Top Five of World War I

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: 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(]

How about the basics to start? Is the game any good? Is it playable? Are you having fun playing it?

[SMK-at-work]

Is it any good?  Yes, mostly
Is it playable?  Certainly, most of the time
Am I having fun playing it?  sometimes - but other times not so much.
 
Of course that doesn't really tell you anything at all .......[;)]
 
 

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Is it any good? Yes, mostly
Is it playable? Certainly, most of the time
Am I having fun playing it? sometimes - but other times not so much.

Of course that doesn't really tell you anything at all .......[;)]

Sure it does. Tells me it needs some work. Is there a good back and forth going between programmers and players?

[SMK-at-work]

you mean you didn't realise that it still needs work??
 
There's not a lot of feedback to the players from the designers at the moment - it would be fair to say that many of us are rapidly moving up a steep learning curve for the game.
 
I've only been testing since mid June & there's been 1 new version released since then.

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

you mean you didn't realise that it still needs work??

[:D] I'm an eternal optimist I guess. I was half hoping you'd say something like, "Damn, what they hell do they need us for? Let's get this baby out the door!"

[sol_invictus]

I too was hoping that the game was essentially finished and they just needed to have as many people as possible with differing configurations give it a final shakedown before release. Seems it will be a few more months at least.[:(] Oh well, I just got TOAWIII and that will certainly keep me busy.[:D]

[SMK-at-work]

Me too!
 
Have you checked out the pre-panzer scenarios at
http://travel.to/TOAW[/u][font=arial]?  [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]Most of them involve Eastern Europe - the RJ War, 1st & 2nd Balkan wars, Brusilov & Tannenberg, Lodz, Serbia/Galicia 1914, etc. but there's also the Battle of the Marne and a SCW and Chinese-Japanese one.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]I haven't played any of their scenarios yet, but I've downloaded them all & am looking forward to them.[/font]

[sol_invictus]

Yeah, I've been scanning all of those scenarios for a few months now in anticipation. I have only played Tannenberg a few times as a learning tool so far, but I downloaded the latest patch today and plan to start my first "real" game in the Balkans 12 scenario tommorrow night. I don't think I will ever try any of the Post WWI scenarios; I will save my WWII gaming for Battlefront and Combined Arms.

[FrankHunter]

That's why I want to know whether Germany starts the game at war with Belgium

Just read the thread and wanted to answer this. Germany does not start the game at war with Belgium so you don't have to invade it. There is a mobilization phase prior to the start so that you can deploy your forces anywhere within your borders that you like.

[sol_invictus]

Excellent news Frank! This will really open up the strategic decisions that the Central Powers can make at the start and also increase replayability.[&o]

[ChuckBerger]

On the top five, surely Mustafa Kemal Pasha has to rank highly?

[SMK-at-work]

Certainly an able politician, and an adequate commander, but that's all really - he shone in comparison to most of the other Turkish ierachy, but I dont' think it's so obvious that he was actually brilliant.

[anarchyintheuk]

I placed him in mine for the reasons ChuckBerger listed.

[Syagrius]

General Arthur Currie, commander of the best Allied toops on the Western Front: the Canadian Expeditionary Corps! [&o]

[ph4n]

Noone seems to have mentioned "good old" Erwin Rommel yet. That would be as top five front line cmdrs - fought in France, Italy (important role in defeating Italians at Caporetto), Romania.

EDIT: gosh - is this my first post here!?! [X(]

EDIT2: I guess I let the games shut my mouth... [:D]

[Bossy573]

A book I'm reading now suggests Herbert Plumer as one of the war's great commanders. He was the first Allied general to figure out the weaknesses in Ludendorff's defense-in-depth scheme and was able to devise a highly successful counter to it. The book further suggests that his strategy had the Germans on the ropes in late 1917 and that the autumn rains basically saved the Germans from a calamity a year earlier than it actually occured. Pretty interesting take on a very chess-like back and forth between the Allies and Germans.

[Reg]

Reading between the lines of a couple of books I've read (the latest being The Great War by Les Carlyon), it appears that the allied successes seemed to coincide with the delegation of the conduct major offensives down from Army to Corps level (Currie, Monash etc). These were the men who actually knew where the front line was and could better keep control of the battle. The Army commander was still involved but by 1918 appeared far more inclined to accept advice/requests from the Corps. Rawlinson was mentioned in this context. Anyone noticed something similar??

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

A book I'm reading now suggests Herbert Plumer as one of the war's great commanders. He was the first Allied general to figure out the weaknesses in Ludendorff's defense-in-depth scheme and was able to devise a highly successful counter to it. The book further suggests that his strategy had the Germans on the ropes in late 1917 and that the autumn rains basically saved the Germans from a calamity a year earlier than it actually occured. Pretty interesting take on a very chess-like back and forth between the Allies and Germans.

Les Carlyon also cites Plumer as 'almost certainly the best of the British Army Commanders. Plumer was through and measured in everything he did and he understood the nature of war and the primacy of artillery. He didn't see Cavalry galloping through gaps; he worried about casualties. Haig thought Plumer sound but perhaps lacking the 'real offensive spirit'.

With the successes of Messines to Plumers credit, I wonder what measure Haig was using as his yardstick??

Numerous references indicate that the ANZAC Corps far perferred serving under Plumer rather than Gough.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

General Arthur Currie, commander of the best Allied toops on the Western Front: the Canadian Expeditionary Corps! [&o]

I will agree with this but I would like to expand it to include Monash, the five Australian divisions and the New Zealand division.

These ten dominion divisions and their commanders were all outstanding and became the spearhead of the British army in 1918. I would hesitate to choose between them.

[7th Somersets]

These ten dominion divisions and their commanders were all outstanding and became the spearhead of the British army in 1918. I would hesitate to choose between them.

There were other reasons for this too... neither Canadian nor Australian forces were deployed in front line defensive positions in the way of the major German offensives... both Canadian and ANZAC forces were also kept at far higher manpower levels than British divisions...

While I don't disagree with your assessment that both Currie and Monash were outstanding battlefield commanders it is impossible to find a proper 'like for like' analysis simply by looking at how the troops were deployed in 1918.