AAR data re: new rail rules

[Cybvep]

Germany can send considerable forces to Libya and they can even invade Tunisia and Algeria. So the fight over Algiers will happen. If the Allied player should delay the collapse in French North Africa they need to send British units there. OK, Casablanca falls later and Spain joins later, but you managed to kill several British units in the process. That will weigh up more than losing some PP's for some turns.

The Axis players needs to inflict as much damage on the Allies as possible prior to USA joining. Then the side will start turning. So if the Allied player offers a fight the Axis will win then I would consider it. The Allied player should use hit and run tactics prior to Barbarossa. After Barbarossa they Allied player can be bolder with the British because most German units are in Russia and can't dislodge there easily.

I disagree. The Axis cannot win the war of attrition. Period. The Allied player can easily use the French blob to do as much damage to the Axis as possible. The state of the fighter and naval units is another matter - as long as you can save them, you will be fine. If the Germans suffer too much damage in France, then this means weaker Barbarossa or they can reject the armistice, which is a long, bloody and risky route and no Barbarossa in 1941. The Allied player can easily predict this and make suicidal attacks with the French, because the consequences are minor. He will either bleed the Germans or force them to reject the Armistice. Keep in mind that the Germans cannot do everything at the same time, either. They must ignore the Balkans/Egypt/Norway/whatever if they want to perform a Sea Lion.

The Axis player can also keep subs near Casablanca to interdict transports sailing with UK units.

I think we just need to playtest and see what will happen. I therefore encourage some Axis players to reject the armistice offer and see how you can deal with the Free French.

I'm doing that in one of my games right now. Too early to tell what the outcome will be. However, the Allied player essentially forced me to accept high losses (he used Morris-like strategy everywhere) or reject the Armistice. British losses are high, obviously, but this is unavoidable. Remember Morris' escapades pre-2.1? This is sth similar, but on a slightly smaller scale and with the changes made in 2.1 in mind.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

When the Axis player rejects the armistice he will get PP's from southern France immediately and even some Spanish resources. That will add to the German production and pay for extra losses clearing out France.

The Germans should not end up in French North Africa with a war of attrition. That means you haven't sent enough forces. You should have enough to crush the British presence there.

I would say that if the Allies escape with the French Navy and airforce then you should accept the armistice offer. Doing the British garrison blob in France is risky because you lose efficiency from not having enough home guard units in England. So I haven't seen that happening since we changed these rules.

Even if the French garrisons start suicide attacks from the Maginot hexes then the damage they can inflict is limited. In most games I play I see the French try to withdraw units from the Maginot line to plug holes in the main line. I usually screen the remaining Maginot units with German garrisons. OK, you can take maybe 2-4 garrison hits per turn until Paris falls, but that's not a big problem. You don't have to repair the garrisons prior to Barbarossa since these will usually garrison French cities after the fall of France.

So the suicide attacks you speak of is actually not a big issue. Actually before GS v2.0 we saw French suicide attacks with the garrisons in every game the few turns before France surrendered. It was before we added the option to reject the armistice offer.

Still, I'm not in favor of making rejecting the armistice offer a favored solution. It's a option you can use if the Allies mess up. If the Allies defend well then you're better off accepting the offer and start preparing for Barbarossa.

We should be discussing the consequences of allowing rail movement in French North Africa. So far I think we need to get hard evidence before we conclude. I see possibilities for the Axis here and not just threats. Let's see from testing how it goes.

[Kragdob]

Why is it harder for the Axis? Previously the Allies had to either bring troops to Casablanca and move them at a sluggish pace to other areas or bring troops directly to other areas by sea, which took time and was risky. Now it's possible to rail units in NA, so the Allies can reinforce NA more easily.

Where do you get the units to rail in NA from in 1940? All you will have will be GARs. Will you empty UK (risky) or move units from Egypt/Iraq by Med/Atlantic? The second seems to be the only option but if Axis Player plans conquer NA there are countermeasures for that.

And even if you get the units to NA it will not be easy to defend if Axis commit air force and land units (which will be superior).

[Cybvep]

It's not a question if Germany wins in NA, but when and at what cost. This is how the route looks like if you reject the Armistice. The Allies can win the game by attrition, the Germans cannot. The Allies can prolong the process with the new rail rules and this is exactly the point. Also, they can be almost sure that the Germans won't start Barbarossa in 1941 (if they do, it will most likely not be a very impressive one).

Rejecting the Armistice shouldn't be the favoured solution, but it should be the counter-measure against the French garrison blob. The French can lose as many units as you like - in fact, the more attacks the Germans have to make, the better. The British can easily afford to lose several GARs, as long as some stay on the Home Islands as the anti-invasion and anti-morale loss measure (thanks for this change). The British cannot do everything, but this is true in case of the Germans, too. You cannot just push forward everywhere (Norway/Balkans/Egypt/Casablanca/Sea Lion) and even if you do, it will be extremely costly (excluding the situations when one player is clearly superior to the other one).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Let's see how Case Yellow goes in all our test runs before we conclude

[Cybvep]

Ok, I think that it's a good idea. The testers should test how the Fall Gelb plays out and how the situation looks like if the armistice is rejected, esp. if the player was not preparing for 1942 defensive Barbarossa right from the start, because this is still rare and is not really what the armistice was designed for (penalising the Allied player for the blob).