F 40 Gold question

[jonnymacbrown]

What is the purpose for the withdrawal of French 9th and 7th Army command on May 15th? 9th just got unfixed at dawn on May 15th. Now in 6 more hours they are gone and all their Army artillery will soon be low on fuel. What's the idea here? Thanks jonny

[Sir John Cope]

What is the purpose for the withdrawal of French 9th and 7th Army command on May 15th? 9th just got unfixed at dawn on May 15th. Now in 6 more hours they are gone and all their Army artillery will soon be low on fuel. What's the idea here? Thanks jonny

GQG does the same thing at a later date. I believe the hey-presto disappearance and reappearance is meant to simulate the withdrawal of those armies in reaction to the Sedan breakthrough. Unfortunately, in any given game that breakthrough may or may not happen, and so the relocations mostly serve as just another "idiot rule" handicap for the French: artificial constraints, like the release dates of various units, which are intended to simulate the failure of the high command (a wargame design approach I frankly despise as contrary to the nature of a wargame simulation).

[jonnymacbrown]

What is the purpose for the withdrawal of French 9th and 7th Army command on May 15th? 9th just got unfixed at dawn on May 15th. Now in 6 more hours they are gone and all their Army artillery will soon be low on fuel. What's the idea here? Thanks jonny

GQG does the same thing at a later date. I believe the hey-presto disappearance and reappearance is meant to simulate the withdrawal of those armies in reaction to the Sedan breakthrough. Unfortunately, in any given game that breakthrough may or may not happen, and so the relocations mostly serve as just another "idiot rule" handicap for the French: artificial constraints, like the release dates of various units, which are intended to simulate the failure of the high command (a wargame design approach I frankly despise as contrary to the nature of a wargame simulation).

Among his many treasonous acts “General” Gamelin’s send off of 7th Army to completely and literally disappear into the Dutch swamps was the most egregious.  How do you simulate that? Why not make the whole 7th Army hey-presto disappear? As for the staggered release dates that adds to the unpredictability and is well thought out in my opinion. Still, I think the F 40 Gold designers are intent to make Germany win, or better said, make it impossible for them to lose when two equally skillful players play a campaign. When you can stack two German infantry battalions with 25% more firepower than any French defender and suffer no adverse effects from stacking 1200 men in a 1000 yard hex then the game is rigged.  jonny

[Sir John Cope]

What is the purpose for the withdrawal of French 9th and 7th Army command on May 15th? 9th just got unfixed at dawn on May 15th. Now in 6 more hours they are gone and all their Army artillery will soon be low on fuel. What's the idea here? Thanks jonny

GQG does the same thing at a later date. I believe the hey-presto disappearance and reappearance is meant to simulate the withdrawal of those armies in reaction to the Sedan breakthrough. Unfortunately, in any given game that breakthrough may or may not happen, and so the relocations mostly serve as just another "idiot rule" handicap for the French: artificial constraints, like the release dates of various units, which are intended to simulate the failure of the high command (a wargame design approach I frankly despise as contrary to the nature of a wargame simulation).

Among his many treasonous acts “General” Gamelin’s send off of 7th Army to completely and literally disappear into the Dutch swamps was the most egregious.  How do you simulate that? Why not make the whole 7th Army hey-presto disappear? As for the staggered release dates that adds to the unpredictability and is well thought out in my opinion. Still, I think the F 40 Gold designers are intent to make Germany win, or better said, make it impossible for them to lose when two equally skillful players play a campaign. When you can stack two German infantry battalions with 25% more firepower than any French defender and suffer no adverse effects from stacking 1200 men in a 1000 yard hex then the game is rigged.  jonny

I agree with your later points: a competent Germany can't really lose. I'm playing the second of two games now, first GER now FRA, and both played with Alt-Fire: many hate the idea of that optional, and I don't contend it is ideal, but it does limit the absurdity you mention: you pay a price for massive concentrations in a few key hexes. 

Regarding your former points, I consider this a fundamental question of wargame design: do you the designer attempt to force a player to make historical mistakes, or should the player as C-in-C be left free to make his own?  If I am in the role of Gamelin, must I be constrained to act as Gamelin did, or can I revise history?  Personally, it seems to me that the point of a wargame is to allow the player to revise history and make his own mistakes.  And in this particular case, being handcuffed to Gamelin, when added to all the vast advantages the German enjoys, and assuming competent play, effectively guarantees German victory. 

Of course, someone might contend that German victory was a certainty anyway - except that that's not the consensus of historians of the campaign, many of whom point out that if Gamelin and his commanders had not made the mistakes they did, it could easily have gone differently.  And if so, why should a player be shackled to Gamelin's corpse?  

BTW, my term "idiot rules" derives from the first wargame I ever encountered on this campaign, the great Jim Dunnigan's France 1940, originally one of SPI's first games and later republished by AH. To quote the Wiki article: "The historical scenario, which inevitably leads to an overwhelming German victory, is titled "The Idiot's Game." I think the designers of our F40 have given us another "Idiot's Game" in this sense, but in my opinion Dunnigan was right to make his "Idiot's Game" an optional curiosity rather than standard rules.

[Sir John Cope]

Oh dear - I just realized that Mr. Dunnigan is by no means "late". My apologies to him and all for the error. The post above now edited.

[Pvt_Larry]

Regarding your former points, I consider this a fundamental question of wargame design: do you the designer attempt to force a player to make historical mistakes, or should the player as C-in-C be left free to make his own?  If I am in the role of Gamelin, must I be constrained to act as Gamelin did, or can I revise history?  Personally, it seems to me that the point of a wargame is to allow the player to revise history and make his own mistakes.  And in this particular case, being handcuffed to Gamelin, when added to all the vast advantages the German enjoys, and assuming competent play, effectively guarantees German victory

If you don't mind my jumping in I think it's perfectly fair to have different variants of the campaign which impose differnt degrees of constraint, in terms of obliging the allied player to send forces to defend the Netherlands for instance. I think there is a fair argument to be made that there would be political pressure to keep the Low Countries in the war. However, there should of course be a variant which allows a more prudent French commander to salvage victory on less ambitious terms.

But for me I think the bigger problem is the attempt to ensure a historical outcome by manipulation of unit statistics rather than just the constraints imposed by victory conditions. Obviously the poor performance of the French "B" divisions is now infamous, but pound-for-pound there's no reason a French line unit shouldn't be able to stand and fight against an equivalent German formation, and that's difficult in the game due to the morale values chosen by the developers. I'd go so far as to argue that frankly the German success was so complete and depended on so many contingencies that two competent players arriving at a historical outcome really shouldn't be treated as any measure of realism at all! The fact that the allied units need to be handicapped to permit this outcome is evidence of the fact in my opinion.

[Steel God]

When designing an historical campaign, the historical outcome is the benchmark the designer is obliged to shoot for.  If they don't then they have created a poor simulation.  The historical outcome must be achievable else the designer be blasted for it.  Towards that end the designers use the features that the engine provides, such as unit quality, to make an army last longer or less than nominal so that historical results can be achieved.  It doesn't mean that an average French Infantryman is more or less than his German counterpart in 1940, but historically on the campaign level he performed below standard, how else can that be achieved?  It's easier to design hypothetical games (like Modern Campaigns) but historical battles will wear a designer out because if he misses the history he'll be crucified, if he makes it perfectly balanced he'll be crucified.  So they do what they must, design to repeat history and adjust the scores for "victory conditions".

[Sir John Cope]

When designing an historical campaign, the historical outcome is the benchmark the designer is obliged to shoot for.  If they don't then they have created a poor simulation.  

Agreed, when we're considering wargames as simulations. But we don't play simulations - we play simulation games. And particularly in the case of notably lopsided conflicts (such as this one), a faithful simulation designed to invariably produce the historical outcome may be worthwhile as a way to understand and study the campaign, but not terribly interesting as a game. The ideal, of course, is a happy balance between simulation and game.  

But regardless whether the simulation or game aspect is paramount in a design, players should not be constrained from actions which were historically possible, even if the historical counterpart was too confused, inept, or incompetent to take them. That is, an ideal wargame in my view accurately reflects the conditions within which the historical commanders made decisions, while leaving the decisions themselves to the player. Hence, my objection to "idiot rules".

[jonnymacbrown]

[quote pid="451626" dateline="1669235626"]
[quote pid="451624" dateline="1669221128"]
For what it's worth: Sometime in the 1930's the French conducted a few wargames and determined that the German Army could get through the Ardennes in 3 days. That's in fact what happened. In F 40 Gold, if the Germans could do that they'd have a good chance of breaking through, thanks to the game's ingenious staggered releases. But they can't because the Belgians in the Ardennes are so strong; high morale and movement, good command values and more. Make those guys as weak as the French and maybe there'd be a chance for an historical simulation. jonny 
[/quote]

[/quote]