Which game to start with?

[Flinx]

I´m new to this series of games and was wondering with which game I should start.

I like to start with the less complex game and there with the "easier" side. The later, because I think it is more interesting for the second run (if I win with the weaker, it may be dull with the stronger).

Since it is the first of the "new" games I think it should be WWI. The Let´s plays I saw seem to confirm this guess.

So, should it be WWI ? Which side?
Or should I play the Classic games first; are they interesting enough to play?

[Platoonist]

I'd say Strategic Command: War in Europe (WW2) would be your best bet for the least complexity at start. The number of active participants at the start date in 1939 is far less than 1914 where practically all of Europe is in on the hostilities from day one, with more following a few months later. The global game of SC: World at War means dealing with the conflict between Japan and China and managing Britain's colonies like India, Canada and Australia.

[Tanaka]

I´m new to this series of games and was wondering with which game I should start.

I like to start with the less complex game and there with the "easier" side. The later, because I think it is more interesting for the second run (if I win with the weaker, it may be dull with the stronger).

Since it is the first of the "new" games I think it should be WWI. The Let´s plays I saw seem to confirm this guess.

So, should it be WWI ? Which side?
Or should I play the Classic games first; are they interesting enough to play?

Normally I would have said WIE or WW1. But now I would say ACW. The turns take much less time even though the map is the biggest. It starts off very slowly and builds up over time. I really like the pace. WAW takes a very long time!

[Platoonist]

Normally i would have said WIE or WW1. But now I would say ACW. The turns take much less time even though the map is the biggest. It starts off very slowly and builds up over time. I really like the pace. WAW takes a very long time!

A lot of people do tend to gripe about the huge map in the ACW game.. Especially those unfamiliar with US geography.

[Tanaka]

Normally i would have said WIE or WW1. But now I would say ACW. The turns take much less time even though the map is the biggest. It starts off very slowly and builds up over time. I really like the pace. WAW takes a very long time!

A lot of people do tend to gripe about the huge map in the ACW game.. Especially those unfamiliar with US geography.

True a few will always complain. But there really is no reason to complain as the turns here are the fastest. Mexico is only involved if you want them to be. Same with the New Mexico campaign and it is very small. Playing a SCACW PBEM is by far the shortest time commitment of them all. I love it.

[varsovie]

I would.suggest you do not have to begin with one of the main campaign. The smaller ones are quite enjoyable too, they have released recently the 1870 franco-prussian war senario for ACW. I think it would suite you, there is less events/diplomacy/research/naval, so you can focus on the ground combat mechanics, and it is shorter in turn and smaller in scope.

I would play Prussia because it absolutely wrecks the French, and being on the offensive makes you learn more about the importance of supply and HQ and fatigue. Then if you get a major victory, you can crank up the AI (or find a human), switch side or tackle the great war, as you feel.

For main campaign I would recommend the classic WW1 campaign, but that is just personal preferences.

[shri]

Normally i would have said WIE or WW1. But now I would say ACW. The turns take much less time even though the map is the biggest. It starts off very slowly and builds up over time. I really like the pace. WAW takes a very long time!

A lot of people do tend to gripe about the huge map in the ACW game.. Especially those unfamiliar with US geography.

Guilty.

Tried my hand at the game and gave up as i do not understand US geography properly and have no idea (beyond basics) of USCW

[BillRunacre]

To help get a better understanding of the geography, I strongly recommend David Detweiler's The Civil War: The Story of the War with Maps:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219 ... -civil-war

It's beautifully done, has text accompanying all the maps and it's a great way of learning about the strategies involved, while also not taking too long to read.

My own geographical knowledge of the areas fought over before reading it (and playing the game!) was mainly of the East Coast only, but now I feel that I have a decent grasp of the whole area. Give it a go!

[shri]

To help get a better understanding of the geography, I strongly recommend David Detweiler's The Civil War: The Story of the War with Maps:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219 ... -civil-war

It's beautifully done, has text accompanying all the maps and it's a great way of learning about the strategies involved, while also not taking too long to read.

My own geographical knowledge of the areas fought over before reading it (and playing the game!) was mainly of the East Coast only, but now I feel that I have a decent grasp of the whole area. Give it a go!

Thank. I will try to give it a go again.

[shri]

To help get a better understanding of the geography, I strongly recommend David Detweiler's The Civil War: The Story of the War with Maps:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219 ... -civil-war

It's beautifully done, has text accompanying all the maps and it's a great way of learning about the strategies involved, while also not taking too long to read.

My own geographical knowledge of the areas fought over before reading it (and playing the game!) was mainly of the East Coast only, but now I feel that I have a decent grasp of the whole area. Give it a go!

One major aspect which felt overwhelming for me was that long coastline from Norfolk to Texas which is nearly impossible to defend (for an amaetuer like me). I played against the AI at "entry level" (no bonii given) and still found myself troubled as the confederates. OTOH when i tried my hand as the Union, on day 1 i felt i was going to win no matter how much i blunder.
This i never felt playing the WW1/2 games or reading their detailed history, esp. WW1.

[Bo Rearguard]

One major aspect which felt overwhelming for me was that long coastline from Norfolk to Texas which is nearly impossible to defend (for an amaetuer like me). I played against the AI at "entry level" (no bonii given) and still found myself troubled as the confederates. OTOH when i tried my hand as the Union, on day 1 i felt i was going to win no matter how much i blunder.
This i never felt playing the WW1/2 games or reading their detailed history, esp. WW1.

It's frustrating, but at the same time it's so true to history. One of the South's prime stumbling blocks throughout the war was its large and awkward geographic size. The Confederacy was simply too big to defend properly given its much smaller population base relative to the Union. Plus, most of its large rivers acted as highways into its interior. The much superior Union navy meant the Federals landed where they pleased on the coast once they gathered enough strength. All the Rebels could usually do in response was just try to seal off the resulting Federal coastal enclave.

[shri]

Till i saw this game and the terrible geography of the CSA, i had thought maybe the CSA did have some chance to win.

Frankly it is hilarious looking at the map that they help it for 4 years, that too without selling their cotton and without gaining any ally.

[Platoonist]

Till i saw this game and the terrible geography of the CSA, i had thought maybe the CSA did have some chance to win.

Frankly it is hilarious looking at the map that they help it for 4 years, that too without selling their cotton and without gaining any ally.

The South did have an ally of sorts. A whole cadre of pokey, high-ranking Union generals who preferred sitting on their butts for months at a time to advancing and had to be cattle-prodded by Lincoln into any kind of action. Then, when they did move and hit any sort of speed bump they would immediately stop, throw up field fortifications and wire Washington for reinforcements. Unfortunately, that sort of dynamic is hard to simulate in game without a lot of artifical restrictions on movement or initiative.

[Tanaka]

Till i saw this game and the terrible geography of the CSA, i had thought maybe the CSA did have some chance to win.

Frankly it is hilarious looking at the map that they help it for 4 years, that too without selling their cotton and without gaining any ally.

The South did have an ally of sorts. A whole cadre of pokey, high-ranking Union generals who preferred sitting on their butts for months at a time to advancing and had to be cattle-prodded by Lincoln into any kind of action. Then, when they did move and hit any sort of speed bump they would immediately stop, throw up field fortifications and wire Washington for reinforcements. Unfortunately, that sort of dynamic is hard to simulate in game without a lot of artifical restrictions on movement or initiative.

Agreed that was one of the South's biggest strengths until Grant and Sherman and gang came along. Better Generals. That part seems to work out well in the game though. I am finding it much more balanced now since the last patch.

[shri]

Till i saw this game and the terrible geography of the CSA, i had thought maybe the CSA did have some chance to win.

Frankly it is hilarious looking at the map that they help it for 4 years, that too without selling their cotton and without gaining any ally.

The South did have an ally of sorts. A whole cadre of pokey, high-ranking Union generals who preferred sitting on their butts for months at a time to advancing and had to be cattle-prodded by Lincoln into any kind of action. Then, when they did move and hit any sort of speed bump they would immediately stop, throw up field fortifications and wire Washington for reinforcements. Unfortunately, that sort of dynamic is hard to simulate in game without a lot of artificial restrictions on movement or initiative.

LOL.

Yes, Incompetent generals cannot be modded in a game, this is true whether ACW or WW1 or WW2 or any others.

Eg: No player (unless drunk) is going to do a suicidal invasion of East Prussia and let himself get double enveloped twice and surrender several corps (close to 2 full armies) for nothing. Infact i remember a WW1 game called TEAW wherein some players never invaded East Prussia (or any part of Germany) even by Cavalry which led to no trigger of Hindenburg and Max Hoffman events, which in turn led to poor Generals for the Germans and no "one time" decisive victory.

Russians were sending all radio messages in the open, without encryption, this again cannot be modded.

Nor is any player going to be as brain dead as the US civil war generals pre Grant to not realise their strengths and force Abraham Lincoln to become Vampire Hunter.


In most PBEM WW2 games, the invasion of France is not a cakewalk (it is rather tough many times) whereas the USSR crumbles faster than normal. (there is no proper way to simulate Soviet responses)

[BillRunacre]

Russians were sending all radio messages in the open, without encryption, this again cannot be modded.

That isn't quite true - one Russian unit of Samsonov's 2nd Army was sending messages in a code that the recipients didn't have the code book for, so they had no idea what they were being told!

Joking aside, the Germans were also sending messages in the open, they were just luckier that their intercepted messages weren't as crucial as the Russian ones.

[shri]

Russians were sending all radio messages in the open, without encryption, this again cannot be modded.

That isn't quite true - one Russian unit of Samsonov's 2nd Army was sending messages in a code that the recipients didn't have the code book for, so they had no idea what they were being told!

Joking aside, the Germans were also sending messages in the open, they were just luckier that their intercepted messages weren't as crucial as the Russian ones.

I have read Norman Stone (albeit a decade ago) and recently (about a year ago) Prit Buttar's Germany Ascendant (It is only about Eastern Front 1915), both repeatedly write about Russians transmitting commands in the open, again and again even during Gorlice Tarnow and the Great Retreat, the Germans knew where Russians were moving troops and when. This was a major reason why they felt confident to attack where and when they did despite having inferior or equal numbers (in an era where textbooks stated 2:1 or 3:1 superiority)
In some rare cases, the Germans even knew whether High command was releasing reserves or not and size of those Reserves.

P.S.: The Austrians despite all this managed to bungle up any and all advances is a testament to their catastrophic troop quality and command.

[shri]

Unable to post the book here (maybe copy rights issues)

But this is from page 159 of Buttar:
The relative ease with which the Beskidenkorps drove Brusilov’s troops back,
and then beat off the last attempts by the Russians to penetrate into Hungary,
was noteworthy. Regardless of the alleged better fighting quality of German
troops – and by this stage of the war, this high opinion of the German Army
prevailed on all sides on the Eastern Front – it did seem as if the Russian Army
had been gravely weakened by the recent campaigns. Additional intelligence
came in the form of intercepted Russian communications; as August von
Cramon, the German liaison officer in AOK recorded, even coded messages
were relatively easy to decode, and as a consequence, both AOK and OHL
knew about Russian losses and difficulties with ammunition supply

[BillRunacre]

Very interesting. I am yet to read Buttar's 1915 book, but was only recently reading his 1914 one where he discusses how both sides were guilty of transmitting in clear, but only one side is famous for it!

[shri]

Very interesting. I am yet to read Buttar's 1915 book, but was only recently reading his 1914 one where he discusses how both sides were guilty of transmitting in clear, but only one side is famous for it!

After reading Buttar (from Stone itself i was a bit convinced) - Austria needs a malus every turn Conrad is Chief and when Conrad is removed should suffer some strength losses in some brigades but gain some morale a few turns later or something. There should be some kind of mechanism to do this.
Conrad is perhaps the worst Chief of Staff on all sides, though Cadorna & Enver Pasha come very very close. Not counting the Romanians here as they had terrible everything.

Stone had opined in his book that a German Corps could easily hold 2 Russian corps (each of which were much larger in size as often Russian corps had 2 reinforced divisions or even 3 divisions or 2 divisions + 1 Cossack cavalry division) on the defensive and defeat Russians with equal or slightly lesser numbers on the offensive. Buttar reinforces it though he makes no claim on numbers perse. Both deride cavalry as utterly useless unless used as mounted infantry. Both don't have any praise whatsoever for the Austrians, though Buttar suggests in a few pages that the "mass desertions of Slavic divisions" claimed by Austria were not really that big (they did happen but not to extreme extent, in one page he mentions an entire Czech regiment changing sides to the Russians but then again says that was not the case in most times) in 1914 and 1915, it was more of a 1916 thing.