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

Another aspect is that if the general perception is that Russia is strong enough to defeat Germany then Britain is likely to behave less cordial with the Entente. Perhaps Britain will remain in the neutral camp longer given a potentially significant change to the balance of power. Any crisis involving A-H and Russia may gain British interest against Russia to thwart any possible gains for Russia in the meditteranean. So, a 1917 start may find a neutral Britain that could go either way. Thoughts?

See a review of Mombauer's book at http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5010847407 Moltke the Younger felt intense pressure for a conflict given increasing French/Russian strength during his tenure. Besides an intense fear of being overtaken by superior enemies, German prestige in Europe was decreasing with time and smaller nations, like Romania, started looking towards the Entenete for their future interests. Another interesting scenario might be an earlier start to the war soon after Russian defeat in 1905 war with Japan, and thought it might seem too complicated, it would be based on what was available in reality; especially before the start of Russia's Great Program. Anyway, an earlier start means less tinkering with Schlieffen's plan by Moltke.

Bill, another book you may be interested in for this period is "Helmuth von Moltke and the origins of the First World War" By Annika Mombauer. You can read free excerpts at google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=t4gDyLfeUEQC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=helmuth+moltke+two+front+war&source=bl&ots=hbKQCMlBdd&sig=dRVyP3LO9XznfbHjGm2RUPAG8Kg&hl=en&ei=USXzTP7-BMaAlAe_nLDvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false She critiques Zuber in footnote 126 at bottom of p74 for confusing terms because technically Schlieffen left a memorandum, not an operational plan per se; however, she asserts that the general staff would have objected to Zuber's assertion since they definitely knew they were implementing Schlieffen's strategy, which was his life's work.

Bill, if you haven't yet you should read some reviews about Zuber's book. See one at http://www.warbooksreview.com/war-books-review/2011/02/the-real-german-war-plan-1904-14.html. Zuber is apparently pushing a personal agenda concerning the Schlieffen plan and German war guilt. He believes that the Schlieffen plan is a creation of historians after the war to push blame for defeat on the pre-war general staff, and so German war guilt is not supported in his opinion. Anyway his conclusions are challenged often; however, he's nit making everything up, so just be mindful of the reviews before reading it. It reminds me of Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War and the controversy he stirred up, but I liked that one a lot because of the details he provided on the British cabinet discussions.

Thanks, Bill. I'm trying to visualize what drove the Germans so crazy with nightmares about Russia in 1917. Norman Stone's excellent book on the war in the east alludes to these fears and excited my curiosity, but I wonder what the second order effects might have been. It seems easy to plus up the Russians and begin the war in the summer of 1917, but would the increase in Russian strength have led to a rethinking of German warplans? Would the emphasis swing back to the east and defense in the west as Moltke the Elder wanted? I haven't found any detailed force projections for Russia, but I'd bet it would have begun a debate in the German General Staff. It may have impacted the Navy's funding plans in order to plus up the Army in order to stick with the Schlieffen Plan. Given the perception of Russian superiority in 1917, there's the possibility of an official break with Italy and a swinging of Ottoman Turkey towards Britain and France since Germany had already been losing prestige in Romania and Greece. I'd like any thoughts I can get before launching down the road with this diversion so I don't get too far off the path of reality. PP

Generally speaking, historians seem to frequently allude to a pre-1914 German fear about a vastly superior Russia by 1917. Some themes mentioned are improved strategic RR system that would significantly reduce mobilization of Russian forces into Poland, improvements in artillery, increased number of army divisions, and a larger modern fleet. However, are the possible alternatives of 1917 only about Russia? Has anyone uncovered other programs with Russia or any other combatant's armed forces that might have been developed had hostilities not begun until 1917? I'm interested in general strategic thoughts for an alternate 1917 WWI start.

Ok. It's the Forum that is truncating the link, but it still works. Just click it.

Correction...paste function messed up the link: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1492403

I googled it and found Volume 1 at the following site: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1492403 PP

Thanks, X, great site. And for anyone interested in reading actual newspaper articles from the WWI early period on your iPhone, use iBooks and download the complete NY Times Current History series on the Great War. Awesome info including front line reports from ALL fronts (many are firsthand), and great editorials by pro-CP and pro-Allied sympathizers trying to influence neutral US opinion...it gets really nasty after May 1915 sinking of the HMS Lusitania. It's interesting to read how people were thinking about the war in late 1914-early 1915 in geo-political terms, and how much they were thinking peace would last as soon as one side won and proven that it was the strongest. Lot of interesting insights into the reasons for the start of the war and alternate outcomes that people thought might happen.