Next Patch

[doomtrader]

Beacuse it was one of the two empires beaten in this war.
 
Also it's the only country (to be more exact very similar case was Czechoslovakia) who has been partialy occupied and puppeted.
 
Poland, Yougoslavia and Greece were just partitioned, Denmark and Norway were conquered by Germans. Axis minors were conquered by Commies.
 
Can you point any country that should be treated in similar way to France/Vichy?
 
The only thing that comes to my mind is Italian Social Republic, but I'm not sure is it worth to be simulated, as in reality it was just German occupation.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Beacuse it was one of the two empires beaten in this war.

Also it's the only country (to be more exact very similar case was Czechoslovakia) who has been partialy occupied and puppeted.

Poland, Yougoslavia and Greece were just partitioned, Denmark and Norway were conquered by Germans. Axis minors were conquered by Commies.

Can you point any country that should be treated in similar way to France/Vichy?

The only thing that comes to my mind is Italian Social Republic, but I'm not sure is it worth to be simulated, as in reality it was just German occupation.

Well if the point of the event is to offer 'historical alternatives' to the player then all other nations should be offered the same thing eh? No one playing the game can possibly look at the situation as France did during the actual time, their desire to stay in existance as a nation regardless of how the UK or USA or Russia felt. There is no such feeling to the gamers, it's all one side. The game doesn't let different nations attack together yet they can conduct diplomatic relations as if they were a single entity and do what is best for the side not the individual nation.

As for examples of other nations if the UK is invaded why shouldn't the Germans have the ability to offer them an armistice like France once southern England is occupied? Italy is a good example that happened historically yet has no chance in this game. Why can't the Axis choose to fight on with 'loyal' Italians as opposed to having the disappear instantly?

I think if you make it the choice of the opponent, Germany in the case of France, then it works better.
Not many Axis players would accept a Vichy UK nor would an Allied player be likely accept a Vichy Italy. But the opposite is not true, the Allies would definately want a chance to bring a Vichy UK back in with diplomacy and the Axis probably wouldn't turn down a secure souther border from a Vichy Italy. And no Allied player would accept a Vichy France unless they totally bungled the defense of France and couldn't cause any more German causalties or ship out any more PP's. That's why I think the choice should for Vichy be with the Germans not the Allies.

[Michael the Pole]

Ya'll are ALL missing the point! France was NOT offered an armistice. France got down on its collective knees, stabbed Great Britain and all of the small Allies in the back and BEGGED for an armistice. It could no more have refused Vichy than 1918 Germany could have refused the armistice terms it got when IT asked for terms. (The 1918 Germans assumed that they were going to get terms based on Wilson's 14 Points, and boy, did they get a suprise!)
That's why the Axis should have the SOLE choice of imposing Vichy.
And Doomtrader, I'd like. most respectfully, to ask ya'll to make sure you read all of these posts on this thread from yesterday. It was a most interesting, and to me, informative discussion. (I'll even admit to learning some things![;)])

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward


... No one playing the game can possibly look at the situation as France did during the actual time, their desire to stay in existance as a nation regardless of how the UK or USA or Russia felt. There is no such feeling to the gamers, it's all one side. The game doesn't let different nations attack together yet they can conduct diplomatic relations as if they were a single entity and do what is best for the side not the individual nation...

I think James has a great point here that expresses what I was trying to say yesterday much better than I did. At some point (November 1918 in Berlin or July '44 in East Prussia come to mind) the elites in a country decide that they have too much to risk losing by continuing a war, and they act to stop it, and they stop it no matter what the cost. If Churchill had lost Egypt and the Suez Canal in 1941 before the Americans came into the War, he'd have faced the same problem in the House of Commons, and might very well have been replaced by a "peace at any price" government.
The key is social/political unrest!

[doomtrader]

I read it with care.
 
But still I think that for the game purposes, Germans should propose armistice.
If France refuse, then Unrest will skyrocket and effectivness of Allies drop down.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear James,
 
I really don't mind examining the USA state between 1939 and 1942, but put the following forward as the case for the status quo.
 

I agree with that. As it stands there is no reason for the Allies to accept it. The longer it takes for France to fall the better it is for the Allies.

The Axis can defeat the French, they only need to take the VP cities.  Once Paris falls the nation is carpeted with 0-1 and 1-1 units.  The Germans and Italians know these cities and their forces should be tasked with capturing these cities.  When Gary proposed Vichy to me I accepted it because he was properly targeting Marseille and I knew the Vichy state was preferable to defeat.  If the Axis captures Paris, Metz should be quickly taken, and Marseille not far behind, for a competent Axis player.  When playing said competent player I will certainly consider the Vichy option.  When playing a "lazy" Axis player who simply "wants to impose" an armistice and does not take the effort to defeat me, then sure I will fight on.
 
There are three cities to have in your sights as the Axis.  This is how you defeat France, or compell them to see the virtues of Vichy.  If the British rush fresh troops to Marseille to help the French defend their land, well, that is how the British fight continental wars.  If you want to stop the British from doing this then solve the problem as a strategical - operational - tactical problem.  This is not beyond the powers of the Axis state.
 

To be able to have, in game terms, the most technologically advance military before they even enter the war is jsut wrong.

Why would the Americans have a technology level greater than the Germans?  I assume Gary has been doing his research over these 2.5 years also.  In many instances the technology level of the USA was certainly as good as the British in 1942, and there were plenty of 75mm Shermans serving for the next two years.  The Americans pretty much fought the war with the Tech they developed before the war, except for aircraft.
 
I do not expect to roll over Gary with US forces, but if Gary thinks the USA is pretty formidable then I recommend he call a halt to his aggression against the Soviets, and garrison the countries he conquered.  He must know the Yanks are coming.
 
The USA did give Hitler and Nazi Germany a pretty hard time after all.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

And actually, I further agree with James because the surrender of Italy WAS analagous to what happened in France!
This is off the top of my head so the time line may not be exact, but the broad overview is. Following the capture of Sicily the elites in Italy decided that they weren't going to lose everything just for the sake of Il'Duce. They called a meeting of the Fascist Council with the intention of replacing him. At the same time and unknown to the Fascist 90 calibres, the King and the Army command decided the same thing. They planned a coup, and following the meeting of the Fascist Council, executed it, arresting Mussolini and confining him on an island (initialy.) Then the new Italian government under Marshal Badoglio asked the Allies for an armistice which was signed September 3, 1943, the same day that the boot was invaded by British forces. The Italians were not pleased with the terms of the armistice, but had no choice but to accept them.
Do ya'll see the trend here?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
Why would the Americans have a technology level greater than the Germans? 

Because they have nothing else to spend PP's on?
There is no reason for the USA to do anything but research and send PP's before they eneter the war. There is no reason to build any units or replace any losses except possibly shipping losses. I don't know of any Axis players who can get to level 5 artillery AND armor by January 1942 while garrisoning most of Europe, fighting the Soviets and UK and keeping a PP reserve. I can see the USA concentrating on one field to get to 5 by 1942 at the expense of all other fields and I think this would make for more interesting choices for the USA. Right now the only choice is do you buy 3 light bulbs right after you level up or send a few more PP's or, what the heck, do both![:)]
The USA production should be slowed down dramatically so that they can't field a maximum possible strength army in France in June of 1942! [8D]

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear James,

I really don't mind examining the USA state between 1939 and 1942, but put the following forward as the case for the status quo.

I agree with that. As it stands there is no reason for the Allies to accept it. The longer it takes for France to fall the better it is for the Allies.

The Axis can defeat the French, they only need to take the VP cities.  Once Paris falls the nation is carpeted with 0-1 and 1-1 units.  The Germans and Italians know these cities and their forces should be tasked with capturing these cities.  When Gary proposed Vichy to me I accepted it because he was properly targeting Marseille and I knew the Vichy state was preferable to defeat.  If the Axis captures Paris, Metz should be quickly taken, and Marseille not far behind, for a competent Axis player.  When playing said competent player I will certainly consider the Vichy option.  When playing a "lazy" Axis player who simply "wants to impose" an armistice and does not take the effort to defeat me, then sure I will fight on.

There are three cities to have in your sights as the Axis.  This is how you defeat France, or compell them to see the virtues of Vichy.  If the British rush fresh troops to Marseille to help the French defend their land, well, that is how the British fight continental wars.  If you want to stop the British from doing this then solve the problem as a strategical - operational - tactical problem.  This is not beyond the powers of the Axis state.

To be able to have, in game terms, the most technologically advance military before they even enter the war is jsut wrong.

Why would the Americans have a technology level greater than the Germans?  I assume Gary has been doing his research over these 2.5 years also.  In many instances the technology level of the USA was certainly as good as the British in 1942, and there were plenty of 75mm Shermans serving for the next two years.  The Americans pretty much fought the war with the Tech they developed before the war, except for aircraft.

I do not expect to roll over Gary with US forces, but if Gary thinks the USA is pretty formidable then I recommend he call a halt to his aggression against the Soviets, and garrison the countries he conquered.  He must know the Yanks are coming.

The USA did give Hitler and Nazi Germany a pretty hard time after all.

Chuck

Good morning Chuck,
Hope that you're having a three day weekend and not following this very interesting discussion from work! As for me, I love retirement!
Now...
I believe that the current problem with the French, aside from the unrest difficulty, is that the French North African colonies are grossly under valued. As the French repeatedly stated and showed to the whole world in the 1950's, French North Africa was considered to be an integral and non-divisable part of Metropolitan France. Casablanca and Tunis should certainly be French victory point cities (as should Brest and Bordeaux!) The French colonies would certainly have fought on if the Germans had refused the French request for an armistice, because the French Government would certainly have moved, with the French fleet, to North Africa. Reynaud and Churchill were working for just this result when the Germans accepted the French request. If refusal of Vichy meant that the French would stay in the War, and the Fleet and some of the Air Force would move to North Africa, it'd change your position on conquering Metropolitan France, wouldn't it Chuck?
(By the way Doomtrader, given the number of aircraft in the French Airforce shouldnt they have at least 2 air army counters?)

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
Why would the Americans have a technology level greater than the Germans? 

Because they have nothing else to spend PP's on?
There is no reason for the USA to do anything but research and send PP's before they eneter the war. There is no reason to build any units or replace any losses except possibly shipping losses. I don't know of any Axis players who can get to level 5 artillery AND armor by January 1942 while garrisoning most of Europe, fighting the Soviets and UK and keeping a PP reserve. I can see the USA concentrating on one field to get to 5 by 1942 at the expense of all other fields and I think this would make for more interesting choices for the USA. Right now the only choice is do you buy 3 light bulbs right after you level up or send a few more PP's or, what the heck, do both![:)]
The USA production should be slowed down dramatically so that they can't field a maximum possible strength army in France in June of 1942! [8D]

Again I agree with James on this. To argue that the Americans had a superior, or even equal tech level to the Germans in any field except aircraft (and that not until well into 1944) is just, well, not believable. Let's take the 75mm Sherman as Chuck suggests. While the 75mm gun was effective against Pz III's and IV's it was obsolete by 1943 when it came up against Panthers and Tigers. Even the high velocity 76mm gun deployed in 1944 was only effective at close ranges and non-frontal aspects. As for the rest of the tank, its reputation among Allied troops clearley shows what they thought of it! (Just to list three, the English refered to it as the "tommy-cooker" after a trench stove used during WWI; the Americans called it the "Ronson -- lights first time, every time;" but best of all, the Poles called it "the Flaming Grave!") The Americans never fielded a tank that was the all-around equal of the Panther, much less the Tiger I or II. And as for American infantry, God love 'em, just look at Kassarine Pass, or the Hurtgen Forest or Normandy (after the landings and before Cobra where the strategic bomber force finally achieved the American breakout.) The American paratroops were certainly the equal of the German paras who were the best infantry on the planet, but the line infantry just wasn't that good. (Further evidence is clear from the Pacific, where the Marines did the really heavy lifting.)
I have problems with a lot of the tech levels in the game (I have made the arguement before that the German Navy was technologicly superior to the Royal Navy.) But allowing a situation where the United States achieves tech superiority to the Germans in more than perhaps one (or perhaps, at most, 2) is just not accurate.
The Americans defeated the Germans (when they did) by weight of numbers and massive air superiority, not by superior technology!

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Michael,
 
The state of the French Navy was included in the armistice, and Hitler realized that he would not be able to grab the fleet for himself.  I think it would be fun to allow multiple disposition options for each unit of the French fleet when the Vichy state was established.  These could include continued control by Vichy of ships in a Vichy port, control by the Axis, and control by the Allies, and scuttling.  The problem with handling this in WW2:RtV is that Mers-el-Kébir could not happen in this game because Great Britain did not declare war on this neutral they only committed an act of war.  At the level this game simulates these complexities would require much more complicated rules.
 
I would love a larger, more complex game, much like this but bigger, bigger, bigger!  However I know there would be huge issues with actually playing such a game.  Gary and I are just over a quarter of our game in one month.  We are looking at completion in the March - June time frame and this is at this scale.  WitP is there for the Pacific, but it is well known that it requires tremendous dedication to actually finish a game.  If Doom could find it in his heart to open the Event Engine to very complex user events, like Mers-el-Kébir, or even the whole Vichy issue then we could mod to our hearts content, but finding opponents who agreed to play by "your" ruleset might be tough.
 
To answer your specific question, a French nation fighting on from the colonies would make me more likely to offer an armistice as the Germans, but would make it even more likely that the Allied player would try to avoid Vichy and keep a French nation fighting along side them.  In this case we would need Doom's heavy unrest penalty even more.  I never would have thought the Vichy issue was such a problem for us.  The only problem I had with it as the Axis was that I never got the chance to not offer it.  The Vichy event gives the French a choice, not the Axis.
 
Chuck (on my lunch hour, and at work)
 

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Michael,
 
The technology levels must represent tech, but also other factors.  They must, since the Americans did never field a tank as good as the T34-85, or Panther, much less the Tiger, JS series.  Think of the T-Level as representing the size of the American divisions, their superior "tail", their fresher troops, better morale, whatever, for within this game's scale a single T-Level must mean many things.  Sure we could have Multiple Unit Quality Levels, but again at this scale the T-Level works.
 
The Americans had "something" that made them pretty formidable.
 
Do all you folks never play the Allies?
 
Chuck (I need my lunch!)

[Michael the Pole]

Dear Chuck - read this while you eat, without gagging! And then we'll let this go for a while, unless Gary wants to put his oar in! (Baltto is going to take advantage of my PBEM innocence and we're going to play this afternoon with the "Uxbridge variation" and mandatory Vichy. I'm Allied.)
I dont think the game has to be larger, it just needs some tweaks. If we added the French victory point cities I suggested, and made Vichy a purely Axis decision, it would solve the whole problem and make the game much more accurate, IMO.[;)]
Tha Allies were only formidable when the weather was good and their unbelievable air superiority (which was primarily numerical and not technological, even at the end - see Me 262, etc.)came into play. I can name you 10 battles/campaigns where the Allies were totally stuck until the weather cleared and the air force came over the hill. Can you name me one where the Allies won without air superiority. (That's a rhetorical question -- eat your lunch.)
Talk to you later tonite when Balto is sitting in Moscow and New York. All the best!

[doomtrader]

Michael, I've got 1940 OOB under my hand, and there are:

- Zone d'Opérations Aériennes Nord
-- corps lvl2, 100%

- Zone d'Opérations Aériennes Est
-- div lvl2, 100%

- Zone d'Opérations Aériennes Sud
-- div lvl2, 100%

- Zone d'Opérations Aériennes des Alpes
-- corps lvl2, 75%

- Zone d'Opérations Afrique
-- div lvl2, 100%

- Zone d'Opérations Moyen-Orient
-- div lvl2, 40%

Don't ask me about the exact numbers as I'm not the man

[Michael the Pole]

Doom
Cool, and usefull as well. Can't wait to see it. (For those of you not familiar with French nomenclature, these are French Air Force units!) That's rapid response, eh, Doom?
What do you think about adding French VP cities at Casablanca and Tunis? (I'd also add Brest because of its importance as a port and naval base, and Bordeaux, since it was the alternative French capital once Paris falls -- both in WWI and WWII>)
BTW, did you see the Polish nickname for the Sherman?

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Dear Chuck - read this while you eat, without gagging! And then we'll let this go for a while, unless Gary wants to put his oar in!

Please do an AAR of some kind. I'm getting tired of reading my own.

[Severian]

since the Americans did never field a tank as good as the T34-85

You may think I'm crazy, but they did - Sherman is American T-34. Did you know that soviet Guards armoured units have Sherman's? Guards were Red Army elite units [:)]

Don't ask me about the exact numbers as I'm not the man

But I'm [;)]

For those of you not familiar with French nomenclature, these are French Air Force units!

True Michael, true. This is a source to French airforce - http://france1940.free.fr/adla/ada_may.html
You can find here every single plane in French units.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Michael,

The technology levels must represent tech, but also other factors.  They must, since the Americans did never field a tank as good as the T34-85, or Panther, much less the Tiger, JS series.  Think of the T-Level as representing the size of the American divisions, their superior "tail", their fresher troops, better morale, whatever, for within this game's scale a single T-Level must mean many things.  Sure we could have Multiple Unit Quality Levels, but again at this scale the T-Level works.

The Americans had "something" that made them pretty formidable.

Do all you folks never play the Allies?

Chuck (I need my lunch!)

I would think that the technology level would also include training, tactic and all the other things that went in to differentiating armies. With this in mind then is it reasonable to have Germany ahead of othet nations at start and for other nations to gradually overcome this advantage. All things being equal then level 3 would mean an average unit at the end of the war. The British and Russians approached equality with the German in ~1943 so having level 3 or 4 units at that time isn't outraegous, though having all 3 (infantry, armour and air there might be for say Italy).
As it stands now it is not unusualy for all the majors to have level 5 infantry by 1943 and most will have level 4 or 5 of either air or armor, sometimes both. This seems to defeat the purpose of the research tree. Perhaps the time per level should be stretched out or the costs adujsted so you have to make tough choices throughout the entire game on what to research and when.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Dear Chuck - read this while you eat, without gagging! And then we'll let this go for a while, unless Gary wants to put his oar in!

Please do an AAR of some kind. I'm getting tired of reading my own.

Are you mad!!? I'm having enough trouble just figuring out how to upload the file. Suggest you speak to our friend Balto the Hun![X(]

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Severian

since the Americans did never field a tank as good as the T34-85

You may think I'm crazy, but they did - Sherman is American T-34. Did you know that soviet Guards armoured units have Sherman's? Guards were Red Army elite units [:)]



Severian,
There's no accounting for taste (did you see the Polish nickname for the Sherman?) Besides the Gaurds Armored units that had Shermans recieved them when they were FREE! I bet they didn't have them long once the Josef Stalin IIIs deployed.