Capped French Effectiveness

[RocketMan]

France's land units maximum effectiveness should be capped (80% possibly) prior to '41 or so due to the poor command and control of the French command structure. There was no radios in Gamelin's HQ, radio communication in general in the French Army was lacking, and orders from Gamelin's HQ were conveyed by motorcycle dispatch riders.

It would also make sense to reduce non-garrison French units Operation Points by perhaps 20-40% (-1 to -2) to simulate the slowness of the command structure.

Combine this with my suggestion for Garrison units (https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2#p5109672) and it would make France feel more historically accurate.

[AlvaroSousa]

I did this on the operation point and experience end of the equation to keep things simple within the code but I did consider it before. Some countries have it on the stat side.

[RocketMan]

Using Morale does make more sense since it's tied to retreat chance. However, the French army still feels more flexible in game than it historically was in the Battle of France in 1940.

The French Army in 1940 was handicapped by its doctrine, and failure of senior leadership, not by the failure of its soldiers or equipment. It's been said in many ways and times, but from https://warwriters.com/why-france-lost-in-1940/:

• French doctrine played a huge part in the defeat, since many of the issues in the French army were directly or indirectly due to doctrine. It was not tailored for fast-paced warfare, it did not encourage officers to improvise, and it made the French extremely slow. Doctrine probably is the most critical factor in explaining French defeat.

and

• The French military leadership was overall poor at the operational and tactical levels.50 Doctrine contributed to extremely poor leadership, but not only; for whatever reason, some of the French leaders “simply” made bad decisions and acted “objectively” poorly.

The Germans (and UK) should be much more flexible and maneuverable than the French. To simulate this in game, reducing the French Operation points by 1 or 2 makes a lot of sense, as does prohibiting the French from moving directly from one enemy ZOC to another, even if it’s to an adjacent hex. Also implementing my idea for brittle Garrison units and the French could be simulated much better.

French Generals should likewise be inferior to both German and UK Generals . I know the French Generals are already poor for the most part, but they should have their Attributes decreased even more (max of 3 in any one stat perhaps) to simulate the poor senior leadership (i.e. Corps HQs).

Right now, the French play like every other Major Power, but with weaker units. These changes would make France unique and wouldn’t require gamey changes to make them weaker than the other Major Power.

Probably too much to program for an update, but would be interesting to see in Warplan 2.

[AlvaroSousa]

I don't want to make major changes to the game when it is currently pretty balanced. It takes a long time to properly balance a game like this.

I did have the operation point at 4 before but there was something really exploitive about that. It severely crippled them to reform lines if I remember. The Germans could blow through them easily and go around. That 1 point is a big difference but I will run some tests. It was a long time ago.

As is France should fall between July and September depending on how much the UK commits and the skill differences of the players.

WarPlan isn't a click and go game where all the decision making is min-maxing combat values. It has equal weight in planning and logistics. Well that's what I am shooting for.

[RocketMan]

I completely understand not wanting to make large change so late in the life cycle of a game. More spit balling ways to make the battle of France in 1940 feel more historical given the existing game system.

In my opinion, the French should lose due to their inability to maneuver, with units being eliminated due to surrendering/being out of supply by being outmaneuvered, not due to the destruction of the French army in open battle.

In reality, once the Germans broke through the French lines, the battle was essentially lost due to the French inability to react in time to make any difference. If the Germans had used the Schlieffen plan, they would still have broken through the French lines and surrounded large parts of the French Army. They won the battle of Hannut with just their diversion force against the cream of the French Army.

The trick is making the French hard to conquer in 1939/Early 1940 while still making them brittle when finally attacked.

If I come up with a clever idea for that I’ll let you now.

[ncc1701e]

I agree with you. Once the front was broken, they were incapable to restore it.

[RocketMan]

I agree with you. Once the front was broken, they were incapable to restore it.

If Germany attacked France right after the Fall of Poland with all their available troops and equipment, and with adequate supply stockpiles, they might have been able to beat France earlier, although it would have been a tough fight and not a sure thing. By immediately I am talking about as soon as all the troops could be deployed to their staging areas in the West, which is probably early November at the earliest.

Why was the German conquest of France a near sure thing in May of 1940 when it wouldn’t have been in 1939 (given the same doctrines/plans/commanders, etc.)?

1. A lot of German equipment had been used hard during the conquest of Poland and needed maintenance/repairs. This could have been expedited, but it is unlikely for the majority of the equipment to have been 100% combat effective before the severe winter weather started. By May of 1940, all the equipment had been repaired and new (and better) equipment was available.
2. The Germans did not have adequate supply stockpiles to attack France immediately after Poland surrendered. By the time they did build up adequate stockpiles the severe winter weather had already started. By May of 1940 the German supply stockpiles had been replenished (although they were again depleted after the fall of France).
3. The French Army was better prepared as an organization right after the conquest of Poland. They knew the Germans were redeploying and they were prepared for an attack. However, after 8 months of Sitzkrieg the French Army had relaxed it’s focus, which caused its already ineffective C&C to perform even more poorly.

So how could this be simulated in Warplan?

Number 1 is simulated by the “effectiveness” parameter, although the Germans never suffer huge effectiveness loss in Poland. Nevertheless, with the effectiveness loss with redeploying the German units will be around 80-90% effectiveness if they tried to attack France with their Polish campaign units. That’s reasonable if a little high.

Number 2 is probably the best way to keep Germany from successfully conquering France prior to the spring of 1940, but it would require a new country supply stockpile parameter, which would be difficult to program and playtest.

Number 3 is probably the easiest to implement using the existing game systems. To simulate better French combat ability in 1939 with it gradually deteriorating into 1940, slightly increase French Experience (maybe to 45-50%) and then gradually decrease the maximum effectiveness of French units not in the Maginot Line after the start of winter 1939-1940 from 100% to 70-80% in May of 1940 (maybe 4% per turn from January through April of 1940). When Belgium is attacked or a Maginot Line hex is taken, the maximum effectiveness is increased back to 100% either that turn or the next (playtest), forcing Germany to attack with maximum force to achieve a quick victory.

This would make the French hard to attack in 1939, but make them perform poorly in 1940 if Germany attacks in earnest, and would simulate the realities of the war without being "gamey".

Combine this with my earlier suggestions and, with some playtesting, France's performance could be simulated pretty accurately with them being a tough nut to crack for an early attack, but fairly easy to conquer with a later attack.

[kklemmick]

Personally I think the French are good as is, from a game balance perspective. Yes, it's nearly impossible to defeat them in the time the Germans historically did, but if it were and that was the only change made, you'd have the Germans invading England in '40 in every game.

Remember that this is at its core a game, not a historical simulation. Balancing it so that the game is fun and competitive to both players is extremely hard to do and I think Warplan does a really good job at this. Tweaking stuff like this to match historical values is a tricky process.

[RocketMan]

Personally I think the French are good as is, from a game balance perspective. Yes, it's nearly impossible to defeat them in the time the Germans historically did, but if it were and that was the only change made, you'd have the Germans invading England in '40 in every game.

Remember that this is at its core a game, not a historical simulation. Balancing it so that the game is fun and competitive to both players is extremely hard to do and I think Warplan does a really good job at this. Tweaking stuff like this to match historical values is a tricky process.

I would rather not have a game with an ahistorical Battle of France to fix a possible ahistorical invasion of England. The further a game diverges from the historical feel of WWII, the less interest I have in playing it, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Yes all games are a simulation and I'm well aware it takes time to program and then balance a game, but that doesn't mean that the historical feel of the simulation needs to be sacrificed when there are possible fixes that can be made.

Instead, how about using game mechanics to simulate historical realities and then let the players see if they can perform better or worse than their counterparts did historically? There are much more "historical" fixes using existing game mechanics for a German invasion of England than making France stronger than it ever could have been with the doctrine, C&C, and commanders that they had.

I have no illusions that any major changes are going to be made to the current version of Warplan, although some minor tweaks could be made with some amount of programming time and playtesting if Alvaro had the time and interest. This discussion is really about potential changes to Warplan 2.

[AlvaroSousa]

So I better understand what you want..... Define historical game.

Do you want historical accuracy because you want a historical replay?
Or do you want historical accuracy so the game goes to the last day in 1945 in a nail biting ending?
Or something I am not understanding.

Human hindsight throws a wrench in it historical recreation.

[RocketMan]

So I better understand what you want..... Define historical game.

Do you want historical accuracy because you want a historical replay?
Or do you want historical accuracy so the game goes to the last day in 1945 in a nail biting ending?
Or something I am not understanding.

Human hindsight throws a wrench in it historical recreation.

First let’s define the term "Historical Accuracy".

I would define "Historical Accuracy” as realistic outcomes based on the how each country plays in game vs how it performed historically. Not the exact historical outcome, but plausible outcomes based on the limitations and/or advantages a country had due to doctrine, C&C, leadership, equipment, morale, etc.

Part of the fun in playing grand strategy games is seeing how things could have turned out differently using different tactics. The more "historical" or “realistic” the game feels the more fun the game will be (in my opinion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one).

The goal should be that players making the same choices in game as their historical counterparts did during the war, should result in something similar to the historical outcome. Outcomes vastly different from the historical outcome should only occur if one player makes better/worse decisions, or maybe from having better luck (although hat should average out over the game).

If France ever conquers Germany in 1940 and Germany played even somewhat historically, we can all agree that is not “Historically Accurate”. If the UK ignores the Battle of the Atlantic and Germany subsequently conquers them, that would be “Historically Accurate” even though it’s not historical.

Given competent play by both sides, the game should end with Germanys defeat around Spring of 1945. I’m impressed with how well Warplan simulates the outcome of the war when played by two experienced players and I think if more historical flavor was added to Warplan 2, it would only make a good game better.

Having each country perform in game more like they did historically makes the game more interesting and “feels” more realistic at the expense of more programming time and playtesting of course.

I won't speak for others, but I like each faction in a game to have their own playstyle and restrictions/advantages. Each of the three factions in the original StarCraft played very differently from each other (a unique feature at the time), which made the game more interesting than having three factions that had different colors and unit models but played the same.

Every nation in WWII had different doctrines, equipment, C&C, leadership, etc. that impacted how that nation performed. The French had bad C&C and leadership but good equipment, the Italians had poor morale, training, and equipment. The Germans had excellent equipment and extremely flexible C&C. Given enough parameters in the game, it's possible to use game mechanics to simulate these differences.

Of course, the bigger the differences between the factions in games, the more playtesting it takes to balance all the parameters. But those differences are what makes a game unique and interesting.

For Warplan 2, assuming a similar system to Warplan, the parameters that could be country specific include (but are not limited to):

• Experience
  Effectiveness
  Unit values (e.g. Firearms, Guns, artillery, etc.) impacting Attack/Defense
  Attributes of Generals
  Supply
  Movement rates
  Advancements

I know Warplan kept every unit the same with the only differences being the advancement level and experience, so I would start with only minor tweaks to see how they impact the game.

To start, specify how each country performed in the war, define the things that made them perform that way, and then figure out what in game parameters could be tweaked to simulate that type of behavior.

Germany, the US, and the UK should all perform similarly with the only differences being experience and advancements. There wasn’t that much difference between those three compared to the others.

I have already discussed France, but Italy, the USSR, and the minors should all perform differently than Germany, the US, and the UK.

The minors could have their advancements set to 1938 or 1937 (new values), movement rates reduced, retreat and shatter results increased, etc. Italy and the USSR could also have unique parameters that simulate how those nations performed historically.

I know you don’t have a programming staff for any of this, so simplicity for Warplan2 is desired. But if you are interested in discussing these ideas in more detail, let me know.

[kklemmick]

Personally, I'm completely on the other side, although I know a few of my gaming friends would agree with you.

In fact, my one beef with Warplan is that it's the same game every time. I would kill to have a generated map, or random ahistorical changes thrown in to make each game a little different. For me, the fun of a game comes from evaluating a given situation and coming up with an appropriate strategy. Games where various different strategies can all work well because they're well balanced are much more fun IMO than ones based off of random chance or some historical script. For example, what if I could spend points to up Germany's fleet experience at the cost of some of its air power, or whatever. It would be fun to try completely different things.

It seems to me what the market is missing right now is more games that have the level of detail of operational games like Warplan, but with non-historical maps and forces that present interesting challenges. Those that do non-historical stuff tend to be tactical only or have much smaller troop/army sizes, without the theater wide thinking that's necessary here.

In your example, it would just be frustrating and annoying to play the French if they were even further handicapped IMO. As it is they have very few options, but enough that you can throw a surprise at the Germans once in a while.

But there are no wrong opinions about this stuff. Successful games tend to walk a line between the two, and I think Warplan does that brilliantly. It has the look and feel of history but also doesn't tie the players to the limited options a purely historical game would.

[RocketMan]

Personally, I'm completely on the other side, although I know a few of my gaming friends would agree with you.

In fact, my one beef with Warplan is that it's the same game every time. I would kill to have a generated map, or random ahistorical changes thrown in to make each game a little different. For me, the fun of a game comes from evaluating a given situation and coming up with an appropriate strategy. Games where various different strategies can all work well because they're well balanced are much more fun IMO than ones based off of random chance or some historical script. For example, what if I could spend points to up Germany's fleet experience at the cost of some of its air power, or whatever. It would be fun to try completely different things.

It seems to me what the market is missing right now is more games that have the level of detail of operational games like Warplan, but with non-historical maps and forces that present interesting challenges. Those that do non-historical stuff tend to be tactical only or have much smaller troop/army sizes, without the theater wide thinking that's necessary here.

In your example, it would just be frustrating and annoying to play the French if they were even further handicapped IMO. As it is they have very few options, but enough that you can throw a surprise at the Germans once in a while.

But there are no wrong opinions about this stuff. Successful games tend to walk a line between the two, and I think Warplan does that brilliantly. It has the look and feel of history but also doesn't tie the players to the limited options a purely historical game would.

Nobody is playing the French. They are playing the Allies and the French are one of multiple countries in the Allied coalition. It's frustrating playing Poland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands too, but that's historical reality, just like an incompetent France is a historical reality. And each game of Warplan is different based on the decisions the players make. Almost no game is going to come out exactly the same, or how the war historically ended.

I feel there are plenty of other games that have what you are describing. Operational Art of War 4 is an excellent game with tons of scenarios. Flashpoint campaigns, Panzer Corps, Master of Magic, the list goes on.

If Warplan was made into a similar game, I would not be interested. I would instead buy games that were made from the ground up with that play style in mind.

[RocketMan]

AlvaroSousa, A great example of how you use game mechanics to simulate "historical" outcomes in Warplan is the western front in 1939. Both sides units are in garrison mode and both are in fortifications. It makes no sense (as it did historically) for either to try and attack on that front without expending major effort. Changing the units out of garrison, moving more units to the area, marshalling airpower, and even then it's not likely for an attack to succeed. You're not forcing a certain outcome, but giving the players the same decisions their real life counterparts had. It's "Historically Accurate".

Unit experience is also used to great effect to model the real differences between both the air and ground units of each country.

And effectiveness is an elegant way to represent unit fatigue, wear and tear, and unit cohesion.

[ncc1701e]

Nobody is speaking of morale and training. Two very important factors for me.

[ncc1701e]

Also, for the French, and I am sure WP2 will do it properly. It should be impossible to form an armored corps. French army should be based on armored division. Only Germans should have the logistics to form armored corps to apply their Schwerpunkt on the enemy line.

[RocketMan]

Nobody is speaking of morale and training. Two very important factors for me.

I agree that in war morale and training are two important parameters. However, the more parameters you have, the harder it is to balance the system.

John von Neumann famously said:

• With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

[RocketMan]

Also, for the French, and I am sure WP2 will do it properly. It should be impossible to form an armored corps. French army should be based on armored division. Only Germans should have the logistics to form armored corps to apply their Schwerpunkt on the enemy line.

The French didn't have the doctrine, C&C, or unit organization to use their mobile forces in the same way as the Germans in 1940.

From The Rise of the Panzer Division (https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... id%20they.)

• On the Jüterbog and Grafenwöhr training grounds, the Germans soon learned that high velocity of tank warfare had only made things worse. With mechanized units careening around the battlefield at speed, and aircraft now inserted into the mix, command and control was lurching towards chaos. Thankfully, a new technological solution was at hand: the radio. While the tank was the obsession of most contemporary military discourse, radio was the real military breakthrough of the period. The days of the primitive Morse code were over, replaced by direct voice messages from the commander to subordinate and vice versa, in something approaching real time.
  
  The Germans had no monopoly on radio technology, but they recognized its military importance more clearly than anyone else. Once again, the Reichswehr staged a series of maneuvers and wargames, culminating in a great "Radio Exercise" (Funkübung) in 1932. The hypothetical situation, a surprise Czechoslovakian invasion of Germany from the southeast, with German units hastily assembling in the theater from all over the Reich, challenged the participants to get a corps-level radio net up and running within a single day. The game showed how important it was that the radioman be more than a mere technician. He had to immerse himself in the mission and in the overall operational situation, so that he could separate the wheat from the chaff, prioritize key messages, and delay those less pressing until later.
  
  The Germans learned one other lesson from their radio exercises. The radio was more than a novelty, a desirable asset, a shiny toy. For command and control of the new mobile formations, it was absolutely indispensable. As one German officer put it, “It is part of the unique character of motorized and mechanized units that they can only be commanded with the assistance of technical means of communication." From the start, the German principal for mechanized units was a radio in each vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the heaviest tank, with command vehicles designed to carry radio equipment, both senders and receivers. Tank warfare on the scale envisioned by the Germans was unthinkable without radio.

It took the Germans years to create the C&C procedures and unit organization that dominated on the battlefield in 1940/1. France had the bad luck to be the first major power to be the victim of it. It took years for the other major powers to catch up even with the example of Germany literally right in front of them. The USSR hadn't reorganized their mechanized units prior to the start of Barbarossa. It took time and the industrial/technological capacity to build the equipment that made mechanized formations possible, as well as time to develop the C&C necessary to utilize them properly.

[sveint]

Let's not mess with WarPlan.

Ideas and suggestions for WarPlan2 are good.