Matrix Games Forums

June 1940 : First time in a grand strategique wargame I have a solid France when I play Germany

It's a pleasure to be in difficult whit these damned frenchies[:D]

AI makes a good opponent (note that I am not a "Napoleon" : better modder than strategist [:'(]) but the great game pleasure is here, like I had when I played Third Reich PC and Strategic Command 1

I did not attack Norway and Denmark but I attacked Holland and Belgium + Lux in October 1939 (bad weather : rain, rain, rain) with only 2 armored corps (others are in building)

I had heavy losses and my progression is slow

Well the fact you are attacking Belgium and Luxembourg in October does not speak well for any historical accuracy whatsoever.

In the board war games Third Reich by AH and War in Europe by SPI, you had to pay for a DOW and it was usually fees able to do so til spring of 1940.

What's good about this news?

Either you are really bad at playing Germany or the French are way too strong.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

What's good about this news?

Either you are really bad at playing Germany or the French are way too strong.

Totally agree. With two equal strength opponents, France should fall by the end of the summer 40. Assuming Germany is pushing hard to conquer it in spring 40 and even if the Allies are pushing hard to save it. This is not a good thing if my previous statements are not true.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

What's good about this news?

Either you are really bad at playing Germany or the French are way too strong.

What is good ? 2 things :

1/ I am the both : bad german and bad allies [:D]: but it means that I will have a long time to explore the game (the more you are good, the less a game has for you a long life)

2/ I have full pleasure of game

In addition : the editor is very detailled and everyone may modify what he want to do. You think that frenchs are too "hard" ? You have just to open the editor and set french units lower : everyone makes what he want in this game

In addition : the editor is very detailled and everyone may modify what he want to do. You think that frenchs are too "hard" ? You have just to open the editor and set french units lower : everyone makes what he want in this game

I think my French opponent might not be happy with me tinkering with his unit strengths.

I think you are worried about nothing about your French opponent : we, French people, we highly love to lose wars, it's our "art of war : we love so america (and Australia) that we do all what we can to allow America (and Australian forces[:'(]) to save us [:D]

Situation in August 2, 1940


2 armored corps came as reinforcements (I started to build them a long time berore) and French front is almost broken (but I suffer by dummy actions heavy losses^^)

To see the reaction of AI, I have sent( as crazy test) 2 armored corps to the deep south, will see what happens

I play with no historical intentions and no any intention to win the battle : I only explore the system

I like what I see, thnx welk [:)]

You will not be disappointed : it's really a great wargame, probably one of the best never published. I insist on beta forum to ask to the developper more and more improvments in interface. It's already very good but I think that this game must have a perfect interface, with lot of choices and clarty for player to display functions, informations, etc. I know that All developpers are a little bit lazy peoples in interface work, because they thinks as "mathematic technician", not as "players"[:D]

I was rather hoping the designer would be brave enough to not neuter one of the most powerful armies in world just for the sake of gameplay. The historical fall of France followed an extraordinary sequence of events (and incredible luck of the iron dice on the German side). Strategic wargames design France to be ridiculously weak so that it falls on the historical timetable because that is the gamer expectation, nothing else. It's at the point where strategic WW2 games might as well just start after the fall of France. I think a board game even does that.

ORIGINAL: GenSlack

I was rather hoping the designer would be brave enough to not neuter one of the most powerful armies in world just for the sake of gameplay. The historical fall of France followed an extraordinary sequence of events (and incredible luck of the iron dice on the German side). Strategic wargames design France to be ridiculously weak so that it falls on the historical timetable because that is the gamer expectation, nothing else. It's at the point where strategic WW2 games might as well just start after the fall of France. I think a board game even does that.

I agree with, and I have to say that in my test game, AI France is a hard opponent (for me)

AS I said, editor allows to change parameters of all unit, and players who want a more "hard" France or a more weak France may change themself what they want

France offered to surrender and me, Adolf Welk, I accepted generously[:D]

October 40 is not a exploit, but I am not Guderian[8|] I think that AI France of Warplan has fought with honour

What to do in Paris in October [:'(]

This is where events aswell as leaders and competence etc should be impacting the game not only battle strength, plus a dash of luck just like how it happened.

That's the way to do it. I've found at most scales leaders have to little impact on battle performance.

ORIGINAL: GenSlack

I was rather hoping the designer would be brave enough to not neuter one of the most powerful armies in world just for the sake of gameplay. The historical fall of France followed an extraordinary sequence of events (and incredible luck of the iron dice on the German side). Strategic wargames design France to be ridiculously weak so that it falls on the historical timetable because that is the gamer expectation, nothing else. It's at the point where strategic WW2 games might as well just start after the fall of France. I think a board game even does that.

ORIGINAL: wodin

This is where events aswell as leaders and competence etc should be impacting the game not only battle strength, plus a dash of luck just like how it happened.

That's the way to do it. I've found at most scales leaders have to little impact on battle performance.

In case of 1940 it wasn't only the leaders. Germany had some good ones and some average ones. Plus the flow of the information between various levels of command and armed forces branches was confusing at times ( the halt order for example ). It was also the general effectiveness of the armed forces, that originated from the doctrine. Because of that, in a game of this scale some things have to be abstracted. The French units by default have to be weaker, with a lower morale/effectiveness, no matter how well they were armed in the real life.

Let's not forget that the beta test has just started, and whatever Welk posts, good or bad, is not necessarily what the final game will look and play like. This is why we do not normally want beta testers sharing information during the beta test. Since you (the general public) do not have the same level of view as the beta testers, this only servers to confuse things.

As such, thread is getting closed.