Grand Strategy
I have been playing around with a few ideas, nothing new under the sun, and have come up with a grand strategy I'd like to try out for the Central Powers.
Before I invest the blood, sweat and tears, I would like to pick the forum's brain. Please look the strategy over; is this plan very feasible? Don’t hesitate to point out flaws or to suggest improvements.
Germany
Use the Schlieffen plan and push into Belgium and grab the low hanging fruit, i.e. Brussels and Lille. This will give you 8+ NM. If you are extremely lucky and the way to Paris is open, continue your western drive. If the way is shut, stop the offense before your armies become over extended and bled white. Pick the best defensive line available and dig in. After the front is stabilized, send every man, gun and horse that can be spared to the Eastern Front.
In spring 1915, use the shifted force to launch a major assault designed to maximize unit destruction and knock Russia out of the war or to reduce her to a whore of combat. When this is accomplished, transfer back the cream of the German eastern army to the west. Hopefully a task completed by spring 1917.
Germany should constantly build medium artillery. These units should be packed into the western front in an attempt to keep to the kill ratio strongly in your favor and to hammer the enemies NM. Avoid temptations to repeat Verdun. The idea is to severely impact French and British morale by killing as many units as possible with the minimum risk to yourself. In 1917, Germany should use the large concentrations of guns, ammo dumps and transferred, victorious eastern troops, with a storm trooper spear point, to break the western lines and resume the march to Paris.
High Seas naval attacks, don't do it. Just set in the harbor and look scary. The NM swings are too wild to risk. I am not sure about using submarines. It looks like they are the main factor in bringing the Yanks into the war. If so, I wonder if it is worth investing in trying to choke Britain to death at the cost of bringing America in.
Austria-Hungry
Austria-Hungry should pray fervently that Russia minimizes their Galician efforts in in 1914. The Hapsburgs must stay on defensive and try to hold off the Tsar's tsunami until spring 1915. Every cannon and rifle available should be sent east. Come spring 1915, Austria-Hungry must switch over to offensive and join the big German push. Even if battered and crippled, they can still tie down large numbers of Russian troops.
The Serbian and Italian fronts should receive only enough force to hold on, not a man more. Don’t worry much about the Serbs. They are very tough, but their leash is short. Punishing Serbia for killing the heir can wait until Bulgaria enters the war and Russia is crippled.
Let Italy spend the war beating her head against the Alps.
Ottomans
Hold on tooth and nail to Gallipoli.
Put pressure on the Russians in the Caucasus; but not in the winter!
Make a push, it will be weak, at the Suez.
Tie a knot in your rope and hold on in Mesopotamia and Israel.
Summary
I believe a major key to victory for the Central Powers, is maximizing your NM and lower your enemies will to fight as much as possible. High verse low NM has a massive impact on almost every aspect of the game. Attack only where the prize is truly worth the blood and the resources exist to carry the assault through; stay on the defensive everywhere else. Germany and Austria-Hungry do not have the power to attack on both fronts at the same time.
What say you? Could it work?
-
Straight Arrow
- General
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
- Location: Washington State
CP Grand Strategy - What Say You?
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
Trying for a big win in the west in 1914 and then shifting east presents the agonizing process of deciding when you are ready for the big switch east. Too soon, failing to do enough damage in France or stopping on the brink of a total victory? Too late? Are there concrete goals and timetables to guide this decision?
Also, how much is enough to leave on the Western Front, already extended by the invasion of Belgium? Too little risks a breach in the west, too much can compromise or delay success in the east. Your engineers and pioneers are valuable in both offense and defense, as are your heavier artillery, and bad to have misplaced - when and where will they move? It is easier to have a simpler plan such as to push on one front and defend the other until a goal is achieved.
These are things best judged by someone not only experienced with the Athena engine but also this particular game and scenario. But just having a clear plan goes a long way.
Defense in the west is easier if Belgium is not in play. There is a case for smashing the Russians first, which leaves Austria-Hungary stronger going forward, including in relative NM to Russia. I am not suggesting this, but the reasons for such an approach also relate to a 1915 offensive in the east.
Agreed that the Ottomans should look for favorable conditions and not push too hard so as to consume themselves - the Russians have positional and rail advantages in the Caucasus - it is enough to tie them down.
Agreed that watching beats fighting the Serbians early on - though a Serb offensive timed to support a Russian offensive down from the Carpathians and link up with the Serbs would be problematic.
Also, how much is enough to leave on the Western Front, already extended by the invasion of Belgium? Too little risks a breach in the west, too much can compromise or delay success in the east. Your engineers and pioneers are valuable in both offense and defense, as are your heavier artillery, and bad to have misplaced - when and where will they move? It is easier to have a simpler plan such as to push on one front and defend the other until a goal is achieved.
These are things best judged by someone not only experienced with the Athena engine but also this particular game and scenario. But just having a clear plan goes a long way.
Defense in the west is easier if Belgium is not in play. There is a case for smashing the Russians first, which leaves Austria-Hungary stronger going forward, including in relative NM to Russia. I am not suggesting this, but the reasons for such an approach also relate to a 1915 offensive in the east.
Agreed that the Ottomans should look for favorable conditions and not push too hard so as to consume themselves - the Russians have positional and rail advantages in the Caucasus - it is enough to tie them down.
Agreed that watching beats fighting the Serbians early on - though a Serb offensive timed to support a Russian offensive down from the Carpathians and link up with the Serbs would be problematic.
I am far from expert on this game, but it looks like the plan you put forth is a reasonable path to a win.
I like to push to Paris in 1914, which would delay the shift to the Russian Front, but also leaves France and Britain in a much weaker position. Taking most of Belgium is a key and it does not extend your front too much. Also, I think an Austrian assault on Serbia will be well rewarded as you can shift those troops to Italy or Russia. A Serbia first offensive with a commitment of your CiC is well worth it.
I do not play versus AI, only other players or myself, so if this is how to manage AI my advice is marginalized.
You can actually make good headway in Italy if you make a determined assault, but your plan is also sound.
The naval campaign can be dismissed if you wish, but it does offer some opportunity for catching opposing units. You may be correct that the trade-off with the US entry may not be worth a sub war, but at least deploy your subs to form a line versus an Entente offensive.
Ottomans are not typically an asset until Greece or Romania joins, so you plan makes sense.
Russia is the weak sister of the Entente and must be a goal. Have you tried the defense of the West and all forces versus Russia in 1914? This has the advantage of a very narrow Western Front and plenty of forces in the East. If you do a Schlieffen, it is a shame not to try for Paris. If you are going to be shy in Belgium, just make the Western Front France only and go for the Czar.
I like to push to Paris in 1914, which would delay the shift to the Russian Front, but also leaves France and Britain in a much weaker position. Taking most of Belgium is a key and it does not extend your front too much. Also, I think an Austrian assault on Serbia will be well rewarded as you can shift those troops to Italy or Russia. A Serbia first offensive with a commitment of your CiC is well worth it.
I do not play versus AI, only other players or myself, so if this is how to manage AI my advice is marginalized.
You can actually make good headway in Italy if you make a determined assault, but your plan is also sound.
The naval campaign can be dismissed if you wish, but it does offer some opportunity for catching opposing units. You may be correct that the trade-off with the US entry may not be worth a sub war, but at least deploy your subs to form a line versus an Entente offensive.
Ottomans are not typically an asset until Greece or Romania joins, so you plan makes sense.
Russia is the weak sister of the Entente and must be a goal. Have you tried the defense of the West and all forces versus Russia in 1914? This has the advantage of a very narrow Western Front and plenty of forces in the East. If you do a Schlieffen, it is a shame not to try for Paris. If you are going to be shy in Belgium, just make the Western Front France only and go for the Czar.
You plan is kind of bad. It could work, but it is arguably the hardest thing to pull off, there are easier ways.
If you plan to defend in the west, German border is the natural choice there. Not only will it delay GB entry for a turn or two, allowing you to get your border armies reinforced under low pressure, it will also give you a head start in diplomacy.
If you attack the Russians first, you national morale will surge, their will drop. The sooner your start grinding their forces, the faster they will fall, as their capability to reinforce is severely limited compared to you.
Also, don`t overestimate the quality of Russian army. Austro-Hungarians can take on them more than successfully, and typically beat Russians at even odds, granted you constructed their corps well. Filling Austro-Hungarian army with artillery and organising it properly, should be your first priority.
Rushing for Ottomans is pointless. You would be better off either getting Italy on your side, which will take the 10 NM hit, but usually you can afford it for free, since if you NM is higher than 100, it will decay rapidly before 1916, so why not use if for something useful instead?
Also, you don`t really have to stop for winter in Russia, it is an illusion. You will move slower, but that is about it. So IF you want to kick Russia first, go for it from the start, and don`t let it go. Russia will also provide you with a needed resource boost, if you occupy their production centers. Don`t try to create a front line in Russia, just follow the rail network and pretty much ignore the provinces without rails, unless you need to kill army that is in province without road.
Against AI, there really are only 2 good strategies:
-Grind for Paris, which is quite possible, if you keep hitting French every turn from the start, they tend to not have enough to hold you in every place of the line, so if you can keep crawling all the time, the high-level trenches will never be built. It will take you a 1914 winter, summer 1915 do do so, but you will take Paris by 1916 start, or close to that. Just make west Entente to take 150-300k loses every turn.
-Hit Russia fast. It is quite easy to destroy Russian army into nothing considerable as soon as 1915 summer. After that, just mop the remains with fraction of forces.
Italian front is probably the easiest to fight in, since Italians are bad, and you can have huge encirclements there, wiping Italian army and whatever the French sent in in 3 month, give or take.
Serbia is pretty easy, you need to slowly encircle Belgrade by coming around. Then defenders will either leave the city, or fight into your entrenched forces. It will take 5-7 turns, but in most cases, the forces you have in Serbia are enough, just need to get them artillery(light tends to work well) and proper organisation.
If you plan to defend in the west, German border is the natural choice there. Not only will it delay GB entry for a turn or two, allowing you to get your border armies reinforced under low pressure, it will also give you a head start in diplomacy.
If you attack the Russians first, you national morale will surge, their will drop. The sooner your start grinding their forces, the faster they will fall, as their capability to reinforce is severely limited compared to you.
Also, don`t overestimate the quality of Russian army. Austro-Hungarians can take on them more than successfully, and typically beat Russians at even odds, granted you constructed their corps well. Filling Austro-Hungarian army with artillery and organising it properly, should be your first priority.
Rushing for Ottomans is pointless. You would be better off either getting Italy on your side, which will take the 10 NM hit, but usually you can afford it for free, since if you NM is higher than 100, it will decay rapidly before 1916, so why not use if for something useful instead?
Also, you don`t really have to stop for winter in Russia, it is an illusion. You will move slower, but that is about it. So IF you want to kick Russia first, go for it from the start, and don`t let it go. Russia will also provide you with a needed resource boost, if you occupy their production centers. Don`t try to create a front line in Russia, just follow the rail network and pretty much ignore the provinces without rails, unless you need to kill army that is in province without road.
Against AI, there really are only 2 good strategies:
-Grind for Paris, which is quite possible, if you keep hitting French every turn from the start, they tend to not have enough to hold you in every place of the line, so if you can keep crawling all the time, the high-level trenches will never be built. It will take you a 1914 winter, summer 1915 do do so, but you will take Paris by 1916 start, or close to that. Just make west Entente to take 150-300k loses every turn.
-Hit Russia fast. It is quite easy to destroy Russian army into nothing considerable as soon as 1915 summer. After that, just mop the remains with fraction of forces.
Italian front is probably the easiest to fight in, since Italians are bad, and you can have huge encirclements there, wiping Italian army and whatever the French sent in in 3 month, give or take.
Serbia is pretty easy, you need to slowly encircle Belgrade by coming around. Then defenders will either leave the city, or fight into your entrenched forces. It will take 5-7 turns, but in most cases, the forces you have in Serbia are enough, just need to get them artillery(light tends to work well) and proper organisation.
I can only go by my experiences in my first and only game as the CP (I'm currently in Sept '16) and from a let's play or two that I have been watching and a few AAR's that I've been keeping up on.
Germany: I chose the attack Belgium plan first; it does give you a temporary NM boost, but will most likely be lost during the first winter, not to mention the -5 NM hits from the rebalancing game mechanic (which will happen until Sept '15!). This will make the western front longer, both for you and for the WE. You can handle it well at the beginning of the game, but this will come at the expense of hammering Russia in the east. You simply cannot do both effectively. You don't have enough manpower. If you do this, positioning your armies to effectively MTSG is very important; you need to have very big wins to effect NM and rebel alignment. Know where your artillery is, you will definitely have to have the big guns in on the attack on Paris if you advance there. It must be your highest (and really only) priority to take Paris, it cannot be done half-heartedly. I went at it cautiously and was parked near Paris since Spring '15 and still haven't gotten any closer! If you take Paris, the game is essentially over with just a matter of one or two big battles after that. Russia won't matter, just keep enough forces to not be run over (that's what A/H is there for). My game is going well, as my NM is 129 compared to the WE/EE 53/50. My PWR ration for WE/EE is currently 73/163 and 26/16 respectively. The USA should enter the game in mid Nov '16, not sure what to expect there! Since I didn't take Paris in Dec. '14, the game has been a matter of cat and mouse with the AI. Fun, but not always pretty! Russia won't even get the 80% rebel alignment needed to start the Commie Revolution and eventual withdrawal until mid April '17 - so the first half of 1917 will probably be very hard for me. Look for opportunities to use a strong naval force (the AI breaks up its forces, so you usually can have one really strong force to attack British navy piecemeal).
Austria/Hungary: A/H troops can definitely hold off the Russians during the push to Paris with just a little help from German troops (just enough to hold key east Prussian cities, no extra German troops). Again, if you succeed in Paris then your A/H troops won't really matter for long because the game would be over. If you put everything into the push to Paris and it fails, then you'll need to scramble all your troops around depending on the situation. A/H can also easily defend against Italy and even go on the offense, with a little help from either Germany or Ottomans and good use of your navy (they might as well do something).
Ottomans: Only matters if you don't take Paris early. They can easily take the southern Caucasus strategic/objective cities, going any further north is not worth it (too much land to travel and cities to garrison). Very helpful, with Bulgarian help against Greece and Serbia. Then you can go after Egypt to hurt Britain and make western front more manageable (AI doesn't fight for Egypt very well and is a joke when it comes to Gallipoli, IMHO).
Summary: If you go for Paris, make it work - nothing else will matter. If you don't go in 100%, then you should still be able to maintain well over 100 NM after Spring 1915 and keep going up by picking smart fights. If you leave a good, defensive city slightly undermanned, but with very strong armies nearby (with high strategic ratings leaders), the AI will attack with devastating negative results with MTSG! The AI is also willing to attack across rivers. Using feints, (say in the south) causes the AI to move a lot of troops to nearby cities, thus leaving the north lighter defended for easier attacks. The key, and this was my mistake, is to not go on assault when you think you'll have a decided advantage (especially against very small forces) as this does cause rebel alignment and NM to increase (especially important for Russia).
I hope this helps.
Germany: I chose the attack Belgium plan first; it does give you a temporary NM boost, but will most likely be lost during the first winter, not to mention the -5 NM hits from the rebalancing game mechanic (which will happen until Sept '15!). This will make the western front longer, both for you and for the WE. You can handle it well at the beginning of the game, but this will come at the expense of hammering Russia in the east. You simply cannot do both effectively. You don't have enough manpower. If you do this, positioning your armies to effectively MTSG is very important; you need to have very big wins to effect NM and rebel alignment. Know where your artillery is, you will definitely have to have the big guns in on the attack on Paris if you advance there. It must be your highest (and really only) priority to take Paris, it cannot be done half-heartedly. I went at it cautiously and was parked near Paris since Spring '15 and still haven't gotten any closer! If you take Paris, the game is essentially over with just a matter of one or two big battles after that. Russia won't matter, just keep enough forces to not be run over (that's what A/H is there for). My game is going well, as my NM is 129 compared to the WE/EE 53/50. My PWR ration for WE/EE is currently 73/163 and 26/16 respectively. The USA should enter the game in mid Nov '16, not sure what to expect there! Since I didn't take Paris in Dec. '14, the game has been a matter of cat and mouse with the AI. Fun, but not always pretty! Russia won't even get the 80% rebel alignment needed to start the Commie Revolution and eventual withdrawal until mid April '17 - so the first half of 1917 will probably be very hard for me. Look for opportunities to use a strong naval force (the AI breaks up its forces, so you usually can have one really strong force to attack British navy piecemeal).
Austria/Hungary: A/H troops can definitely hold off the Russians during the push to Paris with just a little help from German troops (just enough to hold key east Prussian cities, no extra German troops). Again, if you succeed in Paris then your A/H troops won't really matter for long because the game would be over. If you put everything into the push to Paris and it fails, then you'll need to scramble all your troops around depending on the situation. A/H can also easily defend against Italy and even go on the offense, with a little help from either Germany or Ottomans and good use of your navy (they might as well do something).
Ottomans: Only matters if you don't take Paris early. They can easily take the southern Caucasus strategic/objective cities, going any further north is not worth it (too much land to travel and cities to garrison). Very helpful, with Bulgarian help against Greece and Serbia. Then you can go after Egypt to hurt Britain and make western front more manageable (AI doesn't fight for Egypt very well and is a joke when it comes to Gallipoli, IMHO).
Summary: If you go for Paris, make it work - nothing else will matter. If you don't go in 100%, then you should still be able to maintain well over 100 NM after Spring 1915 and keep going up by picking smart fights. If you leave a good, defensive city slightly undermanned, but with very strong armies nearby (with high strategic ratings leaders), the AI will attack with devastating negative results with MTSG! The AI is also willing to attack across rivers. Using feints, (say in the south) causes the AI to move a lot of troops to nearby cities, thus leaving the north lighter defended for easier attacks. The key, and this was my mistake, is to not go on assault when you think you'll have a decided advantage (especially against very small forces) as this does cause rebel alignment and NM to increase (especially important for Russia).
I hope this helps.
-
H Gilmer3
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
- Location: United States of America
Based on my observations of playing the West a lot and watching let's plays and reading AARS, I think the CP should mass just about everything they can on the west and drive for Paris. Russia is too freaking big and you get lost in there. Seems better to keep a smaller front on the border of Germany/Russia and just beat them off with MTSG and getting the morale boosts there. While at the same time, take Hindenburg to the West, get him to 3 stars, build a juggernaut army around him and use him as the spearhead to drive on Paris.
To End All Wars AAR in the War Room. Join us as we laugh, we cry, we drink beer, and we joke on how badly I play......
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36936-To-End-All-Wars-AAR-Western-Entente-against-the-AI-of-Central-Powers!
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36936-To-End-All-Wars-AAR-Western-Entente-against-the-AI-of-Central-Powers!
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Personally, I see Russia as the best target.
1. You get a 2 vs 1 situation, with Austria and Germany able to concentrate a massive hammer blow to Russia, or, have Austria as the pivot, and Germany as the hammer (with Austria's main offensive focus on Serbia, with troops in quantity to actually do something there).
2. You have much greater freedom of mobility. With the 'vast tracks of land' in Russia, it would be near impossible to create an impenetrable line of defence in 1914, even with Russia's large force. Mobility means possibility of encirclement, easier than bashing your head against entrenched troops!
3. The strategic situation is good, you have many Russian forces stuck in the bulge of Poland, having Austria and Germany cooperate in making a Polish pocket is a good way to start off the campaign.
4. The Western front is small and heavily fortified, making a defense of it relatively easy with smaller forces. As suggested above, build medium artillery and rely upon fortress strong points to hold your line. If France goes through Belgium that could work in your favour in keeping Britain out of the conflict, for at least a while. You can then use your fleet a bit more aggressively if you are just against the Russians and French.
5. You can easily make the Baltic a German lake, without having to worry about protecting your sea flank in Belgium.
6. You offensively in Russia until they are knocked out of the war, then you can divert your forces west, with Italy as an enemy becoming another means of opportunity.
1. You get a 2 vs 1 situation, with Austria and Germany able to concentrate a massive hammer blow to Russia, or, have Austria as the pivot, and Germany as the hammer (with Austria's main offensive focus on Serbia, with troops in quantity to actually do something there).
2. You have much greater freedom of mobility. With the 'vast tracks of land' in Russia, it would be near impossible to create an impenetrable line of defence in 1914, even with Russia's large force. Mobility means possibility of encirclement, easier than bashing your head against entrenched troops!
3. The strategic situation is good, you have many Russian forces stuck in the bulge of Poland, having Austria and Germany cooperate in making a Polish pocket is a good way to start off the campaign.
4. The Western front is small and heavily fortified, making a defense of it relatively easy with smaller forces. As suggested above, build medium artillery and rely upon fortress strong points to hold your line. If France goes through Belgium that could work in your favour in keeping Britain out of the conflict, for at least a while. You can then use your fleet a bit more aggressively if you are just against the Russians and French.
5. You can easily make the Baltic a German lake, without having to worry about protecting your sea flank in Belgium.
6. You offensively in Russia until they are knocked out of the war, then you can divert your forces west, with Italy as an enemy becoming another means of opportunity.
Ace wrote:The only problem with Russia first is its size. They can prolong the conflict with hit and run tactics, depot burning, retreating and rail smashing. At the same time, while you are chasing ghosts that refuse combat in the East, the French and Brits are sure to do something to relieve their ally.
You can advance 1-2 provinces per turn on Russian front towards your objective. There are 19 railway provinces to St. Petersburg and 21 province to Moscow. By Autumn 1915, you should make both. Russian cities provide supply anyway, don`t they?
Also, Russian manpower and resources greatly diminish once you take Ukraine or some towns on the Smolensk-Moscow route, unlike French and British, who`s resources and manpower can`t really be hit by CP.
Capturing just Kiev, Warsaw and Riga cuts Russian manpower growth 1/3. Capturing them also gives you recruits and war materials.
-
Straight Arrow
- General
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
- Location: Washington State
Gentlemen,
Thank you - for some excellent insight and advice.
It does sound like the strategy I was toying with would be hard to pull off and is lacking.
A full out drive in force, either to the west or east seems to be the consensus.
Thank you - for some excellent insight and advice.
It does sound like the strategy I was toying with would be hard to pull off and is lacking.
A full out drive in force, either to the west or east seems to be the consensus.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.
In my game, I have Riga and Warsaw, am I diminishing Russian manpower growth already by a lesser amount, say 1/4 or 1/5, by holding just the two cities or does this only go into effect after taking all three cities? Is there any way of knowing the affects of taking a Russian city? I know ctrl + click will reveal what the city produces, does this tell you anything amount manpower production? . . . eager to find out!
seathom wrote:In my game, I have Riga and Warsaw, am I diminishing Russian manpower growth already by a lesser amount, say 1/4 or 1/5, by holding just the two cities or does this only go into effect after taking all three cities? Is there any way of knowing the affects of taking a Russian city? I know ctrl + click will reveal what the city produces, does this tell you anything amount manpower production? . . . eager to find out!
There is a tab that shows the resources and manpower generated by provinces. If you load as Russia you can see what their cities give. Load the start of campaign to get the idea what to capture. Kiev is the largest of the easy targets.
Having my best Central Powers game yet. I picked the Moltke option and am steam rolling Russia. It's early in 1916 and most of the VP locations have been taken or are being besieged.
Problem is with me ignoring the west I now have a huge pocket of French forces battering their way into western Germany. Several of my fights have shown French and British numbers of well over 1 million troops. The AI has taken my efforts in the east to build overwhelming strength in the west. Hope to contain it, but for every inch of ground I gain in Russia, I lose one back in the home territory.
Problem is with me ignoring the west I now have a huge pocket of French forces battering their way into western Germany. Several of my fights have shown French and British numbers of well over 1 million troops. The AI has taken my efforts in the east to build overwhelming strength in the west. Hope to contain it, but for every inch of ground I gain in Russia, I lose one back in the home territory.
Hopefully you can get the Russians out early, or you may be in big trouble. I am playing it differently (historical campaign). I refused to give an inch of German territory in the east and west (I was not so obstinate with A/H territory!). It's early '17 and am still fighting on both fronts. WE NM is 44, EE's is 35 and CP's is 133. Neither side is close to getting a revolution thanks to American entry into the war back in Dec. '16 that dropped rebel alignment for the Triple Entente. Still, with PWR ratings of 71/206 for the WE and 19/14 for the EE, I still think I'll be able to win this two-front war!?! Casualties have been sky-high: 5,134,472 for CP and 7,569,699 for Triple Entente. I am starting to see larger stacks on the Western Front thanks to the Americans and unfortunately, just when their front was starting to collapse 
I finally got the Russians out in May 1916, and have been furiously shipping most of my armies back west to face the coalition (including the newly arrived Americans). In this game I managed to get both Turkey and Italy on my side, so the fight is very even at least in the Mediterranean. Western Europe is a different story, but hopefully with my new tank regiments and eastern armies bolstering the front I can push back against the Allied offensive that is shoving me out of France.
Seathom,
I've also had really high casualties, though not as high as yours. No matter how you play TEAW, expect high casualties no matter where/how you fight. I find this component of the game to be very well implemented. It recreates the technology and fighting tactics of the time. World War 1 was a grind and there's no escaping the huge losses. I had a battle near Mainz between the main French and German armies and there was almost 200k casualties by the time the battle ended.
Seathom,
I've also had really high casualties, though not as high as yours. No matter how you play TEAW, expect high casualties no matter where/how you fight. I find this component of the game to be very well implemented. It recreates the technology and fighting tactics of the time. World War 1 was a grind and there's no escaping the huge losses. I had a battle near Mainz between the main French and German armies and there was almost 200k casualties by the time the battle ended.
How did you get the Russians out so early? I have noticed that those that concentrate on the east seem to get the Russians out early (which obviously makes sense). I have had victory after victory against them, yet their rebel alignment is only at around 58 in late Jan '17! It was higher a few months ago, but seemed to have gone down after the Americans entered; either because it is scripted or else through events, I can't remember. I have captured Warsaw and Riga and am next door to Kiev. I also am next door to the czar (for the umpteenth time - he always manages to retreat after defeat and hides for awhile!) so I'm hoping if I can eliminate the czar's forces in a big battle, that will cause the Russians to quit via NM loss.
Throughout my game, every nation only seems to gain +1 rebel alignment each turn (Russia +2 because of event), so every other nation is at only 25-48 rebel alignment. I have noticed that my battles are a bit smaller than what most players have and I'm beginning to think that there are higher thresholds for battle losses to increase rebel alignment than there is for NM? If this isn't the case, I'm stumped as to why alignment hasn't risen faster. This has been the only lasting frustration with my game (the only other matter I had was the mechanics for game balancing). Any suggestions?
Throughout my game, every nation only seems to gain +1 rebel alignment each turn (Russia +2 because of event), so every other nation is at only 25-48 rebel alignment. I have noticed that my battles are a bit smaller than what most players have and I'm beginning to think that there are higher thresholds for battle losses to increase rebel alignment than there is for NM? If this isn't the case, I'm stumped as to why alignment hasn't risen faster. This has been the only lasting frustration with my game (the only other matter I had was the mechanics for game balancing). Any suggestions?
I took Moscow, Petrograd, and Kiev all within a few turns of each other. Checked Russian NM and it was 0. LOL. Went on for another turn or two and then the Russian peace treaty kicked off. I'm not sure about the rebel alignment, as I've never got this far in the game before as the CP. I noticed that rebel alignment went up big time after the peace treaty, though. I've had to leave lots of Austrian and Bulgarian forces in the east to handle the Greeks and take back rebel held cities.
I'm also a bit perplexed as to the re-positioning of CP units after the peace treaty. Hindenburg and several other big armies ended up stuck in Arkhangelsk and have had to move through allied Persia to get back to the game proper.
I'm also a bit perplexed as to the re-positioning of CP units after the peace treaty. Hindenburg and several other big armies ended up stuck in Arkhangelsk and have had to move through allied Persia to get back to the game proper.
Did you use your navy to take Petrograd? After Riga, I tinkered with the idea (probably should have just done it). Very impressive march to Moscow! Was Hindenburg C-I-C on Eastern Front, and if so, how many armies attached under it's command? Did you have a lot of decisive battles against EE (destroy a lot of units?). My battles seemed to take a lot of supply and magazines, but didn't destroy a lot of fighting units. It is good to know that getting the EE NM down to 0 facilitates peace treaty (that was my hope because rebel alignment was not going to get over 80% quickly). Thanks for that info; I'll continue to take major cities and not obsess about rebel alignment.
This is my first real game; I've heard you needed to quell rebel cities so it was my hope to not take a lot of territory from Russia, just gradually take cities but winning battles was higher priority. When that didn't help with pushing up the revolution, I decided to take more cities. Baffled as to why German armies would be sent to a remote northern port?
This is my first real game; I've heard you needed to quell rebel cities so it was my hope to not take a lot of territory from Russia, just gradually take cities but winning battles was higher priority. When that didn't help with pushing up the revolution, I decided to take more cities. Baffled as to why German armies would be sent to a remote northern port?
No navy at Petrograd. I just went straight up the rail line leading from Riga and laid siege to it. Old Czar Nick was in charge there after being routed from Odessa, so the battles there went pretty well for me. Hindenburg was my C-in-C at first, but I replaced him with another 3 star general in order for Hindenburg to lead a field army. When I took Moscow I just repeated the Petrograd movement. I spring boarded 3 decent sized armies towards it with just about every turn. Their cohesion was very low, but it was the same for the Russians, so it all evened out.
My first moves in Poland were to surround Warsaw and cut off supply routes for the Russians. The northern wing near Konigsberg raced east and south and met up with another pincer moving up from the south. Once Poland was cleared out it became a cat-and-mouse game of chasing Russian corps around and eliminating them one by one. I'm sure a human opponent would have kept me on my toes more than the AI at that point. I think the key to the Russian front is movement and challenging them to as many battles as possible. The Germans have some very good units and leaders with high combat power, so winning lots of battles against the Russians is a lot easier than it is against better trained French or British units. After a long slog and taking the right cities, the game is pretty much conditioned to kick off the peace treaty. In TEAW the Russians seem to be a very large paper tiger.
My first moves in Poland were to surround Warsaw and cut off supply routes for the Russians. The northern wing near Konigsberg raced east and south and met up with another pincer moving up from the south. Once Poland was cleared out it became a cat-and-mouse game of chasing Russian corps around and eliminating them one by one. I'm sure a human opponent would have kept me on my toes more than the AI at that point. I think the key to the Russian front is movement and challenging them to as many battles as possible. The Germans have some very good units and leaders with high combat power, so winning lots of battles against the Russians is a lot easier than it is against better trained French or British units. After a long slog and taking the right cities, the game is pretty much conditioned to kick off the peace treaty. In TEAW the Russians seem to be a very large paper tiger.
Boomer wrote:Having my best Central Powers game yet. I picked the Moltke option and am steam rolling Russia. It's early in 1916 and most of the VP locations have been taken or are being besieged.
Problem is with me ignoring the west I now have a huge pocket of French forces battering their way into western Germany. Several of my fights have shown French and British numbers of well over 1 million troops. The AI has taken my efforts in the east to build overwhelming strength in the west. Hope to contain it, but for every inch of ground I gain in Russia, I lose one back in the home territory.
Don`t ignore the West. Russian army can`t really recover from 1914 offensive, so no point in using up so much forces there.
Boomer wrote:I think the key to the Russian front is movement and challenging them to as many battles as possible. The Germans have some very good units and leaders with high combat power, so winning lots of battles against the Russians is a lot easier than it is against better trained French or British units. After a long slog and taking the right cities, the game is pretty much conditioned to kick off the peace treaty.
British and French units are not tougher. It is perfectly possible to grind to Paris by late 1915.
Boomer wrote:In TEAW the Russians seem to be a very large paper tiger.
Russians were large paper tiger in WW1. They lost war to Japan in 1905, they failed to mobilise industry by 1915, suffered from huge shortage of munitions, to the point where Russian artillery support was basically absent in late 1914- and 1915, and Russian state arms failed to even manufacture enough rifles, which led to them having to purchase millions of Rifles from USA. Even in 1916-1917 Russians barely managed to get parity in light artillery, but not in heavy artillery.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests