Slitherine

Some people here in the forums have reported that it´s rather easy to take out french North Africa no matter the french navy opposition. So IMO it would be good to add some french land forces in North Africa. As I have mentioned in another post, french forces in North Africa were rather strong and well prepared so not even in Mussolini´s best dreams it was possible such a fast and succesful campaign in North Africa as it can be done now in CEAW GS.

Consulting niehorster´s website (http://france1940.free.fr/oob/cstt.html) you can find that the french had in Tunisia a rather significant land forces. As you all can see in this source, apart from CSTT (3 infantry divisions and 1 calvary regiment) it was another unit subordinated but rather strong called FST (Front Sud-Tunisien) that was formed by 2 infantry divisions, 1 calvary division, 1 armoured brigade, and other units. These forces had as their main role to stop a possible italian invasion launched from Tripoli military district so that was the reason for being so strong. They were stationed in southern Tunisia close to Lybian border. Right now in CEAW GS we don´t have any french unit representing these forces so that´s why I suggest to include at least a garrison unit in Mareth fortress hex (this zone was fortified). We can name this unit as FST.

On the other hand, in French Morocco there were also enough forces as to include another french garrison in Casablanca. We could name it Maroc.

Finally, there´s another thing that I would change regarding Axis Mediterranean-Irak-Persia campaign. I´m referring that sometimes I have found players with a rather gamey playing avoiding to enter in adjacent hexes to a iraqi city or resource so this way Persia wouldn´t be mobilized until they wanted to (something similar to Paris not being conquered by the germans). Axis player, using an overwhelming Luftwaffe air force, would focus in destroying remaining british and iraqi forces without entering in adjacent hexes until he is sure that can do it in a favourable position for also invading Persia with good chances of success. So apart from including the persian garrisons that it will be included in 2.01.12, I would suggest the following regarding this:

- To include an early USSR entry at war depending on the number of axis units that the axis player commit to Iraqi campaign. I have seen players that have used 5 german fighters, 4 german tactical bombers, 3 german mech units, 2-3 armoured german units, and tons of italian and german infantry units for this campaign. I wonder how USSR would be seeing these strong forces invading Irak without doing nothing. So for avoiding the gamey playing mentioned above I would vote for an increased possibility of an USSR entry at war depending on the number of units that the axis player commit to Irak so it would not make difference to enter in an adjacent hex to a city/resource but to effectively enter in iraqi territory. This would work pretty similar to the early Italy entry at war when the allied player leaves empty of allied ships the Mediterranean sea. So the more units that the axis player commit to Iraq the more possibilties that USSR enters at war.

- An automatic entry of Spain at war because of the easy axis campaing of french North Africa sounds like an excessive reward. Franco was a very conservative man so even if the germans and the itallians have conquered North Africa he would continue to be reluctant to enter at war. So I would add that the axis controls Suez Channel as a second condition for Spain entering at war.

This is so because playtest has revealed this rather easy Mediterranean - Iraqi axis campaign that could ruin in some way the game balance. Things really go on wheels for the axis in this campaign since they firstly take out North Africa taking lots of supply points for Africa. Afterwards, Spain becomes an ally (20 extra PP´s for Germany each turn) so Gibraltar can be taken easily meaning even more supply points. Then, the axis can send an overwhelming (and unrealistic) Luftwaffe forces to Africa to crush the british. And finally, the axis forces, avoiding to enter in adjacent iraqi hexes, destroy step by step the remaining british forces, entering the cities or resources when they are in good position to also take out Persia.

So I suggest the following:

1. To add 2 more french garrisons in Mareth fortress and in Casablanca.

2. Axis have to control Suez Canal as a second condition to activate Spain as an ally.

3. USSR will activate and will have a chance of joining the allies depending on the axis forces in Irak:

• A. 40% chance each turn of joining the allies if:
  - Germany have 3 air units in Irak, 3 armoured/mech or 3 infantry
  - Italy have 2 air units in Irak, 2 armoured/mech or 2 infantry
  B. 70% chance each turn of joining the alllies if:
  - Germany have 4 air units in Irak, 4 armoured/mech or 4 infantry
  - Italy have 3 air units in Irak, 3 armoured/mech or 3 infantry
  C. USSR will automatically join the alllies if:
  - Germany have 5 air units in Irak, 5 armoured/mech or 5 infantry
  - Italy have 4 air units in Irak, 4 armoured/mech or 4 infantry

To include the possibility of an early USSR entry at war would remove the "comfortable" axis campaign in Middle East. It makes no sense that USSR does not react to such an overwhelming axis military forces in Iraq, keeping in mind that gamey playing possibility of avoiding to enter in iraqi cities/resources.

We can set another limits than the ones mentioned above. So comments and votes to these suggestions are welcome.

I have a few comments

1. French units in North Africa

Remember that the game balance in France is made in such a way that the Allied player needs to send all garrisons from North Africa and Syria to hold till June 1940 against a normal German attack.

One could ask what would have happened if the Germans rejected the French armistice offer. In such a situation I'm pretty sure that the French would continue to fight in North Africa and not just yield even though the French regular forces had been sent to France and captured there.

When Vichy France is created then all cities / fortresses in French North West Africa are filled with garrisons. So I think we could spawn Free French garrisons in all French North African cities when the Germans decline the armistice offer. We could let these units spawn at 5 steps to indicate that they're just being formed from locals in the area and not very battle ready. That allows the Allied player to pay quite a bit of PP's to get these garrisons up to full strength.

We could also let these units suffer a 20 efficiency hit to simulate that they're not very well prepared to defend against an Axis invasion.

One good thing about this is that the Axis can't choose a gamey strategy and send garrisons to the coastal cities just to land in the empty hexes once the armistice offer is rejected. Now each city will have a 5 step garrison and you need to fight it to get supply. A garrison can't take out 5 steps in a turn so it means you need to invade with regular troops and also have air support to deal with this.

What I hope to see is the Germans land in Tunisia and move corps units supported by air towards Algeria and eventually Morocco. It should take them some months to clean up French North Africa. The surprised garrisons will not be a threat to the Axis, but will delay them enough for the Allied player to send reinforcements from UK or Canada to save at least Morocco before the Axis can get Spain on their side.

If you want a stronger Allied force in north Africa then you don't evacuate some units and they will be there at 10 strength without the efficiency loss after the fall of France.

So my proposal is the following:

1. Free French units at 5 strength will spawn in all empty city / fortress hexes in French North Africa and at the same time suffer the same surprise loss as the French do when Belgium falls.

As one of the players that has done all the things Leridano describes - the only way for this strategy to be successful is to commit massive land and air forces once the supply problem is overcome. Even then, it doesn't guarantee victory. Elite players have beaten me several times even with closure of the Med and capture of the oilfields. Players who are not aggressive enough in defending NA and the Middle East have generally ended up losing although the real test is in Russia as usual.

I like the idea of having probabilities for events to happen. One of the things I dislike is the certainty that certain events will transpire if a certain course of action is pursued. Regarding the activation of Spain perhaps it could be 100% if both all the NA ports are taken and the Suez with a lesser probability if only the NA ports are taken - this is the true uncertainty of a strategic course that makes it exciting.

I'd hate to see this strategy become totally impossible to force only the historical path of the war but Leridano does make good points, particularly the forced gaminess of bypassing Iraqi cities so as not to activate the Persians.

2. Port Said also needed to activate Spain

With my proposed changes to 1 (let garrisons spawn in all French North African cities) then I think it's hard enough for the Germans to get to Casablanca in time so we don't need to make it even more difficult.

So I vote no to add Port Said as necessary to activate Spain. Instead I think we should do 1.

We have to remember why Franco would consider joining the Axis. Franco was an opportunist like Mussolini, but a more careful one. With France neutralized then the northern border would be safe. So that's the main prerequisite. Franco would in addition NOT join the Axis without serious compensation. His main desire was to annex Morocco and for that to happen the Axis must have captured the territory.

When Vichy France is declared by accepting the armistice the Franco had no chance getting Morocco since Vichy France was considered a neutral. So Vichy France can't be created for Spain to consider joining the Axis. When the armistice offer is rejected then French North Africa is Free French and can be captured by the Axis.

Another reason for Franco to join is to get Gibraltar. So if the Axis could close the Med by taking Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia then it was possible for Spain to annex Gibraltar without risking a serious British retaliation.

Port Said was so far away from Spain and had no significant relevance to the likelihood of getting Morocco.

I agree that we can't think what went on in Franco's mind and what he would have done, but we do know that he showed interest in joining the Axis if Spain could get Morocco and Gibraltar. Hitler denied these demands and therefore Spain remained neutral.

I vote for one but still like the idea of making it only a probablity based on certain events. Like - 75% chance every turn once all NA ports are captured, etc....

3. Russian activation if Axis units in Iraq.

This is a more tricky one and we should allow the Axis to fighting in the middle East. It's hard to put a number on the Axis units needed to alert the Russians enough to join the Allies.

I think the Russians were mainly concerned about Persia and they knew that Persia was a buffer between the Axis and Russia. Playing GS v2.0 has shown that the main threat for the Russians would be a swift German attack upon Persia to preven the Russians from intervening in time. What we see are players who exploit this so they can quickly paradrop into Persian cities to prevent a chance for the Russians to sail units to Rasht and Tehran. We've dealt with that by adding garrisons in all Persian cities if Axis units are present in Iraq.

The gamey play come from knowing that Persia will be activated only when the Axis capture a resource or city in Iraq. So the Axis can move through the Iraqi cities to the Persian border before they capture an Iraqi city.

This circumstance can be altered so Persia will always activate once an Axis unit enters Iraq (before a resource is taken). Russia will activate automatically under the current rules once an Axis unit captures a resource in Persia. This can be changed by saying that Russia will activate if an Axis unit is physically inside Persia. This would prevent accidental activation from Axis units moving along the border and gaining hexes inside Persia along the movement path while moving within Iraq.

So I propose the following instead.

1. Persia will activate and the Baku oil trade agreement will halt once an Axis unit is physically inside Iraq

2. Russia will activate once an Axis unit is physically inside Persia

With these simple rules we don't have to count the number of units inside Iraq. Instead we look at intent. The point is that the Axis player won't enter Persia if he wants to avoid activating Russia. If he moves into Persia then it's a deliberate act and he better DoW Russia first to get the surprise effect on the Russian units. The same with Iraq too. If even 1 Axis unit enters Iraq it's a deliberate act that would alert Persia that the Axis are coming.

A305054 wrote:As one of the players that has done all the things Leridano describes - the only way for this strategy to be successful is to commit massive land and air forces once the supply problem is overcome. Even then, it doesn't guarantee victory. Elite players have beaten me several times even with closure of the Med and capture of the oilfields. Players who are not aggressive enough in defending NA and the Middle East have generally ended up losing although the real test is in Russia as usual.

I like the idea of having probabilities for events to happen. One of the things I dislike is the certainty that certain events will transpire if a certain course of action is pursued. Regarding the activation of Spain perhaps it could be 100% if both all the NA ports are taken and the Suez with a lesser probability if only the NA ports are taken - this is the true uncertainty of a strategic course that makes it exciting.

I'd hate to see this strategy become totally impossible to force only the historical path of the war but Leridano does make good points, particularly the forced gaminess of bypassing Iraqi cities so as not to activate the Persians.

The problem with percentage changes is that then you will eventually succeed. You just need time. E. g. if you get 25% per turn for Casablanca and another 25% for Port Said it means that on average you need to wait 4 turns for Spain to join if you get Casablanca and 2 turns if you have both. If you only have the percentage checked once then you will see players cheat to either prevent it from happening to making it happen.

Therefore I'm not so fond of having percentage chances for events in GS. That's fine for games where both players are in a room and you roll dice, but in PBEM play I think it's better if certain actions cause certain events with no chance to alter the outcome by replaying a turn.

What we need to do is to make it slightly harder for the Axis to take the French north African port, but not too difficult. The goal is to prevent the Axis from just sailing into empty ports. The real Axis would never have known that these ports would be empty and would have send a considerable force to capture the ports. Therefore spawning weak Free French garrisons in these ports would ensure that we see a dedicated Axis invasion.

A305054 wrote:I vote for one but still like the idea of making it only a probablity based on certain events. Like - 75% chance every turn once all NA ports are captured, etc....

I think a percentage chance in a strategic game with more than 100 turns won't be very useful. With a 75% chance it means you will eventually succeed so why not straight away. For the percentag chance to be interesting it has to be as low as 10% and then luck will be quite important.

Remember how players complained about the random research where you had 1 chance in 30 to get th great progress and only 8 chance is 30 for decent progress. Some players got stuck with poor tech even on techs they had focus on for the entire war and they complained about the bad luck.

So I favor games where luck won't play a big role.

Yes to adding the FF garrisons if none there.

Yes to the east suggestions by Stauff.

Regarding Russia and Iraq we have to remember that Russia knew they would eventually be at war with Germany. So Russia would have mobilized trying to not provoke the Germans to attack before the Russians were ready. Russia had planned to join the war in the Spring of 1942.

Therefore I think the real Russians would have seen an Axis presence in Iraq as a threat primarily to UK and not Russia. But Russia could have halted the trade agreement with Germany regarding the Baku oil. Once the Germans would move towards Persia (Russian controlled at the time) THEN Russia would know that the Germans intended to go after Russian interests and would join the war.

So I think a mere Axis presence in Iraq should not be enough to activate Russia early. If we did that then the Germans would have no chance to go after Iraq and get away with not having a premature Barbarossa.

I don't suppose something could be implemented that increases the chance of Italy joining the Axis if the French suck all the original garrison troops out of North Africa to defend in France? In some ways it seems that to give each city a FF garrison for having taken the original one out seems to be encouraging transporting everything into France.

I know I seem to be a lone voice who thinks flooding France with every available French and British home garrison and such is in itself 'gamey.'

But maybe there could be some penalty for it? Likewise with the Brits. Would they really strip every troop body out of England?

I know when I've shown the situation to some wargaming buddies who purchased the original CEaW, they just roll eyes and give up any thought of playing the game again. I get that the "Quebec HG" doesn't necessarily represent 'HG', and perhaps these could be renamed much like the French units were, but...ah...maybe it's just this ancient brain. But I thought I'd toss out the comments.

One problem is that if the Allies strengthen the defense of France it would not make it more likely for Italy to join the Axis. Italy would know that it would be harder for France to fall.

I think we should look at this differently. The point is that if the Allied player strips Africa of garrisons then Italy can when they join quickly land garrisons in some cities like Tunis and Algiers BEFORE the fall of France and these won't change side when you reject the armistice offer.

So with the current rules there is already a risk for the Allied player to evacuate North Africa.

The game balance in France is made in such a way so it's necessary for the French to use the garrisons in North Africa to form a double defense line in France.

The big problem is not the French garrisons, but the hordes of British garrisons that some players send to France. I agree that it's not logical that the British would send most of their home guard forces to France. The British sent the BEF and that was corps and mech units in addition to air support.

There are from the game start 13 UK land units in core UK territory (including Canada). We could do something like this.

The max morale of all UK units will be lowered by 5 for each UK land unit in core UK territory lower than the prerequisite 10. This allows UK to send a BEF of 3 units without any penalty. If British strip their HG garrisons the morale of the UK units suffer dearly.

This limit can be kept until USSR or USA is at war. Only then would the UK public feel safe enough to have less UK land units protecting the home territory.

What do you think? Would that be enough to prevent the British garrison blob in France? Should I implement this?

1 and 3 are pretty reasonable. If the Allies remove the French from NA and the Italians capture empty ports before the Armistice choice that is their choice. Having Persia activate once Axis enters Iraq also better than the previous rule for gaminess. Then, if the Allies use Persians to defend Iraqi cities that is again their choice and they'll pay the price later.

I like the Brit moral idea. At least it is something to make the Brits think about. At least there is some cost involved. I see your point about North Africa. Thanks for explaining.

Agreed - the suggestion for British morale is a good solution.

Blathergut wrote:I don't suppose something could be implemented that increases the chance of Italy joining the Axis if the French suck all the original garrison troops out of North Africa to defend in France? In some ways it seems that to give each city a FF garrison for having taken the original one out seems to be encouraging transporting everything into France.

I know I seem to be a lone voice who thinks flooding France with every available French and British home garrison and such is in itself 'gamey.'

But maybe there could be some penalty for it? Likewise with the Brits. Would they really strip every troop body out of England?

I know when I've shown the situation to some wargaming buddies who purchased the original CEaW, they just roll eyes and give up any thought of playing the game again. I get that the "Quebec HG" doesn't necessarily represent 'HG', and perhaps these could be renamed much like the French units were, but...ah...maybe it's just this ancient brain. But I thought I'd toss out the comments.

BEF had ten infantry divisions (one of which motorized) and one armored brigade on May 10th. With those the MECH might be bit of a stretch (at least until 1st Armored arrived) but I don't see a problem with two corps units + two garrisons (I look at these as 1 or 2 division formations depending) on the whole. Of course none of these came from Canada but gamewise it's better send them and save a few PPs since you'll move them to Europe anyway. The possibility to send several GAR from UK to France doesn't make sense though so that should be changed...

On the Med topic. I have little experience with Med Strategy and that was against a very new player but it does seem fairly easy to take all of Africa + Mid-East. In addition to earlier suggestions, perhaps a locked corps on border of Tunis and Libya? It would be removed when Vichy regime is installed.

Stauffenberg wrote:1. Persia will activate and the Baku oil trade agreement will halt once an Axis unit is physically inside Iraq

2. Russia will activate once an Axis unit is physically inside Persia

These make sense.

Stauffenberg wrote: So I think we could spawn Free French garrisons in all French North African cities when the Germans decline the armistice offer.

I believed that these Free french units spawn in case of a declined armistice anyway so I suggested those 2 french garrisons in Casablanca and Mareth for the concrete scenario in which axis player delays intentionally the capture of Paris for getting for free all empty cities North Africa. So I don´t understand free french units spawning at half strength in case of a armistice declined since actually they all spawn at full strength in that case.

leridano wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote: So I think we could spawn Free French garrisons in all French North African cities when the Germans decline the armistice offer.

I believed that these Free french units spawn in case of a declined armistice anyway so I suggested those 2 french garrisons in Casablanca and Mareth for the concrete scenario in which axis player delays intentionally the capture of Paris for getting for free all empty cities North Africa. So I don´t understand free french units spawning at half strength in case of a armistice declined since actually they all spawn at full strength in that case.

Only the new Free French units will spawn at strength 5. The already existing French units will remain at 10 strength. The point is that these new units are quickly formed and haven't had time yet to be built up to full strength. Those are emergency garrisons the French would gather from the locals in the area, foreign legion units etc.

Stauffenberg wrote:

leridano wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote: So I think we could spawn Free French garrisons in all French North African cities when the Germans decline the armistice offer.

I believed that these Free french units spawn in case of a declined armistice anyway so I suggested those 2 french garrisons in Casablanca and Mareth for the concrete scenario in which axis player delays intentionally the capture of Paris for getting for free all empty cities North Africa. So I don´t understand free french units spawning at half strength in case of a armistice declined since actually they all spawn at full strength in that case.

Only the new Free French units will spawn at strength 5. The already existing French units will remain at 10 strength. The point is that these new units are quickly formed and haven't had time yet to be built up to full strength. Those are emergency garrisons the French would gather from the locals in the area, foreign legion units etc.

Just tested in a hotseat game in 2.01.11 that Free french units spawn at 10 steps in case of a rejected armistice. So I don´t see the reason why they are now downgraded to half strength.

May be I am confussing different things. My initial suggestion was to better protect the french against a rather gamey playing that consists in delaying the fall of Paris so the axis player actually send naval transports to empty hexes in North Africa BEFORE Paris falls.

So that is the kind of scenario in which the french are less protected.

So spawning free french units DOES NOT protect against the strategy mentioned above because those free french units spawn AFTER the fall of Paris.