WWI Mindset (Full Version)

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



Message

Sardonic -> WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 7:49:37 PM)

I think WWI was far more complicated than anyone realizes.

Alot of the things that happened were caused by 'wrong' thinking. Stuff that would have worked in 1792, didnt work
in 1914.

But the decision makers were locked into the 'goal oriented' thinking that got them into a war to start with.
But the goals were unattainable with the methods available.

Advancing in line formation. How many videos have you seen of the Commonwealth Troops advancing in the open
in line? But rarely do you see them getting mowed down.

Rolling Barrage? We never see the effects of bad timming on advancing infantry.

I cant imagine the hell of the 11th Isonzo. Where the terrain prevented digging in.

If you read Haig's papers, you soon realize that his troops were just numbers to him.
He was constantly complaining that his 'numbers' were dropping.




boogada -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 8:47:13 PM)

what I think is irritating is that almost all the powers wanted to start (and win) the war by going to the offense right away. the most prominent war plans are Schlieffen and Plan XVII, but thats not all. The Austrians attacked both in Serbia and Galicia, the Russians attacked in Prussia and Galicia and so on. Except for the Belgians nobody thought about a defensive stategy. And all early attacks failed terribly or - those few that didn't - failed to reach their strategic goals. (Both Schlieffen and Plan XVII failed, with the German plan being at least a little sucessful, both Austrian offensives failed, the Russians were beaten in Prussia, their attack into Galicia is one of the few sucessful early offensives, all the Italian campaigns gained only little land etc.. etc..)

It's hard to believe that nobody had realized that modern arms and warfare was giving the defender an enormous advantage over the attacker. That balance got better in WWII though, after researching tanks and planes, both originally developed to break the stalemate after 1914.



jchastain -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 9:12:53 PM)

I think you hit on one of the points that makes it extremely difficult to model any historical conflict into an accurate game - with hindsight players will never make the extraordinary blunders that were committed by their historical counterparts.  I suspect that a significant portion of the difficulty in designing a game is to create a ruleset that incents historically accurate behaviors and approaches without feeling overly heavy handed.



TheBlackhorse -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 9:54:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

...with hindsight players will never make the extraordinary blunders that were committed by their historical counterparts. 


LOL..Speak for yourself.

I've made blunders and have undertaken offfensives that make Verdun and the Somme seem like skirmishes in comparison. By the end of 1914 I've had like 3 million casualties and by the end of 1915 somewhere in the order of magnitude of 9...



axeman109 -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 9:58:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

LOL..Speak for yourself.

I've made blunders and have undertaken offfensives that make Verdun and the Somme seem like skirmishes in comparison. By the end of 1914 I've had like 3 million casualties and by the end of 1915 somewhere in the order of magnitude of 9...


Right, but these really are "numbers" to us.



TheBlackhorse -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 10:04:44 PM)

Indeed they are.

I'm curious, going back to the point made by jchastain, how does one determine something in a war is a blunder and who makes that determination? 



Sardonic -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 10:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Indeed they are.

I'm curious, going back to the point made by jchastain, how does one determine something in a war is a blunder and who makes that determination? 


The people who paid for it.




pat.casey -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 10:29:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Indeed they are.

I'm curious, going back to the point made by jchastain, how does one determine something in a war is a blunder and who makes that determination?


The people who paid for it.




By that definition WW II was a blunder for the western allies as presumably most allied KIA would prefer to be alive, neh? Fundamentally the decision has to be made by society as a whole, rather than by the worst affected individuals.

Otherwise it's rather like asserting that the only way to tell if a tax is just is to ask those who paid it.



jchastain -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 10:32:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Indeed they are.

I'm curious, going back to the point made by jchastain, how does one determine something in a war is a blunder and who makes that determination? 


That determination is made by pundits in the immediate terms and historians in the longer term. It is important to note that both are self appointed to the role and that there is often disagreement between them, fought across generations with armies of position papers and doctoral theses. [;)]

But as an example, how many American players in a game about either World War will assume they won’t get caught up in the conflict and therefore choose to minimize military spending and expansion? None would. And that is why the game mechanics must force them to do so.



TheBlackhorse -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/17/2007 10:46:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
That determination is made by pundits in the immediate terms and historians in the longer term. It is important to note that both are self appointed to the role and that there is often disagreement between them, fought across generations with armies of position papers and doctoral theses. [;)]


That is an excellent point. Even historians are affected by certain biases and as such the truth is indeed often hard to discern. A good example of this is the whole "Donkeys" leading lions argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
But as an example, how many American players in a game about either World War will assume they won’t get caught up in the conflict and therefore choose to minimize military spending and expansion? None would. And that is why the game mechanics must force them to do so.
I suppose the mere fact that they are playing a simulation of WWI or WWII isn't enough of a clue to them? [:)] But you're point is well taken. Given no constraints, the US player will most likely go ona massive ahistorical building spree.





SMK-at-work -> RE: WWI Mindset (9/18/2007 12:30:14 AM)

the USA didn't minimise military spending in WW2 tho...the Arsenal of Democracy speach occured in December 1940...fully a year before Pearl Harbour.

It took a great deal of time to expand industry - US industry started "delivering" in late 42 and 43 because the expansion was started in 1940 and increased in 1941 - for example see http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=73&category=locations - the story about an aircraft plant at Willow Run.

It was the result of Roosevelt's call to arms in 1940...the first ground was turned in Feb 41, but it took until October 1942 for it to complete it's first aircraft.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875