Matrix Games Forums

My thoughts...similar to others but not sure HOW they would be implemented in the game.
AND needs testing...

France

Like Mech NO Armor. France had really good tanks but NO idea how to use them. They spread them out all over the place so did not have a cohesive unit like an armor corps. Just remove the armor.
Maginot line should be "manned" by the best Inf...so the 50% small corps should stay. This would simulate changing all inf to experience 40. France always thought this was where the Germans were going to attack...for the longest time...even after it was bypassed. Perhaps a if X falls they can pull units out.
France must build one Calvary unit...they did have cavalry in WW 2 so...this makes sense. Game could easily replace 2 Div with one small Cav corps to start. This just simulates that.
No disbanding units to build others.

UK

Must build an escort each turn after the first MS is sunk and until the France is invaded. This way they still get most of their PP but should focus on what they saw as a threat. This keep them from building a massive army and just dumping it in Africa and ruining play there.
BEF should be a max of 5/6 units, one HQ in that...
UK can not reinforce Africa until France is invaded.
UK can not build Mech / Armor until the UK is invaded. I would have to check on this but I still think other than Germany most thought mech / armor was "okay" and that infantry would win the war. Then they saw how the Germans invaded France and got in on it.
UK can not build naval if would interfere with the escort production. Not sure it will.
No disbanding units to build others.

Keep in mind I am NOT a great resource for the Allies...I don't play them much but the UK seems to have A LOT of points to a pretty big army very early in the game.
NOW it is possible but that building of the Escort each turn will limit the UK enough so the mech / armor can be opened but need to test.

Italy

Can not reinforce Africa until France is invaded
Have to build a Naval Air Ground Attack...just to simulate the 40.

Germany

Has should invade Netherland(39/40), Norway(39/40),..I sort of dislike this but there has to be some penalty for the Germans too...
This give the UK MS so they do not have to build them for a bit...maybe never if I am the Axis player because my Uboats normally sink.
BUT this would need to be tested. Not sure it is required.
No disbanding units to build others.




This puts the game closer to history BUT still allows the leaders to build what they want in 39 with what they have left.
Germany can make more armor or subs or infantry...


I have played the 40 campaign twice and very much dislike it.
Rather fix the 39.

Happy to discuss with opponent.

This is too much micro.

Imo, all you have to do is limit the number of BEF units in France in 1940. The end. Keep it simple.

I would never agree with all of these conditions as the Allies, if only because it's too much hastle. Nor do I agree with even the Axis house rules. Why should Italy not be able to reinforce Africa? Why should the German be forced to invade neutrals rather than make it a matter of choice?

Probably only need a few of these to limit off the wall tactics.
Not allow France to build armor. While they had armor it was designed for infantry support not Panzer Blitz.
Not allow the French units in Africa to be transferred to mainland by using UK substitutes.

Middle East and Egypt are a problem area. But I am not sure how big a problem it is or whether it needs nerfing.

The basic problem with the 1939 scenario is that everything starts at zero. This is good from the point of view of allowing the players to create their own strategy for the war without having the scenario designer limit them. It is bad because it opens up odd strategy paths that weren't really valid for that time of the war. In 1939 all the countries were learning how to fight. They didn't know which strategy would work so they invested in all until it became clearer.

What probably needs to be done is go directly to the 1940 scenario or skip the War in France entirely and start the game in September of 1940.

The 1940 scenario has received the "love?" that the 1939 one has. The result is it doesn't really reflect the situation very well. Especially in the production and research areas. Someone needs to create a 1940 scenario with historical situation but with a number of variants in production/researh so the player can pick his "style" of play.

Well the issues I have seen are reflected...

I have yet to see Africa of any interest in Egypt because the UK have far to many units and nothing to do with them. They can have 5 corps in the UK and 5+ corps in Egypt. That makes Egypt just a stalemate. Boring. Was trying to think of a way to reflect the 40 scenario which if you look...there were nothing done by either side in Africa. That was the reason for those micro rules.

As for the Axis...I waffled on that. But tried to stay true with the 40 scenario regarding Norway.

Basically this was an attempt to mimic the 40 scenario but start in 39 so the countries get research and some control over what they wanted to build.

It should have said in the title...

This is an attempt to take the 39 scenario and get to the beginning to France and see what the major differences are for Allies vs Axis.

ORIGINAL: stjeand


I have yet to see Africa of any interest in Egypt because the UK have far to many units and nothing to do with them. They can have 5 corps in the UK and 5+ corps in Egypt. That makes Egypt just a stalemate. Boring. Was trying to think of a way to reflect the 40 scenario which if you look...there were nothing done by either side in Africa. That was the reason for those micro rules.

I understand why you are proposing this, but 15 divs in the UK (your 5 xxx) are not enough to stop Sealion. There are 16 ports in the UK inc. Scapa Flow

15 divs in the ME will not stop Comadrejakorp, or some other aggressive axis player, either. Allies have 9 ports to defend inc. Malta, Cyprus, Vichy Syria and Gib.

Given that Alvaro is reducing the UK army by 100 steps (a whole month's production or the cost of 1 large and 1 small xxx) I'm afraid I don't see any value in test possible changes which I cannot see Alvaro implementing, or even be asked to by the player-base.

Well my numbers are very conservative.

But I guess we will cancel this and see what is happening.

I suspect the changes will do little overall. One turn just means one less Inf...still easy to build a lot.