All of France strategy

[Taxman66]

I like option 3.
Had it done once to me (while I was still playing pbem). It took the shape of a para drop into Tunisia with heavy air support then a drive along the coast.

[Hubert Cater]

Refresh my memory does Spanish diplo need to be 30% for Spain to join after the fall of Algiers via AOF? I know DE 603 is 60%.

As far as I understand it, there is just the one DE for Spain to join and it is DE 603 with Spain at 60%.

[Rannug61]

Another idea... If Paris is empty(no allied unit) and French NM is under under a certain level(20%, 15% or 10%) this will make France want to surrender and then the Axis player has to decide if he wants to go "All of France" or go with Vishy.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I like option 3.
Had it done once to me (while I was still playing pbem). It took the shape of a para drop into Tunisia with heavy air support then a drive along the coast.

Correct. I think the drive along the coast has become much more difficult with the new supply rules. Its key for the Axis to get German subs in the Med. If the gateways are blocked thats tough.

If the All of France ( via no vichy) can't result in Spain joining then the only reasons are the extra points, real estate, stops Torch and eventually Gibraltar. I can't see how its worth it.

1) You push the Egypt & Malta timeline way out
2) Harder to prepare for SU.
3) The Italian Navy probably need to engage the French Navy, always love it when the French Navy can reduce/eliminate Italian Navy
4) The Axis lose the Diplo advantage because the French negates the Italians until they surrender.
5) Allies will put a unit in Casablanca so the timeline gets pushed out even further to recapture.
6) If the Axis go AOF they cant successfully Sealion or capture London (Spain/Turkey diplo boost), unless they wait a long time on Algiers.
7) Axis can just Declare war on Vichy to get most of the points & real estate.

The Axis will eventually prevail but it aint worth it.

AOF shouldn't be possible by just not taking Paris (putting off Vichy DE) tho.

[Taxman66]

I got side screwed, in not realizing Syria would become Axis Territory when Algeria did go down.
While the UK was strong in Libya and going to make Egypt at least hold out a lot longer, the Germans just transported a HQ, a ground unit or 2 and operated a bunch of air into Syria to backdoor me.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Rannug61

Another idea... If Paris is empty(no allied unit) and French NM is under under a certain level(20%, 15% or 10%) this will make France want to surrender and then the Axis player has to decide if he wants to go "All of France" or go with Vishy.

This was one of the ideas we were discussing internally as well, simply linking a possible DE for France to decide to surrender or not based on its current and low NM. This way it is much harder for the Axis side to game the system.

An Allied player wouldn't even have to vacate Paris, just to keep things simple, and therefore there is nothing special to remember. For example let's say French NM reaches < 15%, they can essentially decide to surrender (have that option via a DE and it can be worded via an offer to declare Paris an open city for flavour) which then forces the Germans to decide on Vichy or not.

Typically this would be around the time Axis units are near or adjacent to Paris, and I guess the questions for us would be:

1) If there would still potentially be a way around that for the Axis side?

2) If this resolves the issue of GB committing to the defense of Algeria?

For example, would it allow a British player to hold back some resources until it is clear that the Germans are going for all of France? Or would we need to additionally make it a bit harder for the Axis to take Algeria to slow them down just enough until the decision is clear and then GB is safe to commit additional resources. This is why I asked about adding a few more obstacles to an Axis conquest of Algeria via an additional French unit event and an additional alternate Capital.

Of course we run the risk of making it too hard for the Axis as a result (so then the option is never entertained going forward), or that none of the above possibly changes anything as a GB player is still likely to have to commit to the defense of Algeria earlier than they would like (and before an Axis player makes a final decision on Vichy or not) if they have any chance of stopping the Axis player down there.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I got side screwed, in not realizing Syria would become Axis Territory when Algeria did go down.
While the UK was strong in Libya and going to make Egypt at least hold out a lot longer, the Germans just transported a HQ, a ground unit or 2 and operated a bunch of air into Syria to backdoor me.

Ahh yes I had that happen also. Need to keep Brit ships in ports until you can take the ports/cap.

I have to say when I started playing PBEM many of the seasoned players didn't seem to just want to easily win (which obviously they could do) it seemed liked they wanted to humiliate me using every loophole in the game. I don't think many of those guys still play (or the loopholes exist) but it does show why closing the loophole were are talking about is important.

[Rannug61]

That sounds good too me, Hubert! It's not easy to go for Algers so I would parhaps only have a garrison unit(if any axis unit is in Tunisia or Ageria), show up in Algers or Oran if Algers is occupied.
If the Axis in the end go for AoF this Garrison unit shouldn't be an extra unit to add the ones that arrives because of AoF.

[Sugar]

Hi folks, I`m back (sort of)!

1. I`m not Fafnir; surprisingly enough I could keep my nick through all the different forums, so I was Sugar at Battlefront as well. Fafnir`s name at Battlefront was Ultim@gno, and at the german Panzerliga it was Isnogud iirc (the notorious Terif and our Amadeus were also part of the Panzerliga, but not me). I began to play PbEMs in SC not before Breakthrough came out; there were just 2 opponents I couldn`t ever manage to beat in more than 150 games, Fafnir was and still is one of them.

2. That`s why I quitted playing the tourney. Fafnir is undoubtly the best, since he also has beaten the other player I couldn`t beat in the Battlefront tourney in both games on either side.

3. To topic: the assumption is wrong. The only reason allied units are dissolved in Algeria and Vichy is: they were placed there. If they weren`t, they wouldn`t be dissolved, no matter the decision of the Axis player. If you want to anticipate a possible "All of France" move, simply wait until it comes into play, and don`t complain otherwise.

The reason why it became a viable option is a strategic necessity for the Axis: if they can`t get Spain through diplo anymore like it is after the latest "updates", they`ll have to get to Gibraltar (and get Spain) otherwise. Taking Vichy and then DoWing Tunesia and Algeria isn´t an option as well, because it probably moves Spain further to the Allies.

But that`s not even near the whole story: the Allies can ahistorically sink the RM in port, and with the newly supply rules North Africa can simply be blocked from any supply.

The obvious work around is to take all of France. And that`s why I stopped playing PbEMs.

All the mentioned changes were completely unforced; the whole community agreed the game to be perfectly balanced in V 1.05. The reason can be seen here, all the comments are one-sided without even questioning the assumption.

Even veteran players don`t understand the supply rules anymore, not to speak of newbies; with following assumptions also misleading:

[/img]

(AAR from an ongoing game of 2 SC-veterans) https://www.si-games.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30309&page=8

That`s ridiculous.

I`m back to Breakthrough SoE. Sad to say but it`s the better game right now, especially considering the things that were possible back then: Germany can field 10 tanks and 6 tac. bombers; there aren`t whole armies of heavy tanks and no med. bombers, with the right balance between tanks and bombers unlike now; and russian inf. doesn`t need to develop Inf. lvl 3 to compete.

Encirclements are possible! With one more action point to all units on a smaller map they are mandatory and effective. In WiE the mechanics had to be changed to do any damage to entrapped units, resulting in the fatal changes to the supply rules, instead of enabling units to reach the back of enemy lines like in SoE. Beside the ruined supply rules, the opportunity to comprehend operational manouevre warfare once attracted me to SoE and SC. Now HQs and their units are bound to cities and towns, with the distance between them not even reachable in one turn without costly motorization. That`s cabinet wars, not Panzer raids.

Many greetings and good luck to all of you, I`m out again.

[stormbringer3]

What game is Breakthrough SoE? I've been searching that exact title and nothing has come up.
Thanks.

[Elessar2]

I've already argued (in one of Crispy's threads) that movement allowances for units need to be adjusted upward, in both WiE [bigger map] & WaW [fewer turns]. Moving armor/mech up to +7 [Inf. Army to 4, all other Inf. to 5] can now allow for viable encirclements. What I was finding at Tank/Mech +5 was not only couldn't I zip around and cut things off, I often couldn't reach what seemed to be viable nearby targets, due to a combination of either weather, supply, rivers and/or ZoC. Just two of those in concert would typically be sufficient to prevent any viable mobility, basically wasting one whole turn for that unit.

I've also toyed with lowering costs for air units, with a concomitant reduction in attack/defense points across the board (maybe HQ's as well so as to allow chains). Italy for example early on can only afford its maritime bomber; give it a chance at buying 2 additional regular bombers (+ a fighter), park them all near Naples (+ anything the Germans can spare), and that would make any sane British player think twice about an Adriatic raid.

But SC as it is now assumes that there are no planes at all except in currently active and vital theatres, which is silly of course. If I can afford a cheap HQ to park there as well? Welp bring on the RN...

[James Taylor]

Its been a long time since someone tried this strategy with me, but at one time it was viable, made for a good battle, then it usually spelled doom for the Axis.

OK, some of the dynamics have changed, like Axis subs access to the Med, but that can be blocked. I'm going to imagine a scenario where the Allies(UK & France) negate this Algerian tactic.

From the initial French invasion, save the French airforce & an HQ and you can build 2 early UK tanks for Spring/Summer 40 deployment, I usually build these for UK in case of Sealion attempt.

When taking the UK expeditionary force off the continent, leave them on the water in transports, obviously you'll need to save them from the battle of France. Now you have an Algerian force that will not succumb to an Axis invasion, especially measly paratroopers.

Block the Axis amphibious potential with the entire French navy in the Med with the UK carriers for air cover along with land based fighters and if the Paras land, block their supply sources, you have a UK strat bomber as well.

It will be quite a battle but I've found that the Axis don't really stand a chance in USSR after this.

[ericdauriac]

What game is Breakthrough SoE?

Regards

[Fafnir]

It is the battlefront version of the classic strategic command WWI game.
The battlefront Breakthrough version contained the campain 'Storm over Europe' as bonus.
This was quite similar to the WWII war in Europe version.

[Gilber]

Hi all,
I think one of the problems with all france strategy is that the axis player is forced to choose (Vichy or no Vichy) when france surrenders.
To keep this choice open as long as possible the axis player can decide not to take Paris in order to postpone France's surrender.
I could be wrong but the creation of Vichy should be a possibility offered to the Axis player at least for a certain time.