DavidFields

Again, putting the pictures in the AAR makes it very engaging. "Intelligence reports" is from aircraft?--I have yet to well use my aircraft for such a task.

Which is ironic, since, in Roman times, it was the Huns from the East pushing the Germanic tribes into Roman territory..... But that is off-topic. Let's see if 1914 is really the death of cavalry, or if horses really still have a place in a German/French conflict.

It is amazing to me that less than a 100 years ago, a European statesman could wear a uniform so weird, pagan, and bombastic as what you showed Kaiser Willhelm wearing. He looks like something a Celt or Gaul commander, facing the Romans, would have looked like. I can't think of an equivalent look in WW2, outside of a Wagner opera. What amazes me about these AARs is how they are all so nail-biting. Really? They are all so long that huge imbalancing flaws could have been unmasked, particularly by two players who know the system well enough to potentially "game" it.

+1 also Though I will be hiding in the WW1 era until this is all worked out-though buying any CM2 expansion, because I am hopeful the mortar/mg issue will be resolved.

Again, a wonderful AAR. But as far as reality, is it correct that the Germans have the upper hand? I thought they were to be fighting a fighting withdrawal, but they seem, at this point, to be going almost toe to toe with the Entente. Can you remind us of the victory conditions?

Is victory in this scenario usually an NM issue, or one of territory? [spectacular AAR, with the intelligent historical analysis and pictures. I was going to write, "It goes without saying"--but, hey saying it is likely the best way to go to motivate excellent scenarios. It is astonishing that you may be doing a 1870 scenario.]

As a player, and not a history grog, I want to mention how much I enjoyed my first game as the Turks, on Intermediate, where I received the lowest level of victory by just holding onto Adrianople. It is seldom fun to play against the AI, but this was an exception. Not being familiar with the scenario, it was fascinating to have enemy units pop all around me, and end up making a fighting withdrawal, almost like a Vietnam War ambush, and ending up establishing a last-ditch line. In replaying this, and looking at the victory conditions, I sense that counter-attacking the Balkan League at Greece may be the reasonable strategy. I look forward to playing this many times, with variations. (the scenario is also a nice length, with a nice--lowish--number of units.) If the Turks are supposedly overpowered, then all the better for me--when I switch to playing the Balkan League it will still be challenging playing the AI (except now I know to cut the rail line) I like the 1200 MPP build for the Turks--lots of options, but, but.....making a massive navy is not one of them. That would be consistent with what I see as the philosphy with this SC series to make big navy builds correctly difficult and expensive. There are so many subtle issues such as how quickly units on the attack could actually advance, and how easily attacking units from different nationalities to coordinate, and the special terrain issues which are abstracted intensely, that I think there is a correct need to balance to create the correct flavor. If Bill decided to take away artillery units for the Balkan League, and add infantry units, as Aryaman seems to advocate, I would not be against it, but the testing would need to be, in my opinion, significant. Again, to me this is an utterly excellent scenario, both fun to play, and I know know 10 times more about the balkans geography--nothing like fighting across terrain to understand it--, and the historical situation in the area in 1912, than I did a month ago.

A grog should be able to determine this by the markings on the shell. Also...he is not wearing anything around his neck, other military insignia, or a belt. It almost looks like a fake war photo, except the round looks real. The "aiming" system also looks primitive enough to be WW2. I am not a grog: so I am going to guess German, 120mm. Could be N. Africa, or the steppes of Russia--the terrain looks very flat. [Please give me partial credit if it is Hungarian, or another Axis ally]

I like this approach a lot. This keeps the simulation, I think, from being just an arcade type of game.

The number of units in this scenario is a bit intimidating to me. It looks as though there are almost as many in this theatre as the Campaign has in all of the theatres. I the purchase price and upgrade price for each unit then lower?

Bill, Those ambushes are very interesting. I will also argue that they represent a very old tactical strategy, which this game system shows better than most: induce the enemy to rush forward, in low supply, non-fortified, and in less than optimum organization, then ambush those "victorious" units. That tactic is, I am sure, pre-Roman. The weapons may change, but the idea is the same. Again, with the supply issues, and the deadliness on mass surprise concentration of units, a relatively simple game mechanics simulates reality beautifully. I will be getting Breakthrough as soon as I finish my latest Campaign in the original.

54 I am impressed you mentioned AH Tactics II. Me also. Was there any wargames before that? Remember play-by-mail, where you picked stocks, and the "die roll" was the last digit of the amount of stock traded that day, converted onto a special chart?

Utterly fascinating AAR. And the pictures give it a rich flavor. If it is not out of place, I have a technical question: How does one scout toward a position with a single unit, then seeing it is strong, pull that unit back?

I am in the "honeymoon period" with this sim. That is when you are impressed with the game system, but have not learned how to break the system or the AI. So, you may be outlining an issue--attacking a port--which I never considered, because, as you say IRL, would be a major problem. Fortunately, I think I will get much, much, for my money until the above occurs.

+1 And I will likely stay on the WW1 sim until this and the mortars are improved...or until we get to 1941 in WW2.

Again, guys, this is not for the vets. This is for the person who wanders into the forum as a newbie, and might want the perspective of a newbie. [Great German East Africa AAR. My guess is that Ph.D candidates in history could even learn from it] Naval Warfare--Campaign view The elegance of the naval warfare system can best be seen, I think, by looking at the units. Subs: It takes a special ability to attack subs, which most units, at the beginning of the Campaign, do not have. So, at times, the subs can be seen, but not killed. This, combined with their random ability to dive, and their effect on convoys, gives them a slippery, unique feel. Battleships (Dreadnaughts): The have a large ship to ship punch, though, in the beginning, they are ineffective against subs. But when I took my first damaged Dreadnaught back to port, at a level 3 in damage, and realized it would take about 1/3 of my turn British MPP to fix it.... Long build times, expensive in MPP an NM, with a few parameters, they are the antithesis of the subs. Then there are the destroyers, which hunt the subs. And the cruisers, which punch, but lightly, and which are cheap losses to protect transports and amphib. With a few bush strokes, the relevant issues with ships are painted. [someone else can explain the carriers/seaplanes--help to monitor the convoy lines? I have not quite figured them out] Combine the above with a first-strike system, where the enemy attacks you when you stumble into it--which penalizes mindless recon. I was also suprised at the high movement points for naval vessels, but it seem to work both tactically, and to minimize the tedium of stategic deploymen. The result is this: Capital ships are committed only with much thought, and screened. Subs and destroyers play cat-and-mouse games. Transports and cruisers and destroyers function on the periphery. In other words, reality. In most stategic simulations, I have found that the naval part is often tedious and non-realistic. It is hard to simulate the FOW of a ship in a large body of water. This simulation seems to get it right. Indeed, combined with the convoy system, if one were allowed multiple players on both sides, I could see being the Admiral of either side being interesting an fun. Bonus point: the simulation allows the US units to enter a "worm hole" on the east coast of the US, and end up near Europe several turns later. Though it avoids the tiny chance that a German unit could obstruct passage (given the vastness of the Atlantic and the multiple paths), the result is that one does not have to remember, as the Entente, to move the units each turn. That is a gamer's addition. Reduce the tedium, not make this just an OCD test, and get at the essentials.

Thank you, Bill, for the clarification. It is very helpful. So, if I recall correctly there is a "choice" that allows the CP to possibly do Unrestricted Warefare or not. Is that true? And given your answer above, is there any advantage for the CP ro forgoing Unrestricted Warfare forever?

Right, Sapare. The change seems like a large one. And if I read the patch correctly, isn't this true?: pre-patch, if one picked Unrestriced Warfare, but then did not actually attack convoys, there was no penalty--which means, as was I think implied in the Strategy Guide, it was a no-brainer of a decision. But now, if one picks Unrestriced Warfare, the US gets a small nudge toward the Entente in any case? If so, that would seem to markedly change the calculation to potentially decline the Unrestricted Warfare completely--it makes it a real decision, which may be a reason it was changed.

From the changes in the new patch, my guess would be that people thought that the US was not being activated soon enough (unrestricted warfare not pushing them hard enough, and the blockade of Germany slowing things down). So, now, is a CP game without Unrestricted Warfare a much more attractive option?--trying to knock Russia and France out, and hoping the UK will just misallocate resources? Will this replace the (modified) Trieste decision as one of the most vital decisions made?

Now, if you could only cash in my nice comments, and buy that [whatever you want], the world would work as it should work.

As usual, these days, I absolutely agree with JasonC. And, again, as I have asserted before: either everything we have been simulating over the past 30 years, and the source material that JasonC quotes, is off, or CM2 is off: MGs, Mortars, and Spotting (as another post in this thread has pointed out--I had noticed the odd distant spotting issue, but could not put my finger on what the problem was). So I would flip the challange around: what data does BFC have that so alters our understanding of WW2 tactics?

I am going to argue that the AH decision whether to give Trieste back to Italy or not is the biggest game changing event in the simulation. [Discuss--particularly comparing it to the Lenin choice] It seems to me that it is really two different wars depending on that decision. Playing the Entente, the AI chose to give Trieste to Italy. My first reaction was, "great". But then, no Italian navy. No enemy AH units required for garrisoning on the border. Suddenly the Ottomans look more worrisome. (Is Italy normally an MPP help or drag for the Entente?) My question is this: For the SC Professionals, how often, as the CP, do you find youself making the choice to take the NM hit and give back Trieste? Under what circumstances?

I am just a Newbie also, but I am going to take a stab at this. 1. Detachments are very weak compared to Corps, and I think they are mostly used to hold rear/internal areas that just need "someone to be there". 2. I think HQs are vital, affecting Morale, and usually supply, and hence Readiness. I started my first campaign on "green", because this war, and its strategies, are so foreign to me.

Add to the list: Mentally, I had my UK forces in Egypt looking the wrong way for an attack. I must say, there are so many things I like about the mechanics of this simulation: the NM mechanics are brilliant, for example. And I like the transport/amphibious process--no fussing with building transports and then trying to position them in the correct place. Instead, one has the interesting choice of where to spend your MPP, when there is never enough. I could see how one could have wildly different games with all the enormous number of interesting choices. Spend a lot on diplomacy? Even then, affect minors or try to bring/keep out the big boys? New units or upgrades--gosh, that big investment in Infantry tactics implies expenditures on upgrades....instead of bringing the French Navy up to strength (again, I have to remind myself that the French are in the battle to, they hope, the end). Save up for a HQ unit? Long-term investments in the air force?--which will not be useful if one loses the ground war in the meantime. Once a nation begins to NM weaken, jump on it rather than spreading youself out, but then risk not getting the kill, and being to weak everywhere else? The convoy system is also elegant. It has clear, simple mechanics, but enormous different strategies and consequences. I know you all know all this. I am just validating it from the vantage point of someone new. Granted, the general public will consider the graphics too simple. But these are the same people who will then play Angry Birds, or Words with Friends--so, people are not consistent, and fun is fun. (The AI has not been slow for me--but I have a reasonably nice computer) And though I generally find the controls much easier than....other simulations on this forum...I almost had to laugh when I saw the "Control-something" key commands. Was there a time when that was hot stuff in the UI world? In short, when we moved from board games to the computer, the hope was that it would take out some of the drudgery. The temptation for game designers, though, was to then put in so many micro-management issues that the drudgery went back into the play. From what I can see, SC WW1 avoided that, and is a gamer's game.

I am playing my first Campaign game as the Entente. I am glad I started myself with easy settings: 1. I mismanaged Italy initially, thinking they were going to be my enemy. 2. I did not invest initially in long-term production items with France, since "they were going to be gone soon anyway" was still in my thinking. 3. I think I am over-enamored with the Russian front. 4. Was completely baffled by the appearence of Austro-Hungarian naval units (Trieste was given to AH, so there is no active Italian navy) 5. I initially almost completely ignored the Ottoman Empire--thinking of it as though it was a neutral Turkey. (Given events, I should not have given them their Dreadnaught) 6. Since I had stopped the initial 1914 assault into France, I thought I had certainly won--turns out there is more to the war than that. I have trouble thinking the word "Entente", instead of Allies. I still have to check the spelling of the word, and it still confuses me when I use it--I get confused on which "side" I am on when I read it. In all, an utterly fascinating experience. I now realize how "hard-wired" my brain has become, since childhood, to the WW2 narrative of how events progress during a war in Europe. It is a great lesson to see how things, at one time, were different.