Schlieffen Plan is a bust

[havoc1371]

Does anyone playing someone they consider on the same level as themselves ever succeed at the Schlieffen Plan? Every time I've tried, it always ends up a disaster. But always going East becomes boring. I've only ever played one person who totally trashed me going West and I still don't understand how he managed it. He cut through my Entente forces like it was nothing. I've never seen it duplicated, nor came close myself.

Just ended a game where I tried again, with the same results as every other attempt; lost steam while the attempt gave Russia the leeway to trash the Austrians and allowed the Serbians to survive. Italy entered the war in April 1915, like it always does, so I just resigned the game rather than drag it out.

I don't think I'll ever go West first again as it seems pointless if you want any chance of winning as the CP. Knocking Russia and/or Serbia makes more sense and, at least, has some chance of working.

[havoc1371]

Wow, no comments? So everyone's experience is the same with this?

[HalfTauter]

Haven't played much MP but I think the Schlieffen Plan is not necessarily worse than going East, I just think it requires a lot more accuracy. It's easy to go wrong, but if you do it right you get a lot of benefits, like getting a lot of MPP each turn from Belgium and parts of France, inflicting a lot of hits on the French and British early on and getting free morale from Brussels and so on.

The hard part is how to handle the next part, after the dust settles. You need to timely send troops east to deal with Russia, while defending the front line in the West. I think in 1915 Russia is still easy to beat as the CP, but you need the troops. The one game where I did the Schlieffen Plan I completely failed in this as I needed a lot of troops in the west. Investing in trench warfare (4x chits) is key. If you have good trenches in 1915, you can strip off forces to deal with the Russians.

[Bavre]

Did you do Dazo's version of Schlieffen? And why does Serbia survive?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

About 18+ MP matches as CP (more as Entente)...I always do France First.
Sometimes the Schlieffen Plan works...sometimes not.
Depends on what your opponent does and doesn't do.
Also...it's easy to lose ones nerve as the Russian juggernaut rolls west haha.
With an all out France First though, you gotta tie in an aggressive U-boat and possible IGN foray with the land offensive.
Also, I see no problem trouncing on Serbia with a France First strategy.
Against a peer opponent, it will be difficult to achieve crippling France, but it's possible. Again, other circumstances can possibly force a pivot to the East.
To follow through to wreck the Western Entente, well 1915 is when the CP has to have the steely resolve to stick to it in the West. The Russians will be a problem for sure but France's and possibly the UKs NM could be in the gutter for a long time.
Anyways that's my experiences.

[katanatan]

Hello, it might be that we played but i dont have screenshots of it, so idk.

I tried east first only like 5 times but like 50 games west first. I deploy 1 corps and 2 cav corps in the west, the rest east.
I always send the decision austrian army to the russians and on turn 2 i send one german corps to serbia and later 1 further corps to serbia and 3 corps to galicia/prussia depending on russian assault.
These measures are enough to combat russia toe to toe and inflict punishing losses if russia goes all in in galicia. russia might threaten konigsberg but due to hqs and supply and unit positions of russia germany can react much better there imo.

Serbia will not be steam rolled but the 5 austrian corps, 1 cav corps and the german corps should be enough to ensure capitulation in spring 1915.

NOW the big one. France. I open with either reims or lille on turn 0. I have not decided yet, which is better. But in short, in my view france decides how much it attacks/counter attacks your advance. But since germany has more forces germany can easily counter counter attack and in the end inflict higher losses. In my experience france has an advantage if it doesnt counter attack and just roates the 10 str corps in and out. If france counter attacks germany might be able to break the thin french forces in 1915 even if france has trenches 2. This was a common occurence with taking verdun during snowfall in 1914.

I think that opening west is much stronger than opening east. But it is a bit more difficult. On the other hand if you inflict losses you either defeat france or switch main offensive to poland in 1915. If you open west (and then switch to 50/50) you dont have a ticking timebomb in the west like you do in opening east.

[havoc1371]

Did you do Dazo's version of Schlieffen? And why does Serbia survive?

Never heard of it. Serbia survives because going West leaves insufficient assets for Austria to defeat Serbia and hold off the Russians as well. With Germany focused West, the Russians are free to focus on Galicia and destroying Austrian forces. The advocates of going West that have posted here seem to be playing the AI or someone not their equal in play if they are that successful against France and England. I tend to have a small group of opponents I play against that I know can give me a challenge. I've not been successful going West ever and nothing I've seen here changes the conclusion that it isn't viable as a strategy against a peer player. Someone mentioned an aggressive sub campaign, yet the Entente DD's with no upgrades can easily inflict 2 pts of damage with almost every shot, so subs going out don't come back. I generally keep my Kriegsmarine close to home and focus on the Russian navy till its gone. Then I will mass and develop an opportunity to mass attack the blockade near the Norwegian coast to get a temporary naval superiority and hope the Entente piecemeals ships into the fight as they arrive.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Did you do Dazo's version of Schlieffen? And why does Serbia survive?

Never heard of it. Serbia survives because going West leaves insufficient assets for Austria to defeat Serbia and hold off the Russians as well. With Germany focused West, the Russians are free to focus on Galicia and destroying Austrian forces. The advocates of going West that have posted here seem to be playing the AI or someone not their equal in play if they are that successful against France and England. I tend to have a small group of opponents I play against that I know can give me a challenge. I've not been successful going West ever and nothing I've seen here changes the conclusion that it isn't viable as a strategy against a peer player. Someone mentioned an aggressive sub campaign, yet the Entente DD's with no upgrades can easily inflict 2 pts of damage with almost every shot, so subs going out don't come back. I generally keep my Kriegsmarine close to home and focus on the Russian navy till its gone. Then I will mass and develop an opportunity to mass attack the blockade near the Norwegian coast to get a temporary naval superiority and hope the Entente piecemeals ships into the fight as they arrive.

Dazo's guide (In the War Room sub-forum): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5&t=360035
Check out the thread man..it's good!

The advocates for going West in this thread are all MP players with a lot of experience and are all peer players btw. No one here is talking about doing a France First in SP.
Also..I was the 'someone' that brought up the aggressive sub strategy and a possible sortie of the IGN, or at least elements of it. Time it with bad weather (not going to reveal how or where) and yes that and a maximized attack on France into spring of 1915 can wreck France and cripple the UK at the very least.
No one is saying its going to be easy. A pivot of some kind is usually necessary to counter the Russians. Serbia can be handled also providing Belgrade and Nish are taken to help get the Bulgarians in.
Anyways, my 3 cents for what ever that's worth.

[havoc1371]

Anytime my subs venture out to attack convoy routes or NM hexes, Brit and French DD's eat them alive, scoring 1-2 points with almost every shot even with no anti-sub upgrades. So I learned not to bother until I can build my sub tech up and eliminate the Ru fleet. I've never experienced a game where the Entente blockade made any difference in the outcome to the game anyway, as they are often decided when Russia or Austria collapse and surrender and one side or the other resigns. I've never played a game that lasted long enough for American troops to arrive.

[Bavre]

Did you do Dazo's version of Schlieffen? And why does Serbia survive?

Never heard of it. Serbia survives because going West leaves insufficient assets for Austria to defeat Serbia and hold off the Russians as well. With Germany focused West, the Russians are free to focus on Galicia and destroying Austrian forces. The advocates of going West that have posted here seem to be playing the AI or someone not their equal in play if they are that successful against France and England. I tend to have a small group of opponents I play against that I know can give me a challenge. I've not been successful going West ever and nothing I've seen here changes the conclusion that it isn't viable as a strategy against a peer player. Someone mentioned an aggressive sub campaign, yet the Entente DD's with no upgrades can easily inflict 2 pts of damage with almost every shot, so subs going out don't come back. I generally keep my Kriegsmarine close to home and focus on the Russian navy till its gone. Then I will mass and develop an opportunity to mass attack the blockade near the Norwegian coast to get a temporary naval superiority and hope the Entente piecemeals ships into the fight as they arrive.

I think I see where the problems are:

Check out Dazos guide, OCB linked it above. It is by far the most effective Schlieffen known.

And I'd go so far as to say that killing Serbia asap is mandatory in highend games. Takes 3 corps and a mid tier HQ for a short time and gives the best return of investment of really anything you can do earlygame.
Also before you accuse me of being a noob that gives SP advice, here are my references :
https://www.slitherine.com/tournaments/scores/752

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Did you do Dazo's version of Schlieffen? And why does Serbia survive?

Never heard of it. Serbia survives because going West leaves insufficient assets for Austria to defeat Serbia and hold off the Russians as well. With Germany focused West, the Russians are free to focus on Galicia and destroying Austrian forces. The advocates of going West that have posted here seem to be playing the AI or someone not their equal in play if they are that successful against France and England. I tend to have a small group of opponents I play against that I know can give me a challenge. I've not been successful going West ever and nothing I've seen here changes the conclusion that it isn't viable as a strategy against a peer player. Someone mentioned an aggressive sub campaign, yet the Entente DD's with no upgrades can easily inflict 2 pts of damage with almost every shot, so subs going out don't come back. I generally keep my Kriegsmarine close to home and focus on the Russian navy till its gone. Then I will mass and develop an opportunity to mass attack the blockade near the Norwegian coast to get a temporary naval superiority and hope the Entente piecemeals ships into the fight as they arrive.

I think I see where the problems are:

Check out Dazos guide, OCB linked it above. It is by far the most effective Schlieffen known.

And I'd go so far as to say that killing Serbia asap is mandatory in highend games. Takes 3 corps and a mid tier HQ for a short time and gives the best return of investment of really anything you can do earlygame.
Also before you accuse me of being a noob that gives SP advice, here are my references :
https://www.slitherine.com/tournaments/scores/752

Nope not a noob but a rascal for sure haha!
Yes..taking Serbia is mandatory whether going West or East.
Ah I I miss these tests..The Montenegro Gambit 1 and 2 tests. Fun AARs that was while exposing some shortfalls that the devs fixed.

Montenegro Test 2 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5&t=364019

Montenego Test 1 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5&t=363647

[Bavre]

I prefer the term "creative gameplay". But yeah, it's been fun. I've been busy climbing the WAW ELO ladder for a while now. In case you're interested in the naugthy tricks I learned along the way, just pm me.

[havoc1371]

I prefer the term "creative gameplay". But yeah, it's been fun. I've been busy climbing the WAW ELO ladder for a while now. In case you're interested in the naugthy tricks I learned along the way, just pm me.

Not really interested in "gaming" the system and that may not be what you are referring to here. I prefer to play within what was historically or politically possible at the time (i.e. In WatW, the Allies don't send the entire British fleet to the Pacific to ambush the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor just because they can). That is actually one of the best features of SC WW1; less opportunity for players to game the AI to get unrealistic advantage over their opponent. World at War suffers from "win by any means" players, to a point that I won't play someone who I don't know, or won't agree to house rules to prevent "gamey" play. What is the point of playing a historical game if you're just going to throw history in the trash?

[Bavre]

I prefer the term "creative gameplay". But yeah, it's been fun. I've been busy climbing the WAW ELO ladder for a while now. In case you're interested in the naugthy tricks I learned along the way, just pm me.

Not really interested in "gaming" the system and that may not be what you are referring to here. I prefer to play within what was historically or politically possible at the time (i.e. In WatW, the Allies don't send the entire British fleet to the Pacific to ambush the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor just because they can). That is actually one of the best features of SC WW1; less opportunity for players to game the AI to get unrealistic advantage over their opponent. World at War suffers from "win by any means" players, to a point that I won't play someone who I don't know, or won't agree to house rules to prevent "gamey" play. What is the point of playing a historical game if you're just going to throw history in the trash?

I was replying to OCBs comment about some of our old and memorable matches, sorry should have quoted. I'm afraid our allusions make little sense without the context.

[mdsmall]

"...I prefer to play within what was historically or politically possible at the time.."

This is one of the main reasons why experienced players (like the many who have commented on your post above) like to try their hand at a Schlieffen Plan opening. It was Germany's historical strategy - which came close to succeeding. The interest lies in seeing as a player if you can play the historical opening and achieve a better than historical result. It is certainly harder than going East but that is also why it is worth trying.

If your definition of "a bust" is that Germany can't take Paris by the spring of 1915, then you will always be disappointed. If your criteria is something that will generate economic dividends for Germany early in the game (see Dazo's calculations) and set up the Central Powers for victory sometime in 1917 or 1918, then it is certainly worth trying.

[havoc1371]

"...I prefer to play within what was historically or politically possible at the time.."

This is one of the main reasons why experienced players (like the many who have commented on your post above) like to try their hand at a Schlieffen Plan opening. It was Germany's historical strategy - which came close to succeeding. The interest lies in seeing as a player if you can play the historical opening and achieve a better than historical result. It is certainly harder than going East but that is also why it is worth trying.

If your definition of "a bust" is that Germany can't take Paris by the spring of 1915, then you will always be disappointed. If your criteria is something that will generate economic dividends for Germany early in the game (see Dazo's calculations) and set up the Central Powers for victory sometime in 1917 or 1918, then it is certainly worth trying.

I've yet to be able to break the Entente line and always end up losing on all fronts by 1917 because of the waste of energy and units trying to defeat them in the West. When I go East, I win more than half my games. This game is about attrition. If you inflict more losses than you take, then while they are spending all the mpp replacing and reinforcing units, you are building new ones and investing in research. Going West always has me in the position of replacing and reinforcing. For me, its as simple as that.