lettowvorbeck

The way Greece is handled really shows Bill's skill as a scenario designer. Designers must work within the developer's system (a truth many customers cavalierly dismiss) and this compromise solution was a nice way to construct a historically reasonable work around to a code constraint.

Unfortunately, this is an instance where the NM model failed and the "winner" is going to lose. Civilian morale should be soaring from the news from France but there is no game mechanism to reflect it.

The German-French NM disparity has narrowed incredibly fast. It sounds very French of me to say so, but the UK needs to shoulder more of the burden on the continent. The British manpower commitment is still tiny and with lots of NM to spare, while the French are bleeding like crazy from one end of the line to the next. I love this AAR. It is just as much fun to read as it is to play the game.

congratulations!

Why was Denmark complaining?

I would send the German eastern front artillery to the western front. At this point, they are unneeded vs. the Russians.

build a Greek arty unit and go on the offensive!

are you making any effort to get Level 2 artillery? It really helps on the defense. If you are outnumbered 3 to 1 in arty units on the Western Front, you're just going to get picked apart. Arty and shell prod. should be a priority.

No, but they're very useful for supply!

You don't have to fight to the death in Serbia; you can take your Serb HQs and men and withdraw into Greece and Albania and continue the fight there after Serbia surrenders...as long as you make sure they are all outside Serb borders at the moment of capitulation.

No worry about clutter. These are just as much fun to read as Tom vs. Bruce and we didn't have to pay for a $13,500 Kickstarter campaign to get it.

I'm not sure you have the strength for simultaneous offensives in Italy, E. France, and Russia with time a factor (with all the while your right flank in the West crumbling). You might be better off putting off the France offensive (which will cost you heavily if your opponent is capably using his level 2 artillery) and use the savings to shore up your right there and accelerate the fall of Russia and Italy.

One of the things that I liked in the early version(s) of SCWW1 was the ability to do real counterbattery fire from behind your own lines. At level 2, hvy guns had a range of 3. I support the possible reasons why it was reduced to range 2 (e.g. the unbelievable amount of width and depth one could manage on the offensive with range 3) but would it be possible to make a range exception just for counterbattery fire? I remember when I was a complete newbie to the SC system and in my first pbem game I didn't see any particular reason that level 2 artillery was so much more appealing than Level 1. My opponent disabused me of that notion with devastating counterbattery fire when I attempted a counteroffensive at the most critical juncture of the game. having artillery be able to pound defenses with complete impunity just makes the western front fighting especially feel wrong in the game.

Were you guys taken aback at how easy it was for the German player to bull his way through what was considered the teeth of the French frontier defenses? I mean, there were solid reasons (e.g. terrain, fixed fortifications, etc.) why the German planners avoided doing what Ivanov did.

I don't have any saved game files for it, but I'll say that I can second Amona's contention. In my experience it always happened along the front lines in France (ranges up to 8 tiles or so). I don't know why I didn't mention it before, I guess I just assumed they were graphical glitches associated with air attacks of some kind.

Bill, I seem to recall something like that! The Germans pressing way out beyond the French left while Belgium is still neutral makes me wonder how they are supplied.

I've never had it happen in a pbem game of CtA.

I thought that was part of the scenario design, that a really early turkish entry would forestall the Basra landing?

I meant Italy is as fragile as glass in Frank Hunter's "Guns of August". You smash them at the border (usually people sent a big Austro-German force early in the game) and advance a few hexes -- the hex scale is much larger in that game -- and they give up.

This was a common strategy in Frank Hunter's WW1 game, esp. with Italy so easy to beat in that one.

What do you guys think of the damage that destroyers do to subs? too little, about right, or too much? I am inclined toward the too little, but not too drastic.

Thanks for the explanation. I do agree with the Rumanians getting greedy if A-H is in the territorial giveaway mood! They had huge numbers of ethnic Rumanians within the empire.

BTW, I do agree that it seems like the US does not get ticked off enough by unrestricted sub warfare. In a recent 1.04 game, my opponent did it for many turns with at least half a dozen sub units and, after all that, it only bumped US intervention to 15%. What I wouldn't want to go back to is the earlier versions when the US was guaranteed to enter the war.

Is that really the consensus view that the game is "too easy to win as CP"? I've won all of my PBEM games as the TE (except the very first when I didn't know how the game worked, and even then I felt it was far more of a draw). Of course, my sample is small and it all depends on who you're playing but at least two of my opponents were obviously used to winning as the CP.

K, I like your thoughts on this. Tying it to territory plus NM, with the latter having the cool dual effect of forcing the A-H player to think again about ceding territory to Italy. In terms of what territorial points to choose, I am thinking something like the oil fields (like you say), Lemberg, and Pryzmsl cumulatively starting a slow clock [like Belgrade does for Serbian intervention but even slower]. This gives extra incentive for the A-H player to retain or recapture these sites. There could also be big boosting triggers beyond the Carpathians that might tip intervention quickly.