Playing as the Axis is there any value in NOT accepting the Vichy agreement? I tried it once and I saw the new French capital had moved to Africa and there were still a ton of French troops in France. Way to many to clear and still prepare for a timely invasion of Russia...
I thought I saw a thread where someone indicated all the additional MPPs if you take all of France???
Accepting Vichy
Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software
RE: Accepting Vichy
I'm not sure that it actually is MPP beneficial. For example I can ignore lot's of French units while going directly for Paris knowing that they will disappear when I capture Paris. So my losses are a lot less. You gain additional MPP but that doesn't take intoa ccount all the MPP's lost due to fighting. Plus now you have to invade NA and deal with the French navy.
RE: Accepting Vichy
Incidentally, there's an ongoing AAR over in the AAR-forum where the player just decided against installing Vichy. It took him some time to get France to accept capitulation, but not as long as one might think.
I'd still personally always prefer Vichy.
I'd still personally always prefer Vichy.
RE: Accepting Vichy
Only if you are not invading USSR does it have any value. Spain really likes this, and if you conquer France and take the British Isle, Spain, irrc, will automatically join the Axis. I also like to point out, from my view, I have not had a successful campaign when I don't kill Russkies in quantity starting in 1941. If you go this route, stepping foot in Britain usally will bring the USA into the war. Yes, you can kill Americans in 1941.
Ugh, the more I think about it, I just don't like not taking Vichy. Besides, it's much easier to get Vichy, and be a dirty backstabbing Nazi and declare war on all the Vichy rump states and use a really small group of units to take them out.
Ugh, the more I think about it, I just don't like not taking Vichy. Besides, it's much easier to get Vichy, and be a dirty backstabbing Nazi and declare war on all the Vichy rump states and use a really small group of units to take them out.
RE: Accepting Vichy
I never accept Vichy [:)] it is way too easy to overrun France.
Before Italy joins the War, send a HQ, a Army, a corp, and the tank after getting them to full strength.
Once Italy enters the War, send the group towards Algeria. The one French corp is easily killed with Italian planes in Sicily and the troops.
Meanwhile invade France as normal. But here is the important part, do NOT take Paris. Continue to kill off French units if the odds cause no losses to your troops.
Only take Paris AFTER Algeria is captured by the Italians. Once that happens, take Paris and, poof, all French units vanish and you get around 1,500 MMPs.
Even before all the French units are gone, you can start sending units to the East.
I kept the majority of my units in France, which fell in October '40 and still got 90% of my troops to the East before a late May invasion. So to me completing the fall of France is always a better option.
Before Italy joins the War, send a HQ, a Army, a corp, and the tank after getting them to full strength.
Once Italy enters the War, send the group towards Algeria. The one French corp is easily killed with Italian planes in Sicily and the troops.
Meanwhile invade France as normal. But here is the important part, do NOT take Paris. Continue to kill off French units if the odds cause no losses to your troops.
Only take Paris AFTER Algeria is captured by the Italians. Once that happens, take Paris and, poof, all French units vanish and you get around 1,500 MMPs.
Even before all the French units are gone, you can start sending units to the East.
I kept the majority of my units in France, which fell in October '40 and still got 90% of my troops to the East before a late May invasion. So to me completing the fall of France is always a better option.
RE: Accepting Vichy
Numdydar, do you just have to take Algeria? If the French Capitol can go to more than one place, that's trouble. If only Algeria, that could work!! Good call, not touching Paris.
Edit: Do you set up a group to sail into Syria, to open up a 2nd front on Egypt? Just curious....
Edit: Do you set up a group to sail into Syria, to open up a 2nd front on Egypt? Just curious....
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Scook_99
If the French Capitol can go to more than one place, that's trouble
I just had the French surrender without me taking their new capitol, so it is not that big a deal it seems.
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
RE: Accepting Vichy
Terje ... did you take Algeria or did France just surrender ... and if so ... on what date?
RE: Accepting Vichy
Hmmm, National Morale dropped below a certain point, maybe? Boy, now you have me thinking of a western strategy.ORIGINAL: terje439
ORIGINAL: Scook_99
If the French Capitol can go to more than one place, that's trouble
I just had the French surrender without me taking their new capitol, so it is not that big a deal it seems.
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Arne Beruldsen
Terje ... did you take Algeria or did France just surrender ... and if so ... on what date?
Seems their NM dropped too low, knocking them out. I took the city of Tunis in N.Africa, apart from that I kept hitting them wherever possible, then they surrendered all their territory.
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Scook_99
Hmmm, National Morale dropped below a certain point, maybe? Boy, now you have me thinking of a western strategy.ORIGINAL: terje439
ORIGINAL: Scook_99
If the French Capitol can go to more than one place, that's trouble
I just had the French surrender without me taking their new capitol, so it is not that big a deal it seems.
Yup, think so. There are alot of cities in Southern France that gives a "losing CITY reduces French morale".
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
RE: Accepting Vichy
Other than being a bit gametastic like described above i always take the deal. It is more important to get my forces east than to get the extra MPP. The clock is always running as the Axis.
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: ILCK
Other than being a bit gametastic like described above i always take the deal. It is more important to get my forces east than to get the extra MPP. The clock is always running as the Axis.
But, if you can do it say, by September, the bonuses:
- more experience for the troops
- sounds like about 500 more MPP vs taking Vichy
- more MPP every turn
- instead of Vichy territories, you have surrendered territories (this is the important one)
- maybe more influence in Spain
This can result in a faster Africa, and an easier defense on the western part of the Axis Empire. It might delay the offensive to July 1941, but you can pressure the oil fields virtually immediately. That might offset it.
And....you don't need to modify your technology spending, as you aren't worrying about invading Britain. If you do a British invasion 1941 instead of late 1940, you don't need to modify the tech very much, or at all...Of course, a successful Britain usually brings both USA and USSR into the war the summer of 1941.
Ok, new game......
RE: Accepting Vichy
I donot see any grand-plan where not accepting Vichy would ever be beneficial...
- In the take-all-western-europe approach (my first playthrough), I accepted Vichy. Then I decalred war on it and conquered it. Then I conquered all of Africe too (and invaded Sweden). I invested heavily in Diplomacy to get Spain on my side: lots of MPPs there plus lots of units too. I only went to Russia in 1992.
- In my take-Russia approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Russia in 1941.
- In my Sealion-approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Britain in 1940.
Not accepting Vichy is just bad regardless of your grand strategy, I donot see any reasonable reasonnot to accept it.
- In the take-all-western-europe approach (my first playthrough), I accepted Vichy. Then I decalred war on it and conquered it. Then I conquered all of Africe too (and invaded Sweden). I invested heavily in Diplomacy to get Spain on my side: lots of MPPs there plus lots of units too. I only went to Russia in 1992.
- In my take-Russia approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Russia in 1941.
- In my Sealion-approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Britain in 1940.
Not accepting Vichy is just bad regardless of your grand strategy, I donot see any reasonable reasonnot to accept it.
RE: Accepting Vichy
As it is a bit "gamey", I feel there should probably be some bigger downsides to accepting Vichy and then immediately declaring war on it again. Like e.g. war entries of US and SU rising quite a bit faster.
RE: Accepting Vichy
I had the very same question about accepting Vichy or not. So I opted not to accept. I also decided to have the Italians move on Tunis to Algiers as soon As Italy entered the war. In France I surrounded Paris but didn't attack. Meanwhile German forces swept into southern France collapsing an ever smaller pocket of Allied Forces along the southern ports. I had massed the Italian Fleet along with two UBoats that made it into the Med and had a huge naval battle with the French Navy. The French Fleet was defeated but the Italian capital ships did take a beating. Interestingly the British Fleet at Alexandria never sortied out to help their ally[&:]. Had they, the outcome might have turned out differently. The Italians attacked Malta which took a lot of assets to ensure a victory. In North Africa, the Germans and Italians slugged it out step by step until taking Alexandria and Suez. After of course the reinforced Italian Fleet defeated the British north of Suez again taking damage.
Just as late Fall was beginning and the complete destruction of the French Army was at hand I decided to launch Operation Sea Lion with forces on hand rather than move all forces east. I managed two beachheads and it wasn't until summer of 1941 that England was captured. The US entered the War in late August I believe. I started to move units east in late August and had less than half my units in place there when Russia declared war. So as the game sits the second week of September, the Russians had two pockets of mixed forces with small movement into Axis territory. Both were then cut off from supply by mobile axis units to their rear while Infantry Corps with help from 3 groups of Stukas are hitting the Russians head on with good results.
Given the time of year and the lateness in engaging the Russians my goal right now until heavy duty winter sets in is to just kill as many Russian units as possible. Once Russia declared war,they and the British invaded Iran and Iraq. As the game sits mid-September the Axis controls; all of Europe, England and North Africa. The Brits and Russians control the area east of Suez. Several flotillas of UBoats supported by a strong surface task force of 2 BBs, 2 BCs and supporting destroyers are waiting in the mid-Atlantic for the US Navy. Turkey has joined the Axis, Spain is leaning 53% and Finland is at 41% towards joining the Axis. So heading into the Winter months of late 1941 and early 1942 it should be very interesting to see if the decision to not accept Vichy thus completing the complete conquest of France, invading England, at the expense of a full summer invasion of Russia was a good strategy??? 1942 should turn out to be a decisive year for one of the sides.......
Just as late Fall was beginning and the complete destruction of the French Army was at hand I decided to launch Operation Sea Lion with forces on hand rather than move all forces east. I managed two beachheads and it wasn't until summer of 1941 that England was captured. The US entered the War in late August I believe. I started to move units east in late August and had less than half my units in place there when Russia declared war. So as the game sits the second week of September, the Russians had two pockets of mixed forces with small movement into Axis territory. Both were then cut off from supply by mobile axis units to their rear while Infantry Corps with help from 3 groups of Stukas are hitting the Russians head on with good results.
Given the time of year and the lateness in engaging the Russians my goal right now until heavy duty winter sets in is to just kill as many Russian units as possible. Once Russia declared war,they and the British invaded Iran and Iraq. As the game sits mid-September the Axis controls; all of Europe, England and North Africa. The Brits and Russians control the area east of Suez. Several flotillas of UBoats supported by a strong surface task force of 2 BBs, 2 BCs and supporting destroyers are waiting in the mid-Atlantic for the US Navy. Turkey has joined the Axis, Spain is leaning 53% and Finland is at 41% towards joining the Axis. So heading into the Winter months of late 1941 and early 1942 it should be very interesting to see if the decision to not accept Vichy thus completing the complete conquest of France, invading England, at the expense of a full summer invasion of Russia was a good strategy??? 1942 should turn out to be a decisive year for one of the sides.......
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Scook_99
Numdydar, do you just have to take Algeria? If the French Capitol can go to more than one place, that's trouble. If only Algeria, that could work!! Good call, not touching Paris.
Edit: Do you set up a group to sail into Syria, to open up a 2nd front on Egypt? Just curious....
In the two games I've played Oran has been the capital (Algeria). So if it could go somewhere else it has not yet [:)]
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Yogol
I donot see any grand-plan where not accepting Vichy would ever be beneficial...
- In the take-all-western-europe approach (my first playthrough), I accepted Vichy. Then I decalred war on it and conquered it. Then I conquered all of Africe too (and invaded Sweden). I invested heavily in Diplomacy to get Spain on my side: lots of MPPs there plus lots of units too. I only went to Russia in 1992.
- In my take-Russia approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Russia in 1941.
- In my Sealion-approach, I'll also accpt Vichy, but then leave it be and go straight to Britain in 1940.
Not accepting Vichy is just bad regardless of your grand strategy, I donot see any reasonable reasonnot to accept it.
It is hugely beneficial imho. I guess we will need to disagree because I do not see any reason to accept Vichy [:)]
- you get a much larger amount of MMPs
- You have decent armies in the Western part of NA
- Capturing the NA capital of France is a breeze before France fall
- You still have plenty of time to capture all the historical gains the Germans did prior to the war with Russia
Since you have never done this, maybe next game you can try it and see for yourself what I am talking about [:)]
RE: Accepting Vichy
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
It is hugely beneficial imho. I guess we will need to disagree because I do not see any reason to accept Vichy [:)]
- you get a much larger amount of MMPs
- You have decent armies in the Western part of NA
- Capturing the NA capital of France is a breeze before France fall
- You still have plenty of time to capture all the historical gains the Germans did prior to the war with Russia
Since you have never done this, maybe next game you can try it and see for yourself what I am talking about [:)]
There is no proof that it it better MPP wise. It will take pure multi-player to get the definitive answer but In two test runs it did not provide any real increase in MPP.
And units in western NA do nothing to help capture Egypt.