All of France strategy

[bullet911]

In my last game I decided to go for all of France, but after coming to the conclusion it wasn't going to work out (thanks to the efforts of my opponent). I decided to cut my losses and just take Paris, however once I went for the Vichy France option it turned out all my axis (German HQ, land and air units) units in Algeria moved to Tripoli and everything the allied player had there that was British surrendered. While this worked out ok for me, we both felt it was unfair and can be used as a gamey tactic to trap the allied player and both said it should be the same for both sides dead or alive. Thought I would bring it to light in case it hasn't been mentioned before and if anything could be done about it.

[pzgndr]

You selected the Vichy France option. This is a political decision to create Vichy France and Vichy colonies. So part of the deal is for Axis units to withdraw from Vichy territories, and that includes the French territory as well as the colonies. Axis player gets to choose. How is this a trap for the Allied player?

[Markiss]

I believe he is referring to the fact that any British troops that can be lured into fighting on future Vichy territory will be lost upon the selection of the Vichy option. This gives rise to the ole "take all of France except Paris" strategy, then attack Algeria. When the British move troops to Algeria to fight you, you simply take Paris, select the Vichy option, and all of the British troops in Algeria are automatically destroyed.

That is the trap.

It doesn't come up very often, but here people seem to have stumbled upon this situation by accident. It could also be done very much on purpose, especially to an inexperienced player.

Something should probably be done about it. If the German troops can teleport to Tripoli, why can't the British troops teleport to Egypt or even just the UK? I don't see why not. If the Vichy regime is assumed to let the Germans leave in peace, why would they not allow the British to leave in peace? I'm not sure what the rationale is for destroying the British troops, it does not seem like they would just surrender in such a case, and I doubt the French would attack, since they were neutral, and the British had been their allies only moments before, and were just trying to leave. The Germans were also making peace overtures to the British at the time, and would not have pushed the French to attack.

I would like to see it changed.

[Rannug61]

When Paris falls and France surrenders, UK units in northen France doesn't die and can be moved away to defend England or move to more southern locations. Something simular could be implemented in North Afrika.

[PvtBenjamin]

The Brit troops should move back to GB. Maybe Egypt [&:] but definitely not disappear.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Markiss
...British troops that can be lured into fighting on future Vichy territory will be lost ...
... why can't the British troops teleport to Egypt or even just the UK? ...

An overseas teleport option might be problematic. Maybe an automatic disbanding would work; at least players would get something back.

But the luring thing, that's something that should only happen once to an unsuspecting Allied player that doesn't understand this potential trap. Generally not an issue.

[PvtBenjamin]

but if the Axis get to retain their troops in Algiers so should the Brits. The game makes the assumption that when France surrenders so does GB in Algiers, not so.

Someones inexperience shouldn't be an excuse for a game rule that shouldn't exist.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

but if the Axis get to retain their troops in Algiers so should the Brits. The game makes the assumption that when France surrenders so does GB in Algiers, not so.

Someones inexperience shouldn't be an excuse for a game rule that shouldn't exist.

Just to throw in some additional thoughts here, I wouldn't say it is so much an assumption on our part that Great Britain surrenders in Algiers or other parts of Vichy France, but rather the game has simply made a choice on how to deal with the fact that France has surrendered and that a new French government sympathetic to that fact has been formed in Vichy.

Perhaps it could be argued that the Vichy option would never have historically arisen had sizeable GB forces been present in southern France, or Algeria etc., but since that never happened we'll never really know. Perhaps remaining Allied forces could have been forcibly interned by the Vichy regime? Perhaps Vichy and GB forces would have fought each other (Mers el-Kebir)?

What we do know is that Vichy did happen and to answer some what ifs we do allow the Axis side the option to keep on fighting and occupy all of France, but arguably any choice, and any outcome of these possibilities, should be provided within the context of an Axis advantage in this case as they are the historical victors and the ones that forced the surrender of France.

With that in mind, in game terms, and in handling Vichy and the possibility that sometimes Allied units may be trapped within potential Vichy territory, we simply needed to make a choice that A) seemed reasonable enough, and that B) would not throw off potential game balance.

For example, having all other Allied units returned to safety after a French surrender and armistice that agrees to divide French territory into an occupied and an unoccupied zone could arguably be too favorable to an Allied side considering France had just lost and been knocked out of the war, and it could also potentially turn into a destabilizing overall game strategy, e.g. all an Allied player has to do is put some units in Vichy territory and then the Vichy option is never granted etc.

Additionally, what would the historical significance of Dunkirk be if Allied units can just get a free pass home after France surrenders?

I would also argue it potentially does not highlight the tension and fear for survival that existed for the Brits post French surrender/armistice in examples like the attack on the remnants of the French navy at Mers el-Kebir (also mentioned above) and so on.

In the end, and without over-complicating things it felt justified to acknowledge the advantages the Axis side should have in a French surrender, e.g. their units returning to their own friendly territories, and that a French surrender and armistice would have been catastrophic for the Allied side as it was historically.

This just meant that any trapped Allied units after the fact would in game terms surrender as any other option would just feel too much like an unnecessary and undeserved friendly advantage to the Allied side at that point in time.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Rannug61

When Paris falls and France surrenders, UK units in northen France doesn't die and can be moved away to defend England or move to more southern locations. Something simular could be implemented in North Afrika.

It's a good idea but in game engine terms it doesn't really work as those territories are set to immobilized (with no units on the map) which is why we have have the remaining Allied units surrender and the remaining Axis units return to friendly territory.

The other option would be to have these territories be formed and remain active (if there are remaining Allied units), but it could become a potentially destabilizing strategy which rewards the Allied player more than the Axis player if it throws off other Axis timelines like the preparations for Yugoslavia and Barbarossa etc.

The other possibility is the remaining Allied units would be at a significant disadvantage and eventually be destroyed and the surrender then makes more sense as it reaches the same strategic conclusion quicker, or you could get a combination of the above and then it still provides the Axis with an advantage as they get additional free territory and MPPs for the duration of the game and much earlier in the game, which would then lead to Allied players avoiding the strategy and then you are essentially back to where we already are which is to generally avoid leaving any Allied units in there in the first place.

Essentially, any alternative would require quite a bit of testing to ensure it wouldn't throw the game off entirely, and in that context, it just feels to me that the current implementation is not that far off and/or just the most reasonably logical solution all things considered.

[Fafnir]

If the allied units are in supply can they be bought back with the discount (for 60% of the cost) after surrender?
Would it be possible to disband them by the game engine so the player would get at least some mpp?

[Taxman66]

How about giving the Allied player a 'France Surrenders' or 'Declare Paris an Open City' DE at the end of a turn when certain conditions are met (say 3 or 4? or more hexes next to Paris are Axis controlled).

This would then force Germany/Axis at the start of their next turn of deciding on declaring Vichy or going All France.

[Rannug61]

If it can be done I think Taxman's idea is great! It is very gamey not taking Paris just to keep all doors open.

[Taxman66]

The codition may have to be a bit more complex if this still allows Axis to isolate and bypass Paris without controlling the hexes immediately around it.

[PvtBenjamin]

As pzgngr said its not usually an issue for experienced players, but should change. Good suggestions here to remedy.

Historically I think if GB got its units out a Dunkirk they would have probably gotten them out of Algiers.

In the PBEM game I worry about someone waiting to take Paris and attempting to take Algiers. If there are Brit units in Algiers just take Paris & go with vichy thus GB loses all its units and the Axis don't. This Axis strategy wouldn't cost much because you need to move a bunch of units to the Med anyway.

They attack the low countries in Oct '39 you know. [;)]

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Fafnir
If the allied units are in supply can they be bought back with the discount (for 60% of the cost) after surrender?
Would it be possible to disband them by the game engine so the player would get at least some mpp?

If we go by what the actual supply for those units would be upon a French surrender, e.g. transfer of territory and the normal resupply calculation after that, the likelihood of them being in good supply is probably very low. Perhaps for a pocket with a full strength HQ sitting on top of a city/town (which would have an occupied pocket strength of 3) then you might get a few immediately adjacent units to qualify for the 60% discount.

But, just thinking out loud here, how often would that happen when the units are fighting? If you are trying to position your units in a way to preserve strength and be in just the right spot to maximize returns after an eventual French surrender, wouldn't it just be more prudent to not lose the units in the first place? e.g. by keeping them out of those potentially trapped/surrendered positions altogether?

Providing a nominal amount back to the Allied player via an automatic disband could also be an option, but we'd have to think about how to explain that result in game that would feel intuitive, e.g. France surrenders, British units surrender, Allies get some MPPs back for their trouble?

Again, these could be implemented somehow but I have to be honest here and ask if this is what players really want? Is this truly a desirable strategy for the Allied player? For example, ultimately, isn't the preservation of your Allied units, to remain wholly intact, much more preferable, e.g. Dunkirk as the historical precedent for this?

I could be wrong but it just feels like potentially a lot of work for something that a player might do once, feel better about the one time it happens, but then never again as they are not likely to ever repeat it.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

The codition may have to be a bit more complex if this still allows Axis to isolate and bypass Paris without controlling the hexes immediately around it.

I can see what you are after here as well with this suggestion but I would be wary of it also becoming exploitable as I think you are here as well. Additionally 3-4 hexes is puts it anywhere from just outside of the Belgian border which potentially could create a much quicker French surrender than historical which could also raise concerns. (unless I've misunderstood here). It can also lead to more of those situations where those that understand the scripts better than their opponent has the advantage and there are concerns/issues with that as well.

It seems the primary concern here is the idea that Axis players can hold off from taking Paris and this leads to a potential exploitable situation. However, from just testing this again right now, if an Axis player is near Paris and holds off for a few turns eventually French National Morale reaches zero and France will still surrender and in turn the Vichy option will still be presented.

Does this really not resolve the concerns?

[Taxman66]

Hubert I think you are misunderstanding a bit. Not 3-4 hexes from Paris, but rather (say 3 or more) hexes adjacent to Paris triggers the (new) Allied DE to offer Surrender via declaring Paris an Open city.
However, this could still be exploitable by the Axis if they cut off Paris and the surrounding 6 hexes (or say 4 of the surrounding hexes) and then continue with the cheesy Algeria strategy.

The idea is to give the Allied player some control and force the Axis hand in deciding on Vichy/All of France instead of using the choice as a Sword of Damocles over the Allied player's head.
This also has a bit of positive factor in being closer to historical than the current system.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks, understood.

I would still fear exploitation and in the end wouldn't the fact that since French morale eventually reaches zero, this more or less resolves the issue either way?

Essentially at some point it will be unavoidable that France will surrender to the Axis, e.g. the Axis hand is eventually forced in game already, is it not?

[Rannug61]

It might take a lot of turns before the French morale goes down to zero and forces the Axis to make the choice Vishy or all of France if the Axis plays it "easy" on the remaining French areas in Euro-France. I know this is very posible since that's what happen in my game with Bullet911(Axis). Our game continued dispite this disaster for the Allies but Egypt fell a lot easier because of it. Later on the Allies got the advatage due to the russian "superman-infantry" and we stopped playing.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Rannug61 and in my test I tried a typical invasion through the Low Countries and Northern France and then had at least 3-4 Axis units adjacent Paris. It took about 2 turns after that before France finally surrendered.

Since I feel that the current National Morale method is potentially less exploitable than a similar check on hexes, it would be good to have more information to consider possibly adjusting the National Morale settings as needed.

Could you tell me a bit more about what your Axis opponent did exactly with his invasion of France to possibly slow down the final surrender of France?

Again, I just ask because the alternative proposal is likely to provide the same potentially delayed result if players were to know exactly which hexes to avoid and so on.