Vichy France & Bordeaux Enclave

[rkr1958]

(1) Are Vichy France and the Bordeaux Enclave exploits?

(2) After considerable play and consideration my personal answer to the above is yes ... and no ... how's that for decisiveness!?

(3) Let me lay out the background, as I see it, for both and my rationale for my yes & no answer.

(4) Also, I post this to get analysis, feedback, thoughts, recommendations or anything else you might like to contribute on the two subjects.

Background
(5) The optional rules I'm playing in my current AAR, A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers, are the following RAC (Rules as Coded) & RAI (Rules as Intended).

09-Optional-Rules-as-Intended.png (152.01 KiB) Viewed 1341 times

(6) Germany was having a hard time in France; but managed a successful 71.3% assault to take Paris and; thus be able to install Vichy at the end of the turn.

(7) While "good" odds; this assault was far from certain.

(8) And my first, well actually second, question of this post is; if Germany didn't know with certainty that they could install Vichy, make the French army & defenses "disappear" would they have made such an assault or waited to clear more hexes adjacent to Paris and for more certain (i.e., better) odds to assault Paris?

05-AX-Western-LC-1-Paris.png (263.4 KiB) Viewed 1341 times

(9) Even after the loss of Paris the French & CW still had a formable & organized defensive line extending from the North Sea to Lyons.

(10) But; with certainty German knew they could install Vichy, dissolve the French forces and isolate the CW forces.

09-AX-Western-France.png (1.93 MiB) Viewed 1341 times

(11) With the knowledge that Germany was having a hard time several turns prior, the CW and French began setting up their Bordeaux-Bayonne enclave; including railing 2 Vichy factories to Bordeaux.

(12) This enclave was also reinforced by CW forces displaced from both Vichy & Morocco on Vichy being installed. Would Germany have allowed a British army in Morocco to "move into Bordeaux"?

99-Western-France-Post-Vichy.png (1.8 MiB) Viewed 1341 times

Are these Exploits?
(13) Again, I answer yes and no.

(14) I really would like to explore both from an historical and gaming perspective.

(15) I really don't see France agreeing to an armistice just because they lost Paris but still held a defensive line with the Brits extending from the North Sea to Lyons.

(16) But maybe they would, what do you think?

(17) Should installing Vichy require more than just the capture or Paris? Be probabilistic if France is still strong and not certain?

(18) Now comes the Bordeaux enclave ... is this an historical counterfactual? Especially given that the CW and France started preparing for it several turns ago and well before Paris was threaten; must less taken.

(19) From a gaming perspective I can see that the Bordeaux enclave is a potential impediment to an axis close the Med strategy and a German/Italian invasion of Spain.

(20) So just to outright not allow the Bordeaux enclave would make such a gambit easier for the axis.

(21) Maybe not allow it for Germany/Italy agree not to attack Spain from France for a year or so?

(22) What do you think?

[Joseignacio]

Not answering all of them, just...

... this is a game of simulation, not all the possible reluctances or possible reactions are into it. Considering this and considering the size of the rules, from which Vichy is a sizeable chunk and a serious source of doubts and complexity, I wouldnt touch it. Unless maybe to delete that part, but it gives chrome to the game.

As for (18), I have done it several times with very good results, and have had it done against me successfully too, and it is a real PITA for the GE.

(18) Now comes the Bordeaux enclave ... is this an historical counterfactual? Especially given that the CW and France started preparing for it several turns ago and well before Paris was threaten; must less taken.

(19) From a gaming perspective I can see that the Bordeaux enclave is a potential impediment to an axis close the Med strategy and a German/Italian invasion of Spain.

(20) So just to outright not allow the Bordeaux enclave would make such a gambit easier for the axis.

(21) Maybe not allow it for Germany/Italy agree not to attack Spain from France for a year or so?

(22) What do you think?

[Centuur]

Interesting questions. First, you need to take into account the political situation in France in 1939-1940. The country was politically a total mess. There was no strong leader (like Churchill in the UK) who unified the country. And this became especially visible the moment Paris was conquered by Germany. From that moment on there were factions who wanted to continue the fight (even if France would totally get conquered) and there were factions who wanted the fighting to end.

So I would say that even with a strong French army present, Vichy would have been declared (I compare it with the end of WW I. Germany did defeat the Russians and their eastern armies were moving west however the political situation escalated, which resulted in the collapse of the Kaiser).

And one thing you also asked. If you can get a +10 (or more) on Paris: don't hesitate to attack.

Now, the Bordeaux situation. Is it an exploit? No. Why? German troops entered Bordeaux in june (a whole month before Vichy got created...). And: the British did consider to send troops to Brest and Bordeaux. Why they didn't do so? Lack of resources and the incredible speed of the German Blitzkrieg. In your game, that Blitzkrieg is a slow one. And if they were forced to evacuate out of Morocco, why not send those troops to assist lord Gort if he has his HQ in a nice castle there.

[Centuur]

Sorry, double.

[paulderynck]

For this version of rules I would say the designer must have agreed the Bordeaux Redoubt is an exploit because in the CE edition (RAW8 vs RAW7 in MWiF), he added the rule permitting the axis to move into Vichy France to counteract allied units adjacent to the Vichy border.

[rkr1958]

For this version of rules I would say the designer must have agreed the Bordeaux Redoubt is an exploit because in the CE edition (RAW8 vs RAW7 in MWiF), he added the rule permitting the axis to move into Vichy France to counteract allied units adjacent to the Vichy border.

Not only that, check out the MAP change from FE (MWIF) to CW! In CE there are 6 adjacent land hexes (with axis likely being able to get 4 or 5 of them) vs MWIF with only 2!

MWIF

99-MWIF-Bordeaux.png (1.71 MiB) Viewed 1264 times

CW

99-CE-Bordeaux.png (4.66 MiB) Viewed 1264 times

[paulderynck]

I don't see a difference in the maps, but certainly in CE the axis can get to all the hexes adjacent to the 4 the CW will try to hang onto. Without marine units, Bordeaux cannot be attacked from the hex directly east of it. In RAW7 that leaves one hex to attack from (since neither CW or Germany would normally want to enter Vichy after it's declared) and it is protected by a river hexside. So in CE the axis can get a 4 hex attack on that hex. It may take awhile though, since they have to "ooze around" due to CW ZoCs.

Once Vichy is declared the hexes east of the redoubt should not be CW controlled BTW.

[rkr1958]

I don't see a difference in the maps,

In CE Bordeaux is moved 1 hex southeast. The hex where it used to be is now just a woods hex. In CE, Bordeaux is now adjacent over land and attackable from all 6 surrounding hexes.

[rkr1958]

Once Vichy is declared the hexes east of the redoubt should not be CW controlled BTW.

The MWIF map I'm showing is after Germany collapsed Vichy and excludes units. CW units have moved into and control those two hexes in former Vichy. In fact, CW units occupy 1 of the two hexes

[paulderynck]

I don't see a difference in the maps,

In CE Bordeaux is moved 1 hex southeast. The hex where it used to be is now just a woods hex. In CE, Bordeaux is now adjacent over land and attackable from all 6 surrounding hexes.

Instead of not seeing the forest for the trees, I didn't see the Bordeaux, thanks.

[paulderynck]

I don't see a difference in the maps,

In CE Bordeaux is moved 1 hex southeast. The hex where it used to be is now just a woods hex. In CE, Bordeaux is now adjacent over land and attackable from all 6 surrounding hexes.

Instead of not seeing the forest for the trees, I did not see the Bordeaux, thanks.

[rkr1958]

999-17.4.3-Access-to-Vichy.png (546.92 KiB) Viewed 122 times

(1) In addition to moving Bordeaux 1-hex southeast, CE also allows units controlled by the axis power that installed Vichy to enter Vichy hexes adjacent to enemy units (e.g., Bordeaux) without collapsing Vichy.

(2) I think it's safe to conclude this map and rule change in CE are in response to the Bordeaux enclave and significantly mitigates the effectiveness of that strategy in CE vs FE.

(3) I would like, if folks are interested, discuss approaches (e.g., house rules) that mitigates the Bordeaux enclave gambit in MWIF to the same level that the map and rule changes in CE does.

(4) Also, there's a second issue I would like to discuss that's addressed via another map change in CE.

(5) And that's eliminating the risk of a Rotterdam enclave for a early invasion of the Netherlands.

(6) Specifically, check out the map change from FE (MWIF) to CE.

(7) In CE, the map change allows Germany to "march" into Rotterdam on the invasion impulse if the allies deploy the Netherlands corps to Amsterdam, and visa-versa if they deploy it to Rotterdam.

(8) I think it's fair to say that the map change in CE allows a competent Germany player with certainty to capture both Amsterdam and Rotterdam on the invasion impulse prior to turn 4 (Mar/Apr 1940), which is when Germany gets their airborne corps.

(9) In MWIF prior to (4) Mar/Apr 1940, Germany generally can only capture both through an uncertain amphibious invasion of a div from the North Sea.

(10) Against a competent allied player, even on the first impulse of a turn, KM fleet attempting such an invasion is turned away allowing the CW player to establish an enclave in Rotterdam that's a bear to dig out; especially if early game weather turns and remains turned.

MWIF

999-MWIF-Netherlands.png (1.7 MiB) Viewed 122 times

CE.

999-WIF-CW-Netherlands.png (1.91 MiB) Viewed 122 times

(11) The following is actual from a recent game of mine illustrating this risk in MWIF.

WhatsApp Image 2025-04-15 at 13.19.42_6d6f05dc.jpg (239.72 KiB) Viewed 122 times

[Axis]
GER will DOW Netherlands, please do US Entry & Set up
GER moves 2 x CA to North Sea and picks up SS DIV
Stops in 2 Box
GER will not initiate combat in North Sea, but FR will have the opportunity

[Allied]
By my calculation the French have a 15% chance of finding with enough SPs to force a surface action.
Flip the CA Dupleix to search please & NO allied air reacts.
I'll take the risk with the French navy.

[AXIS]
no Axis air added
Allies successful 3 to 10
7 SP, wow

[ALLIED]
Obviously I'll use 4 SPs for a surface.
As I see it, initial KM risk is 10 Fr SFs vs 2 KM CAs -> D, 3A.
Assuming that's correct, I'll use 2 of the 3 remaining Fr SPs to increase KM risk to 2D, 3A.
And I'll accept the initial Fr risk of 8 KM SFs vs 4 Fr CAs -> D, 2A.
Put D on CA Foch, and if damaged A until aborted.
Then A on CA Dupleix until aborted.
After that, if necessary, A on CA Suffern
The surviving French CAs will remain.

[AXIS]
Both GER CA D and A

[ALLIED]
Fr CA aborts (that can reach to Mogador, Morocco please
Otherwise to Brest, including if damaged
Make that Casablanca not Mogador please

[AXIS]
Both sides stay
No extra Axis Air
Allies?

[ALLIED]
No air please
Luftwaffe looking for revenge I suspect.

[AXIS]
Luftwaffe no where to be found
6 to 8

[ALLIED]
That's Goering for you ... all promises and no results
I image Adm Raeder is also in some hot water

[rkr1958]

(1) I have a simple proposal for MWIF to mirror the ability for Germany to capture both Amsterdam & Rotterdam on the invasion impulse prior to the arrival on the German airborne.

(2) That's to allow Germany to initially build their 7th para div in 1 turn vs 4.

(3) For example, this would allow Germany to build the 7th para on turn 1 (Sep/Oct 1939) and deploy it the next turn (i.e., 2 Nov/Dec 1939).

(4) Given the para div, a competent Germany player would be able to invade, capture both Rotterdam & Amsterdam on the invasion impulse prior to to turn 4 (Mar/Apr 1940).

(5) My proposal would be that this 1 turn build would only apply to the initial build of the 7th para div and only if built on turns 1 or 2; otherwise they could use their para corps arriving on turn 4.

(6) What do you think?

[Centuur]

There is an optional rule, which I think should be coded for MWIF, even though it is considered to be very pro-Axis. That's the optional rule: no ZOC on the surprise impulse. If that comes in play, you can move into Rotterdam with Germany anyhow.

From an historically point of view, this optional rule should not be optional at all. Every country which was not involved already in the war and got attacked by another country, suffers from a type of shock, which hampers defense a lot. It simply takes time to get to war footing. And there's usually also the fact that the invading country has had time to do it's homework (using spies is far more easy in a neutral country than one with you are at war with).

[rkr1958]

There is an optional rule, which I think should be coded for MWIF, even though it is considered to be very pro-Axis. That's the optional rule: no ZOC on the surprise impulse.

Just curious - what do you put the odds at that we could get this optional rule coded?

I know what I think they are.

[Orm]

There is an optional rule, which I think should be coded for MWIF, even though it is considered to be very pro-Axis. That's the optional rule: no ZOC on the surprise impulse.

Just curious - what do you put the odds at that we could get this optional rule coded?

I know what I think they are.

I am pretty sure it was declared a very long time ago that that option was to be stricken from MWIF.