France '40 Gold Team Game

[larsonney]

Ok, I missed the summary in post #24-I'm all in! Let's finalize the 3x3-fill me in whichever team needs a slot!

[ComradeP]

As Brammer prefers the German side, you'd become the third Allied player.

If everybody is OK with:

Allied: Der Landser, larsonney, ComradeP
German: Liebchen, OJW, Brammer.

we can start talking about the optional and house rules.

It would be helpful to hear from Prucha or testers if the scenarios were designed around using the Alternative combat rules. As noted earlier, I think using alt assault is a bad idea as it makes bunkers very difficult to take. As the Maginot Line consists of pillboxes, which can be assaulted with relative ease, it could theoretically be taken but it would be very difficult to do so I don't think that's a reason for playing with the alt assault rule.

As casualties can come from any unit in a stack, it's also possible for multiple units in a stack to Disrupt from a single attack using the alt rules. This is worse for the Allied players than for the German players due to the plethora of not so hot D-E quality units we have. If we decide to play with Delayed Disruption Reporting, the advantage the German players enjoy would be lessened a bit.

Regardless of whether we use rules that use the target selection dialog or not, to avoid cherry picking units and Disrupting them one by one, I'd prefer to play with Delayed Disruption Reporting due to the low quality of many Allied units.

I like the Quality Fatigue Modifier, but if some of you don't and want to play without it that's fine as well.

Counterbattery Fire or Fire/Air Strikes by the Map are off by default which seems to be suitable.

I'm indifferent to Recon Spotting.

Even though it's off by default, the campaigns scenario always has Locking ZOCs as the ZOC movement multiplier is 0, meaning it's impossible to move ZOC-to-ZOC.

As suggested in the scenario description, I'd prefer to play with Programmed Weather.

As to the campaign: does anyone object to playing B3, long, multiple paths the Germans can take to win, wired bridges?

Take a look at post #24 and name the house rules you'd like to use. Additionally, voice your opinion on whether the Germans have to land the Luftlande division units at Dutch airfields regardless of whether they are Dutch or German controlled. Note: remember that reinforcements can be placed at any point during a turn, you don't need to place them at the start of the turn. Even though the Fallschirmjaeger can't assault any hex during turn 1, they can assault hexes during turn 2 before reinforcements are placed.

[Plain Ian]

It would be helpful to hear from Prucha or testers if the scenarios were designed around using the Alternative combat rules. As noted earlier, I think using alt assault is a bad idea as it makes bunkers very difficult to take. As the Maginot Line consists of pillboxes, which can be assaulted with relative ease, it could theoretically be taken but it would be very difficult to do so I don't think that's a reason for playing with the alt assault rule.

Its a pity that Pillboxes/Bunkers do not have hexside facings? Direct/Fire would still get the benefit of hard target but assaults would depend on which hexside was assaulted? 
Wasn't the Maginot Line captured from behind?

Apologies for sidetracking the conversation. I'm sure lots of people are following this thread hoping to see the project get off the ground.....

[ComradeP]

A pillbox represents anything better than a log/concrete bunker, and at a 1km/hex scale a series of fortifications or a single big one. Fortifications with a facing might be more suitable for a smaller map scale series like Squad Battles.

FWWC has various types of fortifications, but I'm not sure how complicated it would be to add genuine forts to PzC for the handful of scenarios that could use them.

Only a small part of the Maginot Line was successfully assaulted, the other garrisons indeed surrendered after being attacked from the flank and rear.

I had forgotten about it, but there's another good reason why alt fire rules might make the game too difficult for the Allied players: the game uses the Fragile Morale rule for most if not all Allied nations (I'm not sure about the British). Coupled with a higher disruption chance as each attack can hit multiple units in a stack with or without cherry picking due to not using Delayed Disruption Reporting, low quality units might melt away a bit too quickly.

For those unfamiliar with the Fragile Morale rule: units of C quality and below surrender when they are assaulted in a position from where they can't retreat, instead of losing about 1/2 of their strength per successful assault like other units would. In FWWC, there are also consequences for the morale level of Detached units and disruption recovery, but I'm not sure if any of that applies to PzC as Detached units don't face a penalty to their quality level.

I realize that there's a need for the German offensive to be able to quickly move through weakly held areas, but that's quite possible already without potentially disrupting multiple units with a single attack.

[Plain Ian]

A pillbox represents anything better than a log/concrete bunker, and at a 1km/hex scale a series of fortifications or a single big one. Fortifications with a facing might be more suitable for a smaller map scale series like Squad Battles.

FWWC has various types of fortifications, but I'm not sure how complicated it would be to add genuine forts to PzC for the handful of scenarios that could use them.

Only a small part of the Maginot Line was successfully assaulted, the other garrisons indeed surrendered after being attacked from the flank and rear.

I had forgotten about it, but there's another good reason why alt fire rules might make the game too difficult for the Allied players: the game uses the Fragile Morale rule for most if not all Allied nations (I'm not sure about the British). Coupled with a higher disruption chance as each attack can hit multiple units in a stack with or without cherry picking due to not using Delayed Disruption Reporting, low quality units might melt away a bit too quickly.

For those unfamiliar with the Fragile Morale rule: units of C quality and below surrender when they are assaulted in a position from where they can't retreat, instead of losing about 1/2 of their strength per successful assault like other units would. In FWWC, there are also consequences for the morale level of Detached units and disruption recovery, but I'm not sure if any of that applies to PzC as Detached units don't face a penalty to their quality level.

I realize that there's a need for the German offensive to be able to quickly move through weakly held areas, but that's quite possible already without potentially disrupting multiple units with a single attack.

It sounds like you need to test out these concerns by playing a small scenario? 

By the way the facing idea was just a fanciful idea. Like giving the Germans small German airborne units with very high Assault factors to represent shaped charges so they can assault fortresses etc. Make them single use to prevent abuse?
Hmm yes I know this is already in the game. Doh.

[Der Landser]

I typically use the Optional Rules set as default by the scenario designer in the belief that the designer knows best what Optional Rules to enable to allow the scenario to play as intended.

The Alternative Combat Rules (which are on by default) seem like they have both positive and negative effects. While they prevent selective attacks on individual units, they also carry the risk of mass Disruption as pointed out by ComradeP. I agree with using Delayed Disruption Reporting as a counter to mass Disruption.

I'm fine with Artillery Set Up, Low Visibility Air Effects, Night Fatigue and Limited Air Recon being on by default. I would add Recon Spotting and Programmed Weather to the mix.

One point that I'm not clear on is what is the impact of Quality Fatigue Modifier. As I read it and understand it, it seems to me that it is a benefit to Quality A/B units and a detriment to Quality D/E units. If this is the case and I am interpreting the rule correctly, it would place the Allies at a disadvantage. If this is correct, why would we want to invoke this rule?

Finally, is the Virtual Supply Truck option worth considering? I would think that it would have a realistic effect on the Germans as their supply lines are stretched as they advance deeper into France.

[Der Landser]

I forgot to add that I agree with playing the B3 scenario.

[ComradeP]

As both sides have a significant number of low(er) quality formations, perhaps Quality Fatigue would indeed not be suitable for the scenario. The problem with picking balanced optional rules is that they have a different effect on different units and in different situations.

Though the Quality Fatigue modifier would help keep the German mobile units going, which they might need when facing concentrated artillery fire, it also hurts the D and E quality units.

The difference between VST and regular supply for the initial Allied setup isn't all that pronounced, but as Allied HQ's are mediocre and limited in command range, decreasing the chance of Low Ammunition status recovery, I think I'd prefer a guaranteed 70 over another value even if it means the Germans will be decreased as well. A scenario like Lille also still features a German supply source of 80, so it seems the campaign was balanced with the Germans having excellent supply throughout.

[larsonney]

Hello Allied Team! Looks like we have B3 and some ideas on the optional rules...I'm pretty flexible, but I am a fan of quality fatigue modifier...we do have some A/B units on the Allied side, and will need them at critical junctures of the campaign, in my opinion. I also think it correctly shows the difference in attitudes that the two sides had.

The Germans will have a hard enough time as it is to win the long campaign...I think playing with the challenges the Allied command faced would be fun, since we won't get caught off guard by the Ardennes move! We will want to identify as quickly as possible which of the three routes the Hun is pursuing for victory!

That said, I will defer to consensus...

Now, we need to hear from the German side!! We are getting danger close!

P.S.-I commend ComradeP & Der Landser for all the work you have done so far!! I'm honored to be on your side in this one!! Let me know if you want to start strategic planning off the general net as we await the cowardly Hun!!

Cheers, Jon

[Der Landser]

ComradeP and larsonney, I have to yield to your experience regarding these Optional Rules. Both of you have significant TOC experience, so I defer to your judgement. I'm willing to go along with the consensus.

And I agree that we need to open dialogue and begin discussions regarding strategy.