Subject: Great War replay (long) From: rmt66@juno.com (ROBERT M TITRAN) Great War Weekend - Vital Statistics - Five players for 22 hours over three days (Bob Allied West and Near East, Frank Allied East, Tom CP East and Near East, Ed CP West, Amit CP Near East) Two spectators Four 12-packs Four pots of coffee Vast amounts of other "supplies" French breakthrough and CP surrender in July 1916 The game - We played the 1915 scenario, which meant that the Near East game had to be played for several turns in order to "catch up" to the Europe game. I played the Allied side vs. a relatively inexperienced gamer. We had played a "practice" game where the Turks were badly mauled making some poorly planned offensives, so the CP was much more cautious this time out. Brits slowly began building their Sinai pipeline in Egypt and cautiously moving out of Basra while the Russians started grinding away at Turks in the Caucasus. I also played the Western Allies. I set up a single line of units supported by stacks of units behind the line prepared to respond to the German set up. The Germans set up strong to the center and to the south, intent on taking Verdun and worried about several stacks of French around Epinal. The Germans hit hard, taking Verdun in the first few turns, and pushing the French back 2-3 hexes before they were fully entrenched. The Brits spread to the south until they were stacked about 2/hex, allowing the French to stack similarly, which left just enough units to form up a double line in anticipation of a turn flip. Italians squared off vs. Austrians in the mountains. A few attacks were made as the line stabilized near Trieste. Opposing troops began a staredown that would take up most of the game. Initially things didn't go well for the Russians. Expecting an attack in the north, they were hit in the south by the combined Austrian and German armies. The CP was intent on hitting the end of the Russian line, forcing the front to lengthen as the Russians gave ground. The Russians paid dearly but inflicted heavy damage on the Austrians as well. Twice Russian counterattacks took key towns from the Austrians, eliminating over a dozen divisions due to supply attrition. In the Balkans, the Serbs were hopelessly overextended and eliminated in the first two Operational turns. Far too many French divisions, entering via Salonika, were also surrounded and eliminated. The Western Allied commander (me) wasn't inspired to send many more troops to the Balkans. In Gallipoli the French made a quick exit and two huge stacks of Brits inflicted heavy losses on the Turks. The Turks were quickly replaced by a stack of Germans one hex behind Gallipoli. It soon became clear that there was better ground from which to attack Germans, and Gallipoli was abandoned in late 1915. A small stack of Turks and later the Bulgarians kept watch over Constantinople. The Near East player couldn't take Friday off, so the CP East commander took over the CP Near East and taught me some lessons in maneuver warfare. My overextended Russians were quickly beaten back and troops were quickly moved in to prevent the fall of Baku. The Brits were surrounded in Iraq and doing all they could to hold Basra. It was quite a turnaround. A few RPs borrowed from Europe saved the Russians, and Brits now leaving Gallipoli stabilized Iraq. Disaster was averted, but not by much. Disaster in the Balkans, however, was not averted. A stack of Italians in Salonika was surrounded by Bulgarians who were content to keep the Allies bottled up. The Montenegrans watched from afar - the war in the Balkans was effectively over. As the game progressed Allied reinforcements began to make the difference. My approach was right out of the design notes - go where he isn't and attack with overwhelming force. This meant 5:1 odds vs. 1 or 2 German defenders after terrain and HQ effects were considered (and only if terrain and HQs couldn't be avoided). This allowed me to advance after combat in quantity, forcing the Germans to counterattack in a less favorable situation, or abandon the hex. Thus the Allies to set the tempo in the west. After a while there were even enough units to make a few decent attacks and form a double line. The Germans devastated a line of hexes shored things up a bit, but it was really to little too late. The tide was turning. More and more we capitalized on each others' mistakes - poorly positioned units, tenuous supply lines. This was war; we did not feel compelled to be gracious. Then things came crashing down. The Russian retreat in the south was getting desperate, and the Russian elected to counterattack and garrison his cities rather than form a solid defensive position. The CP East player again lost heavily due to attrition, but was now in a position to cripple the Russian. However, the CP Western player failed to complete his line, leaving gaps to be filled during the new units phase. Unfortunately, one of those gaps was a French city - new Germans can't come in here - and there wasn't an HQ in the area. Instead of finishing off the Russians the CP had to switch initiative. The French attacked in the south, punching a hole north of Morhange and forming a 1-hex wide 3 hex long salient. The Germans didn't cover the hole, rather they attacked from 4 hexes behind the salient, hoping to pinch off and eliminate the advancing French. The chit "They Shall Not Pass" kept the Germans from advancing, and the city of Saarbrucken was wide open to French reserves. Seeing the edge of the board and all those VP hexes exposed to the French advanced, the Germans conceded. My thoughts - The CP never pulled double turn on us, Tom and I both think this was a mistake. The West Allies were always able to cover themselves vs. a double turn, but I think a double turn is needed to really score big vs. the Russians. The CP always seemed close to really hurting the Russians and didn't want to give them the first double turn. I think this cost them in the end. Is trying to out stretch the Russian really a good approach? I expected an attack down the middle to divide Russia at the marsh. AH then hold in the south while the Germans clean up in the north. Just me speculating here, really. Do the Balkans, Italy, or Near East really matter to the overall game? We blew it big time in the Balkans and still won. Is it over by the time either side can devote serious resources to Italy? Are the VP hexes in the Near East worth the effort it takes to get them or is everyone better off just fighting over Europe? The history I know tells me these theaters are secondary considerations, and the games design notes repeat it. Is this the game modeling history here, our poor play wapring history, or something else? Is this a great 3 player game but a really difficult 4 player game? The CP player always seems to have trouble making the "right" resource allocation decisions. My mistake was not attacking enough. I lost a few British RP (maybe 4 or 5?) that I couldn't carry over one turn, and always had extra Brit RPs for chits. Rules questions: 1. Is sea movement to a port with an enemy adjacent to it allowed? The rules seems to imply it is, so that's how we played it. 2. Fortress surrender - in Iraq two fortresses are also ultimate supply hexes, which suggests that units here will always be in supply and never subject to fortress supply or fortress surrender. Same goes for Belgrade as every locale in Serbia is an ultimate supply source. 3. In order to suffer the penalty for attacking out of DZ hexes, must all attacking units be in DZ hexes (similar to the "all attacking units must attack across the river to give the defense a bonus" rule) or is having just one attacking unit in a DZ hex enough to cause the penalty? Tom's thoughts (he was CP Overall and East Front Commander) Strategy and balance: Overall I'd have to agree with Ed (CP West player) , that the 1915 start favors the Allies for victory. Couple that with some poor east front play and it spells disaster. I believe the game is more balanced if you start with the 1914 campaign because the CPs can put a bigger hurt on the allies which will take longer to dig out of than the 1915 scenario unit start. I don't think I'd play GWiE as a four player game again. It works ok for the allies because the resources and fronts are not so interdependent but the German fronts share the same resources on both fronts. Knowing that your partner is investing the same amount of time you are in the game will lead to less risk taking and more compromising of resource splits and strategic direction for troop deployment (perhaps modeling real historical decision making). I think all our attempts at GWiE have shown this CP compromise. I'm not sure a two player game would move any slower, particularly if you wrote down the combat targets before seeing what attacks your opponent was making. 1915 scenario strategy: 1. The CPs have to do the double turn in ST E whether they see any real west front benefit. GE could probably handle the double move back to the east front on ST F before Britain is too strong. 2. The only thing I would question about Ed's western play was the number of good troops initially on the southern flank in the mountains. It would be tough and costly to make sustained advancement in the mountains for either side. I think Bob found it was easier to find clear terrain to try to blast the Germans. 3. IT front - Not only did I blow the east front but I actually blew the It front also. The AH It front should be setup so that by the end of strategic movement in May the AHs are 3 deep in the 6 hexes and 2-3 units between Trent and the nearby fortress. So it should only take 20 AH units to stop Italy cold. AH can do this by stacking 3 deep in non town/city hexes and strategic moving the necessary units the towns to give you the unit density required. The attrition rate should end of being about 2:1 in AH favor and no hexes taken. Just replace the dead. What happen was we ended up needing ~24 units and a precious HQ (not to mention a years time) to close the gap. Ed deserved better play from me especially when I knew from play testing that needed to happen. 4. Balkans - For the Allies' competent play on the RU front I have a hard time reconciling the incompetent play in the Balkans. All I know is the Serbs are dangerous and deserve a lot of respect if used properly (like the Turks). I don't think 10 AH units can do the trick. In some ways I think it helped the allies in not having a Balkan front. Using BRs and FRs to kill BUs is not useful unless the CPs have to reinforce with GEs. 5. NE strategy a. I see no reason that it is not advantageous for the Turks to give the allies Iraq and Medina in Arabia. 4 units to hold down one TS is far too many given what 4 (2-4) units could do in the Caucuses or Iraq. I'd just give the allies the TS and put those 1-2-4s in the RU reserve. b. The TUs have a potent offensive force in the Caucuses if the RU player is not careful. It's easy to kill those RU 1-4s if left unprotected and the RUs can't cover everything. Consider using the 2-4s you get out of the TU reserve from (a.) on this front. It could possibly give you Baku or make Baku the focus rather than defending TUs TS hexes in the Caucuses. c. Iraq - If the Brits aren't careful, TU could take it all here. If you used the "extra" four units on this front and put 4-6 more here, the Brits would have to reinforce from Europe. d. Palestine - This front never played out but I suspect it's a cake walk for the Brits once the pipeline is built. With the Tus limitation of units in the Sinai the only way to delay its building is to use GEs and where are they to come from. e. Gallipoli - I wouldn't recommend defending the beach hex. The Allies can bring too much to bare from 2 hexes. TU should be able to defend the town hex or Gallipoli with 6 units plus losses cycling through. The max attack factors the Brits can bring to bare is 30 and a HQ so it's a one to one attack every ST turn as long as the TU replenishes losses. Like the It front I knew this but persisted to employ the beach defense. Is the Gallipoli option a good option for the Allies? I think the threat is more important than trying to make it work. Seems like units Bob used in Gallipoli could have been taken to Palestine to blow TU out of the Sinai and speed up pipeline building or ensure that the TUs can't take Iraq. 6. Eastern Front - a. Southern flank - Because Frank stomped the initial breakout which was based on taking advantage of his setup, we never saw what a quick southern offensive on the flanks might do. For whatever reason I didn't want to shift the focus of the advance. It was like I was trying to prove a point and to repeat the same mistake of being attrited again, well I guess I was having a bad day. b. Northern flank - I think maybe retreating to a strong defensive position may have been wrong because I had to retake all that territory. I did that to safely create the double move figuring I'd get it back easily when I double moved on the eastern front. Since we didn't double move, because Verdun fell without making a double move and there were no other strategic Western targets, it was a flawed strategy. Could I have held the forward startup line and still enable a double moved. I'm not sure, probably could have at the risk that the line would have been broken somewhere else (but would it have mattered if the line was broken south of Warsaw? Probably not, it's not like the RU was going on any great offensive....). Bottom line on the Russian front - I seemed inflexible to shift objectives and paid a high price for not paying attention to supply and everyone knows that supply is the name of the game especially on the east and NE map. Overall, the room for error playing the CPs is small in this scenario. Should not double moving, having 13 units attrited on the east front, the minor IT and Gallipoli errors spell defeat? Apparently so, so Ed I take rightful responsibility for the defeat. Bob Titran rmt66@juno.com Last Played - Great War in the Near East, Great War in Europe (practice, practice...), combined GWiE/GWiNE ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]