Weak France!

The sister game to Axis & Allies Pacific 1940. Due out August 24, 2010
Post Reply
mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Weak France!

Post by mantlefan » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:21 pm

Striker wrote:IL, How would you compensate Germany if you buffed France how you wanted to? as of Alpha .2 the game seems to have reached a relatively balanced state. If France was made stronger how would you compensate the axis to ensure a 50/50% chance of victory for either side is achieved, which I'm assuming is what is ideal for this "game".
His goal from his posts is to make France so strong that Germany needs to commit so much to it that the UK navy escapes largely unharmed, and that even with planes in France and not out killing the Royal Navy, Germany will take so many casualties that they will further be barred from sealion. Somehow it's OK to make France ahistorically mighty but its not OK to make the game more fun by giving Germany a few options that were ahistorical.

Does anyone really want a game where France is supposed to live after Round 1? For a game like that to be viable, it would also have to be possible for Germany to win without taking France. In that case you're not even playing a WWII game, much less a game that given the Name (1940) and the territorial arrangement, we can put under as starting in May/June of 1940.

The France situation as it is is reasonably gameplay balanced, simple, historically accurate, and allows multiple strategies.

There are more considerations than just historical accuracy. The fact that a stronger France is ahistorical, unbalanced, and discouraging to multiple strategies means it is just not worth making stronger to satisfy a few Francophiles. People need to get over the FACT that France was a dead duck when this game started. That is a much bigger deal than a few ships here or there, we are talking about the inevitable fall of a CAPITAL, an essential concept in all A&A games. If you want the possibility of France being a major player, there might be a chance in a 1939 version, but by the time this game started, France was doomed.

He makes it sound like the Fall of France was some big suprise. In 1939? Sure. But when this game starts, France's fate was sealed. He doesn't get that.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Weak France!

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:27 pm

"No you got it wrong. +1 for only infantry defending in France against units coming from Germany into France."

So what happens if units come into France from somewhere else? If only 1 unit comes from Germany, do all infantry get +1? Do units from Germany fight a separate battle than units from somewhere else? Please think of the consequences of the things you spout.
Read the posts, that was already made clear. Please read posts before you spout off stuff that was already covered.

To make life easy for you which it seems you need: I proposed in an earlier post that those units coming from the Franco-German border are -1 on the attack. Simple. The +1 idea was if you were to do the attacks separately, which is more cumbersome.
How is your proposal anything other than an attempt to kill any chance of Sealion?
It has nothing to do with Sealion, unless you mean Germany is able to invade both France and UK on G1 and win. I wish you would read more than post stuff that is not relevant to this discussion. It is only what i have stated and in other posts i said the issue is not allowing Germany to sink most of the UK navy and take out all sorts of neutrals, while at the same time taking out France.... because France is so weak that Germany really can allocate lots of pieces to other duty. This is very wrong and to have France in the game at all and to make them so weak as to amount to a 100% easy victory with part of the German land forces is not modeling any reality.
Is making france more effective historically accurate? No. Germany outsmarted the Maginot Line. The line was already made ineffectual by the time the game started. It having a significant role would be anachronistic. Maybe if this were AA 1939 or AA April 1940, you might have a point, but the game is mid-to-late may at the earliest.
1)Yes.
2)No and it was not attacked till latter, It was ineffectual only because of the result and the game allows a new outcome, not a replay of history. If the game was supposed to make the results accurate, their would be no point to the game and we don't need Italy since they were weaker
3) game starts early June ( as per rules), France surrenders late that month, and before that time Germany attacked the Maginot line.
The difference between France and every other power is that France's downfall, at the point in time where the game started (NOT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THE WAR STARTED,THERE IS A DIFFERENCE), was a foregone conclusion.
NO. And your reasoning is faulty. Again you are looking at the results and forcing a scripted result that the game must employ: France was defeated, so it must be defeated....Once Japan went to war with USA the same reasoning could be applied, they were defeated and had no chance. If you have France in the game do it right, give them accurate deployment and make Germany have to send her entire land and air forces to win that, rather than just some land forces, little or no air and the rest goes into UK fleet, Yugoslavia, and other neutrals
There's a difference between allowing freedom for powers in the game, and having a power being designed from THE BEGINNING to fall, because it represents the situation at the start of the game. The point of A&A has been to give players a balanced abstraction of a loosely-defined point in the war for them to play. France is an entirely different situation from the other powers. It does not need to be as playable as any other power, because the historical situation at the beginning of the game makes its fall necessary, unless of course, the German player begins the game trying to lose.
That is not inconsistent with what i was saying. Make France a bit more powerful so Germany can't send only a part of her forces to defeat her. This is not consistent with reality. IN early June Hitler's Luftwaffe didn't sink the entire British navy, didn't take out any neutrals while fighting France, etc. You always take the most insane extrapolation out of what i say and pretend i said things that were never spoken. A few units in France will be enough and the modifier for the border, to make the battle of France a requirement of all if not most of the German land and air forces. This is what it should be.

AS i said before Italy should be neutral till her turn, because UK also has this silly turn before where the OOB allows them to attack the Italian fleet. Of course the scrambling rules make that harder. But before the change it was just another issue that was just wrong not unlike France.
France was never intended to be a playable power on the level of the others, even China. Get over it!
Right, just remove their pieces.... and Italy since Italy was weaker than France and they proved it in 1940 when they attacked France and got pushed back.
Do you ever BOTHER to think of the long term consequences of your plans?
Yes and it was playtested, since you didn't do anything except bitch, i presume you don't consider the same?
Germany will require more units in France, and take more casualties. Since they will not be given more units, they will lose significant numbers of tanks and mechs, even with decent dice. They will not be allowed to have as much freedom attacking the british navy, making sealion incredibly more difficult.
Well you skip over the reality. 2-3 new France units -1/+1 and Germany now committing all her land and air will produce the same result as before. The difference?

Germany can'T ALSO BE ATTACKING UK NAVAL AND NEUTRALS ON G1.

Also, Germany should have another Bomber. ( at least)

In early 1939 Germany had this:
1170 bombers
1125 Fighters
195 Twin engine fighters
335 Fighter- Bombers

Production 1939:
bombers: 737
fighters 605 ( all types)

Production 1940:
Bombers 2852
Fighters 2745

So you can see they had more bombers than fighters.

So you want to make France ahistorically more powerful, but don't like the ahistorical possibility of Sealion? You seem not to understand that te game was designed with the fall of France as a necessity, not an option. I am fine with toying with playable powers to make them relevant. France was designed to fall on the first turn. Get over it!
NO historically more accurate. I said nothing about Sealion and stop bringing it up. It has no connection. ON G1 France with a few more units can be defeated, and UK will have its fleet to defend against Sealion on G2 or G3, just like it was historically, so get over that.
You say adding more units is complex (since adding more money makes more units), yet you want to add more units to France (and change their attack values based on where units attacking them come from)? Wouldn't your objectives also be completed by putting less units in Germany/Netherlands? It would kill sealion just like you want. You claim I have double standards!
No rather you insert Sealion into the conversation and nobody is talking about it. Germany can still try it WITH the UK fleet protecting England like in History, not in your fairy tale world.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Weak France!

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:53 pm

@ Mantlefan:
I think i can answer questions to me from other posters without your input. Thank you.
IL, How would you compensate Germany if you buffed France how you wanted to? as of Alpha .2 the game seems to have reached a relatively balanced state. If France was made stronger how would you compensate the axis to ensure a 50/50% chance of victory for either side is achieved, which I'm assuming is what is ideal for this "game".
Germany needs another bomber, France needs 2-3 more units and Maginot line modifier.

Now Germany can just fight France and not France and UK at the same time as well as neutrals.

Perhaps France could get an AA gun and some mech, or 1 tank and 2 mech.

Germany would get 1 extra bomber


His goal from his posts is to make France so strong that Germany needs to commit so much to it that the UK navy escapes largely unharmed, and that even with planes in France and not out killing the Royal Navy, Germany will take so many casualties that they will further be barred from sealion. Somehow it's OK to make France ahistorically mighty but its not OK to make the game more fun by giving Germany a few options that were ahistorical.
Well i guess you like to have the cake and eat it too? Germany would not be barred from Sealion, but rather they have to face the UK navy ( like in reality), just like Hitler did. Since you like "fun" all of a sudden when before you advocate "it should be realistic", then adding more French units would be fun too. See how fun works? No probably not.
Does anyone really want a game where France is supposed to live after Round 1? For a game like that to be viable, it would also have to be possible for Germany to win without taking France. In that case you're not even playing a WWII game, much less a game that given the Name (1940) and the territorial arrangement, we can put under as starting in May/June of 1940.
Since you didn't bother to play it out and spouted off as usual, their is no need for a reply. France could conceivably live out in the OOB due to dice gods. It has happened before. But a Germany allocating her air force and land forces and leaving UK alone, will produce the same result as before and model the accurate battle of France.
The France situation as it is is reasonably gameplay balanced, simple, historically accurate, and allows multiple strategies.
Right this means: Germany can wipe it out with minimal force and allocate her air forces to sink the uk navy also on G1. Thats balanced, simple, and historically accurate? NO.
There are more considerations than just historical accuracy. The fact that a stronger France is ahistorical, unbalanced, and discouraging to multiple strategies means it is just not worth making stronger to satisfy a few Francophiles.
Note: Discouraging multiple strategies= Germany not able to kill the UK fleet AND take out France and some neutrals. Also, he is not for historical accuracy. He uses the terms 'fun' and 'historical' interchangeably to fit his arguments. France falling with minimal pressure is at times 'fun' or 'historical' to him as long as gives Germany more options ( not France) or fits the actual result of History. But never once carry's the same logic to any other player.

It would be fun for France to be more viable
It would be historical for France to be more viable

It would be fun for Italy to be more viable
It would be historical for Italy to be less viable

It would be fun for Japan to be more viable
It would be historical for Japan to be less viable

It would be fun for China to be more viable
It would be historical for China to be more viable

People need to get over the FACT that France was a dead duck when this game started. That is a much bigger deal than a few ships here or there, we are talking about the inevitable fall of a CAPITAL, an essential concept in all A&A games. If you want the possibility of France being a major player, there might be a chance in a 1939 version, but by the time this game started, France was doomed.
So Japan is also doomed when they attack USA>? If you apply crap you must apply the crap to everyone.

He makes it sound like the Fall of France was some big suprise. In 1939? Sure. But when this game starts, France's fate was sealed. He doesn't get that.
But you said it was about "fun" and not reality. YOU said it was about options, just not for France, YOU said it was about sealing fate instead of playing for a new outcome, so by extrapolation Japan's fate was sealed when it attacked USA right?

You got to spread your crap on the facts thicker than that. Do you get that?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Weak France!

Post by mantlefan » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:00 pm

IL, as soon as I read that you think causing more casualties to Germany and letting more of the Royal Navy live DOES NOT AFFECT SEALION, it's pretty clear you are clueless. There was no need to read more.

Anyways, I'm all done with my 5 loads of Laundry. I tried giving you a chance to show you are not an idiot but you failed.

France cannot be viable on the same level as italy without creating IMMENSE balance issues.

It's reasonable to give Germany, Italy, Russia, UK, USA, Italy, and Anzac lots of
options. It's not reasonable to give France the same level of options when the game STARTS IN LATE MAY/ EARLY JUNE1940.

It's just stupid to call for a game starting when it does where France can survive round 1.

How will Germany have a chance?
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Weak France!

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:09 pm

IL, as soon as I read that you think causing more casualties to Germany and letting more of the Royal Navy live DOES NOT AFFECT SEALION, it's pretty clear you are clueless. There was no need to read more.
But where is the fun or historical point to that? Germany can still fight Sealion but face the UK navy, just like History. Remember history? Remember when Hitler felt he didn't want to attack because he needed to build up his navy?

Sealion was mostly invalidated by Alpha 2. The whole point of the new setup was to make it less viable, yet you want it to be more viable?

I think your idea of "fun" in the times you want the word to fit your bogus arguments is to only make something better for Germany. Fun never has anything do to with giving the allies more options, like having UK keep its fleet and use it in order to have more options. NO. for you "having options" does not apply to the allies, but only for Germany right? Clueless.
Anyways, I'm all done with my 5 loads of Laundry. I tried giving you a chance to show you are not an idiot but you failed.
And we proven that you are already yet again.
France cannot be viable on the same level as italy without creating IMMENSE balance issues.
But to you it was about having "fun". Now you going back to historical or back to fun? Which is it>?
It's reasonable to give Germany, Italy, Russia, UK, Italy, and Anzac lots of options. It's not reasonable to give France the same level of options when the game STARTS IN LATE MAY 1940.
Sure it is, you just don't like it.

Also, your definition of what axis and allies games are is only up to larry who designed it. He says they are Axis and Allies games, so only his word is valid. Not yours. But everyone else knew this already.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Weak France!

Post by mantlefan » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:15 pm

You say that France should not play out historically, but then say that the UK navy shouldn't be defeated because it didn't happen. LOL

"Again you are looking at the results and forcing a scripted result that the game must employ: France was defeated, so it must be defeated"

"IN early June Hitler's Luftwaffe didn't sink the entire British navy, didn't take out any neutrals while fighting France, etc. You always take the most insane extrapolation out of what i say and pretend i said things that were never spoken."

OK, well there it is, EXACTLY what you said, not some "insane extrapolation"

France should not fall just because that's what happened, but UK should keep its navy, because that's what happened?

This is a prime example of when idiots don't know they are idiots. I'm done with you for a while, if not forever. I can't count out the possibility that you will say something so absurd that I will want to jump in, but I will try to not take any more of your idiotic baiting. I'm 99% sure I'm done with this topic (at least in responding to you), so don't be surprised if I don't respond to you any more of your ludicrousness here.

The game is about a balance of history, fun, simplicity and the balance between the axis and the allies. Your ideas spit in the face of any reasonable arrangement of these.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Weak France!

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:33 pm

But the maginot line was worthless since they invaded from Holland/Belgium. You have to be wary of making France to strong because remember if France hadn't screwed up so big the Axis would have had no chance in hell. So do you do France justice and let them rectify their mistakes made before or do you gimp them for gameplay. It seems like gameplay wins in this situation. Although I wouldn't mind a more realistic setup, test Germany to the limit!
The truth is Germany attacked the Maginot line after the game starts, not before.
The truth is France had more capabilities in the stage that the game represents and this is something that must be modeled. France had a chance to make a much better fight of it, but they didn't use their tanks properly and could not break the Sedan bridgehead. They used their tanks in piecemeal, but didn't need to do this.
On June 14, 1940, the day Paris fell, the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger" and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avold and Saarbrücken. The Germans then broke through the fortification line as defending French forces retreated southward. In the following days, infantry divisions of the 1st Army attacked fortifications on each side of the penetration; successfully capturing four petits ouvrages. The 1st Army also conducted two attacks against the Maginot Line further to the east in northern Alsace. One attack successfully broke through a weak section of the Line in the Vosges Mountains, but a second attack was stopped by the French defenders near Wissembourg. On 15 June, infantry divisions of the German 7th Army attacked across the Rhine River in Operation "Small Bear", penetrating the defenses and capturing the cities of Colmar and Strasbourg.
Just give France 2-3 more pieces, a Maginot line, a German bomber. Thats it.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Weak France!

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:55 pm

ou say that France should not play out historically, but then say that the UK navy shouldn't be defeated because it didn't happen. LOL
No yet again to add in incorrect information about what i said in order to support a faulty argument. I said make France more Historical and make Germany more historical.

get it right.
"Again you are looking at the results and forcing a scripted result that the game must employ: France was defeated, so it must be defeated"

"IN early June Hitler's Luftwaffe didn't sink the entire British navy, didn't take out any neutrals while fighting France, etc. You always take the most insane extrapolation out of what i say and pretend i said things that were never spoken."

OK, well there it is, EXACTLY what you said, not some "insane extrapolation"

France should not fall just because that's what happened, but UK should keep its navy, because that's what happened?
France should be represented accurately...(e.g. Historical) Here you go again inserting a line of reasoning that is not at all accurate to fit your faulty arguments.

I never said France should not fall. Ever. not once. You can't even keep your nonsense straight. LOL>

France will fall because now Germany needs to bring her air force and wipe it out.

UK will have a fleet and Germany can still invade, though not for a few turns. ( accurate and fun for both players)

I favor a realistic outcome and one that gives the game more options. You favor only more advantage for Germany and completely abandon any concept of fun or reality for France or UK.
This is a prime example of when idiots don't know they are idiots. I'm done with you for a while, if not forever. I can't count out the possibility that you will say something so absurd that I will want to jump in, but I will try to not take any more of your idiotic baiting. I'm 99% sure I'm done with this topic (at least in responding to you), so don't be surprised if I don't respond to you any more of your ludicrousness here.
Idiots= arguing against giving 2-3 units to France, a modifier for Maginot and a German bomber...all historical more accurate.

Since you obviously have no clue what Axis and Allies is, nor any idea about what is historical, i can only assume this to be another troll story where you peak at my posts, then claim insane conclusions of what i have said and look stupid for it.
The game is about a balance of history, fun, simplicity and the balance between the axis and the allies. Your ideas spit in the face of any reasonable arrangement of these.
Right giving UK her navy gives her more options, Giving France a few units gives her Historical reality, and Germany now can use all those transport builds, to instead make a proper land army and some subs to drop UK income. Yea its about options and not just German options but options for all players including France.

You want historical outcome if it applies to Allies and fun only if it applies to Germany, then argue against Historical outcome if it applies to France and argue against fun if it applies to Allies. This is your position in a nutshell.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest