Matrix Games Forums

I had to cool off after my first MP game in SC:WWI before posting because I kind of felt „dolchstoßed“ by the game mechanics. Yup, first game, I know, but I do have a lot of experience from SC classic games and SC:ACW game.

So here's my point:

1) I have destroyed around 45 (mostly GB and RUS) naval ships and went with unrestricted naval warfare against brits - I had total dominance on the sea (other player just lost one ship after another) to the point of turning off any sea trade route GB had (Kaiserliche marine had total control over North Sea and eastern part of Atlantic)

Historically, this would kickout GB from war after couple to 6 months probably (I am talking about total destruction of Royal Navy AND control over sea trade routes, not just successful naval warfare by subs while chilling around Helgoland with my german dreads) - it went like that for about a year and ... Entente player (obviously more experienced) knew well it doesn't mean anything. I probably spent about 600-700 mpps on the navy (fixing, rebuying sub, researching tech) that I should spend on land warfare as it didn't help to kickout brit from war - he still reinforced troops in Europe and ME, Commonwealth artillery was already on mainland => only conclusion after that is that naval warfare is just waste of time for Central Powers (I really do not want to discuss AUS-HUN or Turkey navy)

2) After that game I understood why experienced CP players go "Russia first" predominantly (as I read) as:
- I have successfully invaded Belgium in 1914 (whole was under mine control until spring of 1916)
- did hit RUS hard, but not hard enough (captured most of the Poland, but failed to regain Galicia)
- conquered Serbia, but failed to get Montenegro and Albania
- before I GG'ed I managed to keep Romania intact
- failed to stop ITA from getting Trieste and southern Austria in mid 1917'
- got rolled up by massive artillery barrages and assaults on western front starting spring 1916 (I GG'ed around summer 1917 I think);

3) Entente player went with easy idea (my feeling is he did that, forgot to check the tech screen when I resigned):
- go full into trench tech (I did research it too but not hard enough in 1914 and early 1915)
- go full intelligence (I did too)
- save for arty and arty tech at all cost (I couldn't do the same as I attacked on both fronts in early months and in Serbia in 1915, I was repairing my fleet too from time to time)
- later it was just "shoot, follow with mass infantry attack, rinse, repeat" played by him especially on western front

So my questions are as follows:
- why with top trench tech, mass bombarding allows on western front for FRA assaults with scores in attack like 2-loss-5 inflicted-hits against GER corps of (arguably) similar quality?
- What is the point of so extensive naval part of the game addressed as an option for GER if massive (and I mean MASSIVE - that guy was torn apart by me on the Northern Sea) GER victory and capturing sea trades totally for almost a year ends still in me GG'ing because I am getting rolled up by really simple "wait for tech, attach to the best HQ, mass bombard? I have dropped GB NM down to 17,000 NM (so probably about 33,000) but failed to lower RUS NM to required 25% for revolution (managed to do it to the level of about 33%);
- Inbetween 1914-1916 I was all the time tactically superior to my opponent, but he had more experience and just waited for mass-arty kick-in and turtled with trenches in order to survive
- AUS were mostly useless (even against RUS armies) probably facing best russian commanders
- Entente artillery really has a punch in the amount it shows since 1916 onward - it usually stays in high supply in western front and is numerically superior to CP artillery units (as you need some in Serbia or Russia)
- IMO there is something really wrong about the trenches system unification (east-west) in this game and it is an issue I had with SC:WWI game years before - they are overly powerful in the eastern front (eastern front never had as extensive trenches as western front did) so it should never be THAT hard to go against Russian defensive lines, while in the western front, even with massive artillery bombardment, attacker had to have significant numerical advantage to push through the enemy lines - yet I am getting rolled up because enemy has 2-3 artillery pieces more there and with results like 2lost/5inflicted (in the offensive moves of opponent) I am fighting losing war.
- I cannot build more GER artillery pieces because limit, AUS are countering RUS

Is there any point to not go "Russia first" by CP player at this point when playing competent Entente player?

Basically, the Central Powers have to crush Serbia quickly, and then drive either France or Russia to surrender while knocking back the other main Entente land power through periodic strikes to keep them off-balance. You can invest heavily in a naval campaign against the UK, but it is much harder to drive them out of the war completely compared to either France or Russia. So, the naval game should tie up a maximum of their resources, relative to the resources you are expending. This is why the Germans go so heavily into using the submarines, rather than their much smaller surface fleet.

The reason to opt for the historical France first opening is that it is easier to knock back Russia with occasional attacks while you are pushing France to surrender than vice-versa, given the width of the Russian front, their lousy commanders and their relatively low tech levels in 1914. Plus, your Austro-Hungarian ally, if well played, will absorb much of the Russians own offensive efforts.

I would say that against a beginning to intermediate player, a Russia-first opening for the Central Powers offers a higher chance of success. More advanced players often opt for a France-first opening. When I have had tried a Russia-first opening against an advanced Entente player, the French grow to be enormous very quickly and then tear the Germans apart before Lenin shows up for his ride on the sealed train to Petrograd.

You are right that once armies and commanders have acquired some experience points, they can carry out offensives if backed up by artillery at fairly low cost to themselves. The defender can not rely on a passive defence to survive: you have to be prepared to counter-attack, as well as staging diversions on other fronts.

Finally, in your game, did you put your German subs on the British NM hexes? After about 3 turns, that will shut down their west coast ports and will terminate all convoys to the UK until the German subs are driven off those hexes. That usually gives the UK at least a massive temporary hit to their income. It also affects British NM, at a rate of -75 NM points per turn for each zone (North Channel, Irish Sea etc.) that has a German sub or ship on the NM hexes. By itself, that is not sufficient to drive the UK out of the war. But in combination with the destruction of their surface fleet and/or losing Egypt, it might be enough to push their National Morale to zero, if it goes on for a number of turns.

Interesting point of view about FRA first, wish to see some PBEM youtube videos concerning this strategy against good players.

Finally, in your game, did you put your German subs on the British NM hexes? After about 3 turns, that will shut down their west coast ports and will terminate all convoys to the UK until the German subs are driven off those hexes. That usually gives the UK at least a massive temporary hit to their income. It also affects British NM, at a rate of -75 NM points per turn for each zone (North Channel, Irish Sea etc.) that has a German sub or ship on the NM hexes. By itself, that is not sufficient to drive the UK out of the war. But in combination with the destruction of their surface fleet and/or losing Egypt, it might be enough to push their National Morale to zero, if it goes on for a number of turns.

Yes, about 25 GER ships were on NM hexes (subs, dreads, battlecruisers etc.) but OE got beaten up in Middle-East (failed to reinforce it properly, as FRA became, as you have mentioned, really strong, and I had to use OE troops to secure Bulgaria and Southern Serbia).

You might want to watch some of the videos of this match on Old Crow Balthazor's Strategic Arcana YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql3DtVv ... OHqDrBFC87

He and I did a test of the first edition of my Icarus mod for SC WW1. Old Crow as the Central Powers did a classic powerful France-first opening, followed in mid- November with his trade-mark "Warsaw pivot". You can see how he played the Central Powers in his videos of the match.

Honesty requires me to report that I won the game in the end as the Entente. But you can learn a lot by watching how he made his moves. There are at least two other SC WW1 matches posted on his YT channel.

Michael

I've tried France first a number of times and always get stopped. Going East first and taking NM cities in Poland, knocking out Serbia, while holding the line with Austria more often than not ends in victory for the CP. This can be stopped by the Entente sending almost all the Brits to Serbia, and a sizable French force into Italy when it joins. So its important to take the Serbian port city early. If the CP can take those NM's in Poland, the Russians will begin to crumble. Got to watch supply so the German troops driving into Poland and Russia do not get destroyed by low readiness.

For me, East is basically the only winning strategy, especially since the naval war is pointless for the Germans with Entente destroyers with no upgrades inflicting 2 pts per hit on subs! Better to hold the fleet in the Baltic and eliminate the Russian fleet and blockade its ports.