Should you liberate France?

I could liberate france in a game where U got a US IC in both finland and norway, while spending alot against japan, while being able to hold paris.

if not all of these condtions are met, then I would rather have the US produce in normandy and SFrance.

I don’t know how you guys can get enough dudes to liberate france… without losing in the pacific.

I didn’t mean I had ever pulled it off, I just told what kind of situation I felt it would be more likely, and my group prefer to play 14 VC, so it is not that bad to “loose” in the pacific.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Spendo02:

Or the IC’s can only build French Units (paid for by the owner of the territory).

This is really cool.

Agreed, on the condition that the new French units were held in the Mobilization Zone until the actual ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase of the French turn.

Otherwise, you’d have French tanks and naval units with ‘haste’ being pumped out of those factories (i.e., they can attack on the same turn in which they are built)… which would feel very strange in comparison with the pace of the rest of the game, and give the French units what is, in essence, an A&A superpower.

@Make_It_Round:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Spendo02:

Or the IC’s can only build French Units (paid for by the owner of the territory).

This is really cool.

Agreed, on the condition that the new French units were held in the Mobilization Zone until the actual ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase of the French turn.

Otherwise, you’d have French tanks and naval units with ‘haste’ being pumped out of those factories (i.e., they can attack on the same turn in which they are built)… which would feel very strange in comparison with the pace of the rest of the game, and give the French units what is, in essence, an A&A superpower.

Never looked at it like that - you have a good point and I do like your idea that the units are stuck in the mobilization zone until the end of France’s turn.  However on the flip side, it makes Germany/Italy really defend those territories instead of stacking in Paris/N.Italy to counter-attack.

Although my suggestion has its flaws, it still stands that liberating Paris seems ill-advised for the Allies in 99% of all situations - the sole situation being the need to take a VC away from an impending German victory in Europe.

I saw don’t liberate unless you are sure you can hold it without those 4 frenchmen. Those guys should be icing on the cake. The worst thing in the world for the allies is handing over more money to Germany. The worst thing for the Axis is France purchasing units.

@Cmdr:

Spendo02/Yavid,

Understood, but how can we fix that problem?  Churchill and Roosevelt would never avoid liberating Paris just because they’d magically lose control of cities they already liberated - right?

So I was thinking, what if Allied nations could only liberate French territories, they can never take possession?  Makes sniping Madagascar kinda worth it - sometimes (like if you can retreat the transport later!), means taking the NO for N. Africa is no longer tantamount to giving America more money, etc.  Also helps Germany since the allies are not producing in Normandy/Vichy France.

But this wouldn’t fix the problem of giving Germany the full French income again next turn.

An alternative fix would be that the Allies can decide how much income they give back to the liberated nation (be it france, UK or whoever, with the minimum of the IPC of the liberated capital), the total amount of money on a side will remain the same.

I would take Paris back just for the demoralise effect (only if it can be held). Simply because if i was the German player I would be gutted. Also my dice would more than likey become awful as the verbal abuse from my opponents would be horrendous.

@Cmdr:

Spendo02/Yavid,

Understood, but how can we fix that problem?  Churchill and Roosevelt would never avoid liberating Paris just because they’d magically lose control of cities they already liberated - right?

So I was thinking, what if Allied nations could only liberate French territories, they can never take possession?  Makes sniping Madagascar kinda worth it - sometimes (like if you can retreat the transport later!), means taking the NO for N. Africa is no longer tantamount to giving America more money, etc.  Also helps Germany since the allies are not producing in Normandy/Vichy France.

I like your idea, change that I love the idea, but I think players will just side step France all together, Invade Holland and build an IC.

@Cmdr:

What if we applied the China rules to France? Â

German NO:  The first time Germany captures France, Germany gains +19 IPC.  Each subsequent round that Germany controls France, Germany gets 5 IPC a round (this is to make up for France being allowed to build infantry elsewhere…)

France:  If Paris, France is in allied control, France may purchase Infantry and Artillery - else, France may only purchase infantry and place them in any French controlled territory.  Subsequently, of course, like with China, the allies can never control French territories, but the Axis can!

In one way, I’m an advocate of greater consistency in the rules; I think that the Dutch territories ought to be treated as Pro-Allied neutrals, for example, instead of Allied countries that can be conquered.

In another way, I’m an advocate of game balance; and I think that treating the French like the Chinese would tip the scales strongly in the favor of the Allies.

In still another way, I’m an advocate of historical accuracy; I’d like to see a set of rules in place covering the political factions that emerge when a capital falls, i.e. pro-Axis Vichy France and pro-Allied Italian Co-Belligerent Forces.

So, your interesting proposal drags my intuitions in a few conflicting directions.

Historically, some forces would keep on fighting after the fall of a capital, while others would defect. Resistance forces would typically be ill-equipped, as they would suffer from the disruption of their production facilities – thus they can only field infantry units. This fits the China - France - Dutch situation.

In terms of game balance, only Allied nations can really lose their capitals without losing the game; so any rule that allows a nation to create new units without being in possession of their capital would exclusively benefit the Allies. In a game that is already skewed against the Axis, this would be considered disadvantageous.

Finally, when considering consistency, I always wondered what made the Chinese so special that they could produce any # of units from one territory, especially when that territory lacks an IC. Each Chinese infantry gets a ‘free ride’ to the front lines upon production, which gives them a huge edge over enemy units. I’d prefer to see China be able to produce one infantry per territory, and not on territories that weren’t under their control since the beginning of the turn. And if China could do this, then why not the French? And why not nations that still have their capitals? Why not every nation? Well, because this would mean that the game would bog down in infantry-heavy purchases and defence, and then the Axis are at a serious disadvantage: rules consistency would further compromise balance, in this case.

Thus I believe that, on the whole, your proposal – which favors historical realism at the cost of game balance and rules consistency – ought to be rejected.

skewed to the axis as in axis favored?

Make It Round: I liked your argument.
Amtalking 1940 only here: countries whose capitals are captured(UK and Italy are most on my mind) should be able to continue the fight from elsewhere. It happened in Italy’s case and am sure would have happened if England had fallen (Canada and South Africa).
As for China’s unit  placement. It is so wierd and un A&A. Have never liked or understood why it is as It is.

@ghr2:

skewed to the axis as in axis favored?

Sorry, I meant ‘skewed against’. Have edited the post accordingly.

BTW, are we soon due to play again in the tourny?

Hmm - kind of interesting reading. I liberated and held France in the first game of 1940 I’ve ever played past round 5. It’s an Alpha3 game played recently. I played it against the current league leader. I lost it in round 11 (barely) in the Pacific. He had only 2 bombers left over in taking Hawaii and I couldn’t take anything back. But it’s not because I went extra heavy in Europe - I was just too slow concentrating back on the Pacific due to inexperience (again, first game past round 5)

I think liberating France was absolutely the right thing to do in this game. Germany/Italy couldn’t counter-attack and never attacked France. I built in it for several rounds, and France was making 21. As Zhukov pointed out, Euro-Axis is in deep trouble if this is happening.

I did not mind losing the American factory capability in Normandy. It costs 18 IPC’s per turn to build 3 tanks anyway, and I didn’t have a lot of American air to support them. Plus 5 IPC’s for the NO.  I could liberate and hold France because Germany went pretty hard after Russia. But he didn’t ignore the Western Allies totally either. You’ll have to see it yourself.

I hear you guys saying 99% of the time France doesn’t/shouldn’t get liberated, or that you’ve played many games and only seen it once. So I thought I should pipe up and say - uh - happened in my first full game and didn’t seem all that weird. See for yourself.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27547.0

I wanted to buy tech with them just because I could, or a luxury unit (battleship, bomber, carrier, something!) but it was too tight of a game. I did build armor, artillery, mech infantry, and 2 fighters by France 10.

@Make_It_Round:

@ghr2:

skewed to the axis as in axis favored?

Sorry, I meant ‘skewed against’. Have edited the post accordingly.

Well, it does not seem skewed against the axis at all right now.