From: Dave Townsend Subject: Re: KRIEG - opinions Steve Crowley wrote: > > I'm new to the list and have seen Kreig mentioned a few times. I also saw > an unopened box of it at a recent UK convention. It mentioned 400 > counters - can WWII be done with this many counters ? > > Just trawling for opinions really. I haven't completed a game yet, but I am currently PBEMing (we're doing Fall '40 right now) and I've tried it a bit solo. So far, I like it. Component-wise, it's got a ugly map, good looking ('tho not fancy) counters, decent player aids, and pretty complete but not well organized rules. Air and naval systems are highly abstract compared to A3R, much less WiF. There are abstract "convoy" markers for the Axis and the Soviets; the Westerners always have transport available, so they have no naval markers at all! Air wings (no combat factors!) help out in combat, block retreat, and can fight for control of the seas. The land campaign is reasonably detailed; two maps, corps level units with buildups and breakdowns to army level. Frex, two German 1-2-3 corps (you can guess what the numbers are, right?) can combine to form a 3-4-2 army; a third corps can join them to make a three-step 5-6-2 army. Attacks are the way to go -- there's nothing like 3R's 2:1 CA followed by a 1:1 D, eliminating all the attackers. (I understand A3R solves this somehow.) The CRT is punishing, and column shifts are easy to come by. A card system provides the political effects and reinforcements into the game. It's a pretty good mixture of random variety and player control. The erratum limiting Axis Aggression results until total war breaks out is necessary for sensible results. The player's coarse-grained control over production is one of the big kickers in the game. There's no WiF-like gearing, or naval vs land vs air choices. You pick a card, and that's what production you're going to get. Many units enter via the "Delay Box", meaning you get them in 1-6 turns, a die roll modified by various factors. Whether you like that or not depends on how much control you demand in a game. You know there's got to be something good about a game where the French are a minor country from the start. [Meant facetiously, as this design decision is actually pretty questionable.] I think it does a good job on the level at which it was intended. I'm impressed with how the political system works in general rules, rather than fidgety little rules on a per-country basis (treat Egypt like this, treat Persia like this, treat Poland like this, etc.) To those of you that have played more than I -- are German strategies other than the historical sequence viable? I know they're *possible*, but are they competitive? --DaveT; (who'd like to see more game discussion and less meta-discussion on CONSIM-L) townsend@patriot.net --DaveT; From: Jeff Cohen Subject: Re: KRIEG - opinions In a message dated 96-09-30 16:59:18 EDT, you write: << To those of you that have played more than I -- are German strategies other than the historical sequence viable? I know they're *possible*, but are they competitive? >> [I doubt I've played more, but I'll speak up anyway.] It depends. I believe the "best" strategy for '39-'41 is the historical one. However, I've found that Sea-Lion is good possibility as well. I haven't tried taking the med via the Spain - Gibralter - Malta route yet. This actually leads into my "bubble" model that I've been working on. Viewed from a distance, the German expansion can be viewed as a "bubble" spreading over europe. There are two important factors concerning this "bubble"; how big does it get at maximum expansion, and how late in the game does this max size occur. To win the game, you either need to be risky and play for the max bubble size (using the automatic victory rules - 15 objective hexes), or be conservative and try to stay in contention as long as possible (using the "festung europe" card and a '45 ending). In general, I think going the western route first and then turning east you should go for the "long-lasting bubble". On the other hand, if you choose to go east first and west later, than you should try for the "big bubble". Why? Going west, there are 3 "easy" objective hexes (Paris, Amsterdam, Oslo) and a number of "hard" hexes (London, Lisbon, Gibralter). Going east there are 5 "easy" hexes (Leningrad, Minsk, Kiev, Sevastapol, Rostov), two "medium-hard" (Moscow, Baku) and two "really hard" (Sverdlosk, Chelyabinsk). Also, there are a number of hexes in the med (Cairo, Athens, Bahgdad, Tehran). If you go west first, by the time you attack the soviets you will likely only have 3 hexes if you followed the "historical" strategy, or 6 if you REALLY pressed hard. Attacking the Soviets, you can expect to take the 5 easy + Athens, for a total of 9-12 hexes; its unlikely that you'll take more. Thus, you should try to have a good defensive position in this case, so that you can last through the end of '45. If you go east first, on the other hand, I believe you should try for a Soviet Collapse. Under those conditions, you should be able to count on the 5 easy and 2 medium-hard hexes, Athens, and Tehran by the time you are ready to turn west. Turning west, you should be able to pick up the 3 easy hexes (you're now at 12), and "only" need to get Cairo, Baghdad, and one more to win the game. Remember, if you've taken Baku & Tehran, then Baghdad and Cairo are not nearly as hard to get. You're problem is to do all of this before the American presence becomes too large. To be honest, I think an "east first" strategy would require extremely good play and a bit of luck to work. There's no doubt in my mind that the German army can really whip the Soviets - the German army's quality is far better, IMO. The problem is that the American-led Western army is ultimately better then the German's (but not quite as large). In fighting the Soviets, the Germans are likely to take many casualities; if they take too many, they won't be able to stop the West from rolling over them and ending the game before '45. Finally, let me note that I've glossed over an enormous number of details; for example, I've assumed that Germans keep all Axis Objective hexes out of Allied hands (no mean feat). Also, I've ignored the oppurtunites for armistices with one side or the other (which can lead to all sorts of "alternate histories". Well, this post has gone on long enough - it's now time to return to the great moderation debate! -Jeff From: Dave Townsend Subject: Re: KRIEG - opinions Jeff Cohen wrote: > Well, this post has gone on long enough - it's now time to return to the > great moderation debate! No, let's stick with this for a bit. :-) Thanks for a good post. The Player's Notes mention that there are six broad courses the game can take: Germans do Total War in 1940, 41, or 42, and go East or West for each year. But are those courses truly viable? It seems to me that the only sensible card to play to begin Total War is the Barbarossa card, because otherwise the Soviets are going to pound you anyway. So how much damage can the Germans do against the west before summer '40? Doesn't seem workable to me. Similarly, if the Germans wait until '42, the Russians are going to have a good opportunity to make trouble in the Balkans -- it's easy to see Bulgaria as a minor ally and possibly a conquered Rumania. Am I missing something? So although I like the game, I'm thinking that there's plenty of *possible* variety, but *sensible* play is going to go along one or two lines. I'm disappointed that your post didn't set me straight, hopefully someone else can. No doubt the choices will get more interesting when Total War breaks out in my PBEM game? --DaveT; townsend@patriot.net From: Jeff Cohen Subject: Re: KRIEG - opinions In a message dated 96-09-30 22:51:42 EDT, you write: << Similarly, if the Germans wait until '42, the Russians are going to have a good opportunity to make trouble in the Balkans -- it's easy to see Bulgaria as a minor ally and possibly a conquered Rumania. Am I missing something? >> I think so. Krieg! is very much a game of trade-offs; very little is black or white. So, the appropriate question to ask is: what did you gain elsewhere to offset the the loss of Bulgaria/Rumania? If you spent '41 taking Britain and the med, and forced a British Collapse, then losing Bulgaria and Russia might not be so bad. Note that two of the effects of a British collapse are: 1) Britain will only have 1 corps on the map (with 2 more in off-map boxes), and 2) The Germans can activate ANY 1 minor nuetral, i.e. Turkey. While the Soviets will be TOUGH if attacked in '42, you should be able to do quite well since you don't have to worry about the Western Allies for a time, and have a Turkish ally to threaten the Soviet rear areas. Not that you'll defeat the Soviets, mind you (at least I don't think so), but you should be able to take a number of Soviet Objective hexes, reaching a maximum size sometime in '43, plop down the no-retreat marker from the "festung europe" card, and spend '44-'45 doing everything in your power to slow down the allied advance. -Jeff