Is BEF in France a Sound Strategy?

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Yes. Historically it makes sense. Vichy was an independent neutral nation, so it would have disarmed any foreign military or naval units within its borders. If the unit fought back it would have been an act of war, presumably.

But the game relocates axis units and disentegrates allied ones. ARRRGGGGG

[JerseyJohn]

David,

A tricky situation. Presumably, as Vichy was being created as the result of France's surrender, Axis units would have been able to leave on their own as part of the treaty.

To be honest, I think British units would also have been allowed to leave on their own. The question is, where would they be displaced to? It would work for me to have them move to an uncontolled tile as near to the Vichy border as possible. If it's UK units in Syria, then they go to UK territory in what would have been Jordan. If Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia -- admittedly an unlikely occurence -- where would land units be placed?

Historically, I don't think any Axis units were actually in the areas denoted as Vichy France. German troops had moved into the Bordeaux region and were on all sides of Paris, probably close to or in Brittany and Normandy. I remember seeing the situation map for June of 1940, and the final positions of German troops pretty much outlined the Vichy border. Hitler, of course, wanted a German land corridor to Spain.

-- Italy was stopped at the Riviera border, so I don't think any Italian troops were in Vichy. In defense of the Italians, their border with France was not only very heavily fortified, but also a rough natural barrier. Most military analysts considered the French land defences along the Italian border to be all but impregnable. I've never seen that reflected in WWII game. But I'm sure it can be done with the scenario editor.

Anyway, in game terms, I'd be inclined to have all units expelled from Vichy territory rather than being destroyed.

[Liam]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

David,

A tricky situation. Presumably, as Vichy was being created as the result of France's surrender, Axis units would have been able to leave on their own as part of the treaty.

To be honest, I think British units would also have been allowed to leave on their own. The question is, where would they be displaced to? It would work for me to have them move to an uncontolled tile as near to the Vichy border as possible. If it's UK units in Syria, then they go to UK territory in what would have been Jordan. If Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia -- admittedly an unlikely occurence -- where would land units be placed?

Historically, I don't think any Axis units were actually in the areas denoted as Vichy France. German troops had moved into the Bordeaux region and were on all sides of Paris, probably close to or in Brittany and Normandy. I remember seeing the situation map for June of 1940, and the final positions of German troops pretty much outlined the Vichy border. Hitler, of course, wanted a German land corridor to Spain.

-- Italy was stopped at the Riviera border, so I don't think any Italian troops were in Vichy. In defense of the Italians, their border with France was not only very heavily fortified, but also a rough natural barrier. Most military analysts considered the French land defences along the Italian border to be all but impregnable. I've never seen that reflected in WWII game. But I'm sure it can be done with the scenario editor.

Anyway, in game terms, I'd be inclined to have all units expelled from Vichy territory rather than being destroyed.

The Army groups sported by the Axis made it as far South as Spain, they did however not go DEEP into what was compromised of Vichy Territory I believe only 1 major city or so was occuppied the rest though was signed over to the Axis. An evacuation from Vichy would've been tricky for the BEF, a MASSIVE army, it stuck to the ports when it saw the French being smooshed as to escape. It was the Premier fighting Force on the Allied Side in most aspects. Near what 300 thousand trained, confident, high morale UK Troops... They were confidant even despite the French losses. They were just numerically inferior, lacked the air and the armor and worse of all the position to do any good. Historically the BEF would've been better sported in North Africa and in SC likely similarly

one thing to add, it's hard to fully represent the battle for France as the front still isn't quite large enough the Panzers made many many breakthroughs that you really can't fully represent in SC terms the way a player boxcars his forces or stacks them in a row like double payned windows around their Capitol

The French were completely demoralized but I don't recall reading that they surrendered after Paris fell, Had they been able to fight on with a Strong enough force they would have a little bit of a glitch in SC terms. to make it a bit gamey to just shoot for the Capitol and not other victory conditions i.e. kill French HQ and a percentage of French Forces and perhaps France surrenders anyways without Paris Fallen... say with only 10%-40% of the Nations Forces in Strength. Meaning every Army down to Strength 4 and the HQ badly maulled or near dead/death means a surrender. I think that would make it more interesting and realistic as they wouldn't have fought on a Game Turn if they were smooshed... perhaps adding Paris in as well with a certian number of dead French Armies

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

The element that's missing is, in the game, there's no reason for the BEF to hug the channel coast, as it did in both world wars.

The UK wouldn't permit it's army to venture too far into the French interior.

In WWI, as the German 1st and 2nd armies bashed their way through Belgium, the BEF retreated -- von Bulow muttered something about the Brits that was proudly taken up by the Tommies as "The Old Incorrigibles"-- back along the Channel coast, allowing the Germans to wheel south, toward Paris for the First Marne battle.

They'd have done the same in 1940 if it hadn't been for Guderian's panzer thrust cutting them off from France. They were expected to attack, with the cut off elements of the French Army, across the German swath to rejoin the French line. They didn't even attempt it, however, because if they'd succeeded there position would have been too far away from the coastline. So, instead of an attack, they headed for the water. A French general later said, "It is acceptable to be a little selfish in war. But the British were far too selfish." I can't help but agree.

Except, of course, there were very good reasons for them to hug the channel. For one, their air support was based in Southern England, along with their supply base. The other reason isn't reflected in the game map. The coast is dotted with harbors like Dunkirk that aren't shown on a mape of this scale. The BEF, even if cut off by land, could always be resupplied, or evacuated, by the Royal Navy.

So, historically, there's no way the BEF would have wound up in Southern France, or directly north of Paris, or anywhere east of the French capital. I would always have had it's left flank against the nearest North Sea/English Channel beach. I don't think there's any way of reflecting that in SC-2 unless a few ports are inserted along that coast, which would probably warp other aspects of the game.

[bloodstar]

I think I'm missing something here, Is france falling like a house of cards in PvP battles? That seems horribly wrong. Firstly, Germany pulled off a near perfect execution of the invasion of France, whilst the French managed to bungle things on a strategic level that defys logic. Secondly, since this isn't about repeating the historical outcome exactly, why in the world are the French forces basicly set up to die by April?

A good Allied player V a good Axis player should have the French Surrender in September. Why? Because the game should not assume that the French will be quite so horribly run on a strategic level. So a good axis player against a crappy allied player should be able to take France out by... July I'd say.

Another important factor is luck. if the French get a few lucky breaks, and is played by a good player, there should be no reason why France can't hold out till... *gasp* 1941. Yes, I know that the French Army, *as seen from a history* had no chance, but most of the reason for that was quite simply a lack of vision and comptance on the part of the Senior Leadership.

I also think that France holding out shouldn't be a death Knell for the Axis. Maybe I'm crazy, but I expect ebb and flow in a strategic game. It's a hard balance to find, but I wonder if there is too much importance placed on experience in a strategic level game like this. How easy is Experience to turn off in the editor?

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Liam,

The element that's missing is, in the game, there's no reason for the BEF to hug the channel coast, as it did in both world wars.

The UK wouldn't permit it's army to venture too far into the French interior.

In WWI, as the German 1st and 2nd armies bashed their way through Belgium, the BEF retreated -- von Bulow muttered something about the Brits that was proudly taken up by the Tommies as "The Old Incorrigibles"-- back along the Channel coast, allowing the Germans to wheel south, toward Paris for the First Marne battle.

"That contemptable little army" (this was before the BEF stopped the German Army at Mons) which became "The Old Contemptables".

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by bloodstar:

I think I'm missing something here, Is france falling like a house of cards in PvP battles? That seems horribly wrong. Firstly, Germany pulled off a near perfect execution of the invasion of France, whilst the French managed to bungle things on a strategic level that defys logic. Secondly, since this isn't about repeating the historical outcome exactly, why in the world are the French forces basicly set up to die by April?

I have to agree here. Poland and France are so hopeless, I wonder if it wouldnt just be better to start the game right after the fall of France. I might start doing that - that first year is boring anyway.

[JerseyJohn]

Cheese Panzer

Yes -- after posting I wasn't sure if it was Contemptable or Incorrigible -- Old Contemptables it is!

[JerseyJohn]

bloodstar

While I agree that the French, and British, could have done much better in 1940 than was actually the case. Also, that the French leadership was almost wholly incompetent, I don't believe they had much of a shot at fending off defeat for very long.

To me the reason is that, in real life, the French Army of 1940 was not comparable to the German Army it was facing. Nor was it's Air Force comparable to the Luftwaffe.

It seems so in the game because the units that comprise both sides are basically the same. But historically they were fighting with different doctrine, tactical ideas and leadership depth.

-- But, even with that being the case, if they'd had better generals, fighting a more realistic defensive campaign, it might have enabled them to hold out till the winter. From there, perhaps with bad weather and some drastic changes implemented during the reprieve, they'd have been better prepared to resume in the Spring. But from an historical viewpoint I think it would have been very unlikely.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Cheese Panzer

Yes -- after posting I wasn't sure if it was Contemptable or Incorrigible -- Old Contemptables it is!

Although I kind of like "Incorrigible" - like it's a whole army full of recidivist vandals or something.

[Liam]

The French were accustomed to trenches and I think that was burnt into the doctrine of those old minds, the Revolutionary Germans were taking all sorts of new ideas in. Even trading some with other nations, practicing them as well... The French and British were not ready because they failed to see the threat, they hadn't prepared for a real war. Had the Western Airforces been prepared and their soldiers for the new type of warfare I do not think it would have been a cakewalk but since the game starts after their initial error the fall of france is inevitable... the only thing you can do is die a little more gracefully

as far as the casualties they inflict, historically no Major German Army as far as I know faced anihilation? It does in SC2 so the game does have it's own twists and turns and a good Ally with weather on his side can hold until Sept

[bloodstar]

Interesting food for thought, what would happen if the Soviet Union were permitted to declare war on Germany pre-emptively, *but* would have their income cut in half. The idea being that there would be no morale boost (and for game purposes).

I think of the old tabletop wargame that had a similar rule with a very odd side effect (the old SPI World in Flames ETO). (which led to a very strange game, when Germany invaded Sweeden in 39 instead of Poland, leading to very little force around, using Poland as a buffer. which eventually was DOW'd by the Soviets as the French and british were holding out.

The game ended with Germany still holding out along the Rhine. Italy was down, but the Germans holding the mountain line around into Hungary and up to along the Oder River. Oh, and they still had Sweeden.

a very curious game.

Anyway enough of going totally off topic

[Sombra]

Originally posted by bloodstar:

I think I'm missing something here, Is france falling like a house of cards in PvP battles? That seems horribly wrong. Firstly, Germany pulled off a near perfect execution of the invasion of France, whilst the French managed to bungle things on a strategic level that defys logic. Secondly, since this isn't about repeating the historical outcome exactly, why in the world are the French forces basicly set up to die by April?

A good Allied player V a good Axis player should have the French Surrender in September. Why? Because the game should not assume that the French will be quite so horribly run on a strategic level. So a good axis player against a crappy allied player should be able to take France out by... July I'd say.

Another important factor is luck. if the French get a few lucky breaks, and is played by a good player, there should be no reason why France can't hold out till... *gasp* 1941. Yes, I know that the French Army, *as seen from a history* had no chance, but most of the reason for that was quite simply a lack of vision and comptance on the part of the Senior Leadership.

I also think that France holding out shouldn't be a death Knell for the Axis. Maybe I'm crazy, but I expect ebb and flow in a strategic game. It's a hard balance to find, but I wonder if there is too much importance placed on experience in a strategic level game like this. How easy is Experience to turn off in the editor?

Somehow in SC1 the french campaign worked perfectly. Is SC2 France falling in April right now is even late. If you have good weather (4 turns good weather) and have a streak of good luck you can finish of the french in 1939 or beginning of Feb. 1940. Problem IMHO is simply that attacks are much to strong, the germans get moral boost from taking Benelux, Denmark, Poland, have better troops better HQs.

[Colin I]

On France - I know many people think that whilst it went smoothly for Germany it didn't have to. Bear in mind:

1) The French WON the first major Tank engagement of the war (less tanks, lousy tactics but simply better vehicles).

2) A BEF counterattack did make some progress.

3) The tank advances of the German were almost considered by their high command as very risky. If a decent counterattack had been launched they would have been; I think the caution in the German high command was justified even if events proved them wrong.

4) Some deployment by French was a disaster (putting reservists at a critical point, logistics screw ups) and coordination with British and Benelux lousy.

5) It has been suggested (Julian Jackson in great book "Fall of France") that a better allied air effort could have caused far more damage to German traffic jams in the Ardennes.

Given in SC2 you have historical knowledge I'm not surprised France is tougher.

If you REALLY want to simulate history suggest a random scripting event: 10% chance per turn a French land unit goes out of supply and/or loses HQ support. That should simulate the command and logistics problems nicely.

[Colin I]

PS The problem the French had was in a doctrine (can't remember what it was called) that required a lot of coordination and preparation; eg between artillery and infantry. The Germans didn't stay still long enough for this to be implemented.

[Colin I]

PPS Just to clarify - in the (limited number) games I play France, usually kills one or two (dending on UK support, luck and German aggressiveness) key German units before going under which I consider a decent effort.

I get the impression some people think France is too weak - I don't.

[Blashy]

If you wait until spring of 40, France can fall with no Axis casualties. If you start going into France so it goes down by April, you will have suffered damage because of bad weather and there is a chance of loosing a unit.

And you have to spend more MPPs to operate troops from Poland and since Poland falls later, that is less MPPs from that city as well.

So going after Denmark and Benelux and France in 39 is expensive.

[Sombra]

@Blashy: you are right going after an early France is expensive is risky when you have bad weather . If you are lucky and the weather holds France will fall very earlier.

Even if you have sent troops into France early on and the winter strikes suddenly you don´t have to risk/waste your units in suicide attacks.

On the other hand having already conquered Denmark, Benelux and Poland gives your troops an morale boost making them much harder to kill.

Although France can´t invest in diplomacy early on to bring in the pesky Iraq. ( At least this is something I try as the allied player.)

If the France player tries this approach you will most likely catch him in an indefensible position.

[Sombra]

After a game with Dragonheart I say let the french burn... French partisans in Brest when the Allies have liberated Brest and Bordeaux?