understanding of most Asian and Eastern history, China, Siam and the Ottomans (Turks) must be in the top 5, they could be very well superior to westerners in warfare.

But when it comes to the greatest military nation in Western history, it's France. The French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. Then come the British as second, and thirdly I would put the Russians (Muscovy). The Germans are far, far off, they weren't an unified Nation-State until 1870, furthermore their war score is pitiful: 4 wars fought; 1 won against the French in 1870, 1 against the Spanish in 1936 and lost 2 World Wars at great price leaving the country either under a horrible war burden or split in 4 then 2 amongst the allies during 50 years.

According to british historian Niall Ferguson, "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty – more than both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three). And they’ve achieved an impressive batting average: out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost forty-nine and drawn ten."

The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Triumphs at Waterloo and Trafalgar and in two World Wars easily make up for losing at Hastings, yet most british wars are fought in coalitions or diplomatically bought or persuaded other nations to war for them, as Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire(Austria) declared after losing at Austerlitz "The english are dealers of human flesh they pay others to fight in their place". Which is very smart, but I reveals the inherent weakness of the UK, their lack of manpower, sensibility to casualties, lack of endurance.

But at school the history class never mentions the battle of Tours in 732, when Charles the Hammer, king of the Franks, defeated the Moors and saved the whole of Christendom from the grip of Islam. While every Anglo-saxon schoolboy was once able to recite the roll-call of glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poiters (1356) and Agincourt (1415), no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon in 1453, where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe.

The Duke of Enghien annihilated the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1603, ending a century of Spanish dominance. What about the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 in which General Comte de Rochambeau defeated the British and paved the way for American independence? Under Napoleon, France crushed the might of Austria and Russia simultaneously at Austerlitz in 1805, and, at Verdun in 1916, the French pushed the Germans back decisively in one of the bloodiest battles of all time.

The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but this was only because they realised they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French army has, for most of history, been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, during Louis XIV it warred successfully alone against the whole of Europe, and later on led by Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

And to conclude another quote by Niall Ferguson :

"These remarkable achievements help explain another French military victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain,corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet,epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in one language: French."

Hope this long post was informative for most.

Je T'aime !!!! , Thank you very much for all your post , they were very informative for most i think and for me too ...

And you gived me a hope across thoose post: They are a real possibility to creat a Theater Of War during 1940 with French/UK/ Ger early war army...Now its on Relic's Hands...

And to conclude another quote by Niall Ferguson :

"These remarkable achievements help explain another French military victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain,corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet,epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in one language: French."

Hope this long post was informative for most.

Interesting quote by Niall Ferguson. Despite the Roman Empire not being a nation state, their military and political victories shadow those of France, whereby a large part of the words mentioned by Niall Ferguson have a Latin origin. Next to that, the influence of the French (language) happens to collide with nationalism and thereby national languages, which only translates to military success in that particular period of time.

they are too weak, so we don't want it.
maybe nobody play as french except french.