Matrix Games Forums

My last 2 games as CP had the TE player mass for a Vienna attack and both games ended in early 1915 with virtualy the entire Russian army surrounded and destroyed. More troublesome for me are the new 1.30 rules that allow food tranfer to Russia through the North Sea. It was extremely difficult before to play as the CP against the overwhelming economic advantage of the TE....with the new 1.30 transfer rules it seems as if the CP must do an all out France first or die strategy.

It is intended that shipping in the Baltic is also required [;)]

You can send your SUBS on unrestricted subwarfare in the Baltic as well as raiding cruisers. But I guess you have to do this consistently and with all your arsenal to stop it.

If you take Poland and the Baltic states up to and including Riga/Minsk then Russia should fall early 16'. With this new rule perhaps summer 16' at the latest. You could also be aggressive in the Ukraine paying the price to hasten the downfall of Russia.

But this is still theory as I have not tested it with 1.30.

While I agree the Russians can be blunted and stopped the problem is that the price for stopping an aggressive Russia is one that almost certainly puts the CP's on the road to ruin. Russia faces precious little penalty for risking their entire mobilization army as hjaco recommends.

The destruction of all 20 mobilization corps means almost nothing in terms of morale and the cost in OP's for the CP's to knock even a Russia battered by that loss out of the war is still astronomically high.

Frankly the Russians can put the CP's in a bad spot with the all out for Vienna or an all-out for Berlin push because there is really no good counter blow- in game terms- that the CP's can land on the sprawling Russians.

Basic truism, the TE has 3 powers and 2 of them can not effectively be put out of the war in short order.

I don't see the Berlin push as a great danger for a number of reasons.

1) It takes precious turns where France can be crippled.
2) You don't hurt CP production. Food can be acquired elsewhere and is not a consideration the first critical year.
3) Russia needs to secure one flank in this operation taking steam out of the offensive.
4) The only worthwhile target is Berlin itself.
5) German Corps being 33 % stronger than the Russians are extremely more difficult to beat than the Austrian toothpick conuterpart.

So its more difficult to accomplish tiwh a succesful result and if botched leaves Russia with an extremely long front to defend.
Why as Germany bother to take it back? attack through Austria and Romania instead.

But such a strategy should not be underestimated especially when being carried out largely with cavalry forces to gain cheap ground.

If the Russians attack towards Vienna, they either need to take Vienna on impulse 4 of August, or they need to be positioned so that they can attack in overwhelming force on impulse 1 of Sep/Oct. By impulse 2 of Sep/Oct, rail movement will allow the Germans to ship in a stack of infantry and the chances of taking Vienna then are not so good. True, if the Russians dedicate nearly their entire army to this offensive, they may still do a lot of damage, but that allows Germany to withdraw some units from east Prussia as well as takes away the threat to Turkey in the Caucasus.

Also I wouldnt be too quick to discount a Russian offensive against the Germans. If they can reach Berlin, its a knock-out blow of course. But just taking some of those food hexes in Prussia could devastate Germany in the long run.

And of course both of those Russian strategies are very vulnerable to a Russian-first strategy by Germany.

The whole purpose for me to begin this discussion with a havey Russian setup against Austria is my claim that:

A) Austria needs to deploy nearly all of its army towards Russia with at least half of it in the western end of the line.

B) Germany needs to help Austria fast with enough forces taken from France.

C) If its a Russia first then Russia is strong enough to move eastwards with their army as Austria alone is not capable of stopping them. So the price is to give Germany free hands in the north.

Given these preconditions how good are Germanys chances to achieve a lasting result in the west with remaining forces barring a Paris or bust strategy?

NB I am not discounting a Berling first strategy but that I would rather face that Russian strategy [;)]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

I don't see the Berlin push as a great danger for a number of reasons.

1) It takes precious turns where France can be crippled.
2) You don't hurt CP production. Food can be acquired elsewhere and is not a consideration the first critical year.
3) Russia needs to secure one flank in this operation taking steam out of the offensive.
4) The only worthwhile target is Berlin itself.
5) German Corps being 33 % stronger than the Russians are extremely more difficult to beat than the Austrian toothpick conuterpart.

So its more difficult to accomplish tiwh a succesful result and if botched leaves Russia with an extremely long front to defend.
Why as Germany bother to take it back? attack through Austria and Romania instead.

But such a strategy should not be underestimated especially when being carried out largely with cavalry forces to gain cheap ground.

All excellent points IF you care about Russia winning. Since the TE rises or falls as a unit, the fact that the Russians aggressively push forward towards either the vulnerable Vienna or Berlin (5 hexes away vs 4 for Vienna) force the CP to turn resources east and anything that saps the strength of the push west will harshly punish the CP.

Really any Russia forward strategy hinges on the TE is a unit part of the design. Since the Russian generals cared about Russia winning the war and worried about being cut off they didn't push large amounts of troops into far western Poland. In this game, the Russians are really a tool to preserve France since if Germany doesn't knock out France then in the long run they are done for.

I guess the bottom-line is that not everyone is convinced that an all-out attack towards Vienna or Berlin is necessarily a winning strategy for Russia. I certainly am not convinced. Nor do I think it takes the entire Austrian army to stop it, or that the Germans must necessarily divert troops from the attack on France. A lot depends on the CP set-up, and if it is flexible enough to defend against attacks on Berlin or Vienna.

Right as earlier mentioned I would like to test that assumption playing the evil Tsar with such a strategy.

You care to prove me wrong with this preknowledge [;)]

Same offer goes to the rest of you guys to try stop me or be forced to commit heavily against Russia?

Actually, hjaco, I would like to do that.  I've never played MP before so if you have the patience to walk me through the process I'd take a whack at it.  Hot seat or PBEM is fine, though if PBEM is the debacle it was for EiA I won't last long.

I have sent you a mail CG_Gamer [;)]

Is it realistic that early in the war the allies can send resources to each other? Wouldn't it take months of argumentation and organisation to get these things done? I talk especially about Russia. With the Baltic sealed and Constantinople blocked, they needed to find new routes for the Allied supply deliveries. From what I read Russia ordered a lot of weapons and ammo from Britain but got only a small percentage delivered, rather late in the war.

You think it might be best not to allow transfers?

maybe increase the amount of transfers over time just like the production capacities do? 

I think the ability to transfer food, raw materials and industrial production in this game is far FAR too high. I mean, Germany had pretty well developed transportation infrastructure compared to most nations, and they couldnt begin to move the food from the Ukraine back to Germany.

The idea that Britain or the US could keep Russia fed is ridiculous. Could they send some food, maybe 1 or 2 food hexes worth? Perhaps, if they had a naval link through the Baltic or Black Sea. But through the Caucasus? or Murmansk/Vladivostock? Ridiculous. Even in WW2 the allies couldnt move much via Persia or across Siberia, hence the hardships and losses from the Murmansk/Archangel naval runs.

In the game, when playing the CP, I routinely send Turkish and Austrian resources (and industrial production) to Germany, and send food back and forth amongst these nations when one or another is running short. But in historical terms that isnt very realistic. Nor would the nations necessarily have been so generous, as to sacrifice their own armed forces (or food for their people) in such a way. But even if they had, the strain on the transportation would have been MUCH larger. I mean, I can ship a unit of food from Turkey to Germany for the same transportation cost as it takes to transport a corps 4 hexes??

How would I change this in the game? I would make food, resources and industrial production much more expensive to transport (maybe 3 rail points per unit, not 1). And I would lower the maximum food/resource/industrial transport capacity for most nations to a few units worth. The exception being the US and Britain, where their large merchant fleets could be used to transport to each other (and to France and to a lesser extent, Italy). Also I totally agree with Lascar and others who pointed out that its not fair to have this transport capacity not be vulnerable to CP interruption via Uboats/raiders. It should take a major commitment from the TE merchant fleet to transport food/resources/production, and in game, this should mean far less shipping capacity to do other things - invasions, support, trade, etc.

Also I totally agree with Lascar and others who pointed out that its not fair to have this transport capacity not be vulnerable to CP interruption via Uboats/raiders

Just wanted to point out that the new transfers are subject to raiders and subs sinking them.