Is France too strong?

[Dalwin]

I would not call it a brilliant plan, not at all. There were only so many options available. The plan is only made to look brilliant by the extreme ineptitude of the response.

If any part of it were brilliant it would be letting a stray aircraft "accident" allow the fake plans for repeating the WW1 maneuver fall into enemy hands.

[ncc1701e]

What was brilliant was bringing the Allies to Belgium.

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: Dalwin

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl

I would like to see one less MP (or operations points I guess it is called in this game) for France and British units. That would make it harder to shift the lines, harder to counter breakthroughs and would be realistic if you look at the doctrines at the time. The problem for the Allies during the whole war and especially in the beginning was that their centralized command structure was inflexible compared to the german Bewegungskrieg doctrine. Like with the Soviet armored formations this less MP can be changed during the game. Maybe +1 MP to the Allies after the Fall of France.

When I play Allies it is all to unhistorical that one can shift the lines that effective and especially counter the breakthroughs. Big BEF option would be much more "risky" because it is not ceratain that u would have the possibilty to evacuate as effective if u have has less MP.


Other wise I Think it is perfectly balanced. My daring push was to aggressive (not the example above but from our game), but if Sveint would have had less MP (operation points) that maybe would have worked.

The problem with that is that in reality the Allied forces were more motorized than the Axis, especially the Germans. More German infantry walked and even their supplies and artillery were moved by horses. I see it as hard to justify a movement penalty for the Allies.

Very easy to motivate.

They had lousy doctrines and all orders took a long time to go down the line because of their extremly centralized chain of command (and to add one extra negative layer - worse communications). Their physical speed might have been higher, but speed is not equal to "tempo" as we say in the Swedish army. Tempo is determined by alot of factors but especially decentralized decision making where the higher chain of command set up a goal and the commanders below do what it takes to achieve that goal within those limits given by higher command.

It is called operation points in this game instead of movement points as in other games, which I really likes because on the battlefield speed is just one factor that determines a units actual operation value. If the Allies had copied the Bewgungskrieg doctrine and also implemented it (not all implement the doctrine theories as they are ment to) then would their physical speed have been very much in their favor. Which never was the case during the war though, especially not during Battle of France.

Even though the Allies adepted and got rid of the worst wrong thinking, they never ever reached the same capacity as the germans in terms of doctrines or implementation of them for operational warfare. On the strategic level one could argue that no one had a better or worse depending on their different possibilities and limitations.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl


It is called operation points in this game instead of movement points as in other games, which I really likes because on the battlefield speed is just one factor that determines a units actual operation value.

+1
Reminds me of when I was a humble trooper ( a trooper anyway because I struggled with the humble bit) in the RHQ of a British Army territorial armoured recce reg't in the '80s. We were often put on 30 minutes notice to move out. That was easy enough to do, but then waiting 4+ hours for the next order (anything from 'move to X' to 'stand down') was more difficult. Perhaps we were just being trained to go without sleep or cooked food.

[Richard III]

Yes.

It`s not just that French units are to powerful, but in *_70%_* of the games I have played vs AI, even with a Sept. capture of Paris, France will move the capital to another city. If they move it to Metz or Vichy and dig in, and / or you get a run of bad weather, which is often, Game over.

Even with a Aug, capture of Paris and they move the capital , no Sea Lion, Game Over in 1942.

Ever with a 30% of no moving capital- fast surrender, no Sea Lion due to over powered Brit Navy and air against the axis amphibian units.

With the nerfed Air Power, and Zombie Partisan's, too much bad weather, then no Moscow in `41 and certainly not in `42 with the death star Red Rifle Corps.

The above after 12+ AI Games.

Your a very nice guy, talented developer, and it`s your Game, but if you want to unbalance it to create an equal game possible in 1941- 1942 for the 12 vocal guys that PBEM it, thereby making it almost impossible for the 1000+ guys that bought it to play the AI and create an alternate history WW II, ( Axis Wins ) then you have made a questionable decision IMO.

[ncc1701e]

@Richard III, at which level are you playing against AI? France is not so complicated to destroy versus AI.

Did you try to apply this small tutorial?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4784371

Cheers

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Yes.

It`s not just that French units are to powerful, but in *_70%_* of the games I have played vs AI, even with a Sept. capture of Paris, France will move the capital to another city. If they move it to Metz or Vichy and dig in, and / or you get a run of bad weather, which is often, Game over.

Even with a Aug, capture of Paris and they move the capital , no Sea Lion, Game Over in 1942.

Ever with a 30% of no moving capital- fast surrender, no Sea Lion due to over powered Brit Navy and air against the axis amphibian units.

With the nerfed Air Power, and Zombie Partisan's, too much bad weather, then no Moscow in `41 and certainly not in `42 with the death star Red Rifle Corps.

The above after 12+ AI Games.

Your a very nice guy, talented developer, and it`s your Game, but if you want to unbalance it to create an equal game possible in 1941- 1942 for the 12 vocal guys that PBEM it, thereby making it almost impossible for the 1000+ guys that bought it to play the AI and create an alternate history WW II, ( Axis Wins ) then you have made a questionable decision IMO.

After a short time playing, I can say I agree with most of your comments. While I've done ok against a moderately boosted Allied AI, in pbem against a competent Allied player, with or without bad weather, you face a wall of strong (?) French with British anchoring the channel and you'll be lucky to get a couple 5-1 or 6-1 getting mostly 4-1 in two places (maybe 3). With the no retreat option picked for the Inf, you'll bludgeon your way through unless a couple of unlucky rolls stop you. Then your 4 panzer corps will wear down no matter how strong they started by mid-July even as you try pouring supply trucks into them. And the combined Fench/British Air Force is more than equal to the task of blunting or even besting the German Airpower. For S&Gs as I was stuck in trench warfare along the Somme front, I attacked 2 French Fighter bases with almost the entire German AirForce in mid-July '40 in a pbem game (having used up most of my supply trucks first just to get 50-60% efficiency. Results were 1 Air Field hit (?) and 4 steps of French fighter reduction at a cost of 13 steps reduction of German AirPower (split evenly between the bomber groups and the fighter interceptors waiting to mix it up with the (superior?) French fighters). Mostly I see pbem players here in this forum that are very good and also very vocal about the game and what you can do to counter this or that strategy. But you don't have enough of anything to completely prepare for 2 possible strategy's at the same time. I wonder if these French units could have held off the Soviets of '42 or the Americans of '43? I saw this happen to the Barbarossa game by the ATG guy Vic, as it always became a double wall of Russian Inf that the Germans did not have enough oil to run their Panzers through in'41 and then by '42 it was game over.
But its my perogative to move on to a different game and so I shall.

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

@Richard III, at which level are you playing against AI? France is not so complicated to destroy versus AI.

Did you try to apply this small tutorial?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4784371

Cheers

I`m playing the default 1939 scenario (no Italians )

I think your tute is pre nerfed air ?

And perhaps other changes AI, but I`ll try a step -by - step of it again. FWIW : I disband 2 axis corps to add production after Poland in `39., and go the coast route after Amsterdam ( always jammed up in Brussels by a Corps ) with the 4 mech/armor.... doesn`t seem that easy as your example. [:(]

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Yes.

It`s not just that French units are to powerful, but in *_70%_* of the games I have played vs AI, even with a Sept. capture of Paris, France will move the capital to another city. If they move it to Metz or Vichy and dig in, and / or you get a run of bad weather, which is often, Game over.

Even with a Aug, capture of Paris and they move the capital , no Sea Lion, Game Over in 1942.

Ever with a 30% of no moving capital- fast surrender, no Sea Lion due to over powered Brit Navy and air against the axis amphibian units.

With the nerfed Air Power, and Zombie Partisan's, too much bad weather, then no Moscow in `41 and certainly not in `42 with the death star Red Rifle Corps.

The above after 12+ AI Games.

Your a very nice guy, talented developer, and it`s your Game, but if you want to unbalance it to create an equal game possible in 1941- 1942 for the 12 vocal guys that PBEM it, thereby making it almost impossible for the 1000+ guys that bought it to play the AI and create an alternate history WW II, ( Axis Wins ) then you have made a questionable decision IMO.

After a short time playing, I can say I agree with most of your comments. While I've done ok against a moderately boosted Allied AI, in pbem against a competent Allied player, with or without bad weather, you face a wall of strong (?) French with British anchoring the channel and you'll be lucky to get a couple 5-1 or 6-1 getting mostly 4-1 in two places (maybe 3). With the no retreat option picked for the Inf, you'll bludgeon your way through unless a couple of unlucky rolls stop you. Then your 4 panzer corps will wear down no matter how strong they started by mid-July even as you try pouring supply trucks into them. And the combined Fench/British Air Force is more than equal to the task of blunting or even besting the German Airpower. For S&Gs as I was stuck in trench warfare along the Somme front, I attacked 2 French Fighter bases with almost the entire German AirForce in mid-July '40 in a pbem game (having used up most of my supply trucks first just to get 50-60% efficiency. Results were 1 Air Field hit (?) and 4 steps of French fighter reduction at a cost of 13 steps reduction of German AirPower (split evenly between the bomber groups and the fighter interceptors waiting to mix it up with the (superior?) French fighters). Mostly I see pbem players here in this forum that are very good and also very vocal about the game and what you can do to counter this or that strategy. But you don't have enough of anything to completely prepare for 2 possible strategy's at the same time. I wonder if these French units could have held off the Soviets of '42 or the Americans of '43? I saw this happen to the Barbarossa game by the ATG guy Vic, as it always became a double wall of Russian Inf that the Germans did not have enough oil to run their Panzers through in'41 and then by '42 it was game over.
But its my perogative to move on to a different game and so I shall.

Hopefully Alvaro will consider more fine tuning for the AI game, it really is a superior wargame experience so I hope you can give it some time Jeff.

Those air losses you saw are from the Nerfed air model IMO, and are only realistic if you include their operational losses ( crashes, etc) I don`t think it`s fair to use that model while the allied ground units remains pristine. The Game needs a fix for us guys !

[AlvaroSousa]

So far this is how reviews and player responses have been to WarPlan as the Germans.

The A.I. sucks Moscow taken by 1941...
The A.I. is good, it closes holes, attacks weakness, reorganizes fronts. It is lacking in strategic movement though.
If I see a thread where players are debating a game mechanic and there are opposing sides it means the mechanic is working correctly generally.
I have had already one player claim they beat the game on the toughest setting.
Most players seem to agree +3 +3 on the A.I. settings is challenging.

Everyone's skill level is different and can be different by a wide degree.

Right now I am playing in a mirror game. Between the fall of 1939 and the summer of 1940 an Axis player should get 1-2 turns of clear(cold) weather to take out Netherlands and possibly Belgium. My opponent as the Axis got 2 turns, I got 1 turn. This made a 2 turn difference in the current game. He forced a surrender against France in Late July. I could have forced a surrender in late August and forgot to. My opponent is better than the A.I..

As for Sealion. This here has also been a lot of debate. At one point it was rather easy to invade. That has been fixed. As is you still can invade but Sealion takes planning from the Axis and the UK to defend vs it.

All you need to do is get across once in a clear turn and get a port. From there it expands with beach supply and air power.

As the Axis.....
You bomb the crap out of the airforce. Forcing it to lose effectiveness.
You keep at least 2 tactical groups out to deal with any ships coming in.
Once you clear this you can attempt a landing.

So what will be the results. Maybe you fail but very likely you will hammer the UK navy down. Keeping the UK busy also means the Italians pretty much have free reign in the Med. With just 1 German infantry and 1 German armor they can wreck havoc. Invade Syria, attack Egypt from the East, Take Palestine, Cyprus, attack convoys. The UK needs to build too much in 1939 and 1940. So players will say they don't have a strong 1941 Barb. Well of course you don't. But you still can have one. The plan is a buildup and push to 1942 big offensive. So all this is doable.

As for France falling late. All you need is 3 cities: Lille, Rouen, and Paris.
You can also try the breakout and avoid Paris. This is how I took out France. The opponent defends it too much and I plow through between Metz and Paris taking every other city. Between Saint-Nazaire, Lyon, Vichy, and Toulouse there are 25 morale to KO France. Maybe you haven't thought about this.

Unit Losses aren't full losses. They are cheaper to recover than you think. Air units don't lose manpower anymore on losses just strength.

Losses aren't as bad as you think. In my game the opponent took 176 land losses. I took double taking out France. He had the benefit of 2 clear weather turns in the spring where I only had 1. Bit it shouldn't affect things as much as you think in the long strategy. I effectively lost 2 extra corps.

Until Barbarossa I lost ~1% of my total production till June 1941 for losing 2 more corps in France than my opponent.

If by chance France falls in 1941 yes that's a pretty bad setup for the Axis. But it doesn't mean the game isn't salvageable. Take Spain and Gibraltar in 1941. Go for a 1942 USSR invasion and cripple them as much as possible. But this scenario is incredibly rare.

What I will do is play an Axis game vs the A.I. in 1939 until the Fall of France. I will post my results. I already know vs another person France falls correctly.

[AlvaroSousa]

Ok so I just played a game out till the fall of France.

#1 I got zero clear turns between the summers (which is unlucky)
#2 I didn't play optimally making several mistakes
#3 I am not the best wargamer
#4 This is vs historical A.I.
#5 I didn't KO Belgium the 1st turn. They held after 3 attacks.

I did build 4 armor, and forgot to build my extra tactical air units too late
I also forgot to build my extra supply trucks that were too late

So I played better than a new player but not as well as a good player.

I took out France the 1st week of August.
A good player playing optimally should be able to kill them mid-July if not earlier with careful planning.

[Franciscus]

In my last game vs AI, France fell in August. But I played "historically", and only invaded Netherlands and Belgium at the same time I attacked France.

The AI defence was very good, IMHO, but if I had taken Netherlands earlier I would have had it easier.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Ok so I just played a game out till the fall of France.

#1 I got zero clear turns between the summers (which is unlucky)
#2 I didn't play optimally making several mistakes
#3 I am not the best wargamer
#4 This is vs historical A.I.
#5 I didn't KO Belgium the 1st turn. They held after 3 attacks.

I did build 4 armor, and forgot to build my extra tactical air units too late
I also forgot to build my extra supply trucks that were too late

So I played better than a new player but not as well as a good player.

I took out France the 1st week of August.
A good player playing optimally should be able to kill them mid-July if not earlier with careful planning.

I think against the AI everything is fine. But against a competent player taking
France is quite hard at the moment.

If I may repeat my ideas of slightly higher garrison requirements (historical, and the AI does this anyway)
and Paris as an open city (historical, the French absolutely refused to turn Paris into an urban battlezone).

[AlvaroSousa]

I'd like to hear from 2 very good players then who have played enough games together trying various axis strategies.

I build 4 armor + 3 tactical
I buy supply trucks
I use 2 of specialty points on infiltrator and another on engineer when I get 3.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I'd like to hear from 2 very good players then who have played enough games together trying various axis strategies.

I build 4 armor + 3 tactical
I buy supply trucks
I use 2 of specialty points on infiltrator and another on engineer when I get 3.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but why do you like the infiltrator specialty Alvaro? My understanding is that it adds a 5% chance of causing a unit to retreat. So if, for example, without using an infiltrator I have a 50% chance of causing a unit to retreat than with the infiltrator I have a 55% chance. So if I attack 20 times with a 55% chance of retreating defenders I will on average succeed in retreating the unit 11 times rather than an average of 10 times without the infiltrator. I personally think there are better specialties; but that is one of the things that makes this a great game, the multitude of choices.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I'd like to hear from 2 very good players then who have played enough games together trying various axis strategies.

I build 4 armor + 3 tactical
I buy supply trucks
I use 2 of specialty points on infiltrator and another on engineer when I get 3.

In all my games as the Allies lately the Axis struggles to take France.

I'm more than happy to play test games against anyone who think they can take Paris/France against me.

And I'm not doing anything magical as France. Simply optimizing the defenses.

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I'd like to hear from 2 very good players then who have played enough games together trying various axis strategies.

I build 4 armor + 3 tactical
I buy supply trucks
I use 2 of specialty points on infiltrator and another on engineer when I get 3.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but why do you like the infiltrator specialty Alvaro? My understanding is that it adds a 5% chance of causing a unit to retreat. So if, for example, without using an infiltrator I have a 50% chance of causing a unit to retreat than with the infiltrator I have a 55% chance. So if I attack 20 times with a 55% chance of retreating defenders I will on average succeed in retreating the unit 11 times rather than an average of 10 times without the infiltrator. I personally think there are better specialties; but that is one of the things that makes this a great game, the multitude of choices.

Specialties aren't about what is better. It is about what you want to accomplish. I want to push French units.

For example if you were stranded on an island would you rather have 100 pounds of gold or 1 satellite phone?

[baloo7777]

Aug 16, 1940 vs good Allied pbem player. Axis took Netherlands and Denmark in '39, then got rain or snow until May 20, 1940. Took Belgium in 1 turn. Then got to Somme after several turns and the sacrifice (unwillingly) of 2 Parachute units. several turns ago had an all-out air war effort vs 2 French air bases for a loss of 13 steps to 4 French. I then pushed a spearhead to within 2 hexes of Paris, and what a surprise to run into a 15 factor British Armour Corps. In the Allied turn, he shattered an 8 factor Inf Corps and then attacked the 8 factor Panzer Corps it was screening and shattered it with a half dozen attacks by French Inf and the Br Armour. The screenshot below is at the end of my last turn in Aug 40. I got another clear Aug 30, 1940 turn and got a little closer to Paris, because I don't quit games. I may be new to this game but have been playing since the days of Avalon Hill's Afrika Korps and Third Reich. I have no problem taking out France completely against an AI with the 10% bonus as the historical is too easy. Hindsight allows this but the French in particular should have terrible morale and the British should be limited politically in how much BEF they can send, or the game vs pbem will be like this against a competent opponent. And there's the rub... many games are really 2 separate problems for developers... the game as PvP versus the game against the AI.
What a pain ... file too large... never used to have so many problems uploading...

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl


It is called operation points in this game instead of movement points as in other games, which I really likes because on the battlefield speed is just one factor that determines a units actual operation value.

+1
Reminds me of when I was a humble trooper ( a trooper anyway because I struggled with the humble bit) in the RHQ of a British Army territorial armoured recce reg't in the '80s. We were often put on 30 minutes notice to move out. That was easy enough to do, but then waiting 4+ hours for the next order (anything from 'move to X' to 'stand down') was more difficult. Perhaps we were just being trained to go without sleep or cooked food.

Hehe, yeah the old "Hurry up and wait"-syndrome. One could always do as the lower echelon of german commanders did and attack any way. The german aggressive doctrine made their opponents orders obselete even before they had been delivered to the front commanders in the beginning of the war. Effective as hell.

Not even today any one lives up to their high doctrines standards and implementation of it, even though alot of doctrine theories in the western armies is talking about the importance of mission based tactics/operations. One thing to talk, another thing to actually implement it to full extent or even implementing mission based tactics/operations at all.

[AlvaroSousa]

Did you buy an HQ and get a better commander with points? That is what I do. One with high mobility.

You do need to attrition the French some. You get on some position that is 2:1. You ground strike it. Attack 3x, replace the 3 front units with 3 fresh ones attack.

Or the rotating blitz where as you take hexes you advance units in the rear up front to attack more replacing tired units because a contested hex is just 1 opts.

Also I noticed your units don't have infiltrator. That ability is very important in France. You need to move the line. I make some 20 odd attacks per turn. That mathematically averages out to at least +2 hexes for me a turn if not more. Because one successful retreat leads to another.