Matrix Games Forums

This is getting a bit heated. Too bad, there were some interesting ideas being discussed that I fear will be lost in the shouting.

I'd like to take up the question of total French surrender of all colonies after the capture of Algiers. I think it needs to be considered from two distinct vantage points:
1. Whether it's historically plausible, and
2. Whether it's desirable in terms of game balance (and if not, what the alternative mechanisms might be.

As to 1, I can't imagine the French colonies putting up Soviet-style, last ditch resistance after the metropole had been overrun AND the okldest and most well-established colony (Algeria) had lost its capital. With the exception of Algeria, French colonies all had VERY small native-French populations ruling over large, often restive, indigenous populations. The arrangement worked (as in the case of all European colonies in this period)--just barely--through a combination of divide-and-rule, ruthlessness, and technological superiority. But it was a delicate balance. I can totally see the French colonial elites in Syria, Morocco, Tunisia (as well as Algeria) accepting Nazi rule, especially if the Nazis were astute enough to give their rule a tinge of autonomy. That's my opinion, anyway.

As to 2, opinions will of course vary depending on one's game experience as much as anything else. I personally like the fact that the Axis gains Syria, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria when they take the Algiers option and win.
Going for Algiers while France is still in play is a high-risk, high reward strategy for the Axis. It can fail spectacularly (I've botched it myself and had the humiliation of seeing France rebuild in North Africa), so the rewards for pulling it off should be big.

I truly would like to know what others think.

LW

I does seem from various threads that we have a general consensus (players & authors) that PBEM 1939 needs to be reworked to be balanced. Especially Africa & Russia.

My inexperience led to the discussion about Algiers, I didn't understand the your large invasion from Syria. I was attempting to blockade Libya. I believe there to be plenty of French Naval resources to make it prohibitive for the Axis to reject Vichy and attempt to take Algiers. The strategy might succeed but it would be very costly and unlikely.

I think the Algiers result could go either way. If the Axis were to station the equivalent of 100,000 + troops in Syria I do think it would have a large adverse effect on Turkish relations.

James, if I misconstrued your initial post calling my question "blatant allied incompetence" I apologize for my retorts.

I wasn't aware of the "naval cruise" feature. I can't seem to get it to work.

Glad to see the conversation has returned to normal, and Hubert and I have spent some time over the last week or so working on improving the game balance so as to make Egypt and the USSR a bit more resilient, but without hopefully swinging things too far the other way.

Some suggestions:

Give the USSR the plunder from its share of Poland, including Vilno. The USSR can really use a small, early one time MPP windfall.

The DOW's that are done by events denies a couple of mob %-points. Make events for Denmark (USA & USSR), Norway (USSR) and Italy (USA & USSR,) similar to the Norway (USA) that is already in. Give the UK the norwegian destroyers.

Consider splitting the locations activated by USSR mobilization that was changed to default to 1/1/42 in two equal groups and make one group default to the old 1/1/41.

Change build time for USSR armies (the 150 MPP type) to 3 from 4 and corps to 2 from 3.

To me the key point in North Africa is Rommel HQs unit, that unit allow coupled with the unrealistic lack of limit to the number of units that can be supplied from one supply source makes it easy for the >German player tactics like massing a big air force in North Africa commanded by Rommel capable of destroying British defenses very quickly. A modification of the North Africa event could be the solution, even making the Afrika Korps units show up in Europe instead of directly in North Africa could make a big difference.

It wasn't the question I was referring to PvtB, it was the action of the Allied player to allow the Algerian move. Look, it is a lively discussion, excuse my sarcasm, reminiscing about the olden days of SC when we had just those kind of exchanges.

In the end, we're all SC brethren, we all want the same thing, please accept my apology for my instigations.

I'm in the camp that if there needs to be some changes, the AK should have to make the run to Libya, just like historically. The Axis will have to cover the transport with airpower and the RM

Also, as you suggested in the original post Private, the Red Army reinforcements could be allowed a more rearward deployment.

Just remember, balance is a delicate thing, a little here, a little there, things can go awry very quickly and then we must transgress ground we've already covered. I'm not sure enough H vs H testing has been accomplished, from my perspective, I respect others input, but I'm always skeptical of jumping to conclusions.

Well, that must have been rough times, James! [;)]

I also suspect that an automated shipment of the Afrikakorps to the North African front raises the strategic possibilities of the Axis somewhat too far into the comfort zone. At the moment the Axis player is asking himself less whether he sends troops to Africa - but almost as a rule, how many combat units can still be spent in addition.

My feeling tells me that the question of a possible campaign in the Balkans can be a bit too easy in the direction of "no" at the moment. What would be the consequences of so much pressure on the Italian allies who had already been victorious in spirit? This question is not without significance, especially for the campaign in North Africa. Of course the game needs decision-making freedom for alternative game variants. But also real difficulties or risks in strategic variants, which have the potential for a faster victory. In the end, a high-risk/unconventional victory should generate more respect and less discussion about unjust balancing, right?