Matrix Games Forums

I am currently playing The Great War 1914-1918 scenario. I have not discussed posting an AAR with my opponent, so I will leave his name/call sign out of it. I am the Central Powers.

This is not so much of an AAR as a pictorial history of the strategic map. I will be making observations.

Before I offer any criticisms, I want to say that I am very much enjoying the scenario and that the designer did an awesome job of putting it together. So, any critiques are offered as a means to, in some cases, fix errors and other to offer suggested improvements.

First critique, the map:
(a) The map has most of the major escarpments on mountains in the wrong hex (i.e. facing the wrong direction). It is possible to go up the mountain, but you cannot attack or move off the mountain.
(b) Many of the major river hexes also have major escarpments that allow you not to exit the river hex. It would be my suggestion that these river major escarpments be changed to minor escarpments. This would keep them as obstacles, but not barriers.

Next critique, garrisons. There are many garrison formations on the map. These garrison are identified as city garrisons for the most part; however, they are mobile. This means that they can be used as normal combat formation on the front lines. I do not know if this is the designer's intent, but it does not seem appropriate. To me, the garrison formations, if not used to defend the city it is assigned to, would be used to disband to add its forces to the replacement pools. So, I would make all garrison formations "reorganizing" so that it would not be able to be used except for garrison purposes or disbanding to increase the replacement pool.

Supply on the Polish Front. The Central Powers do not appear to have any means to supply their units in a substantive manner after entering Poland except for two hexes: (1) in northern Poland (178,59) where the railroad is connected from Prussia into Poland; and, (2) in southern Poland/Russia (189,93) where the railroad connects to Austria. Obviously, this applies in reverse for Russian operations into Prussia and Austria from Poland. In addition, the railroad issue also exists on the Austrian/Russian Front. So, it would be appropriate for the designer to have a depot appear in the enemy's territory once a particular hex (with rail) is captured that would act as the supply source for any invasion.

Gunboats and river movement. I have been able to run an Austria gunboat unit into Romania (after it entered the war) and run havoc cutting rail lines and switching hex control. I believe that this could be fixed simply by putting small forts at key points on rivers that have to be taken before a gunboat unit would be able to run amok.

The next issue is one that the designer cannot really control. Stacking of international units. My opponent has units from almost all of the Entente in Serbia (Serbs, Brits, French, and Italians). These units are in mix stacks. While the command and control conditions limit their offensive effectives, I am not aware of any limitations on the defensive strength. My only offered solutions is a house rule to prohibit international stacking (the Brits would not serve under French command and vice versa as a general rule).

The final one is with the strategic situation and I am not sure what could be done to address. The German Navy has won a major victory against the British Navy. A significant number of British battleships were sunk with minimal German loss. Yet, we are now at the point in the game where the events indicate that Germans are feeling the effects of the blockade. Even so, the German Navy can move pretty much where it wants. I am pretty sure that the event counter is used for the Russian Revolution; so, I am at a loss on how the blockade could be also tracked based on the number of British battleships available.

I hope to work on redesigning the scenario in the future to deal with these issues. But, it may be years down the road. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy playing Piero's fun scenario. Note, I am having fun, but those that like the grand sweeping campaign's of WW2, may not find the same thrill of making small gains after the initial four months of the war or the numerous turns of relative inactivity that is WW1.

I will follow-up with posts of the strategic map view just so that you can see the course of the war.

8 August 1914 5 September 1914 3 October 1914 31 October 1914 Regards,
Mark

28 November 1914 26 December 1914 23 January 1915 20 February 1915

27 March 1915 1 May 1915 5 June 1915 10 July 1915

2 October 1915 23 October 1915 27 November 1915 1 January 1916

5 February 1916 12 March 1916 16 April 1916 21 May 1916

25 June 1916 30 August 1916 3 September 1916 8 October 1916

Mark Breed wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:09 am The final one is with the strategic situation and I am not sure what could be done to address. The German Navy has won a major victory against the British Navy. A significant number of British battleships were sunk with minimal German loss. Yet, we are now at the point in the game where the events indicate that Germans are feeling the effects of the blockade. Even so, the German Navy can move pretty much where it wants. I am pretty sure that the event counter is used for the Russian Revolution; so, I am at a loss on how the blockade could be also tracked based on the number of British battleships available.

I'd suggest eliminating the naval element from the game entirely since TOAW cannot handle naval and land warfare in the same scenario due to conflicting scale requirements.

If you do want to have the North Sea campaign in the scenario then you could have some mechanism whereby the German player can reach some offmap location by seaborne movement only, and occupying it changes some of the events. In the event that the Germans were able to substantively destroy the Entente fleets and retain significant striking force for themselves, then the war would really have been over for Britain. A German battle squadron operating at leisure in the Western Approaches would put an end to the vital food imports from the Americas. However this is historically speaking more or less an impossibility given the very significant material superiority of the Entente navies and the Royal Navy's policy of fighting firmly on the defensive to prevent precisely this outcome. This takes me back to eliminating this theatre from the scenario entirely.

Note, I am having fun, but those that like the grand sweeping campaign's of WW2, may not find the same thrill of making small gains after the initial four months of the war or the numerous turns of relative inactivity that is WW1.

I recommend American Front 1914 for this as there is always something going on across the huge fronts.

Regarding the naval aspects of the scenario. I agree with you. I had suggested that we ignore it completely.

It appears that the attacker, in an even fight, has a much better chance of winning any naval engagement. My opponent had sailed the British fleet to a position where the German fleet could sail up to a three-hex range and conduct bombardment after bombardment with minimal response. So, all things being equal, it looks like one just needs to wait in port until their opponent makes the mistake of sailing out and being spotted.

As far as scenario redesign, if someone wants a random element to the strategic naval situation, it seems that the best approach would be to put events that have a percentage chance of occurring. For example, "Germany wins the Battle of Jutland", X%, minus Y off of Entente supplies and plus Z to Central Powers supplies.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Breed wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:09 am The next issue is one that the designer cannot really control. Stacking of international units. My opponent has units from almost all of the Entente in Serbia (Serbs, Brits, French, and Italians). These units are in mix stacks. While the command and control conditions limit their offensive effectives, I am not aware of any limitations on the defensive strength. My only offered solutions is a house rule to prohibit international stacking (the Brits would not serve under French command and vice versa as a general rule).

My understanding is this sort of thing essentially did happen by the end of the war, particularly in the confusing situation that was Greece. In fact when the major powers of the Entente decided they needed to support some place like Serbia or Greece it was not uncommon, toward the end of the war, to make expeditionary forces that would be made up of a little bit from a number of different powers.

Maybe for small expeditionary sized formations. However, we are talking armies in Serbia.
13+ French Divisions
12+ British Divisions
20+ Italian Divisions

And, in France, British Divisions are intermixed with French, Belgium, and Portuguese Divisions.

Although, I do have to say that once I pointed that out to my opponent, he has made an effort to segregate them more.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Breed wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 3:04 am Maybe for small expeditionary sized formations. However, we are talking armies in Serbia.
13+ French Divisions
12+ British Divisions
20+ Italian Divisions

And, in France, British Divisions are intermixed with French, Belgium, and Portuguese Divisions.

Although, I do have to say that once I pointed that out to my opponent, he has made an effort to segregate them more.

Regards,
Mark

Well the Portuguese Divisions did serve in the middle of the British Lines - I know that they just break and flee the war at one point and the British are forced to desperately fill the gap the Portuguese leave open in the middle of their lines.

Crazy as it sounds I don't actually think that Serbian Expeditionary Force is completely out of line. Here is the historical force sent to Greece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Army_of_the_Orient

The British and French tried to save Serbia by sending an expeditionary force there it was just too late. If it had arrived it might not be impossible that it would slowly have sucked in more resources.

Mark Breed wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 3:04 am And, in France, British Divisions are intermixed with French, Belgium, and Portuguese Divisions.

Although, I do have to say that once I pointed that out to my opponent, he has made an effort to segregate them more.

I would assume that the co-operation levels on these different formations would make it unattractive to mingle these units. If you have even one unit in a combat which has "no co-operation" with any other unit then the whole combat is resolved at 2/3s strength. i.e. if you attack with two French divisions and add a British division of equal strength, there is actually no increase in your combat strength.

Co-operation between the British and French was quite good at the highest levels, but they maintained totally separate sectors of the front for the entire war and I would suggest "no co-operation" would be appropriate here.

Does cooperation apply to the whole stack or just the units added to the cooperating ones?

For example,
Two French Divisions with attack strength 12;
One British Division with attack strength 12.

Choosing the French Divisions first = 12 + 12 = 24;
then, adding the British Division at 2/3 strength = 8.
Total attack strength is 32.

OR,
Choosing the French Divisions first = 12 + 12 = 24;
then, adding the British Division = 12.
Total attack strength is 36 multiplied by 2/3 = 24.

I have always thought that it was the first method.

Regards,
Mark

Oooh that encirclement in France in October 1914 seems big: how many divisions were lost there.

Russian front seems pretty static, what's going on there?

Here is the situation in France on 11 October 1914.

I successfully encircled the French at Verdun. And, I was working on another encirclement further south.

StuccoFresco wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 2:06 pm Oooh that encirclement in France in October 1914 seems big: how many divisions were lost there.

Russian front seems pretty static, what's going on there?

On the Russian Front, my opponent has chosen a defensive posture. He moved into Austria and conducted limited actions. Meanwhile in Poland, he moved the Russian Army to a defensive line along the Vistula. No major/significant attacks.

Mark Breed wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:30 pm Does cooperation apply to the whole stack or just the units added to the cooperating ones?

For example,
Two French Divisions with attack strength 12;
One British Division with attack strength 12.

Choosing the French Divisions first = 12 + 12 = 24;
then, adding the British Division at 2/3 strength = 8.
Total attack strength is 32.

OR,
Choosing the French Divisions first = 12 + 12 = 24;
then, adding the British Division = 12.
Total attack strength is 36 multiplied by 2/3 = 24.

I have always thought that it was the first method.

Regards,
Mark

It's the whole combat. From the manual:
The scaling is applied to the entire attack or defense regardless of how few or how inconsequential the uncooperative units in the combat are, or whether they are ground-assaulters or ranged-supporter

Mark Breed wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:31 am Here is the situation in France on 11 October 1914.

I successfully encircled the French at Verdun. And, I was working on another encirclement further south.

19141010 = turn 011.jpg

How did that come about? Is your opponent sticking to a very passive defence rather than counterattacking your advances?

golden delicious wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:36 pm
How did that come about? Is your opponent sticking to a very passive defence rather than counterattacking your advances?

Yes, my opponent went on the strategic defensive at the start. He sent the Belgium's south into France. While he did try to hold the Verdun region, he did withdraw the western flank until the British arrived. After the encircle at Verdun, he established his line along the Abbeville-Amiens-Reims-Neufchateu-Gerardmer line.

In 1916, he began concentrating all available British and French artillery on various sectors of the front and just began pounding the crap out of me. He was able to retake Verdun using this tactic.

Now, in 1917, even before initiating an offensive, he is carrying on the same tactics. In one weekly turn alone, he has done more than 50% damage bombarding a half-a-dozen fully entrenched infantry divisions on the front and, now, they are no longer entrenched. I am not sure how to stand up to that occurring every turn. Artillery in this particular situation is too over-powered. And, cooperation values do not seem to have a significant enough effect of reducing its effectiveness.

The other interesting design issue I found is that the Entente gets better shock values than the Central Powers on their offensives. This combined with the more long range artillery units, I believe makes it more likely that the Entente will win. Of course, I haven't gotten to the Russian Civil War to see what impact that it will have.

12 November 1916
17 December 1916