War of movement in 1914?

War of movement in 1914? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I

Message

stockwellpete -> War of movement in 1914? (1/5/2021 8:21:39 AM)
In the game units can entrench straight away. Would it be worth it to delay entrenchment until October 1st 1914 to recreate the "war of movement"?

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/5/2021 10:08:47 PM)
That might really suck for Austria (against Russia) and Serbia. Whoever has more units in an area would have a giant advantage.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/5/2021 11:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl That might really suck for Austria (against Russia) and Serbia. Whoever has more units in an area would have a giant advantage. Well, you might need to make a few other adjustments but I don't think it would be too difficult to balance. The first few months of the war were quite distinctive after all. Whether a script could be introduced to allow entrenchment from October 1914 is interesting. Maybe in a simple mod at first? The more difficult thing would be to re-create the "war of movement" in 1918, with the German use of stormtroopers and new artillery techniques, for example. I am not convinced that additional "Elite" reinforcement points actually do the stormtroopers justice although they are fine for everything else. It is almost as if the Germans should really have an extra level of Infantry Weapons Tech to represent these late war tactical advances.

1775Cerberus -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/6/2021 12:52:05 PM)
I have seen pictures from the 1908 British Army summer maneuvers with troops entrenched. Granted the prados was on the wrong side, the trenches were laser line straight, and the troops were shoulder to shoulder; but they knew how to dig. The Russo-Japanese was features trench systems. The Boers used trenches and prepared fighting positions, while the Lines around Ladysmith would be very familiar to a soldier of the next generation. Go back the American Civil War and look at the ink and pencil sketches of the lines around Richmond in the winter of 64 and 65. Infantry know how to dig. Its in the manuals. Even the French grudgingly in their manual talk about entrenching on the objective. Even "The Plan" if you go back and look at it, has the IGA forces entrenching between the German fortresses. Thats why the fortresses were well stocked with machineguns and hand grenades that gave the IGA the early advantage in the trench wars of 14-15.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/6/2021 1:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1775Cerberus I have seen pictures from the 1908 British Army summer maneuvers with troops entrenched. Granted the prados was on the wrong side, the trenches were laser line straight, and the troops were shoulder to shoulder; but they knew how to dig. The Russo-Japanese was features trench systems. The Boers used trenches and prepared fighting positions, while the Lines around Ladysmith would be very familiar to a soldier of the next generation. Go back the American Civil War and look at the ink and pencil sketches of the lines around Richmond in the winter of 64 and 65. Infantry know how to dig. Its in the manuals. Even the French grudgingly in their manual talk about entrenching on the objective. Even "The Plan" if you go back and look at it, has the IGA forces entrenching between the German fortresses. Thats why the fortresses were well stocked with machineguns and hand grenades that gave the IGA the early advantage in the trench wars of 14-15. Yes, I am not for one moment suggesting that soldiers in WW1 did not know how to dig. However, the fact remains that many historians describe the first few months of WW1 as a "war of movement", or something like that. So my question is - is this worth recreating in the game? My guess is that it would be fairly straightforward to script Trenches to become available from 1st October 1914. Fortresses and Fortified Towns would be unaffected by this change.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/6/2021 6:11:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete Yes, I am not for one moment suggesting that soldiers in WW1 did not know how to dig. However, the fact remains that many historians describe the first few months of WW1 as a "war of movement", or something like that. So my question is - is this worth recreating in the game? My guess is that it would be fairly straightforward to script Trenches to become available from 1st October 1914. Fortresses and Fortified Towns would be unaffected by this change. No

The Land -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/6/2021 6:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete In the game units can entrench straight away. Would it be worth it to delay entrenchment until October 1st 1914 to recreate the "war of movement"? They do have to have an AP and a strike left to entrench, and then they can only entrench one level, which will be removed by one attack by almost any unit. To my mind there is plenty of maneuver in the first months of the war. It's pretty well balanced.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/7/2021 4:23:51 AM)
It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close. I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn. I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/7/2021 4:45:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close. I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn. I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting. Concur

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/7/2021 6:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl It's just very difficult to generalize and say level 0 entrenchment would make sense and be balanced everywhere in August 1914. It might make sense in Belgium, might even make some sense in Galacia/Poland/East Prussia, but not Serbia and I think it would dangerously weaken cities like Nancy. I don't think it would necessarily lead to slugfest battles on all fronts; it might lead to distancing in some cases where both sides await the other to step one hex too close. I don't see Austria holding anything in Galacia for very long. Stanislaw would probably fall prematurely which I believe causes some hunger NM hit. Premysyl would fall even faster than historically most likely. I don't think this is all that ahistorical but 1) part of the reason the Austrians fell apart in Galacia so historically is because they actually ATTACKED in force into Poland at the start of the war and lost a huge portion of their forces and 2) I feel like that front would be less fun and too predictable. Right now with entrenchment there's a chance of holding onto Lemberg for a while. Or a Russian with great skill can take it quickly. But with no starting entrenchment, the Austrians would just inevitably abandon the city and flee to the mountains, only making a stand once trench warfare level 1 is researched. Doesn't seem fun to me. Counterattacking is extremely risky when you need to retreat every turn. I think the worst case of all might be Serbia though. They really need the entrenchment to stand any chance at all. When both sides take more casualties, Austria defeats Serbia easily. Not to mention Serbia hardly has any spare MPP for trench warfare research. Other majors typically dump 4 chits into trench warfare immediately and 200 spare MPPs for Serbia simply doesn't exist especially if your armies can't entrench and produce a lull in the fighting. I think it might be an interesting experiment to look at in a mod. Obviously there would need to be some sort of script added to delay entrenchment for the first 4 or 5 turns of the game. Then the mobilisations of one or two the various armies might need a slight adjustment here and there. Serbia could start with a Corps in Belgrade instead of a Detachment, for example, if that was a concern. Maybe the Russian mobilisation is a little bit slower. None of this presents an insurmountable problem and it would add a little bit more character to the opening turns of the campaign.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/7/2021 3:58:54 PM)
I agree I don't think it is a totally bad idea it might work with some adjustments. Could potentially be cool in some ways. For example East Prussia tends to bog down in entrenchments early. Perhaps no entrenchments might encourage a Tannenberg-like battle? I don't imagine it would be balanced as is, but there could be some event which gives the Prussians some advantage (that's what AEGOD To End All Wars does) Tough time imagining how Serbia would work because they still need to be weaker than the Austrians so you can't strengthen them too much. But I don't think it's impossible.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/10/2021 10:32:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl I agree I don't think it is a totally bad idea it might work with some adjustments. Could potentially be cool in some ways. For example East Prussia tends to bog down in entrenchments early. Perhaps no entrenchments might encourage a Tannenberg-like battle? I don't imagine it would be balanced as is, but there could be some event which gives the Prussians some advantage (that's what AEGOD To End All Wars does) Tough time imagining how Serbia would work because they still need to be weaker than the Austrians so you can't strengthen them too much. But I don't think it's impossible. I am trying this out on Hot Seat at the moment. I am into September and I have not entrenched anything at all. It seems to be OK. Serbia is still holding on to Belgrade; the Russians have taken Lemberg and are pushing the Austro-Hungarians back but there is no major breakthrough yet. The Germans are about where they normally are after 4-5 turns, although Nancy is under greater pressure than usual. As long as the French can continue to rotate units in and out of the city it should hold. Just one query so far is whether units in towns and cities should be able to entrench in this early period to simulate armies using buildings etc for machine gun posts and field artillery positions. It might make sense to allow this and just not allow entrenchment in other terrain such as fields, forests and marshes etc.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 9:19:06 AM)
I have finished my experiment where I did not start entrenching until September 26th (when the German advance on the Western Front ended in my game). There really was very little difference on the Western Front or the Serbian front, but the Russians did make bigger inroads than normal in East Prussia and Galicia. So if any adjustment is needed I think I would look there first. Maybe the Russian mobilisation could be slightly slower than it is now. But otherwise I don't see why a general delay in the ability to entrench units at the start of the game would not work. The first date of entrenchment could either be September 19 or September 26. I would be interested in the results if anyone else tries this out in HotSeat.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 7:41:26 PM)
Did you rail German units to the east? I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches. I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 8:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Did you rail German units to the east? Yes, some. But the main aim of my attack was on the Western Front to see if I could get to Paris. I could not. quote: I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches. I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to? quote: I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly. Well, they held out in my short experimental game. They were only facing the Austrians, no German units went there. It would be interesting for me to see what other players make of it playing HotSeat until September 19 or 26.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 8:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Did you rail German units to the east? Yes, some. But the main aim of my attack was on the Western Front to see if I could get to Paris. I could not. quote: I generally send a steady stream of German units to the east to deal with Russian cavalry and boost serbia with 1-2 german corps. I also place my starting two corps in the east. If you're doing fine against France with ALL of those units in the west then well okay, sure Germany can be fine against the high number of Entente reinforcements. But with my strategy in late 1914 usually I'm barely hanging on to my hexes as Germany even with entrenchment vs French counterattacks, until I get entrenchment tech level 1 for 2 levels of trenches. I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to? quote: I have a difficult time believing Serbia could withstand much of anything without trenches. Usually the trenches are the only thing giving them a fighting chance. Remember the key is to ignore Belgrade and immediately damage their precious corps. They don't have the MPP or the time to stand and defend properly. Well, they held out in my short experimental game. They were only facing the Austrians, no German units went there. It would be interesting for me to see what other players make of it playing HotSeat until September 19 or 26. He probably means the 2 German corps that can get deployed before the start of the game. I always place them in the east. I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)]

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 8:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)] OK then. Remember, I am not very good so I would interested to see how a more experienced player gets on with it. I tried to follow a relatively "conservative" historical approach in my first test.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 9:48:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor I don't understand. What does "boost Serbia with 1-2 German Corps" mean? Which "starting two corps" are you referring to? "Starting corps" are the ones you place before turn 1. You get to place down some cavalry and some infantry. I pretty much can't figure out a way to prevent all Russian cavalry incursions unless I place those 2 infantry corps in Poland. I also rail at least one German corps from the west to the Serbian front on turn 1. It's useful in the west but in Serbia it really breaks their back. Best case scenario the Serbians immediately fall back to the river around Nish and I'm not even sure how possible holding that line is even with perfect play on both sides. I will try out a game where I don't entrench until late September. I have to playtest my mod anyhow.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/12/2021 9:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor I'm going to try this no trench thing out in a hot seat test later this week...but I am almost certain the Russians will have the Tartar Gates before the mud, Lemberg will be easy, and I may even to be able to breach the Carpathian passes to the west. Also...I have no idea how Serbia can hold at all. Thats the point of the test though, isn't it. [;)] OK then. Remember, I am not very good so I would interested to see how a more experienced player gets on with it. I tried to follow a relatively "conservative" historical approach in my first test. Don't put yourself down like that..your a deep thinker and have probably some of the best idea's out there for the rest of us to ponder....[8D] Also..there's this: (copy of a snippet of a private mail to another forum poster) "Theres actually 2 games here with SC-WW1, Player vs Player and Player vs AI. I can understand how hard it must be for the devs to satisfy both camps and make it work." So, what I'm saying, in regards to issues we see and like to improve, is that changes both big and small can correct one type of play (Player vs AI for example) but adversely to the other type (PvP). That means if a variety of people test a 'proposal' from a Player vs AI and PvP pov, you will get better data. Lastly, I for one, prefer a 'historical' approach to the game, and don't generally like seeing 'gonzo' or exploitative play in PvP. However, I would hate to see too many restrictions on what or what not a player can do with the current model...

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 4:02:46 AM)
Well I played against myself in Serbia in hotseat with no entrenchment until the end of Sept. It was actually kind of the same result as normal because the Serbians were running away most turns. By the end of October Montenegro is about to die, Nish has fallen and the Serbians are entrenched near Uskub in the mountains just trying to delay the inevitable. That's actually pretty close to what happens with entrenchment. Serbs have lost 2 detachments 3 corps and a HQ and the Austrians lost 1 corps. This is with one German corps and one German detachment in the area. Basically as Serbia - whether there's entrenchment or not - you can last into 1915 simply by retreating early into the mountains around Uskub. Not sure if this is a "win" or not. It certainly is far better than surrendering in 1914. Delaying Bulgaria's entry and connection to the Ottomans is a big deal. But as far as holding on to any chance of lasting well into 1915, preserving any income, well you won't have any.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 5:58:23 AM)
That's interesting to hear. I'm assuming the AH 2nd Army is down there then. That's a good roll of Serbia within that timeframe. Kind of solves the Bulgarian Gambit deal also if done this quickly. I always have to wait on Serbia because I always put the 2nd Army in Galicia to try to hold back the Russians, which works well, but then Serbia gets really difficult in 1915. I may have to rethink my strategy now. (trenches or no trenches [:D])

Patrat -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 4:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl Well I played against myself in Serbia in hotseat with no entrenchment until the end of Sept. It was actually kind of the same result as normal because the Serbians were running away most turns. By the end of October Montenegro is about to die, Nish has fallen and the Serbians are entrenched near Uskub in the mountains just trying to delay the inevitable. That's actually pretty close to what happens with entrenchment. Serbs have lost 2 detachments 3 corps and a HQ and the Austrians lost 1 corps. This is with one German corps and one German detachment in the area. Basically as Serbia - whether there's entrenchment or not - you can last into 1915 simply by retreating early into the mountains around Uskub. Not sure if this is a "win" or not. It certainly is far better than surrendering in 1914. Delaying Bulgaria's entry and connection to the Ottomans is a big deal. But as far as holding on to any chance of lasting well into 1915, preserving any income, well you won't have any. Isn't the fact that Serbia has trouble lasting into 1915 a more important issue than the perceived lack of movement in the early months of the war? If Serbia is already having that much trouble, I would be very hesitant to advocate adding a ahistorical constraint to entrenching. IRL some units did dig entrenchments early in the war. It all depended on what their situation was. I think the way the game currently handles entrenchments is fine as it is.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 6:44:52 PM)
Very interesting lecture by Professor David Stevenson . . . https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=david+stevenson+ww1+lecture&docid=608047849355283316&mid=EA55C993294A99B43888EA55C993294A99B43888&view=detail&FORM=VIRE He divides the war up into 3 basic phases, particularly with reference to the Western Front (see 2 minutes into the lecture) . . . 1914 - war of movement 1915-17 - stalemate 1918 - return to war of movement So while of course there would have been some entrenchment in the first weeks of the war - the point of this idea is to replicate the dominant form of warfare in the first few weeks of the war. There was no long line of trenches from the English Channel to Switzerland in August 1914 (that would be ahistorical) and the Germans began building their trenches only when they realised that they could not end the war quickly.

Patrat -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 7:21:14 PM)
We should probably be using the term digging in rather than entrenchment. I believe that the level of entrenchment available at the beginning of the game reflects units digging in, rather than long lines of trenches. Is there really a problem here with people digging in so much that there's no war of movement in the first weeks? I only play against the AI and I haven't noticed any problem.

Patrat -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 7:33:45 PM)
In fairness I should add that in my last game against the AI CP at the highest level of difficulty, I had to entrench asap or the germans would of been in Paris. Lol So maybe you are on to something, since I ended up stopping them at Lille and ypres. But just because the French in real life made the mistake of not digging in, I somewhat loathe to be forced into the same mistake.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 8:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Patrat We should probably be using the term digging in rather than entrenchment. I believe that the level of entrenchment available at the beginning of the game reflects units digging in, rather than long lines of trenches. Is there really a problem here with people digging in so much that there's no war of movement in the first weeks? I only play against the AI and I haven't noticed any problem. I play PvP only, except for hotseat tests...and been doing that continually since Feb 2020. These are my observations: With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins. This Stalemate usually only starts in 1915, and then both sides have to figure out ways to break holes in local sectors. The third phase..the so called 'Return to War of Movement' begins on some fronts when one side or the other (or both depending on differing countries) begins anew when certain countries NM gets low and the big guns start making their presence felt. If entrenching is took away until Oct 1914, then I as playing the Entente, will have a hard time holding Ypres if I wanted..or Boulogne if pressed to there. Now I will tell you, if in a game (and real life), I wanted to entrench a surrounded British corp in Boulogne with orders to hold at all costs, but could not because of some arbitrary date...I would call out 'bollocks!' I could cite other examples. I have had matches with extremely talented players, and I can guarantee that this 'War of Movement' in 1914 does indeed happen even when units are entrenching, because in most places, players are only entrenching tactically, and are generally moving units in and out of these positions as they push on each other to try to gain an advantage. My opinion with this proposal is that it maybe suitable for a mod...but to have it implemented into the existing model would not be the best idea.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 9:29:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins. Yes, there isn't really a problem here. I think stockwell is just proposing this as an interesting possibility. There definitely IS movement early on even with the default settings. And even after a trench tech is researched attacks are still possible. Especially for the Germans and the Russians when attacking Austrians due to other advantages.

Chernobyl -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 9:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Patrat Isn't the fact that Serbia has trouble lasting into 1915 a more important issue than the perceived lack of movement in the early months of the war? Well it's really just me saying this. I don't know if other people agree/realize how bleak Serbia's situation is. I gather a lot of people play against humans and Serbia lasts into 1916. It's difficult to "balance" the Serbia front - i.e. make it last until October 1915 as was historical - without preventing early German reinforcements. The Germans can really send as many corps as they please (especially if they don't even attack Belgium) and there's just no way for the Entente to reinforce Serbia. One other "problem" related to strengthening Serbia is that you have to ask yourself if the Ottomans are truly historically balanced if Serbia lasts late into 1915. The Ottomans are isolated with severe MPP when there's no rail connection, and perhaps vulnerable to being overwhelmed by multiple landings and offensives.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 10:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins. Yes, there isn't really a problem here. I think stockwell is just proposing this as an interesting possibility. There definitely IS movement early on even with the default settings. And even after a trench tech is researched attacks are still possible. Especially for the Germans and the Russians when attacking Austrians due to other advantages. Yes, I am. It doesn't have to be introduced into the main game, or even be developed as a mod. It can just be used as "house rules" if 2 players want to introduce a bit of extra variety to their game together. Having no entrenchment for the first 5 or 6 turns might create new positions and possibilities in some games that can enhance the replayability of the game. Maybe the Germans can get closer to Paris or the Russians can drive the Austro-Hungarians right out of Galicia in 1914? While there obviously is movement in the early turns of the game, there is often premature entrenchment too e.g. between Verdun and Switzerland by both French and German forces.

stockwellpete -> RE: War of movement in 1914? (1/13/2021 10:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor If entrenching is took away until Oct 1914, then I as playing the Entente, will have a hard time holding Ypres if I wanted..or Boulogne if pressed to there. Now I will tell you, if in a game (and real life), I wanted to entrench a surrounded British corp in Boulogne with orders to hold at all costs, but could not because of some arbitrary date...I would call out 'bollocks! Well, I have raised the possibility earlier in the thread that towns and cities could still be "entrenched" (in reality, defensive strongpoints could still be constructed) in this opening 5/6 turn "no entrenchment" phase. So trenches could not be made in open terrain, forests etc. Again, it would be very easy for 2 players to agree a "house rule" on this.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.515625