Peter Palchinsky

Bill, did the French at Metz say, "I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"? PP

Altaris, thank you for doing this. I've also desired a mod that is closer to the slogging match rather than WWII-light. But I have to say I was surprised how similar your run down of events for 1914 was to the historical record...that is a sign that your mod is meeting your intent. Looking forward to your strategic picture for 1915. PP

Also Bill, the original intent was for Zimmerman to contact Mexico and then have them approach the Japanese. If Mexico joins CP, then what about an outside chance the Japanese join CP so US (and Brit?) navy would be reduced?

Cerberus, you say you don't move your fleets, but do you bait and smash the Russian Baltic fleet at least? Also, at what rate are you purchasing subs? PP

Al, I believe you mentioned before that if you played as the Allies against Michael again you would likely prevent another large German breakthrough, right? So, how might you employ the US troops in another match up? Would you recommend feeding them into the fight to plug holes and contain his attacks or create a reserve force that spearheads your counterattack? If the latter, what timeframe might you be able to launch a counterattack and what might be your likely targets? I'm interested in Allied strategies and since you're one of the more experienced players whose played the Allies in the scenario I'd appreciate your insights. Thanks, Frank

Bill or Mike, would you mind showing a screen shot of the strategic view of forces from each of your perspectives in your next post? If you would rather not, then I understand. Frank

...include Germany? Thanks, Frank

Al, What turn is it now that you've launched your major counter offensive? Also, how many divisions does each nation have to

Since trench warfare didn't actually begin until around September 15 1914, after the Germans culminated, do either of you think being able to use entrenchments so early as a problem in any way in this scenario? Do you think they inhibit your aggressiveness at all? Perhaps not, but it seems players may be less aggressive since they are facing entrenched troops much sooner than the historical generals did. It might be interesting to playtest this scenario where each player agrees not to entrench their troops until after Sept 15th.

Great AAR! Bill, given this seems to be a repeat of the 1870 campaign when France faced certain isolation, how is the diplomatic war going? What are the British and Belgium mobilizations at and are you investing very little or a lot? What is the NM boost worth to France from either declaring war? It may be too early for you to say, but would you have done anything different diplomatically once you recognized the German strategy of avoiding war with Britain? Frank

In my previous play tests the Germans usually maintained the upper hand throughout the scenario mainly due to their artillery superiority which they can't seem to lose, and secondly to their entrenchment superiority (they even get to use captured Allied trenches at a higher level than the Allies). In actuality they accumulated over a million shells from the Eastern Front stocks, but expended this rather quickly before the Allies regained parity and could hold their lines. The scenario might be improved if the Allies started with level 2 shell production and the Germans started with a superiority in shots per unit (e.g., 10 shots per unit vs 2-3 for the Allies).

Al and Mike, I am enjoying your posts immensely especially since Claus, Mike, Bill, and I suggested/made extensive improvements to this scenario over several months. Anyway, Al, the US divisions (not corps) have a boost due to their large size. US divs had 28,000 men, 77 guns, and 260 machine guns whereas a Germ/French/Brit div in 1918 had less than half those amounts due to a reduction of battalions earlier in the war to compensate for manpower shortages. In fact typical Euro divs on western front in 1918 were down to about 8,000 men on average. US divs also enjoyed a superiority in automatic rifles of 768 vs 216 for French, 192 British, and 144 German divs. Just as an example of the prowess of the US divs, the US 42d div assumed the sector of an entire French corps of three divs, and may explain why history books typically mention US divs by name in their engagements during 1918 while divs in other armies are typically not. Frank

Honch, I hope you are still working on next version. I had a few observations recently as Axis on Jan15 version. 1) Italy paid for creation of Montenegro, but it was never created and eventually an enemy partisan formed in Cetinje instead. 2) Italy paid for troops for war against USSR. I thought the message said HQ + 2xCorps for 400 MMPs, but instead I got HQ + 2xDivisions. Which is correct? 3) Historically, Novi Sad was annexed by Hungary due to large Hungarian population, so I recommend it goes to Hungary with no partisans. PP

Instead of Yes or No, how about Yes or Delay? Some DEs for Brits, in particular, are too close for comfort, but it seems they should be able to be delayed in lieu of rejecting the DE forever. If delayed then the DE pops up the next turn and the cost is a little higher for delaying it. For example, the marine division, Hamilton HQ, and heavy artillery should all have the option to delay at least a few turns before a yes or no DE takes its place. This should make budgeting a bit more manageable. PP

I recommend reading a book, do exercises, or do chores while you wait. My problem is that while playing either 1914 or 1917 scenarios the AI turn increases slightly the longer the game continues until my computer just seems to freeze after about 2-3 years of game play...that's frustrating since the computer is working, but the game has seized it up. Sometimes it'll complete the AI turn after about 20-30 min, but I guess I need to get the latest gaming computer to fix this, but those are expensive. Until then I have just been filling in the wait with other activities. PP