Uncommon Valour for WW1

[Fred98]

WW2 was big on both strategy and tactics.

But WW1 was more strategy than tactics.

WW1 was almost a huge logistics exercise while infantry died in the mud.

If this game were designed as “Uncommon Valour set in Europe WW1” then I would be very happy.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

Actually WW1 was as much about the development of tactics, if not more so, than WW2. All the new technology - machine guns, long range artillery, tanks, aircraft, submarines, etc. - required development of new tactics to make good use of. In WW2 those tactics continued to be refined as the weaponry evolved.

The stereotypical image of a stalemated, stuck in the mud Western Front often obscures the realities of the war. IMHO, most gamers are more interested in WW2 partly because of the perception that WW1 was largely a stalemate: a static attrition exercise. This wasn't at all true, even on the Western front. In 1914 and again in 1918 there were dynamic battles and large scale manuevers in France and Belgium. And the other fronts, the East in particular, were never stalemates (at least for very long). After all, the Germans in 1917 managed to do what Napoleon and later Hitler's vaunted panzers were never able to do, defeat Russia.

I don't think the UV / WitP model can be compared to a strategic WW1 game. Not just an apples to oranges comparison; more like bananas to watermellons due to the very different nature of the warfare being simulated. And the styles of the respective developers, Gary Grigsby and Frank Hunter, are also very different, given the games they have previously made.

Have you ever played Frank's American Civil War game (aka Road from Sumter to Appomatox)? It might give a better idea of the 'flavour' of GoA.

[wodin]

Well said Sir Rodney.

Its a shame that the consensus of opinion on WW1 is so wrong. Most people are brought up to believe the lions led by donkeys etc etc. I have just recently learnt so much about WW1 which it seems nobody really knows.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: SirRodneyOfGout

Have you ever played Frank's American Civil War game (aka Road from Sumter to Appomatox)? It might give a better idea of the 'flavour' of GoA.

No I have not. Perhaps you could describe it. I still have no idea of the flavour of GoA

[wodin]

Some early posts on this forum should give you a good idea on the game.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: SirRodneyOfGout

In 1914 and again in 1918 there were dynamic battles and large scale manuevers in France and Belgium.

Yes I know that. But you left out 1915, 1916 and 1917

ORIGINAL: SirRodneyOfGout

I don't think the UV / WitP model can be compared to a strategic WW1 game.

Not so much the game engine as the philosophy. The philosophy is to get large amounts of supplies to the front so you can win a battle at the pointy end.

[SMK-at-work]

Even in 1915-17 on hte Western front there was room for tactical innovation - the stereotype is represented by the Somme, Passchendale and Verdun, but they were NOT the be-all and end-all of battles in France and Belgium.

And even within such debacles as the Somme there were still individual unit actions that made use of ground, cover, firepower and manouvre.

And if you still don't like the scene then there's always Palestine, German East Afrika and Russia.

BTW I do disagree that Germany forced Russia from the war - Russia, in the form of the Bolsheviks, pretty much simply decided that the war agaisnt Germany was not a priority, and paid whatever price they had to to get out of it. It was atemporary measure - expedient for that time, and there's no doubt they would have attempted to regain everythign they had as soon as they'd secured their hold on Russia if Germany had managed to keep it somehow.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98


Not so much the game engine as the philosophy. The philosophy is to get large amounts of supplies to the front so you can win a battle at the pointy end.

Then my guess is that you'd enjoy playing ACW. Resources, production and supply all play an important role in that game too. Getting a well-equipped, well-fed, well-trained and well-led army to its objective is at the heart of play in ACW.

Basically land units (brigades) are raised from control of cities and states. They are armed based on production output and are organised into divisions, corps and armies, each level with its own leadership. They are ordered to march to objectives. Battle results are displayed in the form of casualty reports. Leadership plays a critical role in determining outcomes, as does experience, arms, supply and morale.

Probably the greatest difference for the UV / WitP player is in the political context of the game. Both players have to keep an eye on how their decisions and the outcomes will impact the domestic political front (the 1864 election) and the international scene (the remote possibility of foreign intervention).

All in all ACW does a nice job of modelling the Civil War while providing a fun game. Its on this basis that I look forward to GoA.

As for the stalemate in the west 1915 to 1917 - as a comparison the Western Front in WW2 was much quieter from 1941 through 1943. I've never heard any gamers complain [:)] Seriously though, the potential for a return to a war of manuever existed during those years.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work


BTW I do disagree that Germany forced Russia from the war - Russia, in the form of the Bolsheviks, pretty much simply decided that the war agaisnt Germany was not a priority, and paid whatever price they had to to get out of it. It was atemporary measure - expedient for that time, and there's no doubt they would have attempted to regain everythign they had as soon as they'd secured their hold on Russia if Germany had managed to keep it somehow.

I was waiting for someone to call me out on this [:D] The political situation in Russia was far less stable than during Napoleonic times, or during the Stalinist era. But the fall of the tsarist government and the subsequent rise of the Bolsheviks both resulted in large part from the Russian failures, and German successes, during the war.

[Fred98]

I am not interested in a game where you have to "gather resources".

The logistics in getting the resources to the front is a different matter - and interesting in its own right.

Does anybody have a link to an ACW website?

[SirRodneyOfGout]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

I am not interested in a game where you have to "gather resources".

The logistics in getting the resources to the front is a different matter - and interesting in its own right.

Does anybody have a link to an ACW website?

Just to qualify "gather resources" - ACW is more like WitP than UV in this aspect. The Confederates have limited production capability, but can sell cotton offshore to the French and English in exchange for armament. So there is also a naval component, with the Union increasingly blockading and the Confederate attempting to break through.

In your original post you mentioned that WW1 was "almost a huge logistics exercise". I took it by this that you meant production: generating the vast quantities of shells and weapons. This is modelled to some extent in ACW, and I'm sure is in GoA. But the specific logistics chain I think youre referring to isn't extensively modelled in ACW. There are no specific units representing it. Supply status is determined primarily by proximity to source (eg. rail lines, ports, etc.), and there is no quantification of available ammunition.

Frank Hunter used to have his own site, and ACW was available as a free download. And the original concept of GoA was outlined there. But the site no longer exists, and I don't know if there is any other site dedicated to ACW. Anyone else know?

[Fred98]

No, not production. Just the getting of the stuff up to the front.

[FrankHunter]

If I may, ACW had a production system which you used to arm brigades produced by the recruiting system. Supply was based on depots. The quote "Getting a well-equipped, well-fed, well-trained and well-led army to its objective is at the heart of play in ACW." describes both that game and even moreso, Danube. Guns of August is more abstract in the sense that you are not involved with getting supplies to the front. Your HQs are where "offensive supply" is stored and from where it is spent. The troops at the front are simply in supply or they're not. As you move and fight though their readiness falls so there are limits as to what you can expect from them in a turn even with all the "offensive supply" they may need.

So in that sense, GOA is quite different from ACW and Danube.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
...Does anybody have a link to an ACW website?

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=3363

[Mike Carroll]

The absolute best WWI Grand Strategy Game I have played to date is the Tactical Art of War: Century of Warfare Edition. There is a WWI scenario by Piero Fiero that covers the entire war in Europe, Mid-East and Colonia Africa. It is a massive scenario, division scale, weekly turns, and 15km hexes. There is another WWI scenario by Roger McBride that looks great as well, but I have not played it.

Both scenario's can be found here: http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/

To get the game TOAW COW you can go to Naval Simulations or Take 2.

Of course the only weakness here is that the naval game is not very well done, but it is the best "wargame" type wargame.

[roth]

I take it that both scenarios are intended for PBEM or play against another human opponent rather than against an AI. Is this correct?

Thanks,
MR

[Mike Carroll]

Yes both scenarios are PBEM. Believe me that is what you want to do anyway. Very complex games and not for the faint of heart. My initial CP turns took a minimum of 6 hours to complete all the moves etc.

There are thousands of units to manuever. And weekly turns so there is real planning that has to take place.

[Skyros]

THis is a better site and has a lot of extra information on the game.

http://www.thurb.com/games/acw/intro.htm

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
...Does anybody have a link to an ACW website?

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=3363

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well said Sir Rodney.

Its a shame that the consensus of opinion on WW1 is so wrong. Most people are brought up to believe the lions led by donkeys etc etc. I have just recently learnt so much about WW1 which it seems nobody really knows.

Just to add support to Sir Rodney,

There is a book out called 'Battle Tactics Of The Western Front' by Paddy Griffith which shows that WWI was fought very differently from the popular public conception (...except for a few bad days!)

Also, I own an original copy of the US Army Infantry Manual for Noncommisioned Officers and Privates, copyright 1917, War Department Document #574. Now, I was an infantryman myself some 20 odd years ago, and what I found striking about the manual was - that except for the sections on weapon care (we of course used M16s not M1903s) the tactics and ideas were quite modern at that level. Not a whole lot changed about patrolling, movement to contact, etc.

Most small unit tactics that were used in WWII (indeed, somewhat today as well) were developed, proven and used in WWI.