Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I do think French garrison requirements for North Africa and Syria are way too low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl

I would like to see one less MP (or operations points I guess it is called in this game) for France and British units. That would make it harder to shift the lines, harder to counter breakthroughs and would be realistic if you look at the doctrines at the time. The problem for the Allies during the whole war and especially in the beginning was that their centralized command structure was inflexible compared to the german Bewegungskrieg doctrine. Like with the Soviet armored formations this less MP can be changed during the game. Maybe +1 MP to the Allies after the Fall of France.

When I play Allies it is all to unhistorical that one can shift the lines that effective and especially counter the breakthroughs. Big BEF option would be much more "risky" because it is not ceratain that u would have the possibilty to evacuate as effective if u have has less MP.


Other wise I Think it is perfectly balanced. My daring push was to aggressive (not the example above but from our game), but if Sveint would have had less MP (operation points) that maybe would have worked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

Any "Fall of France" scenario's in any game suffer from hindsight syndrome. What happened historically was a reasonably brilliant plan and some major blunders by the French/British fighting the last war. Pretty hard to duplicate without some heavy special rules.
Remember the air reconnaissance of the allies saw the German road traffic jams at the Ardennes and their high command chose to ignore it.

Yep, playing historical wargames always runs into the hindsight issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dalwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl

I would like to see one less MP (or operations points I guess it is called in this game) for France and British units. That would make it harder to shift the lines, harder to counter breakthroughs and would be realistic if you look at the doctrines at the time. The problem for the Allies during the whole war and especially in the beginning was that their centralized command structure was inflexible compared to the german Bewegungskrieg doctrine. Like with the Soviet armored formations this less MP can be changed during the game. Maybe +1 MP to the Allies after the Fall of France.

When I play Allies it is all to unhistorical that one can shift the lines that effective and especially counter the breakthroughs. Big BEF option would be much more "risky" because it is not ceratain that u would have the possibilty to evacuate as effective if u have has less MP.


Other wise I Think it is perfectly balanced. My daring push was to aggressive (not the example above but from our game), but if Sveint would have had less MP (operation points) that maybe would have worked.

The problem with that is that in reality the Allied forces were more motorized than the Axis, especially the Germans. More German infantry walked and even their supplies and artillery were moved by horses. I see it as hard to justify a movement penalty for the Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl


It is called operation points in this game instead of movement points as in other games, which I really likes because on the battlefield speed is just one factor that determines a units actual operation value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Yes.

It`s not just that French units are to powerful, but in *_70%_* of the games I have played vs AI, even with a Sept. capture of Paris, France will move the capital to another city. If they move it to Metz or Vichy and dig in, and / or you get a run of bad weather, which is often, Game over.

Even with a Aug, capture of Paris and they move the capital , no Sea Lion, Game Over in 1942.

Ever with a 30% of no moving capital- fast surrender, no Sea Lion due to over powered Brit Navy and air against the axis amphibian units.

With the nerfed Air Power, and Zombie Partisan's, too much bad weather, then no Moscow in `41 and certainly not in `42 with the death star Red Rifle Corps.

The above after 12+ AI Games.

Your a very nice guy, talented developer, and it`s your Game, but if you want to unbalance it to create an equal game possible in 1941- 1942 for the 12 vocal guys that PBEM it, thereby making it almost impossible for the 1000+ guys that bought it to play the AI and create an alternate history WW II, ( Axis Wins ) then you have made a questionable decision IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

@Richard III, at which level are you playing against AI? France is not so complicated to destroy versus AI.

Did you try to apply this small tutorial?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4784371

Cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Yes.

It`s not just that French units are to powerful, but in *_70%_* of the games I have played vs AI, even with a Sept. capture of Paris, France will move the capital to another city. If they move it to Metz or Vichy and dig in, and / or you get a run of bad weather, which is often, Game over.

Even with a Aug, capture of Paris and they move the capital , no Sea Lion, Game Over in 1942.

Ever with a 30% of no moving capital- fast surrender, no Sea Lion due to over powered Brit Navy and air against the axis amphibian units.

With the nerfed Air Power, and Zombie Partisan's, too much bad weather, then no Moscow in `41 and certainly not in `42 with the death star Red Rifle Corps.

The above after 12+ AI Games.

Your a very nice guy, talented developer, and it`s your Game, but if you want to unbalance it to create an equal game possible in 1941- 1942 for the 12 vocal guys that PBEM it, thereby making it almost impossible for the 1000+ guys that bought it to play the AI and create an alternate history WW II, ( Axis Wins ) then you have made a questionable decision IMO.

After a short time playing, I can say I agree with most of your comments. While I've done ok against a moderately boosted Allied AI, in pbem against a competent Allied player, with or without bad weather, you face a wall of strong (?) French with British anchoring the channel and you'll be lucky to get a couple 5-1 or 6-1 getting mostly 4-1 in two places (maybe 3). With the no retreat option picked for the Inf, you'll bludgeon your way through unless a couple of unlucky rolls stop you. Then your 4 panzer corps will wear down no matter how strong they started by mid-July even as you try pouring supply trucks into them. And the combined Fench/British Air Force is more than equal to the task of blunting or even besting the German Airpower. For S&Gs as I was stuck in trench warfare along the Somme front, I attacked 2 French Fighter bases with almost the entire German AirForce in mid-July '40 in a pbem game (having used up most of my supply trucks first just to get 50-60% efficiency. Results were 1 Air Field hit (?) and 4 steps of French fighter reduction at a cost of 13 steps reduction of German AirPower (split evenly between the bomber groups and the fighter interceptors waiting to mix it up with the (superior?) French fighters). Mostly I see pbem players here in this forum that are very good and also very vocal about the game and what you can do to counter this or that strategy. But you don't have enough of anything to completely prepare for 2 possible strategy's at the same time. I wonder if these French units could have held off the Soviets of '42 or the Americans of '43? I saw this happen to the Barbarossa game by the ATG guy Vic, as it always became a double wall of Russian Inf that the Germans did not have enough oil to run their Panzers through in'41 and then by '42 it was game over.
But its my perogative to move on to a different game and so I shall.