Page 6 of 6

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:27 am
by hjaco
It could have been interesting with approximately figures of CP casualties from normal combat and this behemoth artillery monster [:D]

Me spoiling fun ? Just trying to entice my old adversary to cajoling into trying this on me with 1.2 [;)]

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:28 am
by hjaco
Ulver - just out of curiosity: What are the max. number of artillery pieces France/Britain can build ?

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:29 pm
by ulver
The nasty evil aggressor Central Powers has sued for an armistice exactly one year ahead of schedule. On the eleven-hour of the eleven-day of the eleventh month of 1917 the Guns falls silent.

Good triumphed and evil was thwarted


Image

Nov/Dec 1917 the offensive that broke the back of Central powers resistance. Important lessens has been learned by the Western allies such as: Russia is worthless so don’t waste time trying to ally with them in the future, mobility is almost irrelevant for victory bet on slow set-piece battles with huge amount of artillery, no need to waste R&D on tanks and innovative doctrines just build huge fortresses with lots and lots of artillery. Yep – can’t fail.

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:21 am
by ess1
Thank you ulver for your AAR. Most entertaining and informative.
Looking forward to your next one [:)]

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:50 am
by Raynald
It gives you air support bonus to your artillery and denies it to him, it gives you a favourable rate of attrition in air combat, and it removes the fog of war for you while clouding him with it: The ability to archive complete strategic surprise in my Italian Attack is an example of this.


Actually, I fully knew the Italian offensive was comming : I had witnessed the heavy multinational buildup (and your main attack came after a smaller first one on Trieste).

The sad truth is that I couldn't help it : the Italian front already had all the troops I could spare elsewhere. At the beginning of the offensive, it was more entrenched and more manned than the whole west front ! What I could have done is to sent most of the remaining German artillery though.

All in all, a great game against a great opponent.

Unfortunatly, strong and cheap artillery against weak and costly trench kill the game for me. We'll see if 1.2 change this.

The super US corps are very weird (everybody know the US div were bigger than others, who ever heard it was such a good idea ???) but I suspect it would have less of an impact in a game where you retain a descent army (ie if 1.2 solve the arty/trench pb).

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:44 am
by wargamer123
I followed this AAR with some keen interest. I do not yet own the game but I have been studying it to see how it plays out. I'm more of a WW2 fanatic than a WW1 fanatic but one cannot deny the intrigueing qualities of this title.

Seems as if the Central Powers had a lot of difficulty. Perhaps some poor luck even, that or unfocused on 1 objective making great confusion, the Entente put on a good show with it's Navy, and deploying all over. I get the deep feeling the Entente never had much of a pain though winning the war, Germany/Austria never drove in the coffin nails and I think Paris in the first 2 years of the war was there only hope. The Great Artillery, Air Power-Naval-technology Power and Political-Strategic Maneuvers were just too much. Seems as though Paris or Bust... For me anyway I could see it no other way, and I do not see it completely accurate with the Amount of Grain caught from Turkey? Was it truly that Rich in Grain? And would any of this level of cooperation ever existed at that time?

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:50 am
by SMK-at-work
There isn't any surplus of grain from Turkey in the game any more - but they do have resources - 3 or 4 per turn - they can be important, but I think they're probably a bit over-rated too.

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 am
by hjaco
They only have enough production to cover their own needs. I have no clue to whether that is historic but they are completely screwed game wise without.

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:32 am
by Heartland
ORIGINAL: ulver
Important lessens has been learned by the Western allies such as: Russia is worthless so don’t waste time trying to ally with them in the future, mobility is almost irrelevant for victory bet on slow set-piece battles with huge amount of artillery, no need to waste R&D on tanks and innovative doctrines just build huge fortresses with lots and lots of artillery. Yep – can’t fail.

[:D]

Thanks for an interesting AAR guys, really enjoyed reading this one!

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:13 pm
by arichbourg
Possibly the most amazing AAR of any game (boardgame or computer game or whatever) I've ever read. What a wild game!

RE: The Churchill plan

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:13 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Raynald
Yes the Entente declared war on Turkey, with no visible effect on anybody. And it was prior the official 1.10, so the Turks had no way to react. Worse, I noticed Turkey was under attack only after the beginning of the Russian offensive and the first British landing(the game didn't warn me and I just didn't look in this area of the map [8|]).

Italy is very close to war.

Bulgaria has just joined the CP.


This seems really odd. Britian got into the War because Germany violated Belgian neutrality..., so the first thing she does is violate Turkish neutrality? With NO political ramifications? The political representation in the game must be very poor.