Some questions about France '40

[Volcano Man]

I agree with most of what you are saying....

Well, apparently we are carrying on a conversation in two places. I have replied to this (mostly) at vmods.com.

For the most part I disagree with all the suggestions about German panzer quality and unit ratings (meddling with the latter in the _Alt is what I consider "fudging"), and I don't see any middle ground there. I am using well established values for these unit ratings, and I am totally against altering them to achieve some sort of effect, and I disagree with the idea that having the fragile (in the _Alt) German panzers rated as A over the French armor that is mostly C, is either too extreme or providing the same bonus twice, as you say.

Here I disagree. The may '40 campaign for the germans was all about destroying lots of enemy units, not about capturing certain objectives. The southern breakthrough and race to the channel ports was a means to an end, not the goal. In fact, the speed and success surprised even the german themselves. There were other ways they could have gone about it, what mattered though was to deal a crippling blow to 1st allied army group and knock out the belgians and dutch.

Actually, no, the wholesale destruction of the units occurs outside of the scope of this game, as far as I can tell anyway. The destruction of all the allied units occurred mostly at the strategic level when the Germans cut off the allied armies by slicing across to the Pas de Calais. After that point the result was a forgone conclusion. The actual total and complete destruction is not modeled in the scope of the F40 campaign, so this is where the objectives come in and why they are stressed. F40 assumes that you must quickly advance across and capture the objectives to cut off the allied armies in Belgium, thereby destroying all the units by default from isolating them, as was historically the case. If you can figure out a way to represent this some other way (in the scope of what we have to work with in the game engine without actually requiring the Germans to hunt down and kill every unit on the map) then I am sure everyone would like to hear it. ;) But really, the way the campaign is currently devised, it is the only logical way that it can be effectively represented; otherwise what is stopping the Allies from running to the map edges and escaping, thereby taking the German's VPs with them, and it keeps the campaign from having to be 200 to 300 turns long (they are the two important dilemmas that must be avoided/addressed when making these games, and F40 stock game addressed both as best as is possible IMO).

Have you never heard the phrase that the germans had the best LMG for defense and the british had the best LMG for offense? :-)

For sure the mg34 was an important weapon which had a lot of advantages. And german units should get a boost for it but it wasn't a miracle weapon. In the end it still was an mmg that could also perform the lmg role (although not as well as the mmg role). The Bren and it's french counterpart the FM29 were dedicated lmg's which had their own advantages. There's a reason both of these stayed in service for a considerable period of time after ww2. They were quite good for their job, and for some parts of the job at least considerably better than the mg34.
Personally I'd sooner raise the german defense value because of the mg34 than the attack value, maybe one point in each?

Perhaps this is a case of selective reading. I simply mentioned the MG34 as ONE important reason (in other words, one of the support weapons). ;)

Anyway, I do agree with some things that I may adjust in the future in F40_Alt. However, out of disagreement perhaps a new mod will be born. Feel free to build upon my changes and make F40 in your own image.

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...

I missed this comment earlier, and actually it fits perfect here. Actually, yes, this is certainly a valid solution (change the unit ratings to your own liking). I know you are not the one asking for that, but this proves the point: there is no possible way that everyone will ever come to an agreement on certain things (like unit values), and there are certain things that I am adamantly opposed to doing, like altering unit values in the McNamara db. So, if anyone wants such changes that is the ONLY solution. ;)

I will carry on the rest of the conversation at vmods.com.

[jonnymacbrown]

"The only way I could come up with an explanation for the values as they are is that they already incorporate those intangibles. How else can you explain french AMR units and british VI-B units having soft attack values of 1/1 while similarly armed german Pnz I&II units have a whopping 6/1?"

This is a good question. Could the same be said for the French AMD Panhard with a 2/1 soft attack?
jonny :conf:



Any more thoughts on this? Is it accurate for the Pz I & Pz II outfits to have a 6 soft attack value while similar Allied vehicles do not? I kind of like those AMDs and it sure looks like they can spit out a lot of lead! :whis:

[Kritterpaw]

Unit values, one can no doubt find many variables that seem out of whack, maybe I don't know.
Historical perspective as a game limiting device, maybe I don't know.
German armoured cars seemingly "super cars" maybe I don't know.
AT without a hard attack strength, (specially against armoured cars)
slightly wierd, maybe I don't know.
One thing I do know, playing with low or lowest morale units (and this goes for the eastern front russians) is this - gameplay devolves to just watching your units disrupt then be overun (no matter what terrain).
Seems to really cut into the fun factor.
Then hoping that the attacker over fatigues his units before the VP is met, whilst one spends ones time retreating one hex per turn.
Look maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem to be a "tatical contest" with low morale units.
Sure I understand why some have low morale, but the majority.

[Narwan]

Actually, no, the wholesale destruction of the units occurs outside of the scope of this game, as far as I can tell anyway. The destruction of all the allied units occurred mostly at the strategic level when the Germans cut off the allied armies by slicing across to the Pas de Calais. After that point the result was a forgone conclusion. The actual total and complete destruction is not modeled in the scope of the F40 campaign, so this is where the objectives come in and why they are stressed. F40 assumes that you must quickly advance across and capture the objectives to cut off the allied armies in Belgium, thereby destroying all the units by default from isolating them, as was historically the case. If you can figure out a way to represent this some other way (in the scope of what we have to work with in the game engine without actually requiring the Germans to hunt down and kill every unit on the map) then I am sure everyone would like to hear it. ;)

You're wrong, the wholesale destruction of the allied armies is modeled into the game albeit indirectly. One of the characteristics is that it is very, very easy to deal with cut off and surrounded units. These die quickly and easily.
It is in fact far too easy to deal with cutoff units. Historically units often held out for days before giving in. Even Italians and Rumanians during the russian campaigns of the winter of 42/43.
On the other hand, historically some units simply melted away when cut off and all the attacker needed to do is count prisoners. The game deals with this by dealing with every unit as if it's the average between these two: the unit will stay together and resist but not very long and not very effectively.

Yes, you have to chase down every unit but the aggregate time spend on this by the attacker is still in the same order of magnitude. In the game most of the units will then spend some of the time dealing with cutoffs while historically some of the units spend most of their time doing this.

Off course one can argue about the balance, whether the game mechanic manages to catch the right average. Personally I believe it is too easy in the game to police up the cutoff's. I wouldn't mind seeing the surrender percentage for surrounded defenders when losing an assault go down a bit.

Narwan

[Tortue Agile]

Nice to see that this campaign is still interesting some people.

My first idea when I started working on that game was to show that the French Army could have stopped the German invader in 1940. Not because I am French and I thought that history was wrong but because after reading The Blitzkrieg Legend by Karl-heinz Frieser I was convinced that bad luck and bad strategy was the main culprit for the French. That sentiment was reinforced after reading an other book The Breaking Point by Robert Doughty (who is by the way in my opinion the best American specialist of the French Army between 1914 and 1940).

France '40 was a very difficult campaign to recreate.

At the time I was working on the game, Blitzkrieg Legend wasn't translated in English but it had been translated in French. So the rest of the team was using more classic sources which was still showing the French as ineffective and outdated and no will to fight which wasn't true and only an echo of the Petain regime propaganda who was trying to blame everybody but the higher command, of course everybody else followed this for different reasons. The British historians liked it because it was glorifying their participation to the war... Dunkirk became the symbol of the will to continue to fight even after defeat... Forgetting that the retreat was only possible because the French Army was holding the line.

I am wondering now that the game has been patched to the latest improvements if I should work on making some changes on the oob.
If I do so I will not do it for the stock oob/scenarios but for this one:
https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/HPS-...1&ladder=3

[jonnymacbrown]

I am wondering now that the game has been patched to the latest improvements if I should work on making some changes on the oob.
If I do so I will not do it for the stock oob/scenarios but for this one:

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/HPS-...1&ladder=3

Yes this one is really good. I'm playing it now but I wish I had Volcano Man's oob because the oob for this scenario has all the Belgians at defense 12 and they really get badly chewed up! Many French units are also 12 and the best divisions are 14 defense but they just don't stand up to German Pz. Grenadiers with a soft attack of 11. Even in woods and high ground the best French units just get hammered. Too many division are rated D. In the game I'm playing now, we're on the morning of the 16th and I've destroyed 1300 panzers, 900 German guns but I getting the piss beat out of me. It's been a fun game though because with the variable strategic options one never knows where the Nazis are going. jonny

[Dog Soldier]

I am seeing Belgian HW units with a defense of 16 in the Multi-Strategies version.

Plenty of good French units with 14 and 16 defense values. The majority of the French with a twelve defense are fortress troops IIRC. Best to leave them in their bunkers of dig them in woods or cities.

JMB, you appear to be ignoring the BEF whose defense values are equal to the Germans. The BEF artillery is a darn sight better than the German in most respects too.
There were some BEF reserve divisions, 5th & 12th in I Corps IIRC, that had poor defense ratings. Perhaps these were second line troops send to the continent in haste? Otherwise, in this particular F40 CG the German with no respect of the BEF is going to get his head handed to him, IMHO.

Good Allied play is not easy in F40. It is very rewarding though. Just figuring out a way to save the bulk of the Belgian Group K is well worth the effort. Those boys know how to tweak a Hun's nose!

The F40 Allied commander has to follow this advice:
1.You got to know when to hold 'em,
2. know when to fold 'em,.
3. Know when to walk away,
4. know when to run.

Defending in PzC is more of an art form than the science of being the attacker. A good defensive player is one of the best in the club IMHO. Defending France in the F40 CG scenario 0510_91: The Invasion of France and Belgium (w/German Strategy) is a PzC player's final exam in the defensive arts school.

As others have mentioned, the Allies can not stop a competent German player, but they can make it take too long and cost too much.

Full disclosure: This is one of my favorite scenarios. Either side has very different challenges. Never the same game twice.

Dog Soldier

[alaric99x]

I agree, Dog Soldier, it's necessary to know when to do what.

As allied player, I would start a slow withdrawal right from the start, trying to preserve as much of the force as possible. I would, however, in this particular game, leave behind some high strength unit, maybe with AT guns, in every bunker and fortified hex, knowing how weak the German side is in AT strength and how much of a delay this can cause even when those units become isolated. As in so many other scenarios and campaigns, I find too many opponents try to hold the front for too long, instead of trading space for time. It then becomes a surround and kill exercise for the attacker. Count your victory point hexes, determine your last line of defense that will still give you a victory, then withdraw and preserve forces to that line in as orderly a manner as possible.

[jonnymacbrown]

"I am seeing Belgian HW units with a defense of 16 in the Multi-Strategies version."

Yes Belgian motorized, cyclists and engineers are rated 16. Regular infantry 12.

"Plenty of good French units with 14 and 16 defense values. The majority of the French with a twelve defense are fortress troops IIRC. Best to leave them in their bunkers of dig them in woods or cities."

Yes there are plenty of French units rated 14 defense, I'd say 90% of them. That's c. 15% lower defense against soft attack numbers. That hurts, believe me, when they are D & C rated getting shot at by German infantry with soft attack factors of 10 & 11.

"JMB, you appear to be ignoring the BEF whose defense values are equal to the Germans. The BEF artillery is a darn sight better than the German in most respects too."

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore them; those fellows are good and have 16 defense and great arty.

"There were some BEF reserve divisions, 5th & 12th in I Corps IIRC, that had poor defense ratings. Perhaps these were second line troops send to the continent in haste? Otherwise, in this particular F40 CG the German with no respect of the BEF is going to get his head handed to him, IMHO."

You are right! There is no complaint here about the BEF

"Good Allied play is not easy in F40. It is very rewarding though. Just figuring out a way to save the bulk of the Belgian Group K is well worth the effort. Those boys know how to tweak a Hun's nose!"

Group K has some good boys and they put up a good fight, and can slow down the Germans in the Ardennes that's for sure. I must admit however that Group K didn't get out of the Ardennes alive; perhaps having mistook one of der Fuhrer's hold to the last man orders as having come from Paris.

"Defending in PzC is more of an art form than the science of being the attacker. A good defensive player is one of the best in the club IMHO. Defending France in the F40 CG scenario 0510_91: The Invasion of France and Belgium (w/German Strategy) is a PzC player's final exam in the defensive arts school."

I agree. I'm at the 16th of May and have killed close to 1400 panzers but I've lost close to 300,000 men in the process. I'm still fighting but I wish I had some of those divisions represented in Volcano Man's mod; especially the 14th with B rated Legion troops with a defense of 18! My guys are B rated with a defense of 14. This scenario would be more fun, for me anyway, with Volcano Man's oob.
jonny :smoke: