[WarInEur] France 1940

[Hansen]

Steve wrote:
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.


John replied:

I think what we see (at least without attrition) is the "straight frontal
clash". In short, the French do their best (reinforce the line between the
Maginot and the channel). We will often see fewer UK deployed, but they
really don't change things by more than a week or two. French units retreat
in semi-random directions letting the Germans kill some and others fall back
to the next line a hex south. Eventually the loses and the line stretching
tends to snap and France falls.

So given that we already have a simulation for the French do as well as they
could, I would like to see a simulation that would be more likely to produce
the 9 week historical result. Perhaps requirements that certain number of
divisions/BG must be deployed by the UK to France, a certain number of
divisions/BG must enter Belgium after it's neutrality is violated, a certain
number of allied attacks have to occur and a certain number of French
divisions have to be in the Maginot. If enough troops don't do as required,
the computer randomly selects allied units in France to neither move nor
attack (so one division short in Belgium means one division in France but
not in the Maginot can not move). Perhaps even political points added for
failure to achieve the goals which can cause Spain/Turkey to join the axis.
Forcing the allies to do what they did historically should get you back to
the 9 weeks. Then you can play on to the "meat" of the game, Russia.

As to the newbies, they are faced with a dilemma. If they play the allies,
they get the snot beat out of them for a 3 years. If they play the Germans
they miss opportunities so aren't as far as they would like in 3 years. But
then other than missing opportunities (at least on a large scale), this
describes the grognard's game as well. My solution, and one I would
recommend to the newbie, is to play two games simultaneously against the
same opponent. One where you are the Germans and one as the allies. The
amount of time spent will be much less than 2x (probably closer to 1.1 x or
1.2x as it tends to be that while one side has lots of opportunities (and
thus needs time to decide on the opportunities to exploit), the other side
has limited opportunities so their turns take less time. The newbie will
still make newbie mistakes on both sides, but they will get real time
feedback by the other side on what they could have done and will likely get
a better appreciation of what their opponent is seeing since they will be
experiencing that at the same time. This also has the advantage of being a
better feel for the position vs the player. If you win as both allies and
Germans, then you out played your opponent. If you split with the same side
winning in each game, then you are probably even with your opponent in skill
and the game was slanted towards that side.