Is France too strong?

[sveint]

I never thought I'd write such a title but all my games as the Allies end up in a situation such as seen in the image.
In other words, Germany fails to take Paris in the summer of 1940 and that is more or less the end of the game (some opponents
bravely fight on).

[sveint]

So is France too strong?

I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, but also make a few suggestions:

1. Paris should be an open city and instead of 1.4x it should be 0.8x or even 0.5x.

2. Marseilles and Syria should require at least one unit each to prevent Italian entry.

3. (not directly related to France) The coastal waters of Norway should not be possible
to raid (Iron Ore route).

[Flaviusx]

I'd need more than this screenshot to say yes. I'd want to know the Germans took out the low countries early on, as they should. If they only get started on that in May of 40, then yes, chances are good they will fall behind schedule.

I do think French garrison requirements for North Africa and Syria are way too low.

Mostly what has changed in the game is this: airpower can no longer be used to obliterate single units. This is also the reason that Sea Lion is much more difficult than it used to be. A couple of versions back you could build the luftwaffe into hammer and just steamroll anything come 1940. Direct strikes on enemy ground units were incredibly effective. That is no longer the case.

[AlvaroSousa]

It is not too strong. I have played many games and in each one you can properly take out France in July or August.

Remember you have hindsight and the French aren't going to be so foolish. There is no secret breakthrough the Ardennes plan. It is crystal clear.
So if the Germans aren't doing so well they need to think about it more. Or it could be a skill level difference.

Also depends on how many clear turns they got in March/April. If they got none yea it will be more difficult but on average between you should get one.

[Harrybanana]

I haven't played the game enough to offer an informed opinion here. But, since that that has never stopped me before, I will say that it is not just that the French are strong, but also that from the more recent AARs, it would appear that the UK is sending more forces to France than before. In the screenshot above I see 5 UK corps and the entire RAF fighter command. Is this normal?

I will also offer up that I feel very sorry for one of my current Axis opponents. Not only did he not get a clear weather turn in March or April, but the first May turn was rain as well. The French have over 600 production points saved up and 60 supply trucks. So I should be able to quickly rebuild any units he doesn't outright destroy.

[AlvaroSousa]

That's called "The Big BEF" strategy.
The counter strategy is Sealion at the same time if they over commit while attacking France.

[AlvaroSousa]

Another counter is to make sure you built 4 armor, 2-3 more ground support aircraft, and plenty of supply trucks to keep pounding them. You generally want to ignore the UK units and kill the French ones.

[Harrybanana]

Well, looking at the map he seems to have the 4 armour plus a mechanized to boot. Of course no idea if he beefed up the Luftwaffe.

[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.

[AlvaroSousa]

If it was easy the first time then the game wouldn't be a challenge. It will take you I'd say 3-4 games before you get the France thing right. But it does work correctly between two competently skilled players.

Players also forget that Paris doesn't need to be taken. You can blast through the south and take other cities to force a surrender which in turn force the Allies to defend a larger front.

[kennonlightfoot]

I haven't had a problem taking Paris before August but I don't think I have run into an opponent that has put that many British into France. Normally, I like to see the UK put troops into France since I will target them for surrounds to eliminate UK strength which will make Italy's Africa campaign much easier.

However, I don't think Sealion is the deterrent it was at one time. Putting that many UK into France should expose England to an easy invasion. But with good fleet use the Germans would need to detach a sizable force to do it so they are still stuck with winning in France first. In theory after winning England should be an easy take by Sealion but under new rules it is difficult to do and still have enough force for invading Russia. Plus you activate the US early and they will open a second front on you and take England back.

I have done the mini Sealion version against an opponent who put UK troops heavily into France and later Africa without garrisoning ports in England. I invaded late in the year and avoided VP cities that would activate the US. It was more of a diversion and economic warfare. Just landing German divisions anywhere the UK units weren't. But it still crippled my available force for invading Russia.

[Jeff_Ahl]

I do not say it should be easy and I am not sure it would be all that easy with one MP less for the Allies during Battle of France, but like you said your self in earlier discussions about France. France should merely be a bump in the road - some historical accuracy is needed to get the right feeling in the game. I know that France normally goes down in august when two equal players are facing of and Allies goes with Big BEF strategy and with historical BEF in July, but that is way later than historical.

You can go Big BEF with out any risk at the moment if you are facing a even player. With one less MP I would say that you get rid of the hindsight issue some what and also forces the Allied player to really concider his strategy and operations. If one want to even out some of the "unbalance" the loss of MP would be some french corps could have added AT assets to simulate the wast number of tanks they scattered among their corps.

No big deal if it stays the same, but I think it would be a nice spice to the dish.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I do think French garrison requirements for North Africa and Syria are way too low.

I'll second that. And also, resurrecting this thread, the units in North Africa and Syria have better experience that ease counter attacks during May/June 1940.

fb.asp?m=4816272

[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.

[Flaviusx]

There's no need to muck around with allied movement. If balance is necessary, subtle tweaks like the French colonial garrison requirements going up are the best place to go first. But I'm not convinced there is a serious issue here past that.

[MagicMissile]

I think in almost all my games as either allied or axis Paris falls in July. But I can see with the nerfed airbombing that timeframe might have changed a turn or so making it more likely Paris holds out until August. Not sure if that is a real problem or not. For me the big thing is how much damage the Germans take while taking France.

/MM

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[sveint]

Well historically the French did not empty Syria/North Africa.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

Any "Fall of France" scenario's in any game suffer from hindsight syndrome. What happened historically was a reasonably brilliant plan and some major blunders by the French/British fighting the last war. Pretty hard to duplicate without some heavy special rules.
Remember the air reconnaissance of the allies saw the German road traffic jams at the Ardennes and their high command chose to ignore it.

Yep, playing historical wargames always runs into the hindsight issue.

Well said, a brilliant plan and the inert philosopher on the opposite side.

[magic87966]

In a game between 2 equal players, France should always take longer than historical. The historical outcome was influenced by factors other than what happened on the battlefield. As the Axis (destined to lose - historically), you'd just like a chance to recreate the historical outcome. I know this game is not about diplomacy and too many scripted events, but maybe (if both players agree) the Axis player gets a small percent chance of getting a shot at history. Let's say in January 1940, there's a "die roll" for the Allied player. Roll a "1" (out of how many is up to Alvaro)and the political and societal factors that helped doom the French occur. Then French units suffer a significant effectiveness penalty or something similar. Just an idea.