RE: Top Five of World War I (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918



Message

Bossy573 -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/12/2006 3:13:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I can tell you that the testing is still happening, but I think if I said anything more than that they'd have to kill me!! [:(][:(][X(]


How about the basics to start? Is the game any good? Is it playable? Are you having fun playing it?



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/12/2006 4:35:41 AM)

Is it any good?  Yes, mostly
Is it playable?  Certainly, most of the time
Am I having fun playing it?  sometimes - but other times not so much.

Of course that doesn't really tell you anything at all .......[;)]




Bossy573 -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/12/2006 2:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Is it any good? Yes, mostly
Is it playable? Certainly, most of the time
Am I having fun playing it? sometimes - but other times not so much.

Of course that doesn't really tell you anything at all .......[;)]




Sure it does. Tells me it needs some work. Is there a good back and forth going between programmers and players?



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/13/2006 2:15:04 AM)

you mean you didn't realise that it still needs work?? :)

There's not a lot of feedback to the players from the designers at the moment - it would be fair to say that many of us are rapidly moving up a steep learning curve for the game.

I've only been testing since mid June & there's been 1 new version released since then.



Bossy573 -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/13/2006 2:58:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

you mean you didn't realise that it still needs work?? :)



[:D] I'm an eternal optimist I guess. I was half hoping you'd say something like, "Damn, what they hell do they need us for? Let's get this baby out the door!"



sol_invictus -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/13/2006 6:31:38 AM)

I too was hoping that the game was essentially finished and they just needed to have as many people as possible with differing configurations give it a final shakedown before release. Seems it will be a few more months at least.[:(] Oh well, I just got TOAWIII and that will certainly keep me busy.[:D]



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/17/2006 3:57:07 AM)

Me too! :)

Have you checked out the pre-panzer scenarios at
http://travel.to/TOAW?  
 
Most of them involve Eastern Europe - the RJ War, 1st & 2nd Balkan wars, Brusilov & Tannenberg, Lodz, Serbia/Galicia 1914, etc. but there's also the Battle of the Marne and a SCW and Chinese-Japanese one.
 
I haven't played any of their scenarios yet, but I've downloaded them all & am looking forward to them.



sol_invictus -> RE: Top Five of World War I (7/17/2006 7:36:29 AM)

Yeah, I've been scanning all of those scenarios for a few months now in anticipation. I have only played Tannenberg a few times as a learning tool so far, but I downloaded the latest patch today and plan to start my first "real" game in the Balkans 12 scenario tommorrow night. I don't think I will ever try any of the Post WWI scenarios; I will save my WWII gaming for Battlefront and Combined Arms.



FrankHunter -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/11/2006 7:49:00 PM)

quote:

That's why I want to know whether Germany starts the game at war with Belgium


Just read the thread and wanted to answer this. Germany does not start the game at war with Belgium so you don't have to invade it. There is a mobilization phase prior to the start so that you can deploy your forces anywhere within your borders that you like.






sol_invictus -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/12/2006 2:14:59 AM)

Excellent news Frank! This will really open up the strategic decisions that the Central Powers can make at the start and also increase replayability.[&o]



ChuckBerger -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/14/2006 12:11:53 PM)

On the top five, surely Mustafa Kemal Pasha has to rank highly?



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/15/2006 4:01:10 AM)

Certainly an able politician, and an adequate commander, but that's all really - he shone in comparison to most of the other Turkish ierachy, but I dont' think it's so obvious that he was actually brilliant.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/15/2006 9:57:45 PM)

I placed him in mine for the reasons ChuckBerger listed.



Syagrius -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/17/2006 7:45:27 PM)

General Arthur Currie, commander of the best Allied toops on the Western Front: the Canadian Expeditionary Corps! [&o]



ph4n -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/25/2006 1:48:52 PM)

Noone seems to have mentioned "good old" Erwin Rommel yet. That would be as top five front line cmdrs - fought in France, Italy (important role in defeating Italians at Caporetto), Romania.

EDIT: gosh - is this my first post here!?! [X(]

EDIT2: I guess I let the games shut my mouth... [:D]



Bossy573 -> RE: Top Five of World War I (8/25/2006 7:37:15 PM)

A book I'm reading now suggests Herbert Plumer as one of the war's great commanders. He was the first Allied general to figure out the weaknesses in Ludendorff's defense-in-depth scheme and was able to devise a highly successful counter to it. The book further suggests that his strategy had the Germans on the ropes in late 1917 and that the autumn rains basically saved the Germans from a calamity a year earlier than it actually occured. Pretty interesting take on a very chess-like back and forth between the Allies and Germans.



Reg -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/21/2007 6:56:43 AM)

Reading between the lines of a couple of books I've read (the latest being The Great War by Les Carlyon), it appears that the allied successes seemed to coincide with the delegation of the conduct major offensives down from Army to Corps level (Currie, Monash etc). These were the men who actually knew where the front line was and could better keep control of the battle. The Army commander was still involved but by 1918 appeared far more inclined to accept advice/requests from the Corps. Rawlinson was mentioned in this context. Anyone noticed something similar??



Reg -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/21/2007 7:15:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

A book I'm reading now suggests Herbert Plumer as one of the war's great commanders. He was the first Allied general to figure out the weaknesses in Ludendorff's defense-in-depth scheme and was able to devise a highly successful counter to it. The book further suggests that his strategy had the Germans on the ropes in late 1917 and that the autumn rains basically saved the Germans from a calamity a year earlier than it actually occured. Pretty interesting take on a very chess-like back and forth between the Allies and Germans.


Les Carlyon also cites Plumer as 'almost certainly the best of the British Army Commanders. Plumer was through and measured in everything he did and he understood the nature of war and the primacy of artillery. He didn't see Cavalry galloping through gaps; he worried about casualties. Haig thought Plumer sound but perhaps lacking the 'real offensive spirit'.

With the successes of Messines to Plumers credit, I wonder what measure Haig was using as his yardstick??

Numerous references indicate that the ANZAC Corps far perferred serving under Plumer rather than Gough.



Reg -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/21/2007 7:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

General Arthur Currie, commander of the best Allied toops on the Western Front: the Canadian Expeditionary Corps! [&o]


I will agree with this but I would like to expand it to include Monash, the five Australian divisions and the New Zealand division.

These ten dominion divisions and their commanders were all outstanding and became the spearhead of the British army in 1918. I would hesitate to choose between them.



7th Somersets -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/21/2007 1:26:59 PM)

quote:

These ten dominion divisions and their commanders were all outstanding and became the spearhead of the British army in 1918. I would hesitate to choose between them.


There were other reasons for this too... neither Canadian nor Australian forces were deployed in front line defensive positions in the way of the major German offensives... both Canadian and ANZAC forces were also kept at far higher manpower levels than British divisions...

While I don't disagree with your assessment that both Currie and Monash were outstanding battlefield commanders it is impossible to find a proper 'like for like' analysis simply by looking at how the troops were deployed in 1918.




Sardonic -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/22/2007 6:12:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

quote:

That's why I want to know whether Germany starts the game at war with Belgium


Just read the thread and wanted to answer this. Germany does not start the game at war with Belgium so you don't have to invade it. There is a mobilization phase prior to the start so that you can deploy your forces anywhere within your borders that you like.






So we can implement the Von Wandersee plan?
Yes, I have played '1914', many times. I lived.




SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/23/2007 12:05:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

General Arthur Currie, commander of the best Allied toops on the Western Front: the Canadian Expeditionary Corps! [&o]


I will agree with this but I would like to expand it to include Monash, the five Australian divisions and the New Zealand division.

These ten dominion divisions and their commanders were all outstanding and became the spearhead of the British army in 1918. I would hesitate to choose between them.


Actually AFAIK the ANZAC divisions at least did the "normal" share of duty in the front lines as any other "Empire" division did.

However it would be fair to say that New Zealand at least had a smaller % of total available manpower in that division than the UK had in all it's front line troops - I've no idea about the Aussies or the Canucks. so for New Zealand we did not exhaust our manpower like the UK had, hence our division was kept up to strength.

The New Zealand division was in line at the Somme for 23 days IIRC - and took more casualties (killed and wounded, seperately and combined) in those 3 weeks than it did in 9 months in Gallipoli!



TriumphRider -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/24/2007 3:22:16 AM)

German: Rupprecht, I believe is underrated but also Von Hutier

British: Allenby

I also think it is really hard to judge the effectiveness of these generals simply because of the volume of forces and the vastness of their operations in regards to their extremely lacking and primitive communication technology. I doubt there could have been a way to make the Great War a clean war. It was fought on a scale far greater than the ability every fighting nation had to communicate on those scales. I think this is the toughest war in history to judge generalship simply because generalship on such a scale with so horrible inadequate communications is almost impossible as we all know. Delegation only helps a little, and being on-site at a battle doesn't really do much either when thousands of men are involved and they are hundreds or thousands of yards apart



7th Somersets -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/24/2007 10:24:31 AM)

quote:

I think this is the toughest war in history to judge generalship simply because generalship on such a scale with so horrible inadequate communications is almost impossible as we all know. Delegation only helps a little, and being on-site at a battle doesn't really do much either when thousands of men are involved and they are hundreds or thousands of yards apart


I completely agree. It is further complicated by bigger issues like tactical doctrines that cannot clearly be traced to officers within the war, or developed by officers who did not command the troops implementing them - eg the German emphasis on local initiative and immediate counterattacks that would often occur without any general's approval.



spence -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/31/2007 6:24:31 AM)

What about Sir Herbert Plumer, British 2nd Army commander in 1917, whose troops retook Messines Ridge near Ypres in a pretty decently planned and executed limited attack (defensive casualties significantly exceeded offensive ones; a real oddity in WWI).



7th Somersets -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/31/2007 10:03:00 AM)

quote:

defensive casualties significantly exceeded offensive ones; a real oddity in WWI


It was not that uncommon at the end of WW1. Huge tactical advances on all sides meant that usually the assault troops or those involved in combat operations in the early stages of fighting, came out of it better than the defenders.

It was usually during the follow up phases that the heavy casualties occurred.

If the Passchendaelle 'offensive' had have been stopped after the first few days it would have been considered a resounding success (as a bite and hold attack). Dare I mention Cambrai, Arras, The German March Offensive...



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/31/2007 11:28:04 AM)

I disagree that WW1 was a difficult war to discern good generalship.

IMO good generalship becomes very obvious - good generals were those who actually took acount of hte conditions and realised that they were fighting seige warfare on a grand scale.

There are numerous example - the British division(s?) at the Somme who (IIRC) went over the top before the end of hte bombardment and took their objectives with almost no casualties.  Brusilov.  Hindenberg & Ludendorf at Tannenberg.  Allenby.  Ataturk - you can probably name many more.

There were also commanders who tried and thought htey had it sussed, but didn't quite get it - eg whoever came up with the planfor the British infantry to walk forwards on day 1 of hte Somme - the basis of hte plan was fair enough - if hte Germans had all been killed then it would have been fine - but they weren't, and it wasn't.  And whoever planned Passchendale without thinking about the effects of the soil, groundwater and weather - again the plan was sound and might well have worked elsewhere - but Passchendale wasn't elsewhere[:-]



7th Somersets -> RE: Top Five of World War I (1/31/2007 1:03:56 PM)

SMK,

I agree to some extent - but my point above was that it is hard to seperate ability and opportunity in the context of the war in many cases.

Consider what Allenby achieved in 1917 in Palestine... a superb feat militarily - but only made possible by the assiduous work of others before him in getting proper supply lines open. Was it his victory? - undoubtably - but (in my view unarguably) he would have had no possibility of such a resounding victory and would probably have been forced to sit in the middle east with very little acclaim at all if the ground work had not been prepared for him by others. (The commander who started this was the relatively little known General Murray).

There were good generals - as you point out the commander of the 9th Scottish Division deployed his men into no-mans-land on the 1st day of the Somme offensive. But when looking at offensive operations combined with artillery - by August, the British Artillery were able to fire creeping barrages (not widely available on or before 1st July) - an essential tool to maintaining an advance of any depth. Creeping barrages, of course only becoming available through improvements in shell production/fuzes/gun callibration and shell batching. Many subsequent successes were entirely dependent on close infantry/artillery co-operation using these 'new' methods.

A good general of course is one who makes the most of the opportunities that they are given. What would Guderian have done in WW1 had the German High Command not made the monumental error in rejecting tanks??

Regards.



TriumphRider -> RE: Top Five of World War I (2/3/2007 2:03:10 AM)

I don't know that the German's rejecting the tank was a war losing decision, by the time the tank became something of a regularity on the battlefield, the Germans had already sealed their fate. Besides, mechanized warfare was hardly what it would become, armored cars, tanks and other mechanized vehicles besides aircraft were all especially far too slow, unreliable and too few to create the kind of mechanization and movement that occured in 1939. True mobile/mechanized warfare was an impossibility in World War One: communications were far too inadequate, the vehicles simply did not exist in the numbers to make them usefull, nor as I said were they reliable or fast enough.

Look at the constant examples of major blunders on world war one battlefields caused by indecision because of a lack of real time intelligence/communication. The Germans at 2nd Ypres is a perfect example, had real-time long distance communication been adequate, the Germans may have been able to realize the damage their gas attack had done. Instead the Germans NEVER intended to break through but were merely experimenting and seeing what effects the gas would have. Had their infantry been able to report back in-time as to what had happened, everything may have been different.

I think the German's had their chance to win the war in 1916 and they didn't. Between 1915-16 the tank wasn't an issue and the German's failed to exploit the opportunities given them in those two years. They also failed on an enormous scale to manage their resources and their allies effectively.

Despite the fact that many new technologies were introduced during world war one, NONE of them (with the exception of aircraft) were ever used to such effectiveness or on such a scale to have made them war winning tools. Gas, Tanks, Flamethrowers all worked very well initially, but none were in themselves enough to win anybody the war.

I think the only technology that would have given one side a gigantic war winning advantage would have been radio that allowed vocal transmission. And of course nobody was able to develop it in time..



SMK-at-work -> RE: Top Five of World War I (2/8/2007 1:19:12 AM)

Except of course NONE of those technologies were introduced during WW1 - gas has been used befoer int the form of asphyxiating smoke, "tanks" can be seen in armoured war wagons mounting artillery and handguns in the middle ages, flamethrowers were in use by the Byzantines and Chinese pre-1000AD (and were adopted by hte German army in 1911 well before teh war).....[;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625