War of movement in 1914?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

That's interesting to hear. I'm assuming the AH 2nd Army is down there then. That's a good roll of Serbia within that timeframe. Kind of solves the Bulgarian Gambit deal also if done this quickly.

I always have to wait on Serbia because I always put the 2nd Army in Galicia to try to hold back the Russians, which works well, but then Serbia gets really difficult in 1915. I may have to rethink my strategy now. (trenches or no trenches [:D])

[Patrat]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Well I played against myself in Serbia in hotseat with no entrenchment until the end of Sept. It was actually kind of the same result as normal because the Serbians were running away most turns. By the end of October Montenegro is about to die, Nish has fallen and the Serbians are entrenched near Uskub in the mountains just trying to delay the inevitable. That's actually pretty close to what happens with entrenchment.

Serbs have lost 2 detachments 3 corps and a HQ and the Austrians lost 1 corps.

This is with one German corps and one German detachment in the area.

Basically as Serbia - whether there's entrenchment or not - you can last into 1915 simply by retreating early into the mountains around Uskub. Not sure if this is a "win" or not. It certainly is far better than surrendering in 1914. Delaying Bulgaria's entry and connection to the Ottomans is a big deal. But as far as holding on to any chance of lasting well into 1915, preserving any income, well you won't have any.

Isn't the fact that Serbia has trouble lasting into 1915 a more important issue than the perceived lack of movement in the early months of the war?

If Serbia is already having that much trouble, I would be very hesitant to advocate adding a ahistorical constraint to entrenching.

IRL some units did dig entrenchments early in the war. It all depended on what their situation was. I think the way the game currently handles entrenchments is fine as it is.

[stockwellpete]

Very interesting lecture by Professor David Stevenson . . .

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=da ... &FORM=VIRE

He divides the war up into 3 basic phases, particularly with reference to the Western Front (see 2 minutes into the lecture) . . .

1914 - war of movement
1915-17 - stalemate
1918 - return to war of movement

So while of course there would have been some entrenchment in the first weeks of the war - the point of this idea is to replicate the dominant form of warfare in the first few weeks of the war. There was no long line of trenches from the English Channel to Switzerland in August 1914 (that would be ahistorical) and the Germans began building their trenches only when they realised that they could not end the war quickly.

[Patrat]

We should probably be using the term digging in rather than entrenchment. I believe that the level of entrenchment available at the beginning of the game reflects units digging in, rather than long lines of trenches.

Is there really a problem here with people digging in so much that there's no war of movement in the first weeks?

I only play against the AI and I haven't noticed any problem.

[Patrat]

In fairness I should add that in my last game against the AI CP at the highest level of difficulty, I had to entrench asap or the germans would of been in Paris. Lol

So maybe you are on to something, since I ended up stopping them at Lille and ypres. But just because the French in real life made the mistake of not digging in, I somewhat loathe to be forced into the same mistake.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Patrat

We should probably be using the term digging in rather than entrenchment. I believe that the level of entrenchment available at the beginning of the game reflects units digging in, rather than long lines of trenches.

Is there really a problem here with people digging in so much that there's no war of movement in the first weeks?

I only play against the AI and I haven't noticed any problem.

I play PvP only, except for hotseat tests...and been doing that continually since Feb 2020. These are my observations:

With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins.
This Stalemate usually only starts in 1915, and then both sides have to figure out ways to break holes in local sectors.
The third phase..the so called 'Return to War of Movement' begins on some fronts when one side or the other (or both depending on differing countries) begins anew when certain countries NM gets low and the big guns start making their presence felt.

If entrenching is took away until Oct 1914, then I as playing the Entente, will have a hard time holding Ypres if I wanted..or Boulogne if pressed to there. Now I will tell you, if in a game (and real life), I wanted to entrench a surrounded British corp in Boulogne with orders to hold at all costs, but could not because of some arbitrary date...I would call out 'bollocks!'

I could cite other examples.

I have had matches with extremely talented players, and I can guarantee that this 'War of Movement' in 1914 does indeed happen even when units are entrenching, because in most places, players are only entrenching tactically, and are generally moving units in and out of these positions as they push on each other to try to gain an advantage.

My opinion with this proposal is that it maybe suitable for a mod...but to have it implemented into the existing model would not be the best idea.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins.

Yes, there isn't really a problem here. I think stockwell is just proposing this as an interesting possibility. There definitely IS movement early on even with the default settings.

And even after a trench tech is researched attacks are still possible. Especially for the Germans and the Russians when attacking Austrians due to other advantages.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: Patrat
Isn't the fact that Serbia has trouble lasting into 1915 a more important issue than the perceived lack of movement in the early months of the war?

Well it's really just me saying this. I don't know if other people agree/realize how bleak Serbia's situation is. I gather a lot of people play against humans and Serbia lasts into 1916.

It's difficult to "balance" the Serbia front - i.e. make it last until October 1915 as was historical - without preventing early German reinforcements. The Germans can really send as many corps as they please (especially if they don't even attack Belgium) and there's just no way for the Entente to reinforce Serbia.

One other "problem" related to strengthening Serbia is that you have to ask yourself if the Ottomans are truly historically balanced if Serbia lasts late into 1915. The Ottomans are isolated with severe MPP when there's no rail connection, and perhaps vulnerable to being overwhelmed by multiple landings and offensives.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins.

Yes, there isn't really a problem here. I think stockwell is just proposing this as an interesting possibility. There definitely IS movement early on even with the default settings.

And even after a trench tech is researched attacks are still possible. Especially for the Germans and the Russians when attacking Austrians due to other advantages.

Yes, I am. It doesn't have to be introduced into the main game, or even be developed as a mod. It can just be used as "house rules" if 2 players want to introduce a bit of extra variety to their game together. Having no entrenchment for the first 5 or 6 turns might create new positions and possibilities in some games that can enhance the replayability of the game. Maybe the Germans can get closer to Paris or the Russians can drive the Austro-Hungarians right out of Galicia in 1914?

While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

If entrenching is took away until Oct 1914, then I as playing the Entente, will have a hard time holding Ypres if I wanted..or Boulogne if pressed to there. Now I will tell you, if in a game (and real life), I wanted to entrench a surrounded British corp in Boulogne with orders to hold at all costs, but could not because of some arbitrary date...I would call out 'bollocks!

Well, I have raised the possibility earlier in the thread that towns and cities could still be "entrenched" (in reality, defensive strongpoints could still be constructed) in this opening 5/6 turn "no entrenchment" phase. So trenches could not be made in open terrain, forests etc. Again, it would be very easy for 2 players to agree a "house rule" on this.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete


Yes, I am. It doesn't have to be introduced into the main game, or even be developed as a mod. It can just be used as "house rules" if 2 players want to introduce a bit of extra variety to their game together. Having no entrenchment for the first 5 or 6 turns might create new positions and possibilities in some games that can enhance the replayability of the game. Maybe the Germans can get closer to Paris or the Russians can drive the Austro-Hungarians right out of Galicia in 1914?

While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

Ahhh...I understand now. Yeah, this option as a 'house rule' would add some variety for sure. Also, knowing how some house rules have been 'forgotten' in the middle of a match, it would be easy to see when your opponent is digging in some dirt when he wasn't supposed to [:D]

[Patrat]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

I would like to mention that in real life the war of movement stopped between Verdun and the Swiss border long before it stopped in the north.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Patrat

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

I would like to mention that in real life the war of movement stopped between Verdun and the Swiss border long before it stopped in the north.

Yes, but there was a war of movement there too for most of August until the French withdrew from Mulhouse on 26/8. They did not dig trenches there in the first week of August.

[MVP7]

Personally I don't see a need for limiting early game entrenchment. The low trench technology at the beginning of the game already makes western front fairly mobile and hexes change owners a lot more than they will in 1915.

Even if the lowest level trenches use trench graphics that doesn't necessarily mean they are proper trenches. Even the early war infantry would prepare some kind of defenses if they were going to defend a position.

[Patrat]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Patrat

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

I would like to mention that in real life the war of movement stopped between Verdun and the Swiss border long before it stopped in the north.

Yes, but there was a war of movement there too for most of August until the French withdrew from Mulhouse on 26/8. They did not dig trenches there in the first week of August.

While it's TRUE that they didn't entrench in the beginning of August. That was only because the French 1st army commander was overruled by Joffe.

"On 8 August, Bonneau cautiously continued the advance and occupied Mulhouse, shortly after the German 58th Infantry Brigade retreated.[13] The First Army commander, General Auguste Dubail, preferred to dig in and wait for mobilisation to finish but Joffre ordered the advance to continue."



[13] Herwig, H. (2009). The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle that Changed the World. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6671-1.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Patrat

While it's TRUE that they didn't entrench in the beginning of August. That was only because the French 1st army commander was overruled by Joffe.

"On 8 August, Bonneau cautiously continued the advance and occupied Mulhouse, shortly after the German 58th Infantry Brigade retreated.[13] The First Army commander, General Auguste Dubail, preferred to dig in and wait for mobilisation to finish but Joffre ordered the advance to continue."



[13] Herwig, H. (2009). The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle that Changed the World. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6671-1.

I have already said that "entrenchment" or "digging in" in towns and cities (occupying strong points etc) may be allowed in house rules using this "no entrenchment" idea in the first 5 or 6 turns of the game. This would seem to cover the Mulhouse situation that you are referring to here.

[Patrat]

I wasn't debating your game idea. I posted the above to point out that not entrenching, was purely a command decision and not something that went against doctrine.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Patrat

I wasn't debating your game idea. I posted the above to point out that not entrenching, was purely a command decision and not something that went against doctrine.

But it did though, didn't it? Generals like Foch and Joffre were all in favour of an attacking strategy. I am sure there were French generals who took a different view. Maybe Bonneau was one of these, but he didn't keep his position as an army commander in that sector for very long. The attacking policy is often referred to as "guerre à outrance" and defensive tactics were widely frowned upon by the French military when the war started.

[Patrat]

You are correct that the prevailing doctrine was one of the offensive and digging in may have been frowned upon, but my post showed that commanders were willing to dig in if they thought it necessary. I don't believe it was part of the prevailing offensive doctrine, to never dig in.

Btw Dubail was the army commander, just like in the game.

[Patrat]

I would also like to point out that 3 weeks into the war the French were everywhere on the defensive. So their offensive doctrine didn't last long.