1918 campaign summary (Central Powers)

[doomtrader]

Just finished my second game.
First one played as Central Powers in 1914, till the middle of 1917 all Entente countries except UK were beaten and surrendered.


This time I have decided to play as Central Powers in 1918, because I've got like only 2 hours.

Seems like the normal difficulty level is a little bit too easy.
Italy and Arabs surrenders (North Italy, down to Rome and Naples conquered)
Greece conquered
Started to regain advantage in the Middle East (One turn needed to retake Jerusalem, Gaza and Aquaba already mine, some fights near to Mosul, but now I can send there 5 infantry units and another 5 garrisons from Greece)
Paris, Nice, Lyon, Dijon taken (together with Verdun, Calais, Rouen), Orlean besieged (should fall in turn or two), Marseille besieged (should fall next turn).
Looks like enemy doesn't have any units to patch the front anymore.


During the whole campaign Entente has got only one possibility to take initiative in western front. In Italy it was slaughter. UK troops in Greece were not reinforcing after 7th or 8th turn.
The only front where I must withdraw my units was Holy Land, but since turn 10 advantage was on my side.

AI has withdrawed from time to time to prevent encirclement, which is good, but usually not the whole front was moving backward, so they were easily loosing even more units.
Once or twice AI put the unit just between four or five of my units. This of course caused this unit to be destroyed, but of course hold my front for that turn. If not this sacrifice Orleans would be already mine, Marseille probably too.


To sum up, artillery barrage (despite that on this scale separate artillery units are very unrealistic) is the key to break the front and run for victory. Be sure to have enough (which means more than enemy) units to patch the front and sacrifce unit from time to time then you can be sure that victory is yours.
Remember that every enemy unit can reinforce only three strength points per turn.

All in all, nice game. I will probably try the harder level.


Below is the situation on western front:

[doomtrader]

My game as Central Powers on hard difficulty level broughts me Significant Victory.
I think that in 1918 scenario it is all what can be achieved. I'm not able to imagine how somebody could defeat UK and defeat all the Entente countries (which includes Portugal and USA).

So to be more specific:
Italy, France, Arabia surrendered.
Greece captured, in the Middle East front line stabilized at Jeruzalem and Aquaba line. Now as all the German, Austrian and Bulgarian forces are released there could be a slaughter.

AI perform more poorly than in my previous game. I was able to surround large forces at the western front (3 and later 7 units). AI has left Verdun and Paris, which in my opinion shouldn't happen.

[FOARP]

The biggest disappointment with this scenario is the way the AI simply abandons the front in Italy except for a few units covering Venice and Milan, without this resulting in a significant reinforcement of the position in France. Blasting straight through the Entente lines in France is too easy if you know when/where to attack. British resources seem to flow overwhelmingly to the Middle East at the expense of their most important front. The Balkan front is far too easy for the Austro-Hungarian-Bulgarian forces to force through - all that's needed is a single artillery unit and a couple of infantry units and you are through, but in reality it was the Central Powers who were weakest on this front. The Middle East is the only front on which the position of the Central Powers is suitably precarious, but the weakness of the British in reinforcing the front in Mesopotamia (a single division making a wide flank attack to cut off the British forces there results in total victory), and the inevitable Central Powers victory in the Balkans, means that sufficient reinforcements are usually available to reach the Palestine front and defeat the British.

Suggestions for improvement:

1) Greece should be on the side of the Entente - not only would this strengthen the Entente position in the Balkans, but it would much better reflect the reality of Greece in 1918.

2) The Entente in the Balkans should be supported by at least one artillery division and an air unit - both were historically significant in the Balkans in real life.

3) The 1919 end-date should be changed to 1922 - as it is there simply isn't enough time to win. This should be implemented for all scenarios as the same is true of all.

4) German/Austro-Hungarian/Bulgarian manpower and morale should be greatly reduced - as it was, the offensives of 1918 were their final effort, failure to capture Paris and significant loses in men should spell the end for Germany within a year of the start-date. Similarly, failure to recapture Jerusalem and/or Baghdad before 1919 and heavy loses should be enough to finish Turkey, failure to capture Venice before 1919 and heavy loses should lead to collapse of the Austro-Hungarians, and significant loses for Bulgaria without the capture of Salonika should spell the end for them.

5) Moar American units waiting for transport to Europe - these take 3 turns to build and ~14 turns to reach the battle-front in France, so cannot change the immediate situation during 1918 unless they are already on-map.

6) A scripted staunch defence of Northern Italy - Italian forces in France should be restricted to 1-2 units.

7) The Caucasus front should still be active - Turkey was still at war with the Armenians , Georgians and others in March 1918 (probably best represented by the Transcaucasian Federation in-game), in fact it was engaged in a broad offensive there right up until October. Similarly, Northern Persia (and perhaps Southern Persia also) should also be part of the war-zone and no longer neutral - historically it was fought over by the British, Russians, and Ottomans up until the end of the war. This would add to the historically over-stretched postion of the Turkish and prevent the kind of grand-scale counter-attack that a player can make seemingly instantly at the moment.

[doomtrader]

I just finished my game as Entente in the 1918 campaign on hard level.

Finished as Marginal Defeat.
I really don't feel to be defeated in this scenario.

In Middle East I have withdrawed my forces from Jerusalem, Aquaba and unfortunatelly Gaza. Iraq has been lost. Fortunatelly two US and one Italian units arrived to patch the front and prepare offensive.
Greece - no changes in the front line, captured just one hex.
North Italy - Just surrounded Trento, and I'm now ready to start offensive on Trieste. Looks like Austria doesn't have nothing more to patch the front.
Western Front - liberated Antwerp and Brussels, need one more turn to take Liege, also looks like German Empire doesn't have anything to patching the front which is now almost completely open north of Verdun.
Four more US infantry units are on their way to Europe. Three brand new artillery pieces are ready to be boarded.

To sum up. There should be possibility to brought US forces earlier into the Europe. On the other hand this would mean that the Central Powers will be defeated earlier.
Transporting units from US takes a way to long. one turn to load, four turns to travel and one turn to unload, then two turns to recover and at least one turn to transport to the front (if using trains). IIRC travel from US to UK took less than three weeks. Marching speed of an infantry unit is about 30km per day (regular not forced).

[Hellfirejet]

Transporting units from US takes a way to long. one turn to load, four turns to travel and one turn to unload, then two turns to recover and at least one turn to transport to the front (if using trains). IIRC travel from US to UK took less than three weeks. Marching speed of an infantry unit is about 30km per day (regular not forced).

If you increase the movement allowance for the convoys,then the convoys should cross the Atlantic much quicker,IE 2 game turns instead of 4 as now,this would also help the problem of Infantry loosing efficiency during the passage from the USA.[;)]

[doomtrader]

I'm pretty sure that allowing the convoys to move further would solve the problem, but honestly I think it would break the game balance. Actually the war has ended not because the Entente went trough the Berlin. It has ended because the Central Powers bleed out and felt apart.

What I'm thinking about is that the every campaign should get it's own Victory conditions.

[FOARP]

The game is designed to allow victory by bleeding the enemy to death through the national morale mechanism. The problem is that this mechanism doesn't seem strong enough - you never see a country surrender before the vast majority of its territory has been occupied.

[doomtrader]

I think that the victories comes to easy.
Two artillery barrages, three infantry units and enemy unit is just memories. At the same time I'm losing three to five strength points. I think that the WW1 was the war where the attacker was loosing more troops than the defender. The use of machine guns was really deadly.

Artillery barrage was important, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't hurt so much really.

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
I think that the victories comes to easy.
Two artillery barrages, three infantry units and enemy unit is just memories. At the same time I'm losing three to five strength points. I think that the WW1 was the war where the attacker was loosing more troops than the defender. The use of machine guns was really deadly.

Artillery barrage was important, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't hurt so much really.

I think you're right. The game is a lot of fun, and trenches overall are well-represented. Artillery just seems a bit too strong, particularly after tech improvements, at removing strength points from enemy forces. If artillery did a little less damage while reducing efficiency, it would feel a bit more "right" to me. That said, the difficulty in producing tremendous amounts of ammunition is a limiting factor.

[doomtrader]

If the unit is well entrenched attackers looses should be enormous.
Usually it is like 3:1, 2:1 2:1, 1:1, which means that the unit can be destroyed in two or three turns.

[FOARP]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
I think that the victories comes to easy.
Two artillery barrages, three infantry units and enemy unit is just memories. At the same time I'm losing three to five strength points. I think that the WW1 was the war where the attacker was loosing more troops than the defender. The use of machine guns was really deadly.

Artillery barrage was important, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't hurt so much really.

I think you're right. The game is a lot of fun, and trenches overall are well-represented. Artillery just seems a bit too strong, particularly after tech improvements, at removing strength points from enemy forces. If artillery did a little less damage while reducing efficiency, it would feel a bit more "right" to me. That said, the difficulty in producing tremendous amounts of ammunition is a limiting factor.

I'd also look at making it more likely that a unit retreats rather than getting totally destroyed - divisions almost never fought to the point where they disintegrated or were no longer effective units. Instead they would normally suffer a maximum of 50% casualties before retreating.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: FOARP

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
I think that the victories comes to easy.
Two artillery barrages, three infantry units and enemy unit is just memories. At the same time I'm losing three to five strength points. I think that the WW1 was the war where the attacker was loosing more troops than the defender. The use of machine guns was really deadly.

Artillery barrage was important, but AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't hurt so much really.

I think you're right. The game is a lot of fun, and trenches overall are well-represented. Artillery just seems a bit too strong, particularly after tech improvements, at removing strength points from enemy forces. If artillery did a little less damage while reducing efficiency, it would feel a bit more "right" to me. That said, the difficulty in producing tremendous amounts of ammunition is a limiting factor.

I'd also look at making it more likely that a unit retreats rather than getting totally destroyed - divisions almost never fought to the point where they disintegrated or were no longer effective units. Instead they would normally suffer a maximum of 50% casualties before retreating.

I agree all units should retreat more,as you say after 50-60% casualties,the AI has the survival instincts of the dodo I fear![:D]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: FOARP

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45



I think you're right. The game is a lot of fun, and trenches overall are well-represented. Artillery just seems a bit too strong, particularly after tech improvements, at removing strength points from enemy forces. If artillery did a little less damage while reducing efficiency, it would feel a bit more "right" to me. That said, the difficulty in producing tremendous amounts of ammunition is a limiting factor.

I'd also look at making it more likely that a unit retreats rather than getting totally destroyed - divisions almost never fought to the point where they disintegrated or were no longer effective units. Instead they would normally suffer a maximum of 50% casualties before retreating.

I agree all units should retreat more,as you say after 50-60% casualties,the AI has the survival instincts of the dodo I fear![:D]

You people forget the abstraction level of the game. Seemingly high casualties work with it. In real life 50% casualties would be catastrophical for a division, and significantly more so for a corps or an army (basic unit level in the game). But in real life you don't operate in a hex-based igo-ugo enviroment. [;)]

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: Keke
You people forget the abstraction level of the game. Seemingly high casualties work with it. In real life 50% casualties would be catastrophical for a division, and significantly more so for a corps or an army (basic unit level in the game). But in real life you don't operate in a hex-based igo-ugo enviroment. [;)]

I assume you have seen this numbers:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/wor ... alties.htm

[doomtrader]

And here is one more:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/FWWcasualties.htm

Especially the summary for each alliance looks interesting.