France totally useless

calvinhobbesliker

@The:

@Dafyd:

I like the idea of making the French a more playable faction and the various concepts of a house rule to make that happen but I have a question concerning making the North African French territories vichy. Would that not hand the Italians one of their NO’s. All the Italian player needs to do is capture Alexandria and they have it. An axis faction holds the three formerly French territories. If I remember correctly, that’s all it takes. Now 5 IPC’s is not alot but it makes it alot easier if the vichy are automaticly made axis. Even if pro-axis neutral status is given, a mech or tank from Tobruk makes them Italian in 2 turns (1 turn if transports are used). Don’t get me wrong, I like the ideas but I thought that this may also throw the balance off a bit more.

In this case I would add “Egypt” to the Italian NO.

Oh wow, I thought Egypt was part of the North Africa NO, but I guess not…

The Hessian

@calvinhobbesliker:

Oh wow, I thought Egypt was part of the North Africa NO, but I guess not…

I thought you need whole North Africa too. :-D

calvinhobbesliker

Speaking of Alexandria, why did they name it that when Alexandria is actually in the territory of Egypt (it is ostensibly the naval base…)?

The Hessian

If you name the eastern part of Libya “Tobruk”, than “El Alamein” would be more suitable for the western part of Egypt.

aequitas-et-veritas

An idea wich comes to my mind is:

In games starting with bids for Allies, you could spend bids for French units in N.Africa.
A TT paired with your DD off the coast of Madagascar?
A SS with your Fleet at S.France?

If you want to, you can make France interesting.
It depends on you.

Of course, in a game without bids, there is not much to add on.
But you can allways sent you french units near egypt to S. Russia and use them as can opener after neutralizing the axis friendly neutrals in iraq :-D

CWO Marc

@aequitas:

In games starting with bids for Allies, you could spend bids for French units in N.Africa.
[…] But you can allways sent you french units near egypt to S. Russia and use them as can opener after neutralizing the axis friendly neutrals in iraq :-D

One way to combine these two ideas would be to place French units in Syria (which is correctly marked on the map as being a French territory) rather than North Africa. That way, they’d be right next door to Iraq.

Narvik

After reading some more, it looks like the Germans captured the French Capital, and since they had nowhere to go, they surrendered, and the armistice treaty said that all French territories that was not occupied, should stay strictly neutral. And the evidence support this.

After Paris fell in 1940, Japan wanted to occupy French Indochina. Since FIC was now a neutral state, the Japanese had to combat move into it and kill a lot of French foreign legionares until they finally surrendered. If FIC had been pro-Axis neutral, this fighting would not have happened.

US and UK wanted to visit Morocco in 1942, but since Morocco at this time was a strictly neutral state, Patton had to fight his way into it. Then the Germans combat moved into, yes correct, the now strictly neutral Vichy France, and the French sailor now scuttled the French Navy at Toulon. If Vichy had been pro-Axis neutral, then the Germans could have non-combat moved into it and turned the French ships into German ships. This did not happened, just because Vichy was strictly neutral, and not pro this or that.

The OOB rules are wrong.

CWO Marc

@Narvik:

The OOB rules are wrong.

The OOB rules admit this: the rulebook says that “This game doesnâ€™t deal with the German installment of the Vichy government in France.”

Global 1940’s concept of pro-Allied neutrals, pro-Axis neutrals and strict neutrals is potentially tricky to use when describing France (and many other countries) in WWII because it’s an abstract mechanism that crams into the same category countries which were actually in very different situations during the war. Just as an example, the game designates three countries as “pro-Axis neutrals”: Finland, Bulgaria and Iraq. Finland participated actively in the invasion of the USSR in 1941, as an Axis co-belligerent fighting a nominally separate war, and held the Kerelian Isthmus for two years. Bulgaria symbolically declared war against the US and the UK, but not against its neighbor the USSR, so it essentially did nothing militarily. Iraq briefly sided with the Axis following a pro-Axis coup, was promptly invaded by Indian troops, and within a few weeks had been put under new management by the Allies.

Politically, France and its territories (and its leaders) were a disjointed and contradictory mess after the June 1940 surrender. The Vichy regime maintained an affectation of neutrality, to try to convince itself that it was a free and autonomous nation, but it was in reality a puppet state of Germany, with whom it collaborated in many ways. Some of its leaders, like Pierre Laval, were outright collaborators; others, like Darlan, were unprincipled opportunists who changed their allegiances to fit the circumstances of the moment. I always think of Darlan when I hear Capitaine Renault in Casablanca say, “If you ask for what my convictions are, I have none. I blow ith the wind. And right now the prevailing wind blows from Vichy.” He switched to the Allied side when the Allies invaded North Africa, and soon thereafter was assassinated (possibly by a Frenchman who wasn’t impressed by Darlan’s sudden conversion to the Allied cause). The Allied invasion of North Africa did indeed involve some fighting, but beforehand it also involved some back-room negotiations with nominally-Vichy officers so that the fighting would be kept to a minimum. Even the Free French side was a mess: General Giraud and General de Gaulle were blatant rivals (notwithstanding their famous Casablanca handshake), and the history of the submarine Surcouf is another example of how murky the Vichy / Free French situation could get.

So in essence, any depiction of France in WWII in practical gaming rules is bound to involve a lot of simplification (even to the point of being completely unhistorical) because otherwise you’d need some very complicated political rules.

calvinhobbesliker

Actually, Bulgaria never bordered the USSR…Romania was in the way.

CWO Marc

@calvinhobbesliker:

Actually, Bulgaria never bordered the USSR…Romania was in the way.

Good point. I was referring to Bulgaria and the USSR both having a shoreline on the Black Sea, but I should have been more precise.

CWO Marc

@General:

I understand the novelty of adding France to a large scale European map, but can someone remind me why they use USSR sculpts for so many units that they won’t build? Once liberated they used British and American equipment so they may as well have blue American pieces. Or just cut their piece count and give them to the British and American piece pools.

My guess is that it’s related to the large power / small power pairings in Global. Except for a game with two players (one Allied, one Axis), the number-of-players chart always pairs China with the US and always pairs ANZAC with the UK in games involving three or more people. The USSR and France each get tacked on to one of those pairings in 3-player games, but get tacked together in the 4-, 5- and 6-player games. The rules say that US artillery and aircraft units should be used for China, which reflects the US / China pairing. ANZAC’s equipment pieces are of Commonwealth – and sometimes specifically of British – origin, which reflects the UK / ANZAC pairing. The leftover Allied powers are the USSR and France, so they form a similar major / minor pairing and their sculpts reflect this. Also, France has sometimes (but not always) been an ally of Russia, for instance as was the case during WWI. And a few years earlier, during the Russo-Japanese War, European naval specialists watched the naval side of that war with great interest because the Russians were trained in the French naval tradition while the Japanese were trained in the British naval tradition, so the conflict was seen as kind of rough analogue to what a Franco-British naval war might theoretically look like. The British Admiralty was no doubt happy from that perspective to see Japan utterly clobber Russia at sea, even though Japan’s rise as a major naval power did have some uncomfortable implications for Britain.

MakeMaps

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yeah, France is mostly useless, though sometimes you can use your fighter and your North African infantry to skirmish against the Italians, or you could use any remaining ships and the fighter to kill some small ships.

But mostly, you’ll be using your units to boost the defense of important territories.

You know something. If Axis ever declares war on true Neutrals, Turkey would make a great forwarding base to set up a FreeFrench forces HQ against the Axis.

calvinhobbesliker

@MakeMaps:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yeah, France is mostly useless, though sometimes you can use your fighter and your North African infantry to skirmish against the Italians, or you could use any remaining ships and the fighter to kill some small ships.

But mostly, you’ll be using your units to boost the defense of important territories.

You know something. If Axis ever declares war on true Neutrals, Turkey would make a great forwarding base to set up a FreeFrench forces HQ against the Axis.

I think I’d rather have Russia take Turkey, since they can actually use the money and the inf to invade the Balkans and take advantage of their +3 per Axis territory NO.

MakeMaps

@calvinhobbesliker:

@MakeMaps:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yeah, France is mostly useless, though sometimes you can use your fighter and your North African infantry to skirmish against the Italians, or you could use any remaining ships and the fighter to kill some small ships.

But mostly, you’ll be using your units to boost the defense of important territories.

You know something. If Axis ever declares war on true Neutrals, Turkey would make a great forwarding base to set up a FreeFrench forces HQ against the Axis.

I think I’d rather have Russia take Turkey, since they can actually use the money and the inf to invade the Balkans and take advantage of their +3 per Axis territory NO.

Of course.
However, we are speculating on the subject about France’s uselessness….

Nippon-koku

I’ve got it

1. Get a Frenchman on a UK transport

2. Bring him around to Hawaii

3. Have America strike Japan and clear out the island

4. Move the UK transport up there

5. Unload the Frenchman on France’s turn

6. France takes Japan

7. ?

8. Profit

teslas

9: Liberate Paris with US + 4 free frech inf pop in

10: Non-com in as much UK support as possible

11: Survive Italian counter-attack on Paris

12: France can actually spend that Japanese money, building 3 units and upgrading its mIC to a major, saving rest for 10 units on the next round.

13: Survive, somehow, a German attack on Paris.

14: ?

The only thing stopping you is common sense, your own inhibitions, and more common sense.

Narvik

I suspect this belong in House Rules, but how about joining France and Canada as one Power with two Economies ? Not very different from the case with UKE and UKP.

Canada got 7 IPC and France 19. After France is captured, Canada get the colony income.

I start a new thread about this in the HR section, so stay alert, man…

calvinhobbesliker

But that weakens the UK a lot, in exchange for a country that can only build in faraway Canada…

Narvik

never satisfied, are we ?

General Veers

@CWO:

@General:

I understand the novelty of adding France to a large scale European map, but can someone remind me why they use USSR sculpts for so many units that they won’t build? Once liberated they used British and American equipment so they may as well have blue American pieces. Or just cut their piece count and give them to the British and American piece pools.

My guess is that it’s related to the large power / small power pairings in Global. Except for a game with two players (one Allied, one Axis), the number-of-players chart always pairs China with the US and always pairs ANZAC with the UK in games involving three or more people. The USSR and France each get tacked on to one of those pairings in 3-player games, but get tacked together in the 4-, 5- and 6-player games. The rules say that US artillery and aircraft units should be used for China, which reflects the US / China pairing. ANZAC’s equipment pieces are of Commonwealth – and sometimes specifically of British – origin, which reflects the UK / ANZAC pairing. The leftover Allied powers are the USSR and France, so they form a similar major / minor pairing and their sculpts reflect this. Also, France has sometimes (but not always) been an ally of Russia, for instance as was the case during WWI. And a few years earlier, during the Russo-Japanese War, European naval specialists watched the naval side of that war with great interest because the Russians were trained in the French naval tradition while the Japanese were trained in the British naval tradition, so the conflict was seen as kind of rough analogue to what a Franco-British naval war might theoretically look like. The British Admiralty was no doubt happy from that perspective to see Japan utterly clobber Russia at sea, even though Japan’s rise as a major naval power did have some uncomfortable implications for Britain.

I see, I never made the connection between major/minor pairings for sculpts. It makes sense, but it is funny that this pairing is loaded with naval units that will never be purchased by neither the USSR or France unless the game is already decided.

France totally useless

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Southern France

France

First game ever, should France go first?

Global Unit Totals

Taking Back France

France and Sea Zone 93/112

How often does France hold G1 for you?

Southern France for Germany

31

17.7k

40.4k

1.8m