A change of pace: Vichy France.

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.

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,

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,

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.

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.