Attention 2nd printing Fall of France owners

[campsawyer]

I have a question for those of you that have the 2nd printing of Fall of France. In scenario 21: Red Dusk, what are the infantry types used for the French Marociane Division, INF's or ESC's?

[richvalle]

Huh, I'm playing that one right now, though first printing. We're using Inf btw. Curious if it changed in the 2nd printing. Cool battle.

[campsawyer]

Huh, I'm playing that one right now, though first printing. We're using Inf btw. Curious if it changed in the 2nd printing. Cool battle.

Just wondering about this one and if it had changed for the new Morocain Division counters. Given that the new counters do not include INF's I wondered if this had changed with the second printing. Otherwise the counters are really backward compatible with FOF as most scenarios with the Morocains have many INF's but few, if any, ESC's. Only ECS's are part of this special counter sheet.

[leonard]

Huh, I'm playing that one right now, though first printing. We're using Inf btw. Curious if it changed in the 2nd printing. Cool battle.

Just wondering about this one and if it had changed for the new Morocain Division counters.

I can't tell about the new edition but I can explain some of the background data.
Originally, 3 infantry type pieces were included in the game : Esc, inf and Res.
'ESC' comes from 'escadron' (=squadron) and is related to cavalry type units, i.e motorized infantry from mechanized divisions. More generally it is used in the game for Elite infantry units (Dragons, Hussards, Cuirassiers and Chasseurs). Strength is 4 because 2 X FM 24/29 (fusil-mitrailleurs) were allotted to each squad. However, in the 'escadrons' (instead of 'compagnies' for normal infantry), each platoon had only 2 squads + 1 cmd squad.
Normal INF had only 1 FM per squad and 3 squads per platoon.

Technically, Moroccans are normal INF units (with high morale) and my original Gembloux scenarios accordingly contained only INF units. However, they are obviously Elite units and the 4 firepower give them a nice kick.
Developer's choice.

[JayTownsend]

I would just sub the ESC for INF counters to give the Moroccan counters some use. I doubt there is any difference in the counter values. That is what I plan to do when I get around to playing scenarios 21 & 22 I believe.

[JayTownsend]

New on the AP web-site:

http://www.avalanchepress.com/MarocScenario1.php

[vince hughes]

I would just sub the ESC for INF counters to give the Moroccan counters some use. I doubt there is any difference in the counter values. That is what I plan to do when I get around to playing scenarios 21 & 22 I believe.

INF are 3-2, ESC are 4-2. This changes the dynamics of the German attacks quite a bit as only 2 platoons are required to attain a 7col instead of a stack of 3 counters.

Given the need for Germans to attack in the Iron Line series, it can

a) Change a 16col attack to a 22col if trying to close in which is a powerful jump. AND

b) In defence, allow French-Moroccan units to drop down to a 2 stack instead of a 3 and therefore make themselves defensively far safer from bombardment and DF.

Like it or lump it, but the scenario won't then match up to earlier plays.

[campsawyer]

Hmm, I read the DC article but am not convinced of the one for one substitution. Vince makes a point on the DF, but assaults are more of an issue. Two ESC plus a leader with +1 fp mod, yield a 13 column assault, where two INFs plus the same leader yield a 9 column assault. Couple this with strong morale and dugins and entrenchments in some scenarios make for quite a defensive force when you have 20+ counters. I think I might look at a 3 for 4 subtitution. This would keep the same amount of fire power on the board albeit a bit more concentrated. Besides if there are as elite as stated, they should be able to defend more with less.

[Hugmenot]

Whether or not the changes to the 4th edition Assault Table would cause the Germans to adjust their strategy, that I want to know!

By the way, I like the 4th edition Assault Table much better than its 3rd edition equivalent. In the three scenarios I have played using 4th edition, the urban assaults, due to the extra variability of the table and the less potency on the 30 column, felt very satisfying and (sometimes) frustrating. From my perspective, this uncertainty is much better than the "How long will it take to control the town" in 3rd edition when one was able to build killer stacks.

[Matt W]

Let me echo Daniel's comments. There are many scenarios where the defender has limited options and once set up primarily rolls dice and hopes for the best. Many of the desert "boxes" work that way and much of the island war seems to play out that way. I have found that there are far more meaningful options using the fourth edition assault table for the defender and that makes the games much more interesting. Don't get me wrong, they are a substantial change and make the game play very, very differently but in certain circumstances that can be a good thing.

The fourth edition table puts a premium on the attacker's ability to prepare a hex for assault (lowering the morale state and, if possible, the morale of the defenders becomes key). Attacking good order units in prepared defenses or defensive terrain (e.g. towns) is not a "sure thing" without having disrupted or demoralized the defenders ahead of time (and even then they can come back). In addition, the increased ability of small forces to cause morale failures or losses to the attackers makes such assaults far riskier than in the 3rd Edition. Again, this is probably not much fun for the attacker but the defender has far more options.

In the current game that Daniel and I am playing I am hopelessly outnumbered but in several tactical situations my ability to counterassault has given me the initiative by freeing up my forces. This probably would not have happened in the 3rd edition, certainly not with the frequency that it has occurred in this play.