-
0 Votes36 Posts9k Views
-
1 Votes6 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes95 Posts66k Views
-
0 Votes147 Posts82k Views
-
0 Votes62 Posts30k Views
-
1 Votes10 Posts2k Views
-
0 Votes23 Posts7k Views
-
0 Votes2 Posts981 Views
-
0 Votes23 Posts8k Views
-
0 Votes2 Posts898 Views
-
1 Votes1 Posts866 Views
-
0 Votes2 Posts780 Views
-
1 Votes3 Posts911 Views
-
0 Votes6 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes3 Posts915 Views
-
3 Votes34 Posts12k Views
-
3 Votes8 Posts2k Views
-
1 Votes4 Posts1k Views
-
1 Votes3 Posts762 Views
-
1 Votes1 Posts593 Views
Recent Posts
-
It can also be something less than its entire European production: I don't have much knowledge about how much the Germans were making in "real" terms after capturing the Free Zone as compared to before or whether or not they would have gotten more if they just conquered all European France instead of leaving French civil control and agreeing on a constant payment. Considering that the payments were reduced at some point (already happened if I understand the game starts right at the start of Barbarossa), it would make sense that Vichy France gives something less than its total European production (so long as this does not induce Germany to attack the Free Zone too early).
-
Anyone can attack Vichy French territory at any time, with no diplomatic repercussions whatever.
Pointing out that whatever rule for Vichy France is going to be not very realistic or very complex or both (so please nobody comes at me for not being "fully realistic"), I think it would be somewhat more realistic that there are no diplomatic repercussions for the Allies and the Japanese, whereas the Germans and the Italians attacking any part of Vichy France would cause all Vichy France to activate as a full fledged Allied power.
I also think that income giving can be simplified to Vichy France giving all its European production to Germany and nothing of the rest. There were some important shipments from North Africa, but, as a matter of agreements, losing any part of the empire would not have lowered the agreed payments due to Germany.
-
@KurtGodel7 Much better on the maps now. The Gibraltar box looks exactly how I pictured. That could also be a good way to depict other small enclaves like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc at their proper size if you choose.
With regard to coloring Vichy, I understand the logic of simplicity there. But it still looks wrong visually just because France was an actual wartime belligerent and its territories were major historical theaters of operations, so it feels off to see them in the same colors as Spain or Portugal (and also makes it look like they’re all owned by the same power).
I guess part of what’s off-putting about it is that Flames & Steel has generally added more detail and depth versus the base G40 scenario, while this is one of the few cases where it feels like it’s consciously downgrading from the original.
Okay, here is the direction I'm leaning.
Vichy France will get its own color. Of the income from Vichy French territories, half (rounded down) goes to Germany. The other half disappears. Income from Vichy French territory in Indochina goes to Japan, again reduced by 50% and rounded down. Anyone can attack Vichy French territory at any time, with no diplomatic repercussions whatever. This adds 10 PUs to Germany and 3 PUs to Japan, at least at the start of the game. As Vichy French territory gets conquered this will decrease over time.
I've consumed 90% of my weekly usage despite being only halfway through my usage week. So the implementation of Vichy France may need to wait a few days.
-
As far as I can tell, you are not actually arguing that a space limitation for Gibraltar makes the game more fun, or adds strategic depth. The sole argument in favor of this which you have made is that a space limitation increases realism.
Correct. The increase in realism starting from infinite stack limit would be huge even if we have no idea about what a land unit is but could be made substantially greater by trying to define at least how many men an infantry unit is supposed to be on average around the map. (This concept is just the same as when deciding how many infantry units can be loaded into a transport (1, 2, 3...?) and how many aircraft can land on a carrier: it is not mean to be full realism, just reducing the relative irrealism range.)
If deciding how many infantry units can load onto a transport is based on absolutely nothing, also a stacking limit for Gibraltar can be based on absolutely nothing: in both cases, it would be (or at least feel) more realistic than the limit being infinite.
On the other hand, as @vendetta says, I can see that having stacking limits in a few cases for some reasons but not in many other cases for many other reasons can be seen as insufficient, so it would look arguably better not having stacking limits at all.