Forced march of the ary units

[Ivanov]

This has occured to me after playing small scenarios during the tournament. I don't think that the ary units should be allowed to perfom a forced march. Artillery not being able to catch up with the advancing units, was a typical feature of every war during the early twentieth century. The arty units in big campaigns represent concentrations of heavy artillery on the army or army group level, so there is no way that kind of "units" of heavy, siege guns could be "force marched" just like the infantry. They should have a very low mobility and the only way to transport them on long distances should be rail. That would also help to represent in the game a static nature of the WWI warfare. In small scenarios the arty units represent probably corps level support, so they shouldn't be able to perform forced march either.

The reasons why I managed to score a major victory in Keiserschlach as Germans was the fact, that two turns before the end of the game I force marched two arty units in the vivinity of Amiens and Montdidier and was able to soften the properly entrenched positions of the defenders. Obviously the German army was not able to preform this feat in the real life, in 1918.

[Glabro]

Well it's been said before, but I don't think anyone should be able to use Forced March in the scenarios...at least not the current ones, because they're not balanced for it.

[robert.l.hatcher]

The distance travelled for each unit is different. A forced march is a unit that does not stop often, marches for an extended period with fewer stops, is adminsitrative so the unit takes no security measures, and they are too exhausted and poorly configured to fight when they arrive. Any unit can force march if they need to get somewhere and the route is secure.

[Ivanov]

The distance travelled for each unit is different. A forced march is a unit that does not stop often, marches for an extended period with fewer stops, is adminsitrative so the unit takes no security measures, and they are too exhausted and poorly configured to fight when they arrive. Any unit can force march if they need to get somewhere and the route is secure.

I still cannot imagine how would you force march heavy guns like those two:

[Peter Palchinsky]

The artillery pieces shown obviously have the wheels to move, so all you need are a large team of horses/oxen or tractors; however, the animals will need a lot of wagons of food and replacements along the way, and the tractors would need fuel and constant maintenance. If the area of travel has not been turned into "moonscape" like terrain, then forced march is possible, but like it has been said, the small scenarios shouldn't use forced march to account for the terrible wartime terrain.

[Ivanov]

The artillery pieces shown obviously have the wheels to move, so all you need are a large team of horses/oxen or tractors; however, the animals will need a lot of wagons of food and replacements along the way, and the tractors would need fuel and constant maintenance. If the area of travel has not been turned into "moonscape" like terrain, then forced march is possible, but like it has been said, the small scenarios shouldn't use forced march to account for the terrible wartime terrain.

The fact that the artillery pieces have wheels, does not mean that they can be force marched just like the infantry. They rather serve to change the position of the battery but not to travel fast on the long distances.

Let's go to another example. In "Call To Arms" campaign, Germans start with one heavy artillery unit. I assume that it is supposed to represent heavy Austrian 305mm Skoda siege mortars, that were used to to reduce the Belgian fortresses of Liège. Would you say that is was possible to force march this baby:

In the same campaign the French receive one heavy arty unit in 1915. As we know, the French army was desperately lacking heavy artillery pieces and in order to try to match the German firepower, fortresses like Verdun were stripped of their heavy guns. I am not sure how exactly those guns were adopted to their new role, but definitely their mobility was very limited.

[acrashb]

Would you say that is was possible to force march this baby:

Yes, easily. It isn't like the guns get dragged down the street with ropes or carried on the backs of specially-trained troops. Break it down, put the pieces on wagons, and march away. Reassemble at the destination.

As someone else pointed out, forced march represents movement without defensive measures (among other things). This is why you can force-march into your own territory, but not enemy territory, and why readiness is reduced.

We are not speaking of tactical mobilty (which of course would be low with an emplaced gun) but operational mobility.

[Ivanov]

Hmm, I'm not opting here to make the arty units completely immobile - I think in case of those units, the normal mobility without the forced march option, should be a good representation of their operational capabilities. The best thing to do, would be to establish the difference between the maximum speed with which the infantry and artillery could move and then adjust it accordingly in the game. Still, the main point was the arty operational movement in small scenarios, that seems to be quite unrealistic.

[Bill101]

One thing that hasn't yet been done (but will come with 1.04) will be for the readiness penalty for using forced march to be increased quite significantly. This should make its use require a bit more thought, and hopefully make us use it a bit more cautiously.

[Ivanov]

One thing that hasn't yet been done (but will come with 1.04) will be for the readiness penalty for using forced march to be increased quite significantly. This should make its use require a bit more thought, and hopefully make us use it a bit more cautiously.

That's a definitely good news Bill.

[Glabro]

Hmm...interesting, does this also impact the time of recovery by the same amount? Does it stack with itself if you do a forced march for many turns in a row?

[Bill101]

Yes, the longer you forced march, the lower the readiness and the longer rest time needed to recover.

[Glabro]

This is a big change, as the readiness loss was such that units were able to rest up most of it even while marching long distances.

Since this directly impacts Russia First, can we get a "East First deployment CtA"?

Hmm...now that I think about it...why not simply make a variant CtA where the German units are deployed for an attack east and mobilizations take place there? Let the German player decide which one he takes! Should be a relatively quick new scenario but it would be of interest to many, I'm sure.

[Bill101]

Wow, so most of the German army in our game has forced marched across Germany to attack Russia? That's a surprise, as I'd imagined that you were sending most of it by rail.

An East First deployment is an interesting idea... we shall see!

[Peter Palchinsky]

Von Moltke planned to split the army evenly between east/west with advances from Pomern/Silesia towards Warsaw for a quick defeat of Russian forces in Poland AND a limited attack into French Lorraine to seize valuable mines and other French territory close to Germany. Then he hoped the army's fortifications and superior firepower would blow away enemy counterattacks AND gain sufficient leverage for the forefavorable peace terms (annex Russian Poland and demobilization of French forts so German army could reduce expenditures following a peace treaty.

[Glabro]

Yes, Bill, I force marched them all...though this time around I was extra cautious and left significant reserves on the west front, which clearly was important, as you attacked the west line aggressively.

I was able to hold on with my reserves and the mobilizations without great difficulty, and now I've got enough trench tech to stop the French cold for now.

The East has been decidedly slower because of your efforts though, so it paid off and highlighted a potential weakness in the plan, since crucial early MPPs had to be spent on defense (inc. trench tech).

Therefore next time around I'm going to try von Moltke's plan and see what that does for me. Trying to get Paris feels like folly to me, but getting those mines would help, and then use the rivers for defense, even though the line is much longer and therefore more vulnerable in that case (which was one of the main reasons I adopted the "East First" policy.) - might as well use those troops deployed for Schlieffen for something!

Here's hoping we get an official East First though! Shouldn't take too long!

[Ivanov]

This is a big change, as the readiness loss was such that units were able to rest up most of it even while marching long distances.

Since this directly impacts Russia First, can we get a "East First deployment CtA"?

Hmm...now that I think about it...why not simply make a variant CtA where the German units are deployed for an attack east and mobilizations take place there? Let the German player decide which one he takes! Should be a relatively quick new scenario but it would be of interest to many, I'm sure.

I'd like to see a scenario that would be called let's say "Schlieffen 05" or "West First", where the German units in the West would be deployed according to the original Schlieffen plan, with a very strong northern wing and vulnerable southern flank. I think it would be an interesing "what if" variant and could work out pretty well for the Germans in the game.