 |
|
Some questions about France '40 - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Some questions about France '40 (/showthread.php?tid=60556) |
Some questions about France '40 - Archijerej - 12-22-2011 I'm currently playing two great France '40 scenarios (Sedan_alt as Germans, and Dinant_alt as French) and two things occured to me. First, is the composition of German recon battalion right? As far as I know it was two companies of some 10 armored cars each and a motorcycle company. Right now, having 50 armored cars with high soft attack rating, the result is that the German player has an extra tank battalion to add to his already rich arsenal. No wonder that some will be tempted to use it to spearhead the attack and massacre enemy infantry. A battalion with historical composition would be used as it should, being strong enough to deal with enemy covering forces (armored cars pin the enemy company holding a crossroad, then motorcyclists assault) and screen against local counterattacks on the flanks. It could also be divided in three parts instead of two, wich is useful when several Kampfgruppes are moving along diffferent roads. The second thing is infantry hard attack range. I think that the alternative assault rules for hard vehicles are great and historical, but shouldn't French infantry with their organic 25mm and German with 37mm AT guns have some ranged ability against armored cars, halftracks and PzI/II? Right now these vehicles can simply ignore the infantry that sits right next to them in good supporting position and concentrate their fire against key objectives. I bet that commanders of such vehicles would not dare to show their rear side even to the most unimpressive AT guns. With that in mind wouldn't it be worth to consider a hard attack ratings of 2/1 for French and 3/1 for Germans? I hope that I don't sound like I'm being overly critical and I hope my english is understandable. The game is great, the _alt ratings are excellent, I'd just like the design to encourage using historical tactics instead of brute force (which the Germans have already enough ;) ), without disrupting the current balance. RE: Some questions about France '40 - Mr Grumpy - 12-23-2011 As these are the _alt versions i hope that Ed will be able to answer your questions. :) RE: Some questions about France '40 - Volcano Man - 12-23-2011 Hello Archijerej, In regards to the unit compositions (German recon battalion), I use the compositions from the stock game -- I don't rework the entire OOB if I can help it because the stock OOB is always generally very good in this regard. Sure, someone can nit pick it to death, but as far as I am concerned the organization is good for me. ;) In regards to the infantry hard attack ratings, no, when you factor out exactly how few AT guns were available to support an infantry battalion, IMO it doesn't warrant any range 1 HA ratings. Instead, these AT guns are factored into the range 0 and assault ratings instead, making them purely passive/defensive weapons. If it were any other way, then the infantry units would likely have more overall power than the AT gun units equipped with the same. It also forces the commander to better protect his infantry from tanks by stacking them with more AT guns, assigning tank support to them, and/or digging them in. I have never been convinced that these few integral AT guns would provide anything other than defense in the assault. Of course you are welcome to tinker with the ratings all you want. :) RE: Some questions about France '40 - jonnymacbrown - 12-23-2011 (12-23-2011, 05:01 AM)Foul. Wrote: As these are the _alt versions i hope that Ed will be able to answer your questions. :) While we are at it, I'd like to ask why the Gross Deutschland outfit is rated A considering this was its 1st campaign and also why the North African divisions are rated mostly C & D while the same outfits are A & B in 1914? Thanks jonny :rolleyes: RE: Some questions about France '40 - Volcano Man - 12-24-2011 (12-23-2011, 03:37 PM)jonnymacbrown Wrote:(12-23-2011, 05:01 AM)Foul. Wrote: As these are the _alt versions i hope that Ed will be able to answer your questions. :) Simply because those outfits were not utterly overrun in 1914. ;) No, but really: most of the quality drop is supposed to represent the complete difference in doctrine, tactics and relatively low morale associated with the fact that they did not desire another war; French units were certainly not on the same footing in regards to morale as they were in 1914 at least. So, you get at least a -1 or -2 step loss for that alone, or so I remember from the original F40 design rationale. Whether the GD should be A or B (I wouldn't say it should be C though) is a matter of debate. Certainly Somme_Alt was balanced around the fact that it is A quality, so I am reluctant to change it because of that (Somme_Alt) was carefully balanced. I suppose the question is: has the F40 campaign ever been won by the allies (either stock or _Alt), if no then perhaps the French could use a +1 morale shift. BUT, according to the scenario db, 0510_02: The Allies Cast the Die_Alt has been won as major victory by both sides (played twice), so it sounds pretty balanced so far. :) RE: Some questions about France '40 - jonnymacbrown - 12-24-2011 "While we are at it, I'd like to ask why the Gross Deutschland outfit is rated A considering this was its 1st campaign and also why the North African divisions are rated mostly C & D while the same outfits are A & B in 1914?" Thanks jonny :rolleyes: "Simply because those outfits were not utterly overrun in 1914. ;) [i]"No, but really: most of the quality drop is supposed to represent the complete difference in doctrine, tactics and relatively low morale associated with the fact that they did not desire another war; French units were certainly not on the same footing in regards to morale as they were in 1914 at least. So, you get at least a -1 or -2 step loss for that alone, or so I remember from the original F40 design rationale." Didn't the French armies that advanced into Belgium do pretty well? It seems to me that the French in 1940 were outmaneuvered and defeated strategically. The same thing happened in 1914 but Joffre' was able to respond because everyone was on foot; von Moltke didn't have tanks. In 1940 there was one man in the whole world, Guderian, who understood what was happening with the breakthrough at Sedan and willed the German Army to victory over the wishes of his nominal superiors. I just don't think the historical situation warrants the French Army as a whole to have such low morale when it was the 2nd line or militia divisions at Sedan that were defeated and overrun with the French high command unable to react to the situation. Even the German high command didn't understand the situation excepting Guderian. You recently said you rated units not on the basis of how the campaign turned out but apparently that's not true from what you are saying here. The 1940 Campaign was actually, like Waterloo, a close run thing that turned into a disaster for the French; but that doesn't mean the units in that army fundamentally couldn't fight. "Whether the GD should be A or B (I wouldn't say it should be C though) is a matter of debate. Certainly Somme_Alt was balanced around the fact that it is A quality, so I am reluctant to change it because of that (Somme_Alt) was carefully balanced." Personally I don't understand how an outfit that has never seen combat should be rated A? Those North African divisions had more combat experience and greater unit cohesion due to the fact that they were operating in very harsh conditions in North Africa and were often engaged in combat-like operations as a normal part of their training. They got outmaneuvered not out fought. "I suppose the question is: has the F40 campaign ever been won by the allies (either stock or _Alt), if no then perhaps the French could use a +1 morale shift. BUT, according to the scenario db, 0510_02: The Allies Cast the Die_Alt has been won as major victory by both sides (played twice), so it sounds pretty balanced so far.":) I just looked at that scenario and it's been played 20 times with two draws and 17 Axis victories and 1 Axis loss. Me, I just think F 40 could be a much more popular title if the French units had some decent morale and lower high command ratings to reflect the situation that actually happened. Given the historical deployments I think the Germans would win anyway if more French units were rated B because the armoured thrust through the Ardennes is probably unstoppable but the game would be more fun as the French if the French player had some decent units. jonny :smoke: RE: Some questions about France '40 - Volcano Man - 12-24-2011 (12-24-2011, 09:33 AM)jonnymacbrown Wrote: I just looked at that scenario and it's been played 20 times with two draws and 17 Axis victories and 1 Axis loss. Me, I just think F 40 could be a much more popular title if the French units had some decent morale and lower high command ratings to reflect the situation that actually happened. jonny :smoke: What you may not realize is that that scenario was rebalanced again after it was played some 10 or so times. So, the overall results of the scenario doesn't really portray the recent changes to it. Maybe the GD should be rated as B, I don't know, I am not going to go in there with a sledge hammer and start making changes unless people actually play Stonne_Alt in its current form. I just don't see why this is such a big deal all of the sudden. I certainly don't mind changing the GD to B quality if the community thinks it best; but I need some proof/evidence that this is needed for game balance first, not just speculation. Other than that, unfortunately I don't have time to debate or offer a detailed discussion of all of this (at the moment anyway). The F40 campaign is a totally different animal than F14, you can't really say that unit X has rating of Y in 1914, so why isn't it the same in 1940? AFAIK, the Zouaves in F40 are rated as B, so it is not like the French are short changed all around, and the 1940 French army's morale is nothing like what it was in 1914. Still, the simple answer works here too: if anyone dislikes the unit ratings, combat ratings or OOB structure, then feel free to edit it to your own liking. RE: Some questions about France '40 - JDR Dragoon - 12-24-2011 (12-23-2011, 03:37 PM)jonnymacbrown Wrote: While we are at it, I'd like to ask why the Gross Deutschland outfit is rated A considering this was its 1st campaign and also why the North African divisions are rated mostly C & D while the same outfits are A & B in 1914? Thanks jonny Because of two factors: -The historical result is known. -There is no possible way to force the french and british player(s) to play as stupidly as they historically did. In addition, there is no way to simulate the lack of intelligence and the command paralysis this induced in the allied high command. The PzC allied player will know EXACTLY which axis units he is in contact with at the start of each turn, where they are and likely also have an idea about their approximate status Hence the french in particular has to short-changed in order to reach a situation where the axis can actually win (and the germans get a boost to their morale to boot). If you based the morale of the french units on how they actually conducted themselves in combat during the campaign, the level of training they had received (and for the reserve units: how well that training had been maintained and how onerous the tasks they were meant to accomplish were) the axis would not stand a chance. RE: Some questions about France '40 - jonnymacbrown - 12-24-2011 "Maybe the GD should be rated as B, I don't know, I am not going to go in there with a sledge hammer and start making changes unless people actually play Stonne_Alt in its current form. I just don't see why this is such a big deal all of the sudden." Stonne_Alt is a good scenario. But these questions, especially about the larger campaigns, have been around right from the get-go. I might be wrong but F 40 is not generally a popular title precisely because playing the French is no fun. "Still, the simple answer works here too: if anyone dislikes the unit ratings, combat ratings or OOB structure, then feel free to edit it to your own liking." That's not really the solution to the problem because it's not just one person asking for change. jonny :whis: RE: Some questions about France '40 - jonnymacbrown - 12-24-2011 "The historical result is known." This is a true statement. "There is no possible way to force the french and british player(s) to play as stupidly as they historically did." You've never played against me. "In addition, there is no way to simulate the lack of intelligence and the command paralysis this induced in the allied high command." Yes there is: Very low command ratings for French higher command. French units will be able to put up a good fight but will have difficulty re-ordering. "The PzC allied player will know EXACTLY which axis units he is in contact with at the start of each turn, where they are and likely also have an idea about their approximate status." This isn't completely true either. The German variable reinforcement schedule and strategic options scenario makes this much more difficult to discern. "Hence the french in particular has to short-changed in order to reach a situation where the axis can actually win (and the germans get a boost to their morale to boot). If you based the morale of the french units on how they actually conducted themselves in combat during the campaign, the level of training they had received (and for the reserve units: how well that training had been maintained and how onerous the tasks they were meant to accomplish were) the axis would not stand a chance." This is what I'm talking about: rigging a game so that certain historical results may be achieved. I don't think that's the way to go. I'm saying that within the historical set-up the inherent weaknesses of the French strategic position will insure their defeat no matter what you do as French provided the French high command has very low command ratings. jonny :smoke::whis: |
){kind=link}