Idea to counter early Netherlands or Luxembourg invasion in 1939 or 1940

[ncc1701e]

I still see lots of people doing an early DoW against Netherlands or even invading Luxembourg the very first turn of 1939.

And, also the Fall Gelb simulation is great in this game, I miss the fact that the French has no Armor at all. Historically, the two opponents had as many tanks.

There were even more tanks on the Allies side:
Germans: 3119 tanks
vs
French: 2926 tanks
Belgium: 306 tanks
UK: 318 tanks
Netheldans: 40 tanks

But, remembering the famous quote of General Delestraint:
“We had 3,000 tanks, the Germans too. We used them in 1,000 packs of 3. The Germans in 3 packs of 1,000.”...

Thus, I am fine that there is no French armored corps representation in the vanilla game. Tanks are everywhere and nowhere in fact.

Nevertheless, the French were having some Armored division:
1ère Division Cuirassée
2ème Division Cuirassée
3ème Division Cuirassée
And the 4ème Division Cuirassée that was created in a hurry after the start of the war.

Around 25% of the 2926 French tanks thus around 730 tanks were in these four divisions.

So, here is my proposal to counter an early Netherlands or Luxembourg invasion by the Germans.

If a DoW is done by Germany against one of those two countries, this automatically adds a French armored corps with a strength of 10/30 in the French Deployment queue the next turn. That way, if the invasion is done earlier (1939 or 1940) the French can invest to reinforce it to a real 30/30 armored corps. If the invasion takes place in historical time, this will not have much impact on the current balance of the game.

And, on the other side, I am also seeing early Luxembourg invasion by the French. To counter this move, I propose to give one Air Superiority Group with a strength of 10/20 in the Deployment queue to the Germans the next turn this is done. The Germans will need them later. Giving an armored or a mechanized corps is, I think, too much.

I do not know if this is something feasible with the current game engine. Or, if this is even something you think is good or not. The current weather restriction is already better for Netherlands but not for Luxembourg.

[ncc1701e]

And, just to complete, French tanks had better armor than the German ones. But, fuel consumption was very high.
Moreover, the French were lacking AAA units in their division.

As such, the French armored corps would have the following characteristics:
1. 1939 Heavy Armor speciality.
2. I would reduce Anti-Air to 1 instead of 2
3. I would reduce Operation to 5 instead of 9 (like the Russian)

[Flaviusx]

Alvaro has repeatedly rejected the obvious solution to this problem, which is to treat the Low Countries as a single unit for diplomatic purposes, and treat a DoW on any one of them as a DoW on all of them.

So it is what it is.

Thankfully, it's not as game breaking now as it used to be. Sea Lion has been substantially defanged in other ways. The Germans can roll up these countries one by one but it is no longer an easy ticket to London.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Alvaro has repeatedly rejected the obvious solution to this problem, which is to treat the Low Countries as a single unit for diplomatic purposes, and treat a DoW on any one of them as a DoW on all of them.

So it is what it is.

Thankfully, it's not as game breaking now as it used to be. Sea Lion has been substantially defanged in other ways. The Germans can roll up these countries one by one but it is no longer an easy ticket to London.

Well, I am not against a DoW on these countries one by one. I just would like to add a cost to it. That's all.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

As such, the French armored corps would have the following characteristics:
...
2. I would reduce Anti-Air to 1 instead of 2
3. I would reduce Operation to 5 instead of 9 (like the Russian)

By the way, Alvaro, can these two values be the default to French built armored corps in the vanilla game for the reason I have mentioned above (no AAA units and high fuel consumption)?

[sveint]

It's not about the amount of tanks, but wether they were organized in tank corps. The French were not, they were distributed among the infantry units (division doesnt count, there are no tank divisions in the game).

You have 1940 heavy armor tech as the French and can build a tank corps if you wish.

[ncc1701e]

Oh yes, you can buy an armored corps as the French. This is not the problem. The idea is just to add a kind of bonus if German is doing a DoW one by one. That's all.

[ncc1701e]

And, Alvaro, there is something I do not understand. In Europe 1939 scenario or in Europe 1940 scenario, all French units have an experience of 40%. And, you can only buy units with 40% experience, no more.

However, there is an exception with these five units:
. Morocco Corps (Mor) experience is 50%
. XIXe RM (Alg) experience is 50%
. CSTT HQ experience is 50%
. CSTT Corps (Tun) experience is 50%
. GFML Corps (Syr) experience is 47%

So, the intended strategy is to systematically get them back into France to stop the Germans, correct?

All the North African divisions (DINA) were deployed in France within existing French corps. Thus, why this bump in their organisation that would make them higher experienced?
Just asking.

Also, I think Alphonse Georges with a combat value of 6 is overrated if you compare its value with the one of Pierre Billotte in the game.

By the way, you made a mistake. This is not Pierre Billotte, this is Gaston Billotte that is commanding the Groupe d'armées n°1 in 1940. Pierre Billotte is the son of Gaston Billotte.

[AlvaroSousa]

#1 NE/BE - I researched this thoroughly and in no situation with no evidence that the leader of Belgium would have joined either side. The compensation is that the UK gets a large amount of MMs and I think a couple escorts with a naval group. France is a game delay tool for the Axis offensive. in CEaW stuffing the Axis in Belgium ruins that game for both players. Making it impossible to attack in 1939 also forces a decision. A creative Allied player can do something about the DOW on Netherlands early. But don't think of this as a stop but a delay or denial of resources for a time for the Axis.

#2 French tanks -

ORIGINAL: sveint

It's not about the amount of tanks, but wether they were organized in tank corps. The French were not, they were distributed among the infantry units (division doesnt count, there are no tank divisions in the game).

You have 1940 heavy armor tech as the French and can build a tank corps if you wish.

#3 French tank adjustment. I don't want to remove their teeth by lowering their opts. Right now France is well balanced.

Always open to new ideas if the Germans attack NE/BE early. But the effect needs to flow with the "delaying the Axis" function of France and not an solution that stuffs the Axis.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
Always open to new ideas if the Germans attack NE/BE early.

The problem is that Hitler hoped Britain and France would back down from their hasty DOW over Poland. That didn't happen, and there's no game incentive for players to wait and see if Britain and/or France withdraws their DOW. So players with 20/20 hindsight naturally do what they do, and if Hitler had also done this then the historical results would probably have been similar.

My suggestion would be to increase the war entry reaction for US and USSR for early German 1939 DOWs against the west and entry into France. You could make a plausible case that both US and USSR would have reacted negatively, the US out of concern for such aggression and the USSR for Germany going well beyond what was negotiated for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

My suggestion would be to increase the war entry reaction for US and USSR for early German 1939 DOWs against the west and entry into France. You could make a plausible case that both US and USSR would have reacted negatively, the US out of concern for such aggression and the USSR for Germany going well beyond what was negotiated for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

This seems to have merit.

[AlvaroSousa]

The ideas are good as a concept. But I'm going to look at this from an Axis player point of view which is what I do from every presented idea. Germany drives the game and most of their ability to win comes in the 1st 3 years of the game.

No matter what pain you give me as the Axis I need to get my gains early in the war and maximum my production and defenses. France has to go down fast. Regardless of USA or USSR entry. If I go for a 1941 Russia the USA and USSR entry doesn't matter. If I go for a lock down the med strategy USA or USSR entry doesn't matter. I give up 1-2 months now to save 1-2 months later. If my intention was to lock down the med in 1941 Russia coming in 4-6 months early won't make a difference but France falling 2 months later might because of weather and added casualties. I need to hit the UK as fast and hard as possible when I have them outnumbers in production and air power between myself and the Italians.

I have played countless WW2 grand strategy games. In none did the Axis care about the US entry or the USSR entry. The priority was doing everything possible to kill France as fast as possible.

Only forcing the Axis not to DOW on Benulux would be the option. Which I do think it unfair. Making Belgium turn Allied would be reasonable but it isn't remotely close to accurate by everything I read and I read a lot on this subject.

it has to be something that balances out the early Allied for late 1940 and 1941. So if the Germans go in early it is with the intention of KOing France out as fast as possible with the cost being minor in direct favor of the UK in late 1940/41. Much like the gain of the MMs they get once war is declared. That way it creates an actual choice for the Axis player that is meaningful. USA/USSR entry is meaningless in every game I have every played of WiF. Axis just go and do look back. So think in and out of that box.

[Franciscus]

IMHO the early invasion of Netherlands and/or Luxembourg would sound a big alarm in France about the very real aggressive intentions of Germany and her power.

Maybe having these DOW increase the production modifier of France (and Belgium/UK ?); for example, France would increase from 1.02 to 1.05 ?


Regards

[Ancient One]

Though I think Alvaro is correct that Belgium wouldn't have joined the war voluntarily, if the Germans declare war on Netherlands or Luxembourg without declaring war on Belgium on the same turn, Belgium should be stronger (more prepared) when they do join the war. That's justifiable both historically and game balance wise.

[Uxbridge]

Without venturing too deeply into this discussion, I'm quite sure that one of the main reasons why the Germans kept quiet after Poland, apart from the weather, was that they had had a number of rather embarrasing blunders in Poland that needed to be rectified. Therefore, there were re-organization and, especially, extensive exercises and rehearsals to sharpen the German army before the attack in the west.

Game-wise, scripts that drastically lower the German effectiveness between October 1939 and Mars 1940 could simulate these actions.

EDIT: When I said effectivenes, I didn't really mean that game concept, but rather their performance. Experience would, of course, be a better choice.

[AlvaroSousa]

Literally Belgium didn't want anything to do with either sides. They had troops facing Germany and France in the conflict.

[MagicMissile]

I think I have played 10-12 fall of France campaigns in PBEM. In all of them Netherlands get taken out in 39 and successful conquests of Belgium have happened during the one cold turn one usually gets in march/april and in some earlier patch even conquered in a 39 cold turn. In all these PBEM France have fallen in the 2nd turn of June up to the 1st turn of August with 2 exceptions one where France fell 1st turn of June and one when it fell in the 2nd turn of August. So even though Germany take out the minor countries earlier they still cant conquer France earlier then historically. This to me means that even though it might be ahistorical with the early invasions and that maybe it would have had consequences it doesnt give Germany any big advantage and therefore it is not a very big issue for me.

My 2 coppers [:)]

/MM

[sveint]

Suggestion: keep the non-attacked Benelux countries neutral, but "mobilize" them. Allow reinforcements, builds, etc.

Perhaps a script to change deployments:
1. If Allies take Luxembourg, Belgium deploys more forces on the French border (and less vs Germany).
2. If Germany takes the Netherlands, Belgium deploys more forces vs Germany.

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Suggestion: keep the non-attacked Benelux countries neutral, but "mobilize" them. Allow reinforcements, builds, etc.

Perhaps a script to change deployments:
1. If Allies take Luxembourg, Belgium deploys more forces on the French border (and less vs Germany).
2. If Germany takes the Netherlands, Belgium deploys more forces vs Germany.

I agree with Sveint here, that would a reasonable way - and even if it do no inflict much to the Fall of France it give the game a bit of better feeling. Of course Belgium HQ and politicians would expect them to be next if Germany are chewing up their neighbors.

And about earlier entry of US (which have been lifted by others) with a month or two if declaring war earlier on any of the Benelux can matter a little bit later in the game depending on alot of factors. Even though no one would take that in their strategic concideration, it would also give a better feeling to the game even though its impact would be minimal. If the Allies takes Luxembourg that surely must inflict on the relations with the US as well as if the Allies would go for the R4 Plan and invade Norway and Northern Sweden.

All these small changes would just be extra cream on a already delicious cake though, the game is really good and this would merley be cosmetic changes but would surely give something to the feeling of playing the game.

What ever happens with the development of this game I really appreciate the cautious approach to changes from Alvaro. Steel Division Normandy '44 was ripped to pieces when the developers went bananas with their changes. Really do not want to see that in this excellent game.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl

ORIGINAL: sveint

Suggestion: keep the non-attacked Benelux countries neutral, but "mobilize" them. Allow reinforcements, builds, etc.

Perhaps a script to change deployments:
1. If Allies take Luxembourg, Belgium deploys more forces on the French border (and less vs Germany).
2. If Germany takes the Netherlands, Belgium deploys more forces vs Germany.

I agree with Sveint here, that would a reasonable way - and even if it do no inflict much to the Fall of France it give the game a bit of better feeling. Of course Belgium HQ and politicians would expect them to be next if Germany are chewing up their neighbors.

And about earlier entry of US (which have been lifted by others) with a month or two if declaring war earlier on any of the Benelux can matter a little bit later in the game depending on alot of factors. Even though no one would take that in their strategic concideration, it would also give a better feeling to the game even though its impact would be minimal. If the Allies takes Luxembourg that surely must inflict on the relations with the US as well as if the Allies would go for the R4 Plan and invade Norway and Northern Sweden.

All these small changes would just be extra cream on a already delicious cake though, the game is really good and this would merley be cosmetic changes but would surely give something to the feeling of playing the game.

What ever happens with the development of this game I really appreciate the cautious approach to changes from Alvaro. Steel Division Normandy '44 was ripped to pieces when the developers went bananas with their changes. Really do not want to see that in this excellent game.

+1