France totally useless

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.

CWO Marc

@General:

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.

In a certain sense, the “naval units that will never be purchased by neither the USSR or France” element could be said to represent the historical position of both countries as frustrated naval powers. For such a huge country, Russia has surprisingly little access to the sea: its huge northern coastline is ice-bound most of the time, as is the upper part of its eastern coastline, leaving basically just the Baltic, the Black Sea and the area rougly around and south of Vladivostok. Russia’s performance in naval warfare hasn’t been very good as far as I know, with its low point being the Russo-Japanese War of 1905-1906. One particularly embarrassing action during that war was the Dogger Bank Incident, in which a trigger-happy Russian battle fleet opened fire on some British fishing boats in the North Sea (in waters roughly halfway between Britain and Denmark) because the Russians suspected that they were combat vessels of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Russia almost ended up at war with Britain because of that little debacle.

As for France, it has excellent access to both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and it also has a long naval tradition, but its problem is that its neighbor Britain – which as an island nation depends on naval trade – has historically had even more reasons than France to be a first-rate naval power, with the result that France has often ended up in second place compared to Britain. This explains in part why French naval thinkers have tended to be open to unconventional approaches to naval warfare (such as guerre de course, or the use of “equalizers” such as destroyers and submarines) in attempts to neutralize Britain’s superiority in traditional fleet combat. Unfortunately for France, Britain’s approach to dealing with this problem has often (though not always) been: let other nations be the first ones to innovate (since there’s no point in rendering your own fleet obsolete), then adopt the same technologies and overtake the other nations by using your superior industrial base to out-build the competition.

calvinhobbesliker

Interestingly, at the end of the war, the Red Navy was the third largest in the world (after the US and Royal Navies).

CWO Marc

@calvinhobbesliker:

Interestingly, at the end of the war, the Red Navy was the third largest in the world (after the US and Royal Navies).

Yes, though by some estimations it was the Royal Canadian Navy that was in third place. Admittedly, part of the reason for the RCN’s high numbers was that it had a large number of small combat/escort vessels like corvettes, and another part of the reason for its place near the top of the world ranking was that much of the competition – the IJN, the Krigsmarine and the Regia Marina – had been eliminated from the game.

Nippon-koku

@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.

I think we’re onto something!

ghr2

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

Not really.

calvinhobbesliker

@ghr2:

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

Not really.

The British lose 8 IPC’s from Canada, which is about a third of their Europe income…

Narvik

Correct, but Toronto can build 12 + IPC Worth of units every turn, its like a bomber every turn in Exchange for the loss of 8 IPC

Black_Elk

The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed.

In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.

I think the best shot at a more interesting France, would be a revision to the turn order sequence of some kind. For ease of use, you could preserve the same essential sequence but just change the starting point. For example…

Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac/France > Germany

Could change to…

Italy, Anzac/France, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac > Italy

This sequence would have showcase the new player nations (especially Anzac and France) in a more engaging way than the OOB order. Anzac could snap up an NO and start in a stronger position vs Japan. Italy could screw with the Med sure, but this would be offset more or less, by the fact that France is still in play. To take France, G would have to bring almost everything available, which gives the UK the starting fleet that it seems to need. I mean remember that line in the manual about “Giving Germany their Stukas” ?
Wouldn’t it be cooler if those Stukas were used against France on G1 instead of the UK in the channel?

Then we could just offset things with cash. Whichever nation is screwed the hardest from this turn order revision, gets a starting income bonus of comparable value. Who knows? maybe you don’t even need a bonus? The change would surely favor Allies, and they are at a definite disadvantage OOB. Italy would be more powerful and be able to destroy Allied TUV in the Med/Africa, but Germany would have a much more challenging opener, with a more formidable Royal Navy to deal with on G2.

Using such a system it’s possible to make every nation more interesting to play, since you can basically fast forward or rewind the sequence to give the game a new dynamic. In this case we rewind a bit… to an Italy and Anzac/France opener. Start date, vaguely May Day 1940
:-D

I had some HRs to randomize the turn sequence in this way for AA50, with a 1d6 roll. I tried it a couple times in Global (though for G40 I used some other 6 position sequences as well, to split the Anglo-American turn.) In some cases the player could roll a turn sequence with France ahead of Germany, which allowed for the French to have some use. It of course collapses the following round, as German TUV is too powerful to overcome, but the stall allows the French player to have at least one real turn, before they hand over their cash to the Germans or Italians. This is a simpler version of that approach, it’s not a randomized turn order sequence per se, just a shift backwards in the sequence by 2 positions. With Il Duce leading the charge.

Instead of being a useless afterthought, France would actually be pivotal to the opening round. They would have several options.

Stack Paris for defense is an obvious one.
But they might also abandon Paris and stack S. France. Maybe even build a channel or med fleet?
Or perhaps they invest in the long term Allied war effort and buy some Bases in the colonies!

It would just be a more fun game all around I think, whatever the balance by sides ends up being. Italy would be more fun. Anzac would be more fun. And France would definitely be more fun!
;)

It might even work out so that you don’t have to change anything at all in the OOB set up, keep the same turn sequence, just go with a different start position.

It, Az/Fr, Gr, Ru, US/Ch/UK:
and then back to Italy

Any thoughts?

lamdan

That’s an interesting concept. Never thought about messing with the turn order. Italy going first really screws up a taranto raid and allows them to control what goes on in the med. Be awesome to see France have a turn, although it just prolongs the inevitable. More fun and different though. And yes more of the royal navy would probably survive. May have to give that a go. Or what about if Germany waited a few years to start the war until the Italians were more ready for war. Like a 1943 version with a larger Italian navy and air force. Believe that’s what Mussolini was trying to convince Hitler to do.

ghr2

@calvinhobbesliker:

@ghr2:

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

Not really.

The British lose 8 IPC’s from Canada, which is about a third of their Europe income…

The gain of having useful french IPCs makes up for it.

calvinhobbesliker

But British IPC’s can be used in Africa and London, while the French IPC’s can only be used in Canada (since no factory can be built in French Africa, and FIC will be taken by Japan). This makes British IPC’s more valuable.

CWO Marc

@Black_Elk:

The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed. In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.

Technically France is a full player at the start of the game – more so than China in many ways – but the OOB rules condemn France to an almost immediate downgrade to a status that is arguably even more marginal than China’s. I think one can get an insight into why this is so by reading between the lines of Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook. My interpretation of what he says there goes like this.

The concept of setting this particular game in 1940 came from Brian Hart rather than from Larry (“Why 1940? That was my first question to Brian Hart, then Avalon HillÂ® brand manager, as he began to tell me about this idea he had.”). Larry was initially dubious about Brian Hart’s idea (“I had doubts and lots of questions.”).
One of Larry’s concerns was that two of the major players, the US and the USSR, would have nothing to do for the first few turns unless the game scenario got into some serious violations of the actual course of events in WWII (“Historically, the sides hadnâ€™t even been drawn up yet. When we think of the â€œAlliesâ€ in the context of World War II, we think of the United States and the Soviet Union as being at the top of the list. If we do a game that starts in 1940, weâ€™ll have to start it with neither the Soviet Union nor the United States as members of the alliance, or even at war for that matter!”) Larry’s introduction to the G40/2 rulebook indicates a certain willingness to get into alternate-history scenarios (“What if . . . What if the Japanese attacked the United States in 1940 instead of on December 7th, 1941? We, as players of this game, are about to explore that possibility.”), but the E40/2 rulebook strongly suggests that Larry wanted to stick as much as possible to the basic historical outline of WWII (“From a game design point of view, Iâ€™d have to bridge some spans of history. Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. I wanted certain historic milestones to occur in the game and they had to occur in their proper order.”).
Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook doesn’t say exactly what Brian Hart meant by “1940.” On the one hand, Larry makes references to 1940 in a general sense (“1940! What an interesting time to begin an Axis & AlliesÂ® game.”). On the other hand, he also makes references to the specific time frame of Spring 1940 ("Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. ") This is where things get a bit murky. Was Larry’s mandate simply to set the game in 1940 or was it to set the game specifically in Spring 1940? It’s hard to say, but the impression I get is that Larry also had a mandate to include France as a player power. Larry makes it clear that he considered France to be a problem from a game design point of view (“The problem was, France was no small, token nation, and its military was first class.”). He presumably was concerned that if he gave France free reign the players might end up with a situation in which France avoids its historical mistakes and avoids being conquered by the Axis early in the war – something which would fundamentally have altered the course of WWII, which in turn is something which Larry probably wanted to avoid.
If Larry’s mandate was simply to set the game sometimein 1940, he could have made France a complete non-issue simply by choosing the second half of the year, after France had surrendered. The Summer of 1940 would probably have been a good choice because the Sealion plans and the start of the Battle of Britain were historically set in that time frame. But the fact that he didn’t set the game in the Summer (or Fall) of 1940 suggests to me that his mandate wasn’t just “set the game in 1940” but rather that it was “set the game in 1940 and include France as a player power.” If that was indeed the case, then early June 1940 (right after Dunkirk) almost automatically becomes the starting date (“I quickly decided that the game would have to start with the Battle of France.”). Setting it in late June wouldn’t have worked because France had surrendered by then, thus violating the (presumed) requirement that France be included as a player power. Setting the game in early May (before the start of the German invasion) wouldn’t have worked either because France was at full strength at that time, thus potentially violating the requirement that the game reflect the historical fact that France was knocked out of the war early. So the basic solution was to “include” France but immediately eliminate it as a relevant power. To make doubly sure that this happened, Larry used such “stacked deck” elements as a prescribed turn order which essentially turns France into a spectator at its own funeral. And he made sure not to exempt France from the rule which says “no capital = no income and no unit purchases”, even though China has such an exemption.

At any rate, I agree that it would be nice to make France more interesting to play, and to get to use more of those nice blue sculpts.

Field Marshal Cole

My group has played global dozens of times, and every time except one France fell in the first round. The time Paris did not fall my friend who was playing as France had an incredible first role hitting on all dice. Also the Germans did not send enough troops to destroy France. After a few rounds of combat all German forces were destroyed with a French Infantry and Fighter Plane all that remained. By the time it was Italy’s turn for whatever reason they did not attack. The British had sent fighters to help defend, and then the French bought a bunch of Infantry to defend with. The next German turn however France fell.

CWO Marc

Here are a few lines of verse I’ve devised to show how the Global 1940 turn order of…

1. Germany
3. Japan
7. Italy
9. France

…places France in a highly disadvantaged position relative to the three Axis powers. Fans of J.R.R. Tolkien will recognize the source material immediately.

Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
That can lead to Britain if the Germans try

[Edit] I’ve added some lines to cover the rest of the G40 turn order. The complete sequence now reads:

Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
That can lead to Britain if the Germans try
Fourth place for U.S.A., second for Russia
Sixth place for the U.K. and fifth for China
With remaining ANZAC in the eighth thereby

France totally useless

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Liberating France or not?

What to do with France?

Italy in France??

Convoy question G1 Southern France

Should you liberate France?

What's the longest time France has survived? Please read the post below

G1 Total BLITZKRIEG.

DO NOT retake the Capital of the UK, France or Italy just to hand the IPCs back

29

17.0k

39.3k

1.7m