Is France too strong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

sveint -> Is France too strong? (6/9/2020 10:27:14 PM)

I never thought I'd write such a title but all my games as the Allies end up in a situation such as seen in the image.
In other words, Germany fails to take Paris in the summer of 1940 and that is more or less the end of the game (some opponents
bravely fight on).

[image]local://upfiles/2348/1D43DAD78B424218B9AB15063D0FA853.jpg[/image]



sveint -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/9/2020 10:29:52 PM)

So is France too strong?

I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, but also make a few suggestions:

1. Paris should be an open city and instead of 1.4x it should be 0.8x or even 0.5x.

2. Marseilles and Syria should require at least one unit each to prevent Italian entry.

3. (not directly related to France) The coastal waters of Norway should not be possible
to raid (Iron Ore route).



Flaviusx -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/9/2020 11:14:25 PM)

I'd need more than this screenshot to say yes. I'd want to know the Germans took out the low countries early on, as they should. If they only get started on that in May of 40, then yes, chances are good they will fall behind schedule.

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

Mostly what has changed in the game is this: airpower can no longer be used to obliterate single units. This is also the reason that Sea Lion is much more difficult than it used to be. A couple of versions back you could build the luftwaffe into hammer and just steamroll anything come 1940. Direct strikes on enemy ground units were incredibly effective. That is no longer the case.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/9/2020 11:25:50 PM)

It is not too strong. I have played many games and in each one you can properly take out France in July or August.

Remember you have hindsight and the French aren't going to be so foolish. There is no secret breakthrough the Ardennes plan. It is crystal clear.
So if the Germans aren't doing so well they need to think about it more. Or it could be a skill level difference.

Also depends on how many clear turns they got in March/April. If they got none yea it will be more difficult but on average between you should get one.



Harrybanana -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 12:04:07 AM)

I haven't played the game enough to offer an informed opinion here. But, since that that has never stopped me before, I will say that it is not just that the French are strong, but also that from the more recent AARs, it would appear that the UK is sending more forces to France than before. In the screenshot above I see 5 UK corps and the entire RAF fighter command. Is this normal?

I will also offer up that I feel very sorry for one of my current Axis opponents. Not only did he not get a clear weather turn in March or April, but the first May turn was rain as well. The French have over 600 production points saved up and 60 supply trucks. So I should be able to quickly rebuild any units he doesn't outright destroy.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 3:11:16 AM)

That's called "The Big BEF" strategy.
The counter strategy is Sealion at the same time if they over commit while attacking France.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 3:12:31 AM)

Another counter is to make sure you built 4 armor, 2-3 more ground support aircraft, and plenty of supply trucks to keep pounding them. You generally want to ignore the UK units and kill the French ones.



Harrybanana -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 6:57:55 AM)

Well, looking at the map he seems to have the 4 armour plus a mechanized to boot. Of course no idea if he beefed up the Luftwaffe.



Jeff_Ahl -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 8:05:47 AM)

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.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 12:44:44 PM)

If it was easy the first time then the game wouldn't be a challenge. It will take you I'd say 3-4 games before you get the France thing right. But it does work correctly between two competently skilled players.

Players also forget that Paris doesn't need to be taken. You can blast through the south and take other cities to force a surrender which in turn force the Allies to defend a larger front.



kennonlightfoot -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 3:28:20 PM)

I haven't had a problem taking Paris before August but I don't think I have run into an opponent that has put that many British into France. Normally, I like to see the UK put troops into France since I will target them for surrounds to eliminate UK strength which will make Italy's Africa campaign much easier.

However, I don't think Sealion is the deterrent it was at one time. Putting that many UK into France should expose England to an easy invasion. But with good fleet use the Germans would need to detach a sizable force to do it so they are still stuck with winning in France first. In theory after winning England should be an easy take by Sealion but under new rules it is difficult to do and still have enough force for invading Russia. Plus you activate the US early and they will open a second front on you and take England back.

I have done the mini Sealion version against an opponent who put UK troops heavily into France and later Africa without garrisoning ports in England. I invaded late in the year and avoided VP cities that would activate the US. It was more of a diversion and economic warfare. Just landing German divisions anywhere the UK units weren't. But it still crippled my available force for invading Russia.



Jeff_Ahl -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 7:16:26 PM)

I do not say it should be easy and I am not sure it would be all that easy with one MP less for the Allies during Battle of France, but like you said your self in earlier discussions about France. France should merely be a bump in the road - some historical accuracy is needed to get the right feeling in the game. I know that France normally goes down in august when two equal players are facing of and Allies goes with Big BEF strategy and with historical BEF in July, but that is way later than historical.

You can go Big BEF with out any risk at the moment if you are facing a even player. With one less MP I would say that you get rid of the hindsight issue some what and also forces the Allied player to really concider his strategy and operations. If one want to even out some of the "unbalance" the loss of MP would be some french corps could have added AT assets to simulate the wast number of tanks they scattered among their corps.

No big deal if it stays the same, but I think it would be a nice spice to the dish.



ncc1701e -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 8:43:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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


I'll second that. And also, resurrecting this thread, the units in North Africa and Syria have better experience that ease counter attacks during May/June 1940.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4816272



Dalwin -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/10/2020 9:55:39 PM)

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.



Flaviusx -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 3:46:20 AM)

There's no need to muck around with allied movement. If balance is necessary, subtle tweaks like the French colonial garrison requirements going up are the best place to go first. But I'm not convinced there is a serious issue here past that.



MagicMissile -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 10:31:38 AM)

I think in almost all my games as either allied or axis Paris falls in July. But I can see with the nerfed airbombing that timeframe might have changed a turn or so making it more likely Paris holds out until August. Not sure if that is a real problem or not. For me the big thing is how much damage the Germans take while taking France.

/MM




sveint -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 5:45:13 PM)

Well historically the French did not empty Syria/North Africa.



ncc1701e -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 5:50:04 PM)


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.


Well said, a brilliant plan and the inert philosopher on the opposite side.



magic87966 -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 9:04:25 PM)

In a game between 2 equal players, France should always take longer than historical. The historical outcome was influenced by factors other than what happened on the battlefield. As the Axis (destined to lose - historically), you'd just like a chance to recreate the historical outcome. I know this game is not about diplomacy and too many scripted events, but maybe (if both players agree) the Axis player gets a small percent chance of getting a shot at history. Let's say in January 1940, there's a "die roll" for the Allied player. Roll a "1" (out of how many is up to Alvaro)and the political and societal factors that helped doom the French occur. Then French units suffer a significant effectiveness penalty or something similar. Just an idea.



Dalwin -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 9:07:38 PM)

I would not call it a brilliant plan, not at all. There were only so many options available. The plan is only made to look brilliant by the extreme ineptitude of the response.

If any part of it were brilliant it would be letting a stray aircraft "accident" allow the fake plans for repeating the WW1 maneuver fall into enemy hands.



ncc1701e -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/11/2020 9:17:26 PM)

What was brilliant was bringing the Allies to Belgium.



Jeff_Ahl -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/12/2020 1:34:20 PM)


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.


Very easy to motivate.

They had lousy doctrines and all orders took a long time to go down the line because of their extremly centralized chain of command (and to add one extra negative layer - worse communications). Their physical speed might have been higher, but speed is not equal to "tempo" as we say in the Swedish army. Tempo is determined by alot of factors but especially decentralized decision making where the higher chain of command set up a goal and the commanders below do what it takes to achieve that goal within those limits given by higher command.

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. If the Allies had copied the Bewgungskrieg doctrine and also implemented it (not all implement the doctrine theories as they are ment to) then would their physical speed have been very much in their favor. Which never was the case during the war though, especially not during Battle of France.

Even though the Allies adepted and got rid of the worst wrong thinking, they never ever reached the same capacity as the germans in terms of doctrines or implementation of them for operational warfare. On the strategic level one could argue that no one had a better or worse depending on their different possibilities and limitations.



sillyflower -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/12/2020 2:19:20 PM)

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.


+1
Reminds me of when I was a humble trooper ( a trooper anyway because I struggled with the humble bit) in the RHQ of a British Army territorial armoured recce reg't in the '80s. We were often put on 30 minutes notice to move out. That was easy enough to do, but then waiting 4+ hours for the next order (anything from 'move to X' to 'stand down') was more difficult. Perhaps we were just being trained to go without sleep or cooked food.



Richard III -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/12/2020 8:14:17 PM)

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.



ncc1701e -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/13/2020 5:40:53 PM)

@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



baloo7777 -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/13/2020 9:23:46 PM)


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.



Richard III -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/14/2020 3:43:07 PM)


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

I`m playing the default 1939 scenario (no Italians )

I think your tute is pre nerfed air ?

And perhaps other changes AI, but I`ll try a step -by - step of it again. FWIW : I disband 2 axis corps to add production after Poland in `39., and go the coast route after Amsterdam ( always jammed up in Brussels by a Corps ) with the 4 mech/armor.... doesn`t seem that easy as your example. [:(]



Richard III -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/14/2020 5:36:09 PM)

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.


Hopefully Alvaro will consider more fine tuning for the AI game, it really is a superior wargame experience so I hope you can give it some time Jeff.

Those air losses you saw are from the Nerfed air model IMO, and are only realistic if you include their operational losses ( crashes, etc) I don`t think it`s fair to use that model while the allied ground units remains pristine. The Game needs a fix for us guys !



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Is France too strong? (6/14/2020 7:30:00 PM)

So far this is how reviews and player responses have been to WarPlan as the Germans.

The A.I. sucks Moscow taken by 1941...
The A.I. is good, it closes holes, attacks weakness, reorganizes fronts. It is lacking in strategic movement though.
If I see a thread where players are debating a game mechanic and there are opposing sides it means the mechanic is working correctly generally.
I have had already one player claim they beat the game on the toughest setting.
Most players seem to agree +3 +3 on the A.I. settings is challenging.

Everyone's skill level is different and can be different by a wide degree.

Right now I am playing in a mirror game. Between the fall of 1939 and the summer of 1940 an Axis player should get 1-2 turns of clear(cold) weather to take out Netherlands and possibly Belgium. My opponent as the Axis got 2 turns, I got 1 turn. This made a 2 turn difference in the current game. He forced a surrender against France in Late July. I could have forced a surrender in late August and forgot to. My opponent is better than the A.I..

As for Sealion. This here has also been a lot of debate. At one point it was rather easy to invade. That has been fixed. As is you still can invade but Sealion takes planning from the Axis and the UK to defend vs it.

All you need to do is get across once in a clear turn and get a port. From there it expands with beach supply and air power.

As the Axis.....
You bomb the crap out of the airforce. Forcing it to lose effectiveness.
You keep at least 2 tactical groups out to deal with any ships coming in.
Once you clear this you can attempt a landing.

So what will be the results. Maybe you fail but very likely you will hammer the UK navy down. Keeping the UK busy also means the Italians pretty much have free reign in the Med. With just 1 German infantry and 1 German armor they can wreck havoc. Invade Syria, attack Egypt from the East, Take Palestine, Cyprus, attack convoys. The UK needs to build too much in 1939 and 1940. So players will say they don't have a strong 1941 Barb. Well of course you don't. But you still can have one. The plan is a buildup and push to 1942 big offensive. So all this is doable.

As for France falling late. All you need is 3 cities: Lille, Rouen, and Paris.
You can also try the breakout and avoid Paris. This is how I took out France. The opponent defends it too much and I plow through between Metz and Paris taking every other city. Between Saint-Nazaire, Lyon, Vichy, and Toulouse there are 25 morale to KO France. Maybe you haven't thought about this.

Unit Losses aren't full losses. They are cheaper to recover than you think. Air units don't lose manpower anymore on losses just strength.

Losses aren't as bad as you think. In my game the opponent took 176 land losses. I took double taking out France. He had the benefit of 2 clear weather turns in the spring where I only had 1. Bit it shouldn't affect things as much as you think in the long strategy. I effectively lost 2 extra corps.

Until Barbarossa I lost ~1% of my total production till June 1941 for losing 2 more corps in France than my opponent.

If by chance France falls in 1941 yes that's a pretty bad setup for the Axis. But it doesn't mean the game isn't salvageable. Take Spain and Gibraltar in 1941. Go for a 1942 USSR invasion and cripple them as much as possible. But this scenario is incredibly rare.

What I will do is play an Axis game vs the A.I. in 1939 until the Fall of France. I will post my results. I already know vs another person France falls correctly.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.03125