[WarInEur] France 1940

[drew]

aloha,

historical??? i thought the whole idea of conflict
simulation was to play a war or battle, using the same
historical tools but using personal strategy and
tactics. also, is there a cwie2 out yet or is it still
on the pledge list?

drew
--- Kent & Sue Haunschild <kentsue at cox.net> wrote:

> If I understand you correctly, you are playing CWIE1
> (so there are no 
> historic rules coded) and are playing with Allied
> production.  The result is 
> that not only do you not get a historic result, but
> that the Axis player 
> often fails to force Vichy or the French Surrender. 
> If this is true, then 
> it is further evidence that the early game is skewed
> in the Allied favor and 
> that it is effecting the timing of the invasion of
> Russia and the Axis 
> strength when it occurs as well.
> 
> 
>  As I wrote earlier, I think the France scenario is
> that place to 
> experiment, but that the WiE and WitW have to be
> capable of duplicating 
> historic result most of the time or we derail the
> simulation.
> 
> Not to sound to much like a panzer pusher but most
> Allied/Soviet players 
> want the freedom of 20/20 hindsight for their side
> but want to force the 
> Axis player to comply with historic imperatives. 
> When I say this I'm not 
> talking about the no retreat rule or something like
> that, but the ability to 
> increase their production when the game departs from
> reality.  Everyone 
> agrees that the Germans were not on a Total War
> enconomy in 40 and 41 and 
> maybe not even 42.  However, both the Soviets and
> Allies were thrust into 
> immediate threat of annilation and they immediately
> were at total war levels 
> and producing everything they could.
> 
> SPI recognized this problem in their design notes,
> but weren't ready to 
> address it.  They did suggest that the production
> multiple be increased 
> whenever, the Germans suffered a military disaster,
> but then begged the 
> question of how to define a military disaster and
> cautioned that any rule 
> they came up with might be gamed.  My gut feeling is
> that if France had not 
> won quickly in France that the Germany economy would
> have been increased in 
> reasction to the prospect of a long war.  How would
> this look in the game, 
> maybe if France doesn't surrender within 20 turns
> then the German PM is 
> increased by one.  However, personally I could game
> this type of rule fairly 
> easily.
> 
> So in the final analysis the only real option if we
> want a reasonably 
> historic game is to insure that France falls within
> 8-10 turns maximum with 
> a 10 division BEF commitment.
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "drew" <drewkirste at yahoo.com>
> To: "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>; "war"
> 
> <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 3:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] France 1940
> 
> 
> > aloha,
> > i usally play as the axis but as i've played the
> > allies and with the option 'allied production',
> i've
> > had difficulty playing past '40 as the axis player
> > retires after failing to defeat france. and all
> this
> > without an allied invasion of the low contries.
> it's
> > more of 'defending the country, not the capital'.
> >
> > drew
> > --- Hansen <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WarInEur mailing list
> >> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> >>
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > _______________________________________________
> > WarInEur mailing list
> > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> >
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> > 
> 
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ