Should we set limits on BEF force in Case Yelow?

[gerones]

In a recent game I´m currently playing my opponent deployed an incredible BEF force that consisted of:

5 garrison (one of them was Famagusta garrison!)
4 inf corps
2 mech
2 fighters

• 

No need to mention that this much delayed normal Fall of France until 26 august and this in the best of the possible scenarios.

So I was wondering if we should set a limit for BEF forces in France based on historic reasons and for avoiding gamey playing.

We could set a limit based on the real BEF force in WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ex ... %281940%29. Keeping in mind this we could set the following as the maximum of british forces the allied player can deploy in France:

3 corps (infantry or mech)
1 air unit (fighter or strat)
1 garrison unit (representing minor units and HQ)

This limit, if exceeded, would have a cost in PP´s like exceeded Axis supply in North Africa or like exceeded transport or amphibious capacity.

[Blathergut]

Did all these eventually escape or was the majority destroyed?

[gerones]

Did all these eventually escape or was the majority destroyed?

It is september 1940, France has surrendered but I´m still fighting to "clean" France of BEF forces: british garrison in Strasbourg, a canadian mech in Nantes, etc.

[JimR]

Does this kind of "over the top" BEF deployment make Britain more vulnerable to invasion? Or do the Germans spend so much time and PPs slogging through France that any Sealion becomes impossible? Is there a downside for the British if they adopt this approach? If not, perhaps some kind of PP penalty (similar to North Africa) is warranted.

[richardsd]

This makes England very vulnerable to Sealion, no need to wait until France falls!

I have faced this defence a couple of times and I am not sure what it really gains? Sure it delays the German's, but there isn't really a rush and it must really hurt lab development.

[rkr1958]

I would think that this would be the perfect scenario to reject the French armistice. I would forget about the Balkans and Sea Lion and try for Spanish activation and a June or July 1941 Barbarossa.

By the way, I don't think we need to put restrictions on the size of the BEF. I think it's up to the axis player to adapt their strategy to hurt the Brits as much as possible and still launch a reasonably strong Barbarossa. Whether or not that's 1941 or 1942 is dependent upon how much you wish to punish the British.

[NotaPacifist]

I think we need to put a stop to some of the gamey stuff that some guys are up to i.e., moving the Famagusta Gar and British HG units to France. I would like to see these units locked into place (like those troops in the MED) until a viable event like a landing on British soil occurs. Home Guard means home guard. Expeditionary force means Mobile.

These are mostly guys who were ineligible for military service due to age. Some had to break into museums to steal weapons while emergency orders for rifles were sent to Canada. A bunch of old men who had only an armband to prove their military service. Had they been found in France without this armband(maybe even with), they'd have been shot out of hand in accordance with military law.

By the way, why isn't the Famagusta GAR locked when all of the rest are?

[gerones]

Does this kind of "over the top" BEF deployment make Britain more vulnerable to invasion? Or do the Germans spend so much time and PPs slogging through France that any Sealion becomes impossible? Is there a downside for the British if they adopt this approach? If not, perhaps some kind of PP penalty (similar to North Africa) is warranted.

Sealion in 1941 with this strategy becomes an even more risky operation than if launched with a "normal" fall of France date. We have to keep in mind that with this strategy fall of France date is allways august-september 1940 so bad weather is close to appear.

I think we need to put a stop to some of the gamey stuff that some guys are up to i.e., moving the Famagusta Gar and British HG units to France. I would like to see these units locked into place (like those troops in the MED) until a viable event like a landing on British soil occurs. Home Guard means home guard. Expeditionary force means Mobile.

I agree. In vanilla game it was possible to move all Royal Navy units in Mediterranean sea to Atlantic from the start of the game in 1939 and this possibility was removed early in BJR mod for avoiding this gamey playing. So we are not talking of putting limits to what players can do but we are talking of putting limits to gamey playing.

By the way, why isn't the Famagusta GAR locked when all of the rest are?

In fact, not only Famagusta garrison but also Alexandria and Port Said garrison can be embarked from the very first turn of the game.

The fact is that the objections for this gamey playing are not only for historical reasons but also for logistical reasons: british army in 1939-40 made a huge effort to deploy only 3 corps size units fully equipped and if this is so it seems unrealistic that british army can deploy in France 10-12 corps units as it can be done now. On the other hand, as @NotaPacifist has pointed correctly, BEF was a highly mobile force which means that if the BEF also includes 6 home guard garrison units (static units), then such a BEF does not seem to match at all with the historical BEF.

This is a screenshot of my turn in september 15, 1940

• ]

Now that France has surrendered we can see the total BEF sent to France

6 garrisons (3 destroyed and 3 still in France)
5 inf corps (2 destroyed and 3 in France)
2 mechs (1 destroyed and 1 in France)
2 fighters (evacuated to England)


I think the best thing to do here is to include a penalty (like Axis exceeded supply in North Africa) based on the real logistical limitations that the british would have had to deploy such an army.

[rkr1958]

Now that France has surrendered we can see the total BEF sent to France

6 garrisons (3 destroyed and 3 still in France)
5 inf corps (2 destroyed and 3 in France)
2 mechs (1 destroyed and 1 in France)
2 fighters (evacuated to England)


I think the best thing to do here is to include a penalty (like Axis exceeded supply in North Africa) based on the real logistical limitations that the british would have had to deploy such an army.

The axis supply limitation model for North Africa only applies to the axis and not to the allies. Using the same model for UK forces deployed across the channel to France makes no sense to me. What on earth do you see interfering with British supply of units in their ally France?

Personally, I think the solution to this lies in the axis response to this strategy. Unless, and until, we hear that there is no effective axis response then I'm having a hard time seeing this as an issue. The bottom line for me in evaluation this or any other strategy is: does this strategy give an experienced player of approximately equal ability of their opponent a better chance of winning than if they had followed the historical strategy? If the answer to that question is yes then we have an issue. If it's no then we don't.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't see this as a problem. Granted, the British with such a strategy will prevent Sealion, but at what cost? The British will lose many corps and garrison units and they had to build even more corps units to have a home defense when France fell. This means most of the British PP's have been spent upon building more units and transporting units to France. So the British lab build and future builds of naval units, air units for Egypt, leaders etc. is probably hurting.

The British will have neutralized themselves for quite some time and not getting the labs in 1939-1940 will come back and bite them hard in the late game.

OK, Germany has spent most of the time in 1940 to finish off the British units so they might not get a strong force to Libya and the Balkans. But it's still time to invade Norway, Yugoslavia and maybe Greece before Barbarossa. You might not get time to rush to Port Said, but so what?

So the strong British defense forces the Germans to change their plans, but Barbarossa won't be hurt much from this strategy.

I think we should avoid forcing the players to follow only the historical path. I'm fine with alternate paths as long as there are some consequences to that path. I'm not sure I would have liked to be the Allies in your game. This strategy would only be good if you manage to kill several good German units. Since France fell before September 1940 I don't see how the British units remaining in France will inflict much damage. If they evacuate again then Britain has spent 16 PP's per unit just to transport them. That's significant.

[gerones]

I don't see this as a problem. Granted, the British with such a strategy will prevent Sealion, but at what cost? The British will lose many corps and garrison units and they had to build even more corps units to have a home defense when France fell. This means most of the British PP's have been spent upon building more units and transporting units to France. So the British lab build and future builds of naval units, air units for Egypt, leaders etc. is probably hurting.

The British will have neutralized themselves for quite some time and not getting the labs in 1939-1940 will come back and bite them hard in the late game.

OK, Germany has spent most of the time in 1940 to finish off the British units so they might not get a strong force to Libya and the Balkans. But it's still time to invade Norway, Yugoslavia and maybe Greece before Barbarossa. You might not get time to rush to Port Said, but so what?

So the strong British defense forces the Germans to change their plans, but Barbarossa won't be hurt much from this strategy.

I think we should avoid forcing the players to follow only the historical path. I'm fine with alternate paths as long as there are some consequences to that path. I'm not sure I would have liked to be the Allies in your game. This strategy would only be good if you manage to kill several good German units. Since France fell before September 1940 I don't see how the British units remaining in France will inflict much damage. If they evacuate again then Britain has spent 16 PP's per unit just to transport them. That's significant.

The fact is that the real british would not have left empty their homeland sending ALL of their army (including all their terrritorial forces) to France. This is my main concern about this question: to avoid this unrealistic event. In fact, as I have pointed, to send 3 corps units was a great effort for the british army and this was proved after Dunkirk evacuation since it is said that if the british wouldn´t have been able to evacuate their forces in Dunkirk, they would have been almost undefended against a german invasion. So the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) and AASF (Advanced Air Strike Force) was the maximum the british can send to France. See this detailed link about Case Yelow: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... index.html


Of course, we all know that this strategy did not help much the british, and then, the allies, but it is simply annoying to find players that use this strategy and gamey playing so that´s why my suggestion of setting limits. So it is not a question if it is good to find players that use this strategy that makes the things easier for me but it is a question that I would prefer not to find games like this since the gamey style of playing much affects the fun of a game.

The axis supply limitation model for North Africa only applies to the axis and not to the allies. Using the same model for UK forces deployed across the channel to France makes no sense to me. What on earth do you see interfering with British supply of units in their ally France?

Ronnie, you need to distinguish between logistics and supply: they are different concepts. From a supply of units point of view the british wouldn´t have had any problems to supply their units in France. From a logistical point of view they simply could not afford themselves to deploy a 12-corps-BEF in France so deploying 3 corps and a RAF detachment (AASF) was simply the maximum the british can send to France to figth against the germans.

[PionUrpo]

It seems to me that Allies are hurting themselves in the long run with this. Tech lag should come haunting when it's time to start pushing Germans back and 1940 should be great time for destroying British units due to quality difference and air advantage.

I do agree that it would've been impossible for UK to gather such a force in time for French campaign but from gaming point of view I don't mind the possibility existing. And, before imposing similar constraints that are already in place for Axis units in North Africa, I think we should at least see how this plays out.

[NotaPacifist]

This same thing happened to me in my first PBEM game against Morris. Because I saw that he had brought the British GAR's to France, I did Sealion concurrent with the latter stages of Case yellow. I had destroyed most of the RN available in the North (so, the Med units started to appear), The entire French navy except the sub, all but one fighter of the RAF (RAF lost 1 strat and 1 fighter). I landed on the coast near undefended Norwich and got three corps there before bad weather set in.

This forced Morris to build nothing but Infantry corps. He managed to build 5 corps in GB while I was stuck in the mud. He must have sold labs. He played quite agressively and was able to stop my small sealion as well as take out subs and cost the Luftwaffe and ground forces so heavily that I had to wait until 42' to launch Barbarossa. And by then, I had nowhere near enough forces to accomplish the task. The Russians went on the offensive on turn two of Barbarossa and I was surrendering a few turns later.

Could I have played better? Been luckier? Perhaps I could have waited until 41' for Sealion. By then he'd have addressed the losses incurred in France.

I kept my Front in France linear...but I still lost entire corps. I had plenty of officers but that didn't seem to help either.

Is it right to tweak Axis and fuel and manpower so they (the Axis) can't do too much historically, but allow the Allies to play in an unhistorical manner with resources they didn't have...like a mobile home guard?

This was Dad's Army we're talking about. Not the Grenadier Guards.

I have to say, a game like this just ain't fun.

[rkr1958]

A simpler solution is just have the British and Canadian homeguard garrisons spawn when France falls.

[richardsd]

Morris (China) does like to do this

In our game he has just lost Britain and the 8th Army is down to two FTR's as we push for the Suez and thats all with me playing very badly and testing a few options I shouldn't!

Barbarossa will be delayed so I can get the oil fields.

If I had played this even just competantly this strategy would have him slaughtered.

[gerones]

I would really go for a solution valid both for "BEF garrison blob" issue but for another scenarios and/or years. I´m referring to implement the possibility of upgrading garrison units into low-level infantry units by paying a certain amount of PP´s (5-10? PP´s). This system would work as it follows:

1. A garrison unit that is not upgraded would not be possible to be transported by sea so these units would play their main role: territorial units assigned to a determined city, resource, region, etc. These units would only be possible to be railed or ferried.

2. An upgraded garrison unit would be possible to be transported by sea and they would represent low level infantry units, smaller than corps size units, etc. These units would be able to make amphibious landings in unoccupied hexes.

With this system, if the allied player wants to send tons of british garrisons to France he will have to pay for the upgrade and for the transport, increasing significantly the cost of sending a numerous BEF.

[rkr1958]

I would really go for a solution valid both for "BEF garrison blob" issue but for another scenarios and/or years.

I don't think our group has yet come to a consensus that this is indeed an issue.

It sounds that richardsd has come up with an effective counter to it.

[gerones]

I would really go for a solution valid both for "BEF garrison blob" issue but for another scenarios and/or years.

I don't think our group has yet come to a consensus that this is indeed an issue.

It sounds that richardsd has come up with an effective counter to it.

It´s just a way to call it.

[NotaPacifist]

I would really go for a solution valid both for "BEF garrison blob" issue but for another scenarios and/or years.

I don't think our group has yet come to a consensus that this is indeed an issue.

It sounds that richardsd has come up with an effective counter to it.

Perhaps he'd share it with us?

[richardsd]

Kill them!

all I can do is tell you what I did

Once I knew he was committed to a max BEF I did the following:

1. grind forward killing them (use Italian's when activated - they will be key for Sealion)
2. sub's concentrate on RN
3. probe UK City Port's with GAR (he then has to build more GAR to Garrison them)
4. Sealion after two more turns whilst still grinding forward in France - you will need the Italian's
5. kill the RN as often as possible
6. when he see's Italians in Europe he attacks in the desert
7. when the Med fleet moves to the atlantic - outflank with a sea landing in the desert