Hey guys
I'm playing CP in a very intense PBEM right now. It's mid 63 and the French and British are attacking in the West, Italy is in the War, Serbia is basically knocked out. Russia is holding it's own, though the forces in Poland are all but cut off but I'm unable to finish them off. Everything is needed in the West.
Now, I have 6 full Armies screening off the French in Freiburg and Schwarzwald. Hindenburg is CiC and also at the scene. Troops were firmly entrenched, barbwire level. Now, a couple of French Armies, I think it was 6 as well because the numbers seemed to match, attacked. I managed to beat the assault back and dish out about 20% more casualties than I took. Must have been around 300.000 total.
Thing is, I haven't been able to build a single! new division in almost a year because I have been busy replacing on every front for 4-5 different nationalities. I guess it's fairly historical, at some point there probably was no new recruitment. But now, the problem are replacements themselves. There are obviously no manpower reserves, the 200 a turn make maybe 1-2 chits a nationality or 4-5 for one if in need. I'm not quite sure how to replace my losses. One big attack knocked out several divisions and almost a single army. They will be out of action for months now. Yes there are new Allies but they dont bring an increase in manpower production. How is the CP player to resist the Entente in the mid and later game? I just don't see a chance even to replace my losses. The WE player fixes to strike all along the front now, the prudent thing to do of course. And I mean I can't take all my units out to allow them to recover until i can maybe afford replacements a year from now.
It does seem that the issue isn't exclusive to my PBEM. Various front, big battles and manpower shortages seem like sound variables across the board.
I would like to hear how other people experience the issue.
The issue of replacements and general manpower overall has been the topic of discussion among the players of a pbem in which I am engaged. We have a similar concern, not that the number might not represent historically available conscripts, but that in game terms replacements eventually become impossible. This happens even when a new class of recruits should become available.
All of the nations face this to different degrees, but the Central Powers likely face a more acute problem with regard to manpower.
To me, the issue with big battles is not as important as there are player actions which can be taken to shape the size of forces engaged in any one battle. Perhaps some House Rules could be used to try out potential solutions for those concerned with mega-battles.
All of the nations face this to different degrees, but the Central Powers likely face a more acute problem with regard to manpower.
To me, the issue with big battles is not as important as there are player actions which can be taken to shape the size of forces engaged in any one battle. Perhaps some House Rules could be used to try out potential solutions for those concerned with mega-battles.
Byrd,
You will see a thread from Projekt were we have changed the game to remove MTSG we have found this slows the early slaughter as you don't have 12 armies being drawn into a single battle.
Forces in the same region will still engage, just no reinforcements come in. At the moment it is working well, though it seems to change the Diplo game a bit too much for some reason.
We are hopeful that this will mean replacements will be esaier to come by in the late game and extend the game to beyond a 1917 finish.
You will see a thread from Projekt were we have changed the game to remove MTSG we have found this slows the early slaughter as you don't have 12 armies being drawn into a single battle.
Forces in the same region will still engage, just no reinforcements come in. At the moment it is working well, though it seems to change the Diplo game a bit too much for some reason.
We are hopeful that this will mean replacements will be esaier to come by in the late game and extend the game to beyond a 1917 finish.
On a basic (Historical )note-
France out of 40 million mobilised approx. 8 million
British Empire from 40 odd million + Empire mobilised some 9 Million (including 1.5 Million Indians and over half a million dominion troops)
Germany with about 67 million mobilised a stupendous 13.25 Million
Austria with 52 million mobilised only 8 million
Bulgars with 3.5 million mobilised 0.75 million, again stupendous effort.
Russia had about 140 million (hence, greater than German Empire + Austrian Empire Combined) but mobilised 12 Million only (Russia went out in late 1917, so one year less).
Turkey did about 1.4 Million or by some records more i.e. near to 2 million, others state closer to 1 million, but 1.4 is considered a ball-park figure
USA and ITALY both did about 5 million each. Though USA only sent about 2 Million to France of which about half saw combat.
Romania and Serbia about 650000 each.
Belgium about 300000.
Japan about 800000 but most didn’t see combat.
Portugal less than 100000 most didn’t see combat.
This is the bonus we get, since BEN made some tweaks to manpower.
1915:
Central Powers +1200 Conscripts
Eastern Entente +1000 Conscripts
Western Entente +800 Conscripts
1916:
Central Powers +600 Conscripts
Eastern Entente +500 Conscripts
Western Entente +400 Conscripts
Now what can be done more than this, i am myself not sure. Right now the accruals per turn are ok i.e. Historic. Problem in PBEM is WE is too strong, maybe the WE leaders can be penalised a bit. I have written several times, ITALY should have only 2-1-1 leaders. French leadership and English too can be pruned a bit. Or maybe some cohesion losses to those big stacks accumulated in one place.
BTW i guess EE is facing Manpower issues as well. Or it will shortly.
Continuing, most of those numbers i.e. over half were mobilised and sent to the front within 3-6 months of war declarations, rest were mainly replacements.
The German Army understood the problem of the CP (same as what all of us CP players face) in late 1914/early 1915 and thus, by 1915 April its divisions underwent a process called as Triangularisation. This was done by the French and British in late 1917 and early 1918 respectively.
Basically, it increased the machine guns, mortars, medium and heavy artillery in each corps by 50-200% and reduced manpower by 25-30%.
This was how most of the new divisions in 1915 were formed by the Germans, these new divisions were instrumental in Gorlice-Tarnow, Serbia, later Romania, Counter-Attacking Brusilov, Caporetto etc. The allies were slow to realise this. Further, the German trenches were multi-layer, overlooking the allies on high ground, well built and had some basic amenities.. this is again not shown, maybe Germany can have 2 trench levels higher or a major defensive bonus on the Western Front.
Another alternative is to reduce frontage on provinces having level 4+ trenches, say at level 3- no difference. I suggest Level 4+, as Eastern Front gets only level 2 or 3 at most and this front should be fluid.
4- 10% less, 5- 25% less, 6- 35% less.
Thus, as you get level 6 by 1915, the Frontage will be 1/3 less and thus battles will be less lethal for the defender.
Or Attacker should get penalties in trench attacks equal to penalties in RIVER CROSSING or greater!.
All these penalties will be gone, once the Storm Troopers and Tanks are part of units in some proportion. This will make the 1918 offensives possible.
France out of 40 million mobilised approx. 8 million
British Empire from 40 odd million + Empire mobilised some 9 Million (including 1.5 Million Indians and over half a million dominion troops)
Germany with about 67 million mobilised a stupendous 13.25 Million
Austria with 52 million mobilised only 8 million
Bulgars with 3.5 million mobilised 0.75 million, again stupendous effort.
Russia had about 140 million (hence, greater than German Empire + Austrian Empire Combined) but mobilised 12 Million only (Russia went out in late 1917, so one year less).
Turkey did about 1.4 Million or by some records more i.e. near to 2 million, others state closer to 1 million, but 1.4 is considered a ball-park figure
USA and ITALY both did about 5 million each. Though USA only sent about 2 Million to France of which about half saw combat.
Romania and Serbia about 650000 each.
Belgium about 300000.
Japan about 800000 but most didn’t see combat.
Portugal less than 100000 most didn’t see combat.
This is the bonus we get, since BEN made some tweaks to manpower.
1915:
Central Powers +1200 Conscripts
Eastern Entente +1000 Conscripts
Western Entente +800 Conscripts
1916:
Central Powers +600 Conscripts
Eastern Entente +500 Conscripts
Western Entente +400 Conscripts
Now what can be done more than this, i am myself not sure. Right now the accruals per turn are ok i.e. Historic. Problem in PBEM is WE is too strong, maybe the WE leaders can be penalised a bit. I have written several times, ITALY should have only 2-1-1 leaders. French leadership and English too can be pruned a bit. Or maybe some cohesion losses to those big stacks accumulated in one place.
BTW i guess EE is facing Manpower issues as well. Or it will shortly.
Continuing, most of those numbers i.e. over half were mobilised and sent to the front within 3-6 months of war declarations, rest were mainly replacements.
The German Army understood the problem of the CP (same as what all of us CP players face) in late 1914/early 1915 and thus, by 1915 April its divisions underwent a process called as Triangularisation. This was done by the French and British in late 1917 and early 1918 respectively.
Basically, it increased the machine guns, mortars, medium and heavy artillery in each corps by 50-200% and reduced manpower by 25-30%.
This was how most of the new divisions in 1915 were formed by the Germans, these new divisions were instrumental in Gorlice-Tarnow, Serbia, later Romania, Counter-Attacking Brusilov, Caporetto etc. The allies were slow to realise this. Further, the German trenches were multi-layer, overlooking the allies on high ground, well built and had some basic amenities.. this is again not shown, maybe Germany can have 2 trench levels higher or a major defensive bonus on the Western Front.
Another alternative is to reduce frontage on provinces having level 4+ trenches, say at level 3- no difference. I suggest Level 4+, as Eastern Front gets only level 2 or 3 at most and this front should be fluid.
4- 10% less, 5- 25% less, 6- 35% less.
Thus, as you get level 6 by 1915, the Frontage will be 1/3 less and thus battles will be less lethal for the defender.
Or Attacker should get penalties in trench attacks equal to penalties in RIVER CROSSING or greater!.
All these penalties will be gone, once the Storm Troopers and Tanks are part of units in some proportion. This will make the 1918 offensives possible.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Overall, casualties need to be toned down quite a bit, or numbers have to increase with casualties being limited through frontage so that battles are far less devastating, especially to the defender when both are active. I wouldn't object to a big manpower bonus once an ally joins or replacements at half price to deal with the large numbers that become neccessary.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests