RE: Which is Better in a DCG, AXIS or ALLIES?
Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:56 pm
Pasha, could you put together an AAR explaining your deft use of infantry?
My experience was there were a number of victory hexes in every scenario and that a fair number of them were often right out in the open. I don't see how French infantry could defend them successfully. German infantry can attack at 6 at two hexes, and German machine gun platoons might get a 9 attack value at two hexes (I forget). Even when it was infantry on infantry, the Germans had a range advantage. It wasn't like trying to defend a victory hex in the middle of a city or the middle of a woods.
I read somewhere that the French inflicted more losses on the Germans during the six-weeks the French were in the war in 1940 than the Soviets inflicted on the Germans during the Soviets' first six weeks of war in 1941.
It's what happened after the first six weeks where France's and the Soviet Union's stories take different paths.
A large number of the French troops taken from Dunkirk were sent back to France to fight.
And then there was Petain's radio message saying it was time for an armistice and to put down arms. Petain did this before an armistice had yet been signed. This caused chaos as a large number of troops were falsely under the impression there was, in fact, an armistice signed and that they could put down their arms.
With leaders like Petain, Pierre Laval, and Bonnet, I wouldn't have risked my life defending that government either.
If the British had Chamberlain in office in June 1940, the British might have knuckled under as well. I question whether the average British soldier would have fought for Chamberlain, who got them into the mess. I think it was a lot easier for the average British soldier to fight for Churchill, who pledged to get them out of this mess. The only French leader with the backbone to fight on was DeGaulle, and he fought on despite monumental odds. When France made its governmental shift in June 1940, it was the side opposed to fighting that took over. When Churchill took office in May 1940, Great Britain took a governmental shift in the exact opposite direction.
I don't believe people make disparaging remarks about the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Yugoslaves, or the Greeks. What's different is their governments went into exile and continued the war with whatever was left. The French government surrendered and gave up the fight, and then the Vichy government tried to monkey a fascist regime. DeGaulle was sentenced to death by the Vichy government for wanting to continue the fight. I just think the opprobrium should be thrown on the French political leaders rather than on the average French soldier.
My experience was there were a number of victory hexes in every scenario and that a fair number of them were often right out in the open. I don't see how French infantry could defend them successfully. German infantry can attack at 6 at two hexes, and German machine gun platoons might get a 9 attack value at two hexes (I forget). Even when it was infantry on infantry, the Germans had a range advantage. It wasn't like trying to defend a victory hex in the middle of a city or the middle of a woods.
I read somewhere that the French inflicted more losses on the Germans during the six-weeks the French were in the war in 1940 than the Soviets inflicted on the Germans during the Soviets' first six weeks of war in 1941.
It's what happened after the first six weeks where France's and the Soviet Union's stories take different paths.
A large number of the French troops taken from Dunkirk were sent back to France to fight.
And then there was Petain's radio message saying it was time for an armistice and to put down arms. Petain did this before an armistice had yet been signed. This caused chaos as a large number of troops were falsely under the impression there was, in fact, an armistice signed and that they could put down their arms.
With leaders like Petain, Pierre Laval, and Bonnet, I wouldn't have risked my life defending that government either.
If the British had Chamberlain in office in June 1940, the British might have knuckled under as well. I question whether the average British soldier would have fought for Chamberlain, who got them into the mess. I think it was a lot easier for the average British soldier to fight for Churchill, who pledged to get them out of this mess. The only French leader with the backbone to fight on was DeGaulle, and he fought on despite monumental odds. When France made its governmental shift in June 1940, it was the side opposed to fighting that took over. When Churchill took office in May 1940, Great Britain took a governmental shift in the exact opposite direction.
I don't believe people make disparaging remarks about the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Yugoslaves, or the Greeks. What's different is their governments went into exile and continued the war with whatever was left. The French government surrendered and gave up the fight, and then the Vichy government tried to monkey a fascist regime. DeGaulle was sentenced to death by the Vichy government for wanting to continue the fight. I just think the opprobrium should be thrown on the French political leaders rather than on the average French soldier.