France totally useless

Hello Knallbaer and welcome to the board!

Yes, you’ve understood the rules concerning France correct. If you play A&A1940 without any HR adaption, the French troops are gone very quickly without any chance of rebuilding new units before the liberation of Paris. (Although they might be useful to thwart Mussolini for a turn or two…)

As mentioned before – and also suggested by the rules I think – you should never let anyone play only France.

This is why we’ve got a HR in our gaming group that gives any conqueror of Paris the option to install the Vichy Regime in Southern France. These rules are inspired by the ‘Xeno - World at War’ and several posts form this board.

Greetings from Mainz,
Lars

Lots of interesting ideas in this thread on how to make France more than just a token – “vesitigial” might be a better term – presence in the game.  The options reflect such questions as whether or not to depict the historical Vichy / Free French situation, whether to split the French territories and forces into two opposing groups or keep them unified, and whether the French territories and forces should be treated as Allied, pro-Allies, pro-Axis, or Axis.  So there are several potential routes open.  One possibility, which is a variant of what General Veers proposed yesterday, would be this:

• Post-defeat France is treated (as in the OOB rules) as a single player power that continues to fight on the Allied side, without reference to the historical Vichy / Free French situation.

• Because France has lost its capital of Paris and most (or all) of its homeland territory, France operates as a London-based government-in-exile until such time as Paris is liberated.  (The OOB rules for the liberation of France continue to apply.)  If London is ever captured by the Axis, France loses its status as a London-based government-in-exile.

• While France operates as a London-based government-in-exile:

• It continues to administer from London all the French colonial territories (including French Indochina) which are not under enemy occupation.  This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of the Belgian Congo, except that France rather than Britain is the power which administers these territories.

• It collects income from the French colonial territories it administers, even though it does not have a true capital of its own.  This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of China, which can collect income even though it has no capital.

• It can buy units and mobilize them in the United Kingdom map territory, even though it has no true capital of its own and no industrial complexes.  This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of China, which can mobilize units (under certain restrictions) even though it has no capital and no industrial complexes.

As Black Elk noted, one issue that would have to be worked out is how to treat French Indochina from the point of view of a declaration of war if Japan were to invade it.  I’m not sure what the best solution would be.

@knp7765:

I have often thought that once France falls, the territories of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia should stay French units but become Pro-Axis Neutrals. So if the Allies want to land in any of these then they will still have to fight them

I love it, its smooth and brilliant and close to the real thing.

The universal HR rule would be like this >
1. When a Capital is captured, all land and air units that are alone in home territories, and lone naval units in seazones adjacent to home territories, will immediately become neutrals pro-the Occupier.

2. All land, air and naval units that share a space together with former allied units, or they are in an allied territory, will stay loyal to the former alliance.

This was true with France, the Allies had to amphibious assault French Morocco, and they had to sink the French Navy before the Germans could get it. Likewise, the Germans could non-combatmove into Syria and build an Airbase there, and Japan also non-combatmoved into French Indochina, and from there attacked the UK base at Singapore.

This is also true with Italy, when the Allies captured Rome, then all Italian units become pro-Allied neutrals, except the Italian units that shared space with German units.

I also believe that if Moscow was theoretically captured, then the surviving Russian units were likely to have become pro-Axis neutrals.

But I don’t know what would have happened if London got captured ?

But enough history, from a gaming point of view,  a HR rule like this will really make you protect your Capitals……

Personally, I rather doubt that the capture of London by Germany would have caused the British Commonwealth to turn into Axis sympathizers and to cease hostilities against Germany and Italy.  I likewise rather doubt that the capture of Washington D.C. would have caused the rest of the U.S. to hoist a white flag and become Axis-friendly neutrals.

Sure Marc, whatever  :-D

Come to think about it, the rule should be >

1. If your Capital is captured, you must relocate your Capital to any Victory City in your home territory. This is government in exile.
2. If no such place exist, all units now become pro- the Occupier neutrals.
3. Except units that share space with the former allied, they remain loyal.

Since Paris and Rome did not have any appropriate places to relocate at the time they were captured, they collapsed and their unoccupied territories became neutral. Russia have a long tradition from the Napoleonic wars and WWI to switch between Moscow and Petrograd, so they would have found a new place to govern from. China too had Bejing occupied, then Peking occupied, and so on, but China was so big it was easy to relocate the Capital. If London got occupied, they would probably relocate to Canada or something. But take Washington and the house of cards will crash. Relocate where ? Texas ?

@CWO:

Lots of interesting ideas in this thread on how to make France more than just a token – “vesitigial” might be a better term – presence in the game.� The options reflect such questions as whether or not to depict the historical Vichy / Free French situation, whether to split the French territories and forces into two opposing groups or keep them unified, and whether the French territories and forces should be treated as Allied, pro-Allies, pro-Axis, or Axis.� So there are several potential routes open.� One possibility, which is a variant of what General Veers proposed yesterday, would be this:

• Post-defeat France is treated (as in the OOB rules) as a single player power that continues to fight on the Allied side, without reference to the historical Vichy / Free French situation.

• Because France has lost its capital of Paris and most (or all) of its homeland territory, France operates as a London-based government-in-exile until such time as Paris is liberated.� (The OOB rules for the liberation of France continue to apply.)� If London is ever captured by the Axis, France loses its status as a London-based government-in-exile.

• While France operates as a London-based government-in-exile:

• It continues to administer from London all the French colonial territories (including French Indochina) which are not under enemy occupation.� This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of the Belgian Congo, except that France rather than Britain is the power which administers these territories.

• It collects income from the French colonial territories it administers, even though it does not have a true capital of its own.� This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of China, which can collect income even though it has no capital.

• It can buy units and mobilize them in the United Kingdom map territory, even though it has no true capital of its own and no industrial complexes.� This is similar to the OOB rule treatment of China, which can mobilize units (under certain restrictions) even though it has no capital and no industrial complexes.

As Black Elk noted, one issue that would have to be worked out is how to treat French Indochina from the point of view of a declaration of war if Japan were to invade it.� I’m not sure what the best solution would be.�

I like the idea of having London be the mobilization point for the Free French, it is the best abstraction of their contribution to the Allied war effort as opposed to a less realistic enlistment of troops in colonial outposts. They could add two infantry in London their first turn, giving the UK player some breathing room for a potential Sea Lion. Of course they would need to use British of American transports to get to the Continent but in the latter case the American player might not mind leaving a few there for France to use instead of shucking them back and forth.

@Narvik:

Sure Marc, whatever  :-D

Come to think about it, the rule should be >

1. If your Capital is captured, you must relocate your Capital to any Victory City in your home territory. This is government in exile.
2. If no such place exist, all units now become pro- the Occupier neutrals.
3. Except units that share space with the former allied, the remain loyal.

Since Paris and Rome did not have any appropriate places to relocate at the time they were captured, they collapsed and their unoccupied territories became neutral. Russia have a long tradition from the Napoleonic wars and WWI to switch between Moscow and Petrograd, so they would have found a new place to govern from. China too had Bejing occupied, then Peking occupied, and so on, but China was so big it was easy to relocate the Capital. If London got occupied, they would probably relocate to Canada or something. But take Washington and the house of cards will crash. Relocate where ? Texas ?

Chicago would be the logical choice given it’s central location and proximity to manufacturing hubs. But both Chicago and Texas are in Central US so it’s moot.

@Narvik:

Sure Marc, whatever  :-D

Come to think about it, the rule should be >

1. If your Capital is captured, you must relocate your Capital to any Victory City in your home territory. This is government in exile.
2. If no such place exist, all units now become pro- the Occupier neutrals.
3. Except units that share space with the former allied, they remain loyal.

Since Paris and Rome did not have any appropriate places to relocate at the time they were captured, they collapsed and their unoccupied territories became neutral. Russia have a long tradition from the Napoleonic wars and WWI to switch between Moscow and Petrograd, so they would have found a new place to govern from. China too had Bejing occupied, then Peking occupied, and so on, but China was so big it was easy to relocate the Capital. If London got occupied, they would probably relocate to Canada or something. But take Washington and the house of cards will crash. Relocate where ? Texas ?

Actually, while the Royal Family was going to be evacuated to Canada is London fell, the government was going to be relocated to India.

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.

A tank can’t blitz through friendly neutrals, so it’d take 3 turns to take Morocco from Libya. Italy would also have to take Egypt, and the US can liberate Morocco easily.

@CWO:

As Black Elk noted, one issue that would have to be worked out is how to treat French Indochina from the point of view of a declaration of war if Japan were to invade it.  I’m not sure what the best solution would be.

I’ve been thinking about the French Indochina angle.  I think there are two possible ways to interpret a Japanese invasion of FIC in the scenario we’re discussing (meaning a scenario that treats France from June 1940 onward as a London-based government-in-exile which retains administrative control over the French colonial empire).

The first interpretation (which creates a lot of messy complications) goes like this.  France in the summer of 1940 is an ally of Great  Britain and of various Commonwealth nations (including Australia and New Zealand) and of various governments-in-exile like itself (including Holland) in the war against Germany and Italy.  If we follow the premise that “an attack against one Allied nation is an attack against all the Allied nations,” then a Japanese invasion of FIC – which would certainly count as a DOW against France – would also count as a DOW against the UK, ANZAC and Holland’s Dutch East Indies territories.  Moreover, because the rules say that “The United States […] may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC,” the invasion of the FIC could also lead to a war between Japan and the US.  So under this interpretation, the invasion of the FIC by Japan would knock down a lot of dominos early in the game.

The second interpretation (which I prefer) goes like this.  Britain, ANZAC and the Dutch government-in-exile already have enough troubles to deal with when it comes to their war against the European Axis powers, so the last thing they need to add to their plate is a second war against a new enemy on the other side of the planet (where Britain and Holland have vulnerable colonies, and where Australia and New Zealand are located).  So politically, the Allied powers might find it convenient to treat a Japanese invasion of FIC as a separate conflict which is strictly between France and Japan (in roughly the same way as the Franco-Thai war of 1940-1941 was treated).  With FIC in Japanese hands, the resulting “Franco-Japanese War” would pretty much only exist on paper from that point onward because the only remaining place on the map where the two powers are anywhere near each other is the New Hebrides archipelago in SZ53.

So the rule pertaining to the FIC in this scenario could simply be:

• Japan may attack any French territory at any time without declaring war beforehand.  Such an attack constitutes a declaration of war by Japan against France but not against any other power

@CWO:

So the rule pertaining to the FIC in this scenario could simply be:

• Japan may attack any French territory at any time without declaring war beforehand.  Such an attack constitutes a declaration of war by Japan against France but not against any other power

Isn’t that exactly what’s written in the rules anyway? :-D

@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.

@The:

Isn’t that exactly what’s written in the rules anyway?

The OOB rules say that Japan does not need to declare war against any Allied power before attacking a French territory.  The proposed house rule addition simply tries to be clear about the consequences of such an attack: that it constitutes a DOW against France but not against anyone else.  Just in case there’s any potential confision.

@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…

@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

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

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

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

@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.