Matrix Games Forums

Having the OE being DOW'ed and mauled by the Entente on turn one they were down to a meager 8 in morale. Not surprisingly they went down to 0 morale by the strategy phase of turn two but did not surrender despite having 0 morale.

At the third strategy phase a surrender finally was in effect.

Is this intended and how surrender works in general ?

Yes, its intended.  If there's a chance morale could recover a major power can continue on for another turn.  For example, perhaps another country on the other side was surrendering the same turn which would give the major a morale boost.  That sort of thing.

I had never really noticed how vulnerable the Ottomans are on that first turn.  They have a pre-assigned setup like a minor country (no mobilization phase for them being neutral at the time) and no strategic movement.  Perhaps the Ottomans should get some strategic movement on the first turn they're in the war to offset the fact they miss the mobilization setup phase?

Good idea 

See my AAR "For the glory of the Kaiser" for some more detail.

I was really happy to note with the patch that not only was initial deployment more dispersed but you can also use turn one to move OE. Granted without rail movement they won't get far and why should they ? They are not at war and historically not preparing for anything like this.

It's fine enough (although very unlikely historical) that the Entente would coordinate and setup for a war on OE on turn one but i have some points to made:

1) It is "free of charge" politically - no one seems to care about it ?

2) The Brits are technically at state of war at beginning of the scenario although historically violation of Belgium neutrality was the final trigger. Anyway according to my opponent by declaring war on OE which costs nothing this enables Britain to freely deploy units in France on turn one !

3) The turks major problem is the units stuck on the Caucasian border next to Russia. If Russia set up to destroy them they will be mauled in an impulse and the remainder the impulse there after.
The turks lost 137 strength points on turn one with no capability of avoiding it.

My suggestions would be to allow for free deployment of non mobilized forces at set up and to add a severe political cost. Other powers begins with a very limited rail capacity which i think the turks should have also. I mean if the Entente can prepare for war in the middle east why not OE ? This would still enable the Entente to pursue a OE first strategy but hinder them more in the process.

Yes – allowing them some strategic movement on the first turn would be a big help. As it is there is absolutely no Reason why the Entente shouldn’t DoW them on turn one and use some French HQ’s to take out the Middle East.

I would also suggest some stronger reaction with regard to US entry into the war if the Entente attack neutrals.

Conversely perhaps there should actually be a pro-entente US reaction of/when France or Russia surrenders? The US getting worried at the prospect of a united totalitarian militaristic Europe? Would make sense from a play balance viewpoint as well.

Conversely perhaps there should actually be a pro-entente US reaction of/when France or Russia surrenders? The US getting worried at the prospect of a united totalitarian militaristic Europe? Would make sense from a play balance viewpoint as well.

This is not WW2 but super isolationist WW1 so i have to disagree.

But the fact that the Germans were perceived as the nasty aggressors played as big a role as the unrestricted submarine debacle.

The Zimmerman telegram convinced large parts of the US population that Germany was a threat to them and that could only happen if they were perceived as winning. Given the, lets call it erratic, type of diplomacy pursued by Imperial Germany, something like that was almost bound to happen sooner that later: Image the US reaction to learning of the German pre-war plans for an invasion of the US for instance.

I would argue that the US was far more isolationistic in 1939 then in 1914 – there were no neutrality act in 1914 for instance. The difference was that the German conquest of France in 1940 worried them a great deal. The US has a relationship with the French going back to the war of independence. A German conquest of France with the inevitable PR disaster of occupation a la Belgium would –IMO – have advanced the US entry into the war considerably.

On the Other hand it would slow down the Italian entry into the war rather a lot or even make them join the Central Powers.

Realistically it is very hard to conceive of the Italians joining the Entente after Paris falls. The reaction would either be neutrality or them joining the Centrals powers. Since that effectively would mean, “game over” without a very accelerated US entry I think it would make for a more interesting, and more realistic game if the Effect of France falling is either a neutral Italy or even it joining the Central Powers and a really dramatic shift in the US stance toward pro-Entente.

Generally I think the victory score as it reflects the relative success of the sides should have exactly opposite effect on the US and other neutrals – ei the Entente doing badly means non-American neutrals tending more pro-Central Powers while it accelerate the US entry into the war.

About the OE early surrender: the British tried (unsuccessfully) to force their way through the straits with battleships to be able to bombard Constantinople because they thought this action alone would cause a revolt against the monarch and drive the empire out of the war. Same with the Gallipoli campaign. So knocking out OE early and fast isn't that fictional.

True enough, except those actions were after the OE joined the CP.  If the TE DOW's the OE early, there should be some significant diplomatic penalty.  However, the suggestion about France surrendering decreasing US entry into the war may be sufficient deterent.  (Though probably not IMO, but I'm no expert at playing this game.)

I don't disclaim the validity of the fictional possibility of an early fall of OM Boogada. Neither the possibility in game terms where you after all pay a price (see AAR For the Gloy of the Kaiser [:D]).

Historically there is absolutely nothing wrong with Russia massing troops on their century old death enemy the Ottomans.

What i am against is that France and Russia even before Serb incident began to deploy forces against OE in coordination with the Tsar without the Ottomans apparently in no way got some warning about the severity of their situation thereby alerting their military to improve their defensive position.

Remember that Britain technically begins the game as a neutral major power which the German violation of Belgium neutrality triggered to go to war sooner rather than a little later.

I find me self in the odd position of agreeing with the evil mastermind. Much of the problem would be solved by disallowing the turn one entente DoW vs. the Ottomans or making them pay a realistic political price in terms of neutrals reaction. While the plan still could still be carried out logistically the cost of having a vast Russian attack force standing idle watching a neutral Ottoman Empire in the first turn is quite steep since that is arguable to best turn in the entire game to launch an offensive with the Russians

The turn 1 dow of the Entente vs the Ottoman Empire is really a fantasy. The main problem is that the Entente can do it with a Schlieffen plan in Palestine and a Plan XVII in Caucasus i.e. they can do it as if a war with the OE was a major part of the European equation since 1905 and everybody is prepared for it ... except the OE who apparently have no clue about it.

Edit : oops That's what hjaco has written. So ... +1.

I'd welcome that as the CP I think - it'd mean no Russian pressure on AH, and no British Corps in France - vunderbar!!  OE will last at least a few Strategic turns, in which time France will fall and the German army will be free to look elsewhere....