Hyped about that expansion?

[Sapare]

No idea where to post this, probably not here.. but hey, shoot me.(not literarly)

Anyone ells hyped about that WW1 Start command expansion? In the words of a very specific show:

"But, I want it NOW!"

[Glabro]

As a player yet undefeated using the East First strategy, it's interesting to see how the Russians will have to be strengthened in order to withstand an immediate assault from the Germans as opposed to one where I force march the troops from the west to the east, and what ramifications that will have on a war that starts in the west.

[Kuniworth]

Hyped no? I've been around here since 2002, waiting for sc3 since 2005. It's kind of time we get some news soon.

[aesopo]

As a player yet undefeated using the East First strategy, it's interesting to see how the Russians will have to be strengthened in order to withstand an immediate assault from the Germans as opposed to one where I force march the troops from the west to the east, and what ramifications that will have on a war that starts in the west.

I wholeheartedly agree with you - the Russians can be rolled up in order and the Balkans secured and the Western Front is a short defensive line for Germany.

Supply isolation of garrisons is a most welcome change, added to the HQ damage and reduced logistical support.

[Sapare]

As a player yet undefeated using the East First strategy, it's interesting to see how the Russians will have to be strengthened in order to withstand an immediate assault from the Germans as opposed to one where I force march the troops from the west to the east, and what ramifications that will have on a war that starts in the west.

Considering how east first offensive was never used in the tournament(or I have not seen one) I consider it a bit of a "taboo" strat at the time being as it breaks the games balance, so I agree on being curious how they will fix that. Really there should be a number of events to counteract the east first move.(Maby something like a giant moral drop for germany much alike the Italy/Austria option)

[abukede]

Well I can confirm it is a big improvment and offers a lot of fun new features, campaigns and scenarios. This week I devoted around 20-30 hours to playing it single player to get through an entire game (1914 campaign) and it was very engaging. Often with beta testing it can be hard to complete games as you get a constant stream of updates. I also thought that the AI played much better and was a more difficult opponent than in previous games. I really like it a lot. Hubert and Bill have done their usual magic and made a great game.

If I get the time before my next show I may even do volunteer to do an AAR.

[Sapare]

Have you tried the balance of the East first stratigy and was that worked out at all? I am just curious how that will work considering above stated things.

[Kommandant]

Have you tried the balance of the East first stratigy and was that worked out at all? I am just curious how that will work considering above stated things.

Sapare, if you want to know in details, I sugest you wait for the AAR, me an the other Beta testers will make AARs in one or more main maps, but this is still in discussion, so I don't know when the AAR will start.

[Glabro]

Considering how east first offensive was never used in the tournament(or I have not seen one) I consider it a bit of a "taboo" strat at the time being as it breaks the games balance, so I agree on being curious how they will fix that. Really there should be a number of events to counteract the east first move.(Maby something like a giant moral drop for germany much alike the Italy/Austria option)

Really? No-one used it? Had I not dropped out before the quarterfinals due to burn-out with the game, I for sure would've used it had nobody told me otherwise.

Has anyone actually beaten France and won early using Schlieffen (against a human who knows how to play)?

Anyway, as long as the changes are backed by history, there should be no problem strengthening Russia.

[Sapare]

Really? No-one used it? Had I not dropped out before the quarterfinals due to burn-out with the game, I for sure would've used it had nobody told me otherwise.

Has anyone actually beaten France and won early using Schlieffen (against a human who knows how to play)?

Anyway, as long as the changes are backed by history, there should be no problem strengthening Russia.

Well, I have not seen anyone use it and I wont use it unless my oponent does first, I consider it gamey.

Anyway, I have not sen Schieffen work on the normal 1914. Combined with a well times Itally invasion Schlieffen can be the setup for breaking France. Overall Schlieffen probably does more harm then good, but I consider it a nessesary move to make in which you just have to do your best with what is given.

[Glabro]

Yeah, but it's weird...you say you have to commit to an offensive which does more harm than good. Won't that just lead to half-hearted, conservative "attacks"? Why is it necessary? Is there some sort of obligatory guideline to follow when going through the motions to attack (ie. can't stop before the Meuse, can't retreat back to the Belgian border)?

Also, is it feasible now to invade Italy? The mountain defense drop enables the Germans and A-H to actually make headway? My standard choice is to keep the Italians out.

Well, in any case, glad it's going to be history.

[Kommandant]

Yeah, but it's weird...you say you have to commit to an offensive which does more harm than good. Won't that just lead to half-hearted, conservative "attacks"? Why is it necessary? Is there some sort of obligatory guideline to follow when going through the motions to attack (ie. can't stop before the Meuse, can't retreat back to the Belgian border)?

Also, is it feasible now to invade Italy? The mountain defense drop enables the Germans and A-H to actually make headway? My standard choice is to keep the Italians out.

Well, in any case, glad it's going to be history.

Yeah Glabro, but now there is a big set back if you give Italy what they want, Romania will move really close to join the entente, if the Russian can push the AH army, the romanians will certanly join.

I have worked out some other moves that you can use against the russian first strategy. I haven't applyed them as I would like too, not much players use this strategy, we should play another game one of these days Glabro, I need to get my revenge from our game of months ago.

You will love the new what if main map, where the german armies are deployed in force agaisnt the russians, or that you can deploy a army force against russia, before the start of the game, in Call to Arms, I found that really useful, even using traditional strategy of invading france in 14, this army deployed agains russia, can hurt russian offensive against Germany-AH.

[Sapare]

Yeah, but it's weird...you say you have to commit to an offensive which does more harm than good. Won't that just lead to half-hearted, conservative "attacks"? Why is it necessary? Is there some sort of obligatory guideline to follow when going through the motions to attack (ie. can't stop before the Meuse, can't retreat back to the Belgian border)?

Also, is it feasible now to invade Italy? The mountain defense drop enables the Germans and A-H to actually make headway? My standard choice is to keep the Italians out.

Well, in any case, glad it's going to be history.

I consider it a plain unwriten agreement not to back out of the Schlieffen plan and trick the game. In all honesty, the game is obviously set up to use the Shlieffen plan.(Britian instant join and such) So far I have mostly seen classic implements of it, push with not all units but enough units to force france to draw the line at that first river. I think from all the people I played I am the only one who actully does a pretty drawn through Schlieffen plan offensive.(I used the heavy guns on the France front rather then moving it away.) But even then I tend to use the Shlieffen as a setup to later in the game break France more easily rather then trying to outright win instantly.(it just isnt possible, the french army is way to big for that)

But for gidlines to the unwriten agreement, all I ask is people to declare war on Belgium, everything ells is up to them. (The game should start with the war declared, just like Serbia(I know they did that later, but in all right they could not have declared war on Serbia and declared war on Russia instead).

[Bill101]

In all honesty, the game is obviously set up to use the Shlieffen plan.(Britian instant join and such).

That's very true, but in Breakthrough it won't be quite the same, and the opportunities for Germany to pursue different strategies have been increased by adding the Deployment Phase and the potential to delay the UK's war entry.

Whether Germany can make proper use of alternative strategies, or the one actually used in 1914 really was the best, is what Call to Arms in Breakthrough is all about.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what you all make of it after release, and to see if there are any brilliant grand strategies like the Russia first one of Glabro's.

[Glabro]

Good to hear about the improvements. I feel it's a bit of shame that what I thought was a bit of thinking outside the box with East First (without rail) turned out to be a gamey strategy.

I just thought that if the Schlieffen plan was made in the belief that France can be knocked out of the war quickly, if that actually can't realistically be done, why even try it?

[Sapare]

Because the war would have been rather one sided, NO ONE knew that Russia was such a fangless beast before the war, the only reason you dont use Schieffen is because you are playing a game centered on events way in the past, obviously you know how to go around what probably was such a stupid move.

[aesopo]

Because the war would have been rather one sided, NO ONE knew that Russia was such a fangless beast before the war, the only reason you dont use Schieffen is because you are playing a game centered on events way in the past, obviously you know how to go around what probably was such a stupid move.

Agree 100%. Rolling the whole Eastern front gives an impetus for the Allies to break on the Western front as the Eastern front could not be held. So, the Eastern front strategy also has it's disadvantages. But from the long term view point, the East would provide additional resources and forces to steam roll the Mid-East, Africa, India and still hold the Western front while this is going on. Due to a shorter front on the West, it can be defended. The Allies are really stretched to hold far flung positions and the Axis forces would have a shorter line of supply and ability to amass forces quickly. It would take deft planning and execution but it is doable. The West would need all of it's diplo chips to get the US in sooner as Russia and Serbia falls ideally in 1915 to get a real game going.

[aesopo]

Also, the AH navy could be saved combined with the Otto's in conjunction with the Kaiser's, to later leap into later action to challenge the RN. Ideally, Italy would have been knocked out before this happens.

[aesopo]

As with the manpower pool, it should also increase incrementally according to your demographics and conquered territory. Policies should be feasible to increase your recruitment pool but at the same time affect other aspects of your country (unrest, lowered morale, reduced industrial capacity, etc.).

[J P Wagner]

For me the added Russian Civil War mod will make this a worthy purchase. Though I enjoy AGEOD's Russia under Seige, I have been waiting for a more traditional boardgaming type experience along the lines of, one of my favorites, REDS and (though I never had the chance to play it) Rossyia 1917. I'm sure this mod will fit in perfectly.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

There is this "new" campaign in "Breaktrough!" called Ostaufmarsch, more or less the classical "Russia first" campaign. I had the luck to play it a few times already, and it is great fun to play. A lot of answers on common questions can be found in there...