[WarInEur] The France 1940 experience

[sgminfo]

Ignoring the basic qyestions about units strengths at this stage...


How accurate s h o u l d  the France 1940 scene be?

1.From the point of history?

 From the point of gaming?



At our scale of conflict much of the key differentials between axis and 
allied units are factired so heavily that you end up with an allied 3-4 
stacked up against a German 10-8. With changing unit strengths the 
positiob for the British is comparatively much worse.

With attrition heaped upon this further,
the French position,
aided (or even hindered) by the deployed British,
is a hard act to beat.

1.If the allies are under the hammer...i.e. the French position under 
such handicaps is a real hole in the ground....

1.Is this a fair summation? (I have a feeling that it might be)
Under such circumstances,
a schleiffen plan mark II is indeed a viable option...


In reality was this the case,
if Manstein's appreciation had not been adopted,
would the allies none the less have been doomed from the moment the 
first motorcycle outrider crossed the wire in Holland?

in a frontal clash was the allied position destined  to crumble under 
the onslought, noting that as a secondary axis, the Germans did pretty 
well against the majority of the left wing of the allied line without 
the sykle cutting the ground from under the allied position.

In a straight frontal clash, would the allies nonetheless lost control 
of the battle and been doomed to defeat in detail as the line 
disintegrated into a piecemeal shambles somewhere along the point of 
decision?


In game terms...

If the onslought is indeed nearly unstoppable,

does that detract from a good game?

Or does this badly affect the experience of newbies faced with endless 
certain defeats through 1939 to 1941?

The question of how much of a 'run for their money' the French should 
give the Germans is an issue that affects both the simulation, and the 
appeal of the game.


-|steve|-