Jump to content

WW2 thinking in a WW1 simulation--the mistakes that it can cause

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily I'm a WW1 fanatic but also have a fair bit of WW2 knowledge. The thing is with WW1 once you start to read about it it becomes far more engrossing than WW2. There is something about WW1 that I can't put my finger on.

Another WW1 game has just been released at a higher scale than this one and I've seen some AAR's that make me cringe abit because it's obvious the players are WW2 players but not only that with the game I'm thinking off it kind of plays WW1 lite bordering on WW2 which for me is a big turn off.

SCWW1 seems to have more credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germany in WWI has all that they need to win in WWII, a strong navy to have a chance to negate sea to UK and put Rusia out of the war ... and viceversa, in WWII Germany has all that they need to win in WWI, defeat France (because in WWI if Germany defeat France sure they return Belgium independence to satisfice UK and made them leave war) and have Italy as allied to try control Mediterranean sea.

WWI has his own rules, as Entente you cant leave central powers take iniciative or they can smash one front and them strike back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same experience. I felt like winning in 1914 as CP and negletted artillery. But later found out my mistake after I saw French dig in. ─░mpossible to advance with all the high level trenches. I also negletted Ottomans(They didn't join the war at all) and I guess that's why Russia reinforce Danzig with many troops !. That was under normal setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...