Top Five of World War I

[sol_invictus]

I think the Western Front will be similar to what it was historicly. There is just no room to maneuver and the force density will break the teeth of any offensive. The Germans will probably have a fleeting chance very early on to cripple France, but if that fails, the front will quickly become immobile. The Italian front will probably be the same, but without even a slim chance of a breakout as it is both very restricted and has absolutely horrible terrain. That will leave the East as the only front with much hope at all of any maneuver and decisive result. I am guessing that most TE players will eagerly look toward Turkey as a tempting target, as opposed to bogging down on the Western Front.

I guess the key will be how the National Morale system works because national exhaustion seems to be the only way to knock a country out of the war. I don't think there will be any stunning conquests of maneuver, even in the East. The Research system should also be interesting. Should a nation go heavy into Chemical Warfare or Tanks? Those kind of decisions could possibly have a large influence on how a nation fares.

Finally, the Diplomatic efforts should be interesting. I wonder if it will even be possible for Germany to not drag America into the war, and if so, what are the costs to achieve this. No Unrestricted Submarine strategy at the cost of greater British production? I can't wait to learn more about the game.

[Bossy573]

Hopefully it wont totally preclude some "what ifs." For example, it is easy to see in hindsight that had the Allies been better prepared to exploit the initial successes at Cambrai, the Germans might have been in serious trouble. We all know the shock value of tanks, theeir "correct" use, etc. How will that present knowledge be balanced against "current" circumstances?
Depending on how the game sets up, my first move as the Germans will be to go for broke exactly as Schliffen mapped it out. Be interesting to see how that would play out.

[sol_invictus]

That's why I want to know whether Germany starts the game at war with Belgium and already fully deployed in the West. In that case, I think Germany has little other choice than to at least try to knock France out early. Failing that, Germany could then go on the defense in the West and transfer troops East. Hopefully, there will be some leeway as to the German deployment and Germany doesn't start the game at war with Belgium. That would present the German player with a major decision at the start and really set the stage for the entire game. A lot would also depend on the chances that Britain would remain neutral for many months, absent a German drive in the West. I also wonder if any German success would influence British intervention. I imagine that if Germany goes East and really roughs up the Russians early, Britain will feel compelled to intervene as well. The first turn should really be a tense one.

[Bossy573]

There should be a pure Schleiffen option, an Eastern option, a free set-up option, etc. There should also be an option for Italy to honor its treaty commitments and come in on the Central powers side, perhaps a scenario with its starting point at one of the Moroccan crises, etc. Seems these variables could really open up the strategic possibilities and allow some serious probing into alternative paths.
Easy for me to say I guess...... [;)]

[sol_invictus]

As long as there is a limited free setup, I will be happy.

[Bossy573]

Makes you wish this game had the kind of input and feedback going on with World in Flames. The way that is being handled is just incredible.

[sol_invictus]

Yeah, hopefully we will start to hear some beta feedback to whet our appetites. I figure the beta has been underway for a month now.

[Przemcio231]

Well Okinawa Bloodbath is simply explained... rember it was a small island and even without large nr of troops you could make a defensive line witch could not be flanked by other way then the naval landing...
 
During the Great War there was no flanking manover option in 1916 no more... but what the Brits did at Somme was stupid... Shelling German position's for Day's letting them know where the attack will take place... leaving them enough time to bring up the reinforcment... the only succesfoul breakthrought tactics were designed by the Germans at the end of the War Short but intensive barrge mixed with Gas Attack to disrupt the defenders... The Brits wasted the Golden oportunity as most of the German Army was occupied at Verdun.
 
 

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

reinforcment... the only succesfoul breakthrought tactics were designed by the Germans at the end of the War Short but intensive barrge mixed with Gas Attack to disrupt the defenders...

Not at all. There was the massed tank attack for starters, that sure worked. And the Australians had their own ways, at Mont St Quentin the Aussies drove off a superior German force with neither tanks nor lots of artillery.

[Przemcio231]

sorry i didn't make myslelf clear as i ment the options advible in 1916

[sol_invictus]

I think all sides were shocked when maneuver became impossible on the Western Front. It simply took time for each Army to figure out new offensive methods. Of course, it was a very costly learning curve.

[Jutland13]

some quality for your top 5 can be found in the book VIMY by Pierre Burton. The Canadian contingent of 3 large divisions was kept together under General Curry. This Corp became the elite shock troops on the Western Front. The Germans constantly kept watch on their placement as it was an a general indication for an offensive. The Cdn corps laid out detailed movement plans down to the individual, very coordinated fire plans and detailed maps to the small units. This created a sense of initiative and understanding that was not accomplished by any of the other combatants. The Cdns initiated aggressive raiding patterns and countless other innovations. Read the book, it is an amazing story of a small force very capably led without whose accomplishments could have siginificantly impacted the war on the Western Front.

[sol_invictus]

There is no doubt that the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders served Britain exceptionall well in both World Wars.

[7th Somersets]

the only succesfoul breakthrought tactics were designed by the Germans at the end of the War

The whole point of the March offensive's failure is that there was not a breakthrough. As wilth all previous offensives on the Western front reserves were brought up that were able to contain the offensive without a proper breakthrough being achieved.

The difficulty of tactics in WW1 was not always the achievement of the destruction of the defensive lines - (consider the attacks near Montauban on 1st July 1916) - but the ability to then exploit the break in to the enemy lines by breaking through them.

The success of the Entente was to utilise a series of hammer blows in the 100 days leading up to the end of the war, repeatedly smashing the prepared defences. Even then, so far as I am aware, there was never a complete breakthrough.

[Bossy573]

It would be nice to get a little news as to how the testing is going. Between this and Battlefront, methinks I'll be set for a while.......

[SMK-at-work]

I can tell you that the testing is still happening, but I think if I said anything more than that they'd have to kill me!! [:(][:(][X(]

[sol_invictus]

Come on, make the ultimate sacrifice for the community. We will remember you always.[:'(]

[SMK-at-work]

Hmm......let's see, drop you guys a crumb, get lots of kudos and not be able to play the game any more...or be a good boy and keep playing..........[&:][&:]  Decisions decisions....I'll have to think about this one over a game or 2.........[8D]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

The success of the Entente was to utilise a series of hammer blows in the 100 days leading up to the end of the war, repeatedly smashing the prepared defences. Even then, so far as I am aware, there was never a complete breakthrough.

Depends on how you define a breakthrough, really. At Amiens cavalry and armoured cars penetrated to the German rear and prevented them from rallying, and the tanks ripped a hole in the front about 10 miles (I think?) long. The hole was plugged eventually by the Germans but at great cost.

The whole front didn't collapse if thats what you mean, but still, that sort of mass collapse didn't generally happen in WW2 either.

[vonkohlmann]

Boelke has to be included as one of the great front line commanders. He literally wrote the book on fighter tactics. After leaving the General Staff, Falkenhaym proved an able commander in the East, applying his "let the enemy break itself against us then attack" concept on a smaller level.

The problem was that many potentially great leaders were denied positions because of their prudent defensive beliefs and limited advance tactics while those who were promoted espoused elan, the grand offensive, and always pushing forward with predictably horrendous results.