A change of pace: Vichy France.

[aftertaste]

Just to be clear before I begin, this is an idea I have been thinking about only for a few days, I’m sure that there may be many reasons not to do this, I’m simply putting it out there for discussion. I’m not the most experienced player and some of the reasons to avoid this may be obvious to the players with 50/75/100+ games under their belts, but not necessarily to others, (meaning me) so please keep this in mind.

That being said…

I find that if there are 6 players, the division of nations is pretty fair, especially where minor nations and - to an extent - Italy are involved. The American player usually has a slow early game and so also plays as China, the British player has a world spanning empire if also playing as ANZAC to manage and the Soviet player has a behemoth of a task if the German player knows their stuff. That player also plays as France. As far as historical accuracy goes in this game, this seems logical, except for the Soviet Union/France combination, as they have much higher conflicting global intentions than the other two allied coalitions.

I see France as something in between a minor and major nation, similar to Italy, but one that always ends up relegated to a minor position by virtue of G1, probably I1/J1, and the fact that France always goes last in the sequence of turns. Now I have nothing against this series of events, but simply to spice things up I have had a little think about France’s position historically during WW2 and how a radical change may make an interesting addition.

Now bare with me here, 7 players may be too many, but I feel that if such a situation were to arise, that 7th player should play as France alone. This may seem excessive and probably an odd option, but with a large twist involved that would give the French player a massively more important role. There could even be less than 7 players, with 1 Axis player as Germany/Italy and the other as Japan with the Allies as USA/China, UK/ANZAC, USSR and the fourth as France, but the French player could NOT have any other countries under his command, as I will explain…

I suggest a new rule that occurs after the fall of France proper, that is; France, Southern France and Normandy/Bordeaux, by any combination of the Axis powers. The French player should be given the option of joining the Axis powers at the beginning of their turn, thus simulating The Vichy French government, or not, and staying as an allied nation until the games completion. This should be a one time thing, the French player must make a decision on the first turn that it becomes relevant, otherwise it would be an unfair level of control on their part.

Southern France alone would be returned to the French player/Vichy government with any Axis units there simply ‘visiting’ and all French overseas territories not already occupied by the Axis/Allies become a part of the Axis empire under Vichy control. Any French unit in an Allied controlled territory become a part of that nations army - simulating free French - and any French territory holding allied units are turned over to said nation as a temporary occupation force, who also receive any income. If there is a combination of 2 or more allied nations in a territory at this point, the allies should discuss it amongst themselves and partition the territory as they see fit.

This may seem nonsense from this point, but one of the main reasons that I love A&A is the divergence from history. I feel this rule could mean a dramatic shift in the opposing forces balance, but it depends of when and how the fall of France comes along. It can also add for some early game tension and tentative moves.

For example, another rule I feel may add to this could be that between the last France proper territory falling - such as in Italy’s first turn after Germany takes France/Normandy - and the French players decision either way, all independent French territory and units should be considered as if they were a separate Neutral Power, with the obvious addition that and French units that happen to be in territories with other nations are simply ignored unless otherwise stated, to simulate their indecision on which side to take (which I feel is historically accurate, given that IRL different parts of the French Empire went different ways, so I feel this is a fair compromise).

However, attacking these territories doesn’t automatically make the French players decision for them, but it could affect their personal decision. For example: Italy could take Southern France thus enacting the rule but not destroy the fleet in sea zone 93 and may not take Tunisia either, the Japan might conduct the J1 and not take French Indo China giving the French player more IPC’s and units to act with. Then the British player, seeing the potential for a fourth - and rather powerful - Axis power, could take Syria for fear of the Axis reaching Iraq. The preceding events and apparent disregard for French sovereignty could convince the French player to switch sides to the Axis.

This could be an appealing strategy for Italy IMO because even though there would now only be 3/3 available territories for their ‘Greater Roman Empire’ National Objective instead of 4 and they could no longer achieve the North Africa NO, the ‘No Allied Ships in the Med’ NO would be much easier to achieve. If played right, Germany and Italy could give Vichy France a fairly tempting position, and if it seems that they may go for it, it makes the British players decisions in the Med and elsewhere very conflicted. Should there be another Mers-el-Kebir? Operation: Ironclad? What if The Axis should attempt to reach Iraq through Vichy Syria, as happened in real life?

Vichy France would have to have their own NO’s and the ‘National Uprising’ NO would have to be discarded. I would suggest that they share ‘No Allied Ships in the Med’ at +5 IPC’s, Vichy Empire: Hold all French Territories apart from France and Normandy/Bordeaux at +5 IPC’s (Thus potentially averting or maybe altering a J1, depending on Axis cooperation) and Article IV (referring to the 10/7/1940 armistice): No Vichy French units in Southern France at +5 IPC’s, thus Vichy France still has some income even if events conspire against them. Perhaps they could even have the Northwest Persia, Iraq and Persia NO’s at +2 IPC’s each…?

Now all of this suggests that with a dedicated French player it would be daft not to become the new Marshal Petain, as a France only players only real option is to go Axis, but if the France player decides after all that to go Allies anyway, the Axis have thrown away a significant early advantage and must spend time and resources trying to catch up, when they could be pushing hard on the Allies early on, maintaining their initial momentum.

Admittedly to me it seems that these rules might break the game and irrevocably upend the balance making an Axis victory much more likely, as there aren’t any real economic/military/strategic advantages to a Free France early on, but it does depend on the French player, but the point is that these rules make the game much more volatile in a different way than simply deciding to go for the Spanish Beachhead (not that I have a problem with the SB). It’s not just about game tactics, there is some psychology in there too, which I feel captures some of the true atmosphere of WW2.

Maybe I’m getting a bit preachy here, sorry, but that about wraps it up. Like I said, this is just an idea, essentially and Alpha, and I haven’t play tested it as I don’t have enough people to do it with, the scenario seems possible, yet not practical, (‘have you by any chance ever heard of a man named Hari Seldon?’), but I think it is food for thought nonetheless. I would be interested to hear what people think about this.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

There are Vichy France rules in the balanced mod version of the game.  It isn’t perfect.  I personally don’t think that it adds much gameplay enjoyment benefits, but it isn’t too bad of an implementation of new rules.  Are there changes to these rules that you feel would be better?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0

[aftertaste]

Harris,

Purely for the Vichy rules, I like some of them, but the main reason for my attempt to rewrite was mostly to get the French more directly involved and to get an alternate history thing going which I feel is more in keeping with why people play A&A in the first place. I think you are right in that they don’t really add anything, I also think they actually take a lot away from the potential, if viewed opposed to my rules. I prefer the initiation of the armistice to my choice because of the turn sequence (Britain before Italy, which I overlooked) but that’s about it.

I see the reasoning behind the rules from a historical perspective, but ultimately you are right, it doesn’t seem that these new rules make the game any more enjoyable and benefits to the Axis players are minimal. I think I could change the rules to make them better (as anyone could) but I’d just be changing them more to the rules of my creation. One of the main reasons I started these new rules was to actually give the fleet at SZ93 something other to do than die, and simply staying there as a neutral fleet to either die or eventually be liberated by the Free French, which doesn’t seem likely, doesn’t make sense to me.

[taamvan]

Im not sure why people keep focusing on Vichy France, which, except for a few early diplomatic moves, was not a huge military topic for WW2.  Vichy was an anomaly politically, and although Germany stole all of Frances engines, old tanks, schleppers and etc etc but all of those things would have occurred whether they permitted France’s regime to live on in the Vichy form or not.  What might or might not have occurred would regard the French Fleet, which in this game, is represented by a grand total of 4 ships.    And by 1944, the Vichy institution was pretty much fully adsorbed into the Reich.

That’s why I prefer the Free French concept.    Its not all that realistic, but it does what you state;  turns France into a separate, independent power ALA China.  Because you can bring in some French Poitou (Infantry) with French or Allied transports, this gives France a chance to add some beef to the Western Allies (or a modest fleet in the pacfic)

Free France Mod by TAAMVAN

After Paris falls, France has no IPCs.    On France’s turn, if though it does not have a capital, it still collects income (starting with 15 (of 19) and usually going down to 8 by turn 3 or 4)

Without its capital, France does not purchase units as a normal country.  It may purchase only four units; Infantry, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport.  These units represent the Free French and Free Polish, Norwegian, Danish and other naval forces coming together to fight alongside the Allies.

Infantry may be placed as only as follows,
1)  not on a newly captured or recaptured territory, must have been French at beginning of FR turn.
2)  one infantry placed, per listed region, per turn.

Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia)
Sub-saharan Africa (FWA, FCA, FEA)
French Indochina
Madagascar
Southern France
Western France
New Hebrides
Syria
Madagascar

Ships must be placed in one of the following sea zones
1)  Adjacent SZ to a French controlled territory
2)  Only 1 per SZ per turn

Placement Examples;

Oran/Morocco;  SZ 91
Lorient/Normandy Bordeaux; SZ 105
Oran/FWA; SZ 87? maybe
New Hebrides/ SZ 53
Toulon/South France  SZ 93
Madagascar; SZ 72

1)  If an ally or Free French liberate an originally French territory, it becomes French at all times.  Other Allies can no longer recapture French territory in order to get its income for themselves.
2)  If France takes an Axis or Pro Allied territory, France gains the income.  (it can only place at a captured factory if it has its own capital). 
3)  If Paris is liberated, France immediately gains the NO and places the units.
4)  If Paris is liberated, it immediately returns to having all the rules of a normal power, as it did before, and cannot place in the colonies.  At this point, all of the French IPCs that were protected are now capable of being captured.

[aftertaste]

taamvan,

I like those rules a lot, and I do see your point on Vichy France, I was just looking for a way to get the French pieces on the board because it felt like a waste not using them properly. Also, yes Vichy France was practically a political non-entity I was just thinking of doing something different and I stopped short at Vichy.

Your idea however, is pretty damn cool. I like the idea of a Nation encompassing all the Free People’s (Polish, Danish, Norwegian etc…) and your rules seem fair too, I only have 3 questions:

After losing Paris, I’m assuming that the French income tracker acts totally normally?
If France captures, say, Korea (purely as an example) and doesn’t hold Paris, I get that they still cannot place Industry, tanks etc… but can they still place the four units you mentioned/is there a limit to where the Free People can be deployed?
Can they place air/naval bases without Paris?

[taamvan]

Thank you for your interest.

After the capital falls, France would have between 10-15 income on France Turn 1.  Normally, you don’t get to collect any income because your capital is dead.  I don’t use the income tracker (the strip on the board, right?) but yes, the income would be just like any other country with adding up what was still French or that had been won by the French.  The only difference is that after Paris falls, the money cannot be seized by the Axis, unless you retake Paris, in which case all the money instantly becomes available for being taken (or spent) from the moment it is liberated (such that, if USA takes Paris on US turn, and Italy retakes before the French turn, Italy would get all of Free France’s 8-10 $$ plus what they saved, and France could not produce any units having no money, though they would then get income at the end of their turn, having lost the capitol in the meantime…)

Yes, if France takes ANY nonoriginal territory, it cannot place there.  The only time it could is if it captured an industrial complex AND held its capital at the same time.  If it has its capital, it acts like a normal power with all OOB rules.

If it does not, then it can only place ships off North Africa, one small island in the Pacific, and perhaps off central Africa.    Most of the potential placement areas (FiC, southern france etc) will already have been taken by the Axis at this point.

The Free French Infantry can only be deployed in original French territories and the blue ships can only be placed offshore of these territories, was the idea… much like China.  Except with China, you can also place in newly captured territories, even some territories which Japan holds at game start, which I did not allow.    I wanted to limit the placement to a single guy to prevent stacking one territory like Syria with a ton of French infantry, which together, could actually make quite a difference in the war…

However, if UK liberated French Indo China, for example, then on France’s turn, they could place 1 infantry there and 1 ship offshore on the Free French turn.

Bases would be hard to afford and hard to use, but they could in theory make a difference.  If we allow France to build bases, I suggest only permitting it on Originally French territories.

[Argothair]

I think the idea of giving the French player a genuine political choice about which faction to join is brilliant. It’s possibly the only way to correctly incentivize all the players.

That said, I’m not sure players will wind up bribing France with extra territories. If the Axis arrange to offer France 15 territories (by not conquering them), that might be a stupid move for the Axis, and so France knows that if it accepts the generous offer, it will just wind up losing along with its new Axis teammates. It depends if the French player is primarily motivated by pride/boredom (they want as many territories as possible so they have something to do) or by glory/strategy (they want only the optimal number of territories that will help their faction win the game).

I also think that even with this interesting choice and the extra territories that could come with it, there is still too little for the French player to do, especially in games where the Axis wind up conquering most of the French empire anyway. E.g. if the Axis eat Syria, Indochina, Normandy, Paris, and French Equatorial Africa – which is by no means a stupid plan – then what is the French player supposed to do all game? If you join the Axis, you push a couple of infantry around west africa and wait for the game to end. If you join the Allies, you push a couple of infantry around London and wait for the game to end. Asking a player to only play one minor nation that might lose 90% of its territories on the first two turns is too “risky” from the point of view of making sure everyone has fun.

Possibly this could be fixed with slight variations on your rules? Like, let’s say you have Alice, Bob, Carl, David, and Elise in your game. Initially, the teams are Alice & Bob (US, UK, ANZAC, USSR, China) vs. David & Elise (Germany, Italy, Japan), with Carl as the swing player (France). At the end of the first full turn (or when Paris falls; however you want to play it), Carl gets to decide whether to join David & Elise’s team and take over for Vichy France plus Italy, or to join Alice & Bob’s team and take over the Free French, China, and ANZAC. So after turn 1, you get something like this:

Alice – US, USSR
Bob – UK Europe, UK Pacific
Carl – Free French, China, ANZAC
vs.
David – Germany, Italy
Elise – Japan

OR you get something like this:

Alice – US, USSR, China
Bob – UK Europe, UK Pacific, ANZAC
vs.
Carl – Vichy France, Italy
David – Germany
Elise – Japan

Carl gets to decide, and he can decide based on any combination of the board position, who’s winning, how many territories his would-be countries will have, etc.

That would capture the “which side should I join?” feeling of 1941 France while ensuring that in virtually all games, the swing player gets some interesting country to play for the course of the game. If France, Italy, China, and ANZAC are all hosed on the first turn, you’re playing a very odd game.

[aftertaste]

taamvan,

You’re welcome, thank you for yours.

Thanks for clearing it up, I follow what you mean now and I am even more on board. Again I have some points that I have thought of…

I hear what you are saying that the Axis do not plunder Paris of France’s IPC’s the first time it falls, as it gives France a jumping off point on their first turn, but I think that that may take a significant chunk of the momentum out of the German player’s second and third turns and I feel it may - accidentally - provide an slightly unfair balance shift in the early Axis game.

I think if I were to use your Free France rules, I would keep the capture of French IPC’s in to balance out the fact that France can now actually have a more significant role.

Admittedly it is a small role, but it is a much more considerable contribution, proportionately, on the part of the French. I think if you keep the capture of the French IPC’s in it gives the French a longer start up time to get involved in the war which will do no harm in the early game, but as it progresses, the addition of a couple of French Destroyers to an American/ANZAC fleet or a half dozen infantry assisting in the defence of France after an American liberation could make all the difference. Which, incidentally, I think is historically accurate, because of the indecision and differences of opinion between the French people.

I follow and agree with everything else and again, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me, I have thought about what you said in your first post about placement areas and units and have thought of a few more points…

For FWA, there are three sea zones to choose from; 82, 83 and 87, but as 82 is used by FEA, and 87 is next to 88 (which I will get to momentarily) I would suggest SZ 83 for naval deployment from FWA. But of course you could even say that it is possible to use all three, which would allow for faster deployment of a more significant force, though it may take time to muster the IPC’s.

There is also French Guiana to consider. Would you also allow deployment there? It isn’t in a strategically critical location, but I think it should be an option anyway as it falls under your rules as an original French territory, which also brings sea zone 88 into play as that is the one adjacent to FG. I’m assuming that this may have been an oversight, as it took me a while to find New Hebrides because I had forgotten it existed.

Finally, thinking about the options for units that may be deployed, there were Free French, Polish etc… airmen flying in the RAF and elsewhere and I believe some even flew their own planes to the UK and perhaps other places. At any rate, there was a significant amount of air forces manned by Free Peoples, do you think that fighters may be an option, with this in mind? Perhaps they could only be produced in the UK as they were using British planes?

Argothair,

I’m glad you like it and thanks for adding to it, I see what you mean, it seems a little uneven if only playing as France. But after taamvan brought his rules in to play for Free France it got me thinking that perhaps there could be a combination of his and my rules, so that if the French player decides either way, they have a more purposeful and engaging experience.

The main reason I brought my rules in was to get the French pieces on the board and it’s the same for taamvan I believe, now I see how if, without either of our rules (Vichy/Free France) it would be pointless to play as France alone because - as you rightly point out - there wouldn’t be anything for the French player to do by themselves. So when you suggested that Carl play as Free France/China/ANZAC if he decides to join the Allies, or Vichy France/Italy if he decides Axis, that made sense to me, but I’m not sure if you are including the rules taamvan and I have been discussing. (And also the rules that Arthur Bomber Harris told me about).

If you take the rules taamvan and I have mentioned and I may borrow your demonstration I feel it may make the game more enjoyable for someone to play as France alone (Free or Vichy) as I will now try to explain:

Alice, Bob, Carl, David, Elise and Frank set up a game and divide as follows:

Alice – US/China
Bob – UK/ANZAC
Carl – USSR

David – Germany/Italy
Elise – Japan

Frank – France

Now Frank at the start is with the Allies, but for the purposes of demonstration I have kept him separate as both sides are aware of his impending decision.

Turn one goes by for the first 5 nations and it’s fairly typical except that the Axis want Frank on their side and so apart from France and Normandy not a single French territory is taken by David or Elise, but they both still conduct a successful G1/J1. To Frank, who is now in a strong position compared to normally, he could choose to remain Allied on his turn, thus evoking the Free France rules or not and go Vichy, because he would have a healthy industrial capacity, some forces to work with and not an insignificant amount of strategic options. (Syria, FIC etc…).

The question becomes what do the UK/Italy do? The decisions by either could make the decision for Frank and like you said it depends on Franks motivation but that’s why I like these rules as it adds suspense and a level of uncertainty that isn’t usually prevalent in A&A.

To be honest it is all a bit muddled up right now and it’s not totally clear to me how this might play out or even work, but I still think that if done correctly it could bring something new and interesting to the table.

[Argothair]

OK, but running with your example, what happens to poor Frank if the Axis opt to crush France on G1/J1? Would Frank really be happy playing just the Free French, even with the expanded rules that allow him to build up to a mighty force of six infantry by the end of the game?

[aftertaste]

I’m not sure tbh, that’s the sticking point of these new rules, would anybody want to use them? Opting for one side just allows the other to negate it, so there needs to be a way to make it fair on the French player whatever decision they make.

Perhaps if there were a couple of additional NO’s for Free France giving Frank the chance to build more than one or two infantry a turn. This is the main reason I put this idea forward, unless there is some new rule to allow an active French player there isn’t any point in having the pieces for them in the first place. Perhaps doing what you said and combining the minor nations would work, but France was kind of a wild card during WW2 so I thought it would be good to recreate that.

I admit that this idea is far from fool proof, maybe I’m just a dreamer.

[CWO Marc]

France is reduced to a marginal role in the OOB rules by the fact that the loss of its capital prevents it from buying new units, even if it controls French territories elsewhere – a rule restriction from which China is exempted.  If France received the same exemption as China, it could play a more active role on the Allied side, which would help counterbalance the fact that Global 1940 is somewhat biased towards the Axis.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

France is reduced to a marginal role in the OOB rules by the fact that the loss of its capital prevents it from buying new units, even if it controls French territories elsewhere – a rule restriction from which China is exempted.  If France received the same exemption as China, it could play a more active role on the Allied side, which would help counterbalance the fact that Global 1940 is somewhat biased towards the Axis.

Maybe, it is possible to allow a similar infantry built to French player, same as China.
Also, purchasing a single minor IC should be allowed, on African or Mediterranean TTy.
This would certainly increase action.

[iwugrad]

Some good ideas here.  This got me to thinking… if someone really wanted to play France as a country, buy units, etc.; then you could play it this way:

French player starts out with the Allies, but once Germany takes the capital, they play with the Axis.  The capital and all territories remain in French hands and they still retain their income and build on their factories.  When/if the Allies liberate Paris, the French player then joins the Allies.  Each time Paris in taken, any French units in territories occupied by other nations remain Allied and usable by that nation (like the French fighter and soldiers in England and boats in the same territory as the British).  If the Allies take Paris, any French units with German/Italian/Japanese combat units in Russia/Germany/the water/wherever are usable by that nation.  The rules are mirrored for if the Allies take Paris: France retains control of their income and all their territories that they control and simply fights with the Allies.

Aspects of this would actually be similar to how it was in the war.  Although you didn’t have stacks of French soldiers defending Normandy from Allied invasion (though some French soldiers fought for the Axis), you also didn’t have the French Mediterranean fleet, Morocco, and southern France fighting against the Axis after France capitulated.

I’m not sure if this might even be balanced or whether it might swing to Allies or Axis.  The push towards Russia would be hampered as some units would need to come all the way from France and those units would attack out of turn from Germany, but on the other hand the Axis would have more total income and a D-Day invasion would be much harder.

We always play with all the Axis playing at once and all the Allies playing at once, so that would likely give the Axis an advantage, but you could compensate by giving the Allies more money.

As an optional rule, you could allow the Japanese player to conquer French Indo-China (just as in the war and just to spice things up) or leave for the French player (maybe France could build a factory there?).  This decision could be strategic by the Japanese player: allowing money to flow where it’s most needed, or it could be cordial: gentlemanly to leave it to your new co-belligerant, or it could be playfully poking fun: haha, it’s mine and you can’t do anything about it.  It might make the Japanese player less ‘lonely’ to have some interaction with their co-belligerants.

The French player might have some disconnection with who wins (or might slightly favor Axis since that’s where their reputation as a skilled player is on the line), but on the other hand, it might be a happy ending to be on the winning side no matter which side won the game.  Another plus is that for a Europe only game, the sides would be an even 3 on 3 for the nations for most of the game and it might allow you to have a 6th player on the Europe only board.