Luminary Crush

Hi Aloid, I wasn't involved in the beta so I can only approach this from what I see in the game now and what I know of the 1940 campaign. Actually, that's not entirely true and is kindof a modern myth to describe the French tank usage as you mention (support role) entirely. The DLMs (cavalry divisions) were used exactly as a German panzer division was -- in fact, the composition was very similar with a good balance of tank strength (S.35/H.35/39) and motorized infantry. The DCRs (armor divisions) were composed slightly differently, being too armor-heavy and without any significant attached motorized infantry, making it impossible to hold any ground taken. The "tanks used as support" stereotype used to describe French tank usage is largely emphasized in history because had France not parcelled almost half of their tank force outside of the DLMs and DCRs to infantry divisions (independent tank battalions) almost double the number of divisions could have been fielded (~12). The actual 6 armor divisions (7 if you count the 4eme DCR, DeGaulle's mixmosh division) were used, maneuvered, and fought as bonna fide tank divisions. They were not, however, concentrated into one place and used in a massive breakthrough attack as were the German tank divisions. But that's more of a strategic deployement issue than a structuring one. In any event, the 3 DLMs were operated fairly cohesively as part of the Dyle Maneuver into the low countries and were unfortunately caught in the Dunkerque pocket. Moreover, the extremely cumbersome chain of command and tardiness of acting on orders in an extremely dynamic battlefront, combined with almost non-existant land-air coordination, was the cause for the defeat of French armor. In other games, such as High Command, the French are given one tank unit to begin with. I stand by my statement Fall Gelb should have at least one French tank unit if this campaign is to be somewhat historical in makeup. In addition, the 22 belgian divisions form more than a corps, and should be an army unit. I also think the Germans should start with one bomber unit; certainly the large numbers of He.111s and Do.17s were not part of any close support role and were as capable as any British 'strategic' bomber force in early 1940. Numerically, the opposing forces were basically equal in all but air power and strategy/leadership. Please understand that historically it's almost impossible for things to have gone better for the Germans in 1940 (history is a tough act to follow) and very likely could have gone much, much worse. To play balance the game such that the unlikely but historical outcome is closer to the norm is less interesting IMO. Hi Augustus, I think with the current economic model it's fairly unlikely that the French could hold out until '41 with their income/production capacity; the addition of 1-2 tank unit(s) and the bumping up of the Belgian army wouldn't make a significant difference. Also, with the Italians as currently modelled, the conquest of France is a certainty in a limitted amount of time. I've played both sides of the campaign and France falls quite easily in 1940 (though rarely by the end of July); as Allied the only way I could hold France longer was to strip the colonies of all troops and making some naval sacrifices (thus making the colonies very easy to capture).

Hi, I think the starting forces and economics in the Fall Gelb scenario are a bit off & I'm wondering if it's play-balanced that way or if it's meant to be historically accurate. One example is the underarming of the Allied forces in some respects. Germany starts with three tank units and none for the Allies. Historically, the Germans brought 10 armored divisions west (most of their effective tank forces at the time). The French had six armored divisions and many "independent tank battalions" attached to infantry divisions. In summary, the French hard more modern tanks fielded than the Germans (not counting old FT-17s used in territorial brigades). The BEF fielded one armor division, and the Belgians had about 250 tank destroyers of good quality. Certainly this merits the inclusion of at least one tank group in the west? Actually I think the French should get two full tank groups, and the Belgians, who outnumbered the BEF 2:1, should have an army and not a corps (they fielded 22 divisions which gave a good account of themselves). Properly modelled is the allied aircraft inferiority and lack of leadership of the French forces. This lack of leadership was a large reason the French were defeated so easily, not the lack of modern weapons or numbers of troops (both sides were surprisingly equal in fielded divisions). The second concern is the relative economic output of the nations, most particularly with respect to Italy. The Italian economy was completely unprepared for war, and was at a significantly lower output level than France, but in SC those two nations are equal. Italy is "on steriods" in this game, IMO. Interestingly, France produced more tanks, aircraft and arms in late winter/spring of 1940 than either Britain or Germany did over a similar period, though this is not a direct measure of the overall economy (which Germany had a superior output). If you remember the old DOS game "High Command" you can see a good representation of the relative economies of the major combattants. Of course, if the game is play-balanced to ensure a French/BEF defeat early on these historical points are moot