This is War King 'Nana!
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
You don't get food from trading in the western med [;)]
Hit them where they aren't
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
You should not read what i write but what i mean [:D]
Hit them where they aren't
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
Okay...
Time for a post-mortum.
As the CP player, the first thing that happened was that my initial plan was flawed.
Look at this screen and you see "the plan" shown by the black arrows.
My intent was to capture the city of Lyon, but the way I did it took way too many of my forces too far south.
In retrospect, I should have followed a main thrust more like the one marked in red.
The red route would have kept my main forces in contact with the French, allowing me to engage them, force the French to extend their defensive line and splinter off a force to clean up south of my attack, taking the two food hexes and Lyon.
Ray (alias Lava)
Time for a post-mortum.
As the CP player, the first thing that happened was that my initial plan was flawed.
Look at this screen and you see "the plan" shown by the black arrows.
My intent was to capture the city of Lyon, but the way I did it took way too many of my forces too far south.
In retrospect, I should have followed a main thrust more like the one marked in red.
The red route would have kept my main forces in contact with the French, allowing me to engage them, force the French to extend their defensive line and splinter off a force to clean up south of my attack, taking the two food hexes and Lyon.
Ray (alias Lava)
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
Okay..
Here is a shot from the game which illustrates what I mean:
Notice how much force has gone southward. Way too much! Also note the push I made North (the 13th Corps). A bad move as it does nothing to help stretch out the French and instead pins down my own forces which could have been used in the offensive.
You can see a gaping hole there by Kluck and I should have exploited that immediately, instead I pressed southward towards Lyon.
Operationally, I made a lot of bad moves here because I was too focused on Lyon and not outmaneuvering the French.
Ray (alias Lava)
Here is a shot from the game which illustrates what I mean:
Notice how much force has gone southward. Way too much! Also note the push I made North (the 13th Corps). A bad move as it does nothing to help stretch out the French and instead pins down my own forces which could have been used in the offensive.
You can see a gaping hole there by Kluck and I should have exploited that immediately, instead I pressed southward towards Lyon.
Operationally, I made a lot of bad moves here because I was too focused on Lyon and not outmaneuvering the French.
Ray (alias Lava)
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
And...
Here you see the result of that movement:
By the time I am able to move the majority of my forces up North, the BEF has arrived to stablize the flank. At this point my forces should have been in Orleans with cavalry covering my flank... not the other way around.
Notice Fabeck with a large force is directly south of Paris heading north... [:-]
He should have been with the 27th, moving towards Orleans. Because I failed to stretch out the TE in France and instead allow them to concentrate their defense, I ran into a stone wall... or trenches in this case.
I do have to say in mitigation that I was also testing out the effects of gas in this game. So I wanted to hit big concentrations of TE forces with gas and try to exploit its effect. The gas did seem to be quite good at provoking large drops in proficiency, but because I was attacking directly into a concentrated area, I believe the TE was able to replace mauled corps and hold their line intact.
In effect I was trying a brute force offensive backed by gas. My use of gas at level one was poor, level two was much better as I realized that only one barrage of gas into the defending hex was sufficient to get the effect I wanted and to not expend all the gas on the same impulse.
Nevertheless... it didn't work. I know you need to spreed out the TE as much as possible to make them vulnerable to crushing attacks, but I did not do that in this game, and so, the offensive came to a halt.
Chalk one up to experience.
Ray (alias Lava)
Here you see the result of that movement:
By the time I am able to move the majority of my forces up North, the BEF has arrived to stablize the flank. At this point my forces should have been in Orleans with cavalry covering my flank... not the other way around.
Notice Fabeck with a large force is directly south of Paris heading north... [:-]
He should have been with the 27th, moving towards Orleans. Because I failed to stretch out the TE in France and instead allow them to concentrate their defense, I ran into a stone wall... or trenches in this case.
I do have to say in mitigation that I was also testing out the effects of gas in this game. So I wanted to hit big concentrations of TE forces with gas and try to exploit its effect. The gas did seem to be quite good at provoking large drops in proficiency, but because I was attacking directly into a concentrated area, I believe the TE was able to replace mauled corps and hold their line intact.
In effect I was trying a brute force offensive backed by gas. My use of gas at level one was poor, level two was much better as I realized that only one barrage of gas into the defending hex was sufficient to get the effect I wanted and to not expend all the gas on the same impulse.
Nevertheless... it didn't work. I know you need to spreed out the TE as much as possible to make them vulnerable to crushing attacks, but I did not do that in this game, and so, the offensive came to a halt.
Chalk one up to experience.
Ray (alias Lava)
-
James Ward
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
ORIGINAL: hjaco
You don't get food from trading in the western med [;)]
Unless you get 18 food for 7 transports in the North Atlanitc you get food from the Med.
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
On the Western Front I kept a pretty solid line between your forces and Paris at all times.
Casualties were acceptable in the French Army in my northern force (the guys who got cut off around Dijon had a rough time) - there were a lot of shattered units behind the front but I didn't feel like the front was seriously threatened at any point.
Needless to say all those shattered units were digging trenches, so my defensive line was 2 or 3 hexes deep at all times.
When we reached stalemate after the BEF had stabilised the line, I had three choices on the Western Front really.
a) Drive down from Verdun towards the Swiss border and cut you off
b) Sit tight, conduct attritional warfare with artillery barrages but few attacks
c) recapture the lost ground and drive the Germans back to the border by main force.
a) would have required a major redeployment of my forces, as the BEF alone had the offensive power to accomplish such a move. That would've taken a few turns and likely told you what was going on. Given I figured it would be a high risk, high casualty option, I discarded that.
b) was tempting, but Entente food and raw material supplies at this point were bad indeed. This was about the same time the Uboats were ripping me apart, and French industry was down to 7 or 8 points a turn. So not an option.
In the end I went for c), on the grounds that no redeployment was necessary and only limited gains were required to recapture the resource hexes that I'd lost. Turned out it was a harder slog than I expected, so it was likely the best choice.
On the Eastern Front my initial plan was to secure Poland by taking Danzig and Konigsberg, and soon as that was done, drive SW from Poland towards Vienna. Vienna is only 4 hexes from the border, after all. The securing Poland bit was fine, the drive to Vienna was stopped 2 hexes away. But it proved to be such a serious threat to the CPs that I saw German troops defending around Vienna very early in the game, like Jan 1915 ish. I considered that pretty good going.
Russia had serious HQ issues pretty much throughout the game, but I had no spare industry to deal with them. Their arms reserves were actually pretty adequate, I had some smashed up A corps behind the lines but not very many, and almost all the Russian attacks were conducted with full strength or nearly full strength A corps. I guess that just showed where my industrial priorities were.
The naval war I managed to screw up horrifically. You should have continued the sub offensive as at the time I had no counter to it. I noticed one sub got 2 hits from a French DD, was it that that put you off? In any case two more rounds of that and Britain woulda been toast.
The opportunity soon passed you by though as when I realised the error of my ways I bought ~100 naval assets as Britain and kept them well topped up despite a major transport building program. I went from a low point of 5 British transports to at the end having about 15 as a result (thats kinda why the BEF paused when they reached Metz). Progress would have continued on the western front anyway though IMO as the BEF was mostly entirely fresh, so the lack of an arms stockpile wouldnt have mattered.
Casualties were acceptable in the French Army in my northern force (the guys who got cut off around Dijon had a rough time) - there were a lot of shattered units behind the front but I didn't feel like the front was seriously threatened at any point.
Needless to say all those shattered units were digging trenches, so my defensive line was 2 or 3 hexes deep at all times.
When we reached stalemate after the BEF had stabilised the line, I had three choices on the Western Front really.
a) Drive down from Verdun towards the Swiss border and cut you off
b) Sit tight, conduct attritional warfare with artillery barrages but few attacks
c) recapture the lost ground and drive the Germans back to the border by main force.
a) would have required a major redeployment of my forces, as the BEF alone had the offensive power to accomplish such a move. That would've taken a few turns and likely told you what was going on. Given I figured it would be a high risk, high casualty option, I discarded that.
b) was tempting, but Entente food and raw material supplies at this point were bad indeed. This was about the same time the Uboats were ripping me apart, and French industry was down to 7 or 8 points a turn. So not an option.
In the end I went for c), on the grounds that no redeployment was necessary and only limited gains were required to recapture the resource hexes that I'd lost. Turned out it was a harder slog than I expected, so it was likely the best choice.
On the Eastern Front my initial plan was to secure Poland by taking Danzig and Konigsberg, and soon as that was done, drive SW from Poland towards Vienna. Vienna is only 4 hexes from the border, after all. The securing Poland bit was fine, the drive to Vienna was stopped 2 hexes away. But it proved to be such a serious threat to the CPs that I saw German troops defending around Vienna very early in the game, like Jan 1915 ish. I considered that pretty good going.
Russia had serious HQ issues pretty much throughout the game, but I had no spare industry to deal with them. Their arms reserves were actually pretty adequate, I had some smashed up A corps behind the lines but not very many, and almost all the Russian attacks were conducted with full strength or nearly full strength A corps. I guess that just showed where my industrial priorities were.
The naval war I managed to screw up horrifically. You should have continued the sub offensive as at the time I had no counter to it. I noticed one sub got 2 hits from a French DD, was it that that put you off? In any case two more rounds of that and Britain woulda been toast.
The opportunity soon passed you by though as when I realised the error of my ways I bought ~100 naval assets as Britain and kept them well topped up despite a major transport building program. I went from a low point of 5 British transports to at the end having about 15 as a result (thats kinda why the BEF paused when they reached Metz). Progress would have continued on the western front anyway though IMO as the BEF was mostly entirely fresh, so the lack of an arms stockpile wouldnt have mattered.
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
One issue I had with the BEF, I dunno if you noticed, but the BEF had almost no artillery units until quite late on - and when they did have guns they didnt have much ammo. It was always French guns that were plentiful and well supplied with ammo. Partly due to my industrial priorities (Frogs were staying put so focus was on trenches and barrages, British were advancing so it was mostly arms/HQs and naval assets), but also partly because getting stuff over from Britain was hard work.
One factor for the success of the U boat campaign was that I'd already lost a lot of food by having a lot of transports on troop transport missions to no avail because the sea space always ended up contested. Which might seem a dumb move but as events transpired the BEF was crucial and badly needed so it was probably worth it.
One factor for the success of the U boat campaign was that I'd already lost a lot of food by having a lot of transports on troop transport missions to no avail because the sea space always ended up contested. Which might seem a dumb move but as events transpired the BEF was crucial and badly needed so it was probably worth it.
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
I do find it curious that Lava set so much focus on Lyons, as far as I was concerned the city was always expendable, right from the start. [:D]
-
chaparral66
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:51 pm
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
Thank you guys. VERY informative for a newbie like myself!
Not to worry. I'm sure Rennenkampf is on his way....
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
Nice AAR guys. I got hooked on it and now I am considering buying this game. Is the game as good as your AAR? I just purchased TOAWIII (I'm a longtime TOAW player), so I am struggling with the fact that you can play WWI scenerios with TOAW. so why buy this game?? Hmmm can anyone help with an objective opinion between GoA and TOAWIII?
-
wargamer123
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:05 am
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
try this link, I asked what qualities make this game stand out, it's really a WW1 recreation to the bone. the interface is a little bit tough, but the feel is very accurate and immersive, liking hexagon wargames is a + TOAW I have seen some screenies of it, a little different
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1642895
ORIGINAL: Pax25
Nice AAR guys. I got hooked on it and now I am considering buying this game. Is the game as good as your AAR? I just purchased TOAWIII (I'm a longtime TOAW player), so I am struggling with the fact that you can play WWI scenerios with TOAW. so why buy this game?? Hmmm can anyone help with an objective opinion between GoA and TOAWIII?
-
06 Maestro
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
- Location: Nevada, USA
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
PAX25
One good reason is that you could easily finish a full length game of GOA in about a month of regular playing, where as a full war length scenario in TOAW would take about 5 years-assuming your opponent didn't die of old age or just quite on you.
Although a good TOAW scenario designer can do some very interesting things with the event editor, GOA has the economic engine built for WW1. Tech advances are not scripted-you choose; at a trade off. The armies in GOA are abstracted into corps, but still give a good feel for the erra through the flexibility and ratings of the units. The TO&E and OOB's for TOAW's WW1 games are great and GOA does not really compare here-it is a different system.
So, if you want to lead an alliance through WW1 to test your (multiple) grand strategies for victory, GOA will get you there in very good style at a rate that is about sixty times faster than TOAW.
One other little thing; GOA is a WEGO system. This, I'm afraid, IMHO, leaves TOAW in the dust (for WW1). TOAW 3 is the fourth version of that game I have owned- been playing since '98 (with a two year break which ended a few months ago). I know the system well. For me, If I'm in the mood for WW1 action, the choice is clear; GOA.
The rule book for GOA is a little weak, if you do pick this game up, check this forum for the stickied tips.
One good reason is that you could easily finish a full length game of GOA in about a month of regular playing, where as a full war length scenario in TOAW would take about 5 years-assuming your opponent didn't die of old age or just quite on you.
Although a good TOAW scenario designer can do some very interesting things with the event editor, GOA has the economic engine built for WW1. Tech advances are not scripted-you choose; at a trade off. The armies in GOA are abstracted into corps, but still give a good feel for the erra through the flexibility and ratings of the units. The TO&E and OOB's for TOAW's WW1 games are great and GOA does not really compare here-it is a different system.
So, if you want to lead an alliance through WW1 to test your (multiple) grand strategies for victory, GOA will get you there in very good style at a rate that is about sixty times faster than TOAW.
One other little thing; GOA is a WEGO system. This, I'm afraid, IMHO, leaves TOAW in the dust (for WW1). TOAW 3 is the fourth version of that game I have owned- been playing since '98 (with a two year break which ended a few months ago). I know the system well. For me, If I'm in the mood for WW1 action, the choice is clear; GOA.
The rule book for GOA is a little weak, if you do pick this game up, check this forum for the stickied tips.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
RE: This is War King 'Nana!
Thanks for the info guys.