{Spam?} [WarInEur] France 1940 and changing French unit strength - Addendum

[sgminfo]

Hansen wrote:
>
> I like the concept of the "active Vichy ally" you described, but I am 
> not sure about the production idea. The Ukrainian division's appeal 
> was it cost 1/3 of a regular German division and gave you 2/3 the 
> combat value. A Ukrainian 1-5 KG repair cost half the cost of a German 
> 1-5KG repair and netted you 2/3 the resulting combat value. By 
> charging 2x, you get a 2/3 combat value infantry division for 2x the 
> cost. How could Speer resist such an offer? I'm not sure how you 
> justify that arming French would have had greater resistance than 
> arming the Ukrainians. I would make the costs the same as a Ukrainian 
> division, with the armor going for 4 production points (in keeping 
> with the 1/3 costs, 2/3 combat value ratio).
>
>  
>
> But now ask the question, what good is it. A few more "cheap 
> divisions" is nice. The infantry will make good coastal defense forces 
> and the armor can probably find a use in Russia. But as the UK, I 
> would probably be willing to trade keeping 10 UK divisions for the 
> Germans getting these 20 divisions. Even if the divisions were just 
> handed to the Germans. Now add in the Germans have to "buy" the units 
> and it becomes clear for the UK to blow off France.
>
>  
>
> But if you add in the increased shipping to NA, now failing to fight 
> in France makes the consequences much greater. Put both the 20 
> divisions and the Mediterranean shipping and you have something worth 
> the UK fighting in France for. It is also not a game stopper. The 
> extras make a NA campaign viable, but not a sure thing.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Under this scheme, the attraction is, the divisions consume no 
manpower, and are in excess of the German army limits.

Why the costs on arms?

Because these divisions are getting equipment at opportunity cost 
levels...raising and training foreign divisions is more expensive in 
many ways than national divisions, training officers, bilingal issues, 
but also the issue' of equipping your former enemies, these costs cannot 
be represented easily in any other way...but note you are arguing 
against the formation of these forces exactly as I am surmising the SS 
and others would argue, also allowing non committed foreign nationals 
access to weapons and tactics that could be turned against their 
teachers. i.e. putting these costs on the formations means that you will 
not simply equip yourself with these forces without a care. These 
internal doubts would act as a serious restriction on allocating 
materiel to them...

such restrictions put the brake on unlimited replacement tactics etc etc 
on the hard pressed army later in the war, units so based upon these 
formations getting mangled, would be well down the queue for the pick of 
the crop of re-equipment.

(A bit like offering to reequip the Rumanian (or Italian) Armoured 
formations with Tigers- not impossible, but it isn't going to happen.?)

The 'costs involved' restrict your taking advantage of these formations 
until later in the war, when manpower starts to dry up, yet the arms 
point situation starts to relax a bit more...

These costs are a deferrment incentive

It clearly makes French allied forces a second best alternative, 
otherwise you will go for them as the primary cutting edge, rather as 
the Romans began to deploy the Auxilia in their army.

As to shipping...

a thought.
As an active French ally,
Simply add 3 Surfs and 3 MS to the German fleets....

That strikes the most fear into the British player, and was their 
primary concern throughout this period...the germans getting hold of the 
French Fleet.

Again, this is easily adapted and used in the board game, without any 
changes other than a few notes in the rules booklet...


-|steve|-
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080112/10119f45/attachment-0001.html