Matrix Games Forums

What are some opinions of this new scenario?
Thanks.

Really like the scale - was my favorite campaign in SC2 WW1.

Not having an easy time though, I have a difficult time finding the right balance on the front.
Going to restart for the third time to see if I can improve on my opening strategy.

Like the scale a lot.

What I don't like is the sense of being able to shove divisions around anywhere I want, but that's a basic design flaw of the Strategic Command game system. In reality most of the divisions on both sides were paired up into two-division corps which often operated together (if you know the old Avalon Hill 1914 you'll remember that most of the smallest units were corps rather than divisions). If you look closely at the names of the units, you'll notice that two divisions with adjacent numbers are often next to each other: that isn't an accident. The First World War Campaign series designed by Ed Williams and published by JTS Software does a really good job of showing how this kind of thing worked.

My other complaint has to do with the French AI. Because of fighting to get a mod to work I played the opening from the German side several times. Each time I was 'surprised' to see an early and aggressive French response to the German invasion of Belgium. It's not that having Lanrezac charge deep into Belgium is unlikely: it's perfectly in keeping with his character. It's just that it shouldn't be the only possible outcome, given that it isn't what the French actually did. I'd like to have the option to play against a more or less historical defense, and always bumping into French territorial divisions on the road to Antwerp is a bit disturbing. There really ought to be several possible responses with different probalities assigned to each outcome.

Besides being a lot of fun, the March on Paris scenario is nice to have as a point of comparison if any of the later French theater scenarios ever see the light of day. Many of them were in the older incarnation of the game, so there's no reason to think that they won't eventually reappear.

Thanks for the replies. Simulacra53 what side did you play?

I play the German side, as the attacker.

But I agree with Philippe, that the French are aggressive and make it hard to be on the offensive, especially in Belgium after a couple of turns. I guess finding the best opening placement is half of the fun. I also have to be more precise with operational movements and HQ attachments.

I don’t mind the more simplified divisional freedom - versus linked corps.
But I agree that F14 has this covered extremely well, albeit in a more complex game setting.

Although I haven’t cracked it, I am loving it.

Philippe, I agree.

Maybe a way around the early French entry into Belgium is postponing the invasion of Belgium until you are a couple of turns into the game. That way you can prepare your units on the Belgian front, but first draw the French to the German border and keep them occupied.

At least worth a try.

https://www.reseau-canope.fr/academie-d ... r.svg_.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... es.svg.png

Too be honest I like to move straight into Belgium and Luxemburg, even at the detriment of the French front, which is costing me dearly.

Nice maps.

The Germans invaded Luxembourg on August 2 (the first turn of the game) and declared war on Belgium on August 4 (the second German turn of the game).

If you play historically the French intervention will be slightly delayed. Your heavy guns will still be a long way from the border, so you could always delay the start of festivities even more for a couple of turns while you upgrade them and move them up.

I've identified something else that I'd like to see in the game that isn't there. The Germans employed several units of Eisenbahnbautruppen whose sole function was to get captured rail lines back into operation. I don't expect to see these actual units in the game, but I don't expect it to be possible to move troops by rail ('operate' in game terms) through the Ardennes on the same turn that a rail line is captured either. As things stand it is possible to conduct an unrealistic rail blitz through the Ardennes that can put several divisions on the outskirts of Dinant or Namur on about August 6. I haven't looked up exactly what happened with this historically, but I'm pretty sure that at that point the Germans would have been lucky to get their rail lines repaired to the Belgian border of Luxembourg.

While really like the scenario and the much smaller scale, the ai is even more pathetic than in the normal caampaign, completely fails to grasp the size of the map.

You need around a week to take Liege and Namur, and a week more for Brussels and cutting of Antwerp to bring the gun near and take it. During this with one or two cavalry you can rampage in west Belgium, taking empty cities and disrupting suppl,y for the slowly arriving French, stopped only around Ypres on Week three. During this time you can easily march next to Verdun Bombard it with the artillery if you sent it there (no Antwerp in this case, but Verdun done before the end of August) and you can just encircle and take the other forts, after this it is mostly just walking on empty french plains to surround eliminate the remaining and fresh units and reach Paris at the end of September. You probably have no chance to actually take the city, France surrenders by morale before it.

The Entente Side is even worse, the AI will attack you forts like madman and allow you to revenge wipe unit after unit, and if you ever catch the HQ, they are done, in the south you can attack from day one, and in Belgium you can turn the tide at Namur or Brussels at worse, while Liege will hold out for several turns.

This needless AI attacking has been brought up before. Hopefully the developers will find a way to tone the attacking down.

If I gave the AI extra spotting how would that effect the AI's attacking? Would that make it even worse?
Thanks for any opinions.