War of movement in 1914?

[stockwellpete]

In the game units can entrench straight away. Would it be worth it to delay entrenchment until October 1st 1914 to recreate the "war of movement"?

[Chernobyl]

That might really suck for Austria (against Russia) and Serbia. Whoever has more units in an area would have a giant advantage.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

That might really suck for Austria (against Russia) and Serbia. Whoever has more units in an area would have a giant advantage.

Well, you might need to make a few other adjustments but I don't think it would be too difficult to balance. The first few months of the war were quite distinctive after all. Whether a script could be introduced to allow entrenchment from October 1914 is interesting. Maybe in a simple mod at first?

The more difficult thing would be to re-create the "war of movement" in 1918, with the German use of stormtroopers and new artillery techniques, for example. I am not convinced that additional "Elite" reinforcement points actually do the stormtroopers justice although they are fine for everything else. It is almost as if the Germans should really have an extra level of Infantry Weapons Tech to represent these late war tactical advances.

[1775Cerberus]

I have seen pictures from the 1908 British Army summer maneuvers with troops entrenched. Granted the prados was on the wrong side, the trenches were laser line straight, and the troops were shoulder to shoulder; but they knew how to dig. The Russo-Japanese was features trench systems. The Boers used trenches and prepared fighting positions, while the Lines around Ladysmith would be very familiar to a soldier of the next generation. Go back the American Civil War and look at the ink and pencil sketches of the lines around Richmond in the winter of 64 and 65.

Infantry know how to dig. Its in the manuals. Even the French grudgingly in their manual talk about entrenching on the objective. Even "The Plan" if you go back and look at it, has the IGA forces entrenching between the German fortresses. Thats why the fortresses were well stocked with machineguns and hand grenades that gave the IGA the early advantage in the trench wars of 14-15.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: 1775Cerberus

I have seen pictures from the 1908 British Army summer maneuvers with troops entrenched. Granted the prados was on the wrong side, the trenches were laser line straight, and the troops were shoulder to shoulder; but they knew how to dig. The Russo-Japanese was features trench systems. The Boers used trenches and prepared fighting positions, while the Lines around Ladysmith would be very familiar to a soldier of the next generation. Go back the American Civil War and look at the ink and pencil sketches of the lines around Richmond in the winter of 64 and 65.

Infantry know how to dig. Its in the manuals. Even the French grudgingly in their manual talk about entrenching on the objective. Even "The Plan" if you go back and look at it, has the IGA forces entrenching between the German fortresses. Thats why the fortresses were well stocked with machineguns and hand grenades that gave the IGA the early advantage in the trench wars of 14-15.

Yes, I am not for one moment suggesting that soldiers in WW1 did not know how to dig. However, the fact remains that many historians describe the first few months of WW1 as a "war of movement", or something like that. So my question is - is this worth recreating in the game? My guess is that it would be fairly straightforward to script Trenches to become available from 1st October 1914. Fortresses and Fortified Towns would be unaffected by this change.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Yes, I am not for one moment suggesting that soldiers in WW1 did not know how to dig. However, the fact remains that many historians describe the first few months of WW1 as a "war of movement", or something like that. So my question is - is this worth recreating in the game? My guess is that it would be fairly straightforward to script Trenches to become available from 1st October 1914. Fortresses and Fortified Towns would be unaffected by this change.

No

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

In the game units can entrench straight away. Would it be worth it to delay entrenchment until October 1st 1914 to recreate the "war of movement"?

They do have to have an AP and a strike left to entrench, and then they can only entrench one level, which will be removed by one attack by almost any unit.

To my mind there is plenty of maneuver in the first months of the war. It's pretty well balanced.

[Chernobyl]

It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close.

I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn.

I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close.

I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn.

I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting.

Concur

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close.

I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn.

I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting.

I think it might be an interesting experiment to look at in a mod. Obviously there would need to be some sort of script added to delay entrenchment for the first 4 or 5 turns of the game. Then the mobilisations of one or two the various armies might need a slight adjustment here and there. Serbia could start with a Corps in Belgrade instead of a Detachment, for example, if that was a concern. Maybe the Russian mobilisation is a little bit slower. None of this presents an insurmountable problem and it would add a little bit more character to the opening turns of the campaign.

[Chernobyl]

I agree I don't think it is a totally bad idea it might work with some adjustments. Could potentially be cool in some ways. For example East Prussia tends to bog down in entrenchments early. Perhaps no entrenchments might encourage a Tannenberg-like battle?

I don't imagine it would be balanced as is, but there could be some event which gives the Prussians some advantage (that's what AEGOD To End All Wars does)

Tough time imagining how Serbia would work because they still need to be weaker than the Austrians so you can't strengthen them too much. But I don't think it's impossible.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I agree I don't think it is a totally bad idea it might work with some adjustments. Could potentially be cool in some ways. For example East Prussia tends to bog down in entrenchments early. Perhaps no entrenchments might encourage a Tannenberg-like battle?

I don't imagine it would be balanced as is, but there could be some event which gives the Prussians some advantage (that's what AEGOD To End All Wars does)

Tough time imagining how Serbia would work because they still need to be weaker than the Austrians so you can't strengthen them too much. But I don't think it's impossible.

I am trying this out on Hot Seat at the moment. I am into September and I have not entrenched anything at all. It seems to be OK. Serbia is still holding on to Belgrade; the Russians have taken Lemberg and are pushing the Austro-Hungarians back but there is no major breakthrough yet. The Germans are about where they normally are after 4-5 turns, although Nancy is under greater pressure than usual. As long as the French can continue to rotate units in and out of the city it should hold.

Just one query so far is whether units in towns and cities should be able to entrench in this early period to simulate armies using buildings etc for machine gun posts and field artillery positions. It might make sense to allow this and just not allow entrenchment in other terrain such as fields, forests and marshes etc.

[stockwellpete]

I have finished my experiment where I did not start entrenching until September 26th (when the German advance on the Western Front ended in my game). There really was very little difference on the Western Front or the Serbian front, but the Russians did make bigger inroads than normal in East Prussia and Galicia. So if any adjustment is needed I think I would look there first. Maybe the Russian mobilisation could be slightly slower than it is now. But otherwise I don't see why a general delay in the ability to entrench units at the start of the game would not work. The first date of entrenchment could either be September 19 or September 26. I would be interested in the results if anyone else tries this out in HotSeat.

[Chernobyl]

Did you rail German units to the east?

I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches.

I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Did you rail German units to the east?

Yes, some. But the main aim of my attack was on the Western Front to see if I could get to Paris. I could not.

I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches.

I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to?

I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly.

Well, they held out in my short experimental game. They were only facing the Austrians, no German units went there. It would be interesting for me to see what other players make of it playing HotSeat until September 19 or 26.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Did you rail German units to the east?

Yes, some. But the main aim of my attack was on the Western Front to see if I could get to Paris. I could not.

I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches.

I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to?

I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly.

Well, they held out in my short experimental game. They were only facing the Austrians, no German units went there. It would be interesting for me to see what other players make of it playing HotSeat until September 19 or 26.

He probably means the 2 German corps that can get deployed before the start of the game. I always place them in the east.

I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)]

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)]

OK then. Remember, I am not very good so I would interested to see how a more experienced player gets on with it. I tried to follow a relatively "conservative" historical approach in my first test.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to?

"Starting corps" are the ones you place before turn 1. You get to place down some cavalry and some infantry. I pretty much can't figure out a way to prevent all Russian cavalry incursions unless I place those 2 infantry corps in Poland. I also rail at least one German corps from the west to the Serbian front on turn 1. It's useful in the west but in Serbia it really breaks their back. Best case scenario the Serbians immediately fall back to the river around Nish and I'm not even sure how possible holding that line is even with perfect play on both sides.

I will try out a game where I don't entrench until late September. I have to playtest my mod anyhow.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)]

OK then. Remember, I am not very good so I would interested to see how a more experienced player gets on with it. I tried to follow a relatively "conservative" historical approach in my first test.

Don't put yourself down like that..your a deep thinker and have probably some of the best idea's out there for the rest of us to ponder....[8D]

Also..there's this: (copy of a snippet of a private mail to another forum poster) "Theres actually 2 games here with SC-WW1, Player vs Player and Player vs AI. I can understand how hard it must be for the devs to satisfy both camps and make it work."

So, what I'm saying, in regards to issues we see and like to improve, is that changes both big and small can correct one type of play (Player vs AI for example) but adversely to the other type (PvP).
That means if a variety of people test a 'proposal' from a Player vs AI and PvP pov, you will get better data.

Lastly, I for one, prefer a 'historical' approach to the game, and don't generally like seeing 'gonzo' or exploitative play in PvP. However, I would hate to see too many restrictions on what or what not a player can do with the current model...

[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.