Yay! Played a real live 1914 game. Four players total, read the work in progress write up here:
Alternative Winning Strategy and Tactics for Central Powers
-
We play-tested this again yesterday with the result that Central Powers won. Rome and Paris fell just as the last holdouts in Russia were barely surviving.
-
Mr. Cow, you have completely missed the point.
No one is talking about AH using transports.
The whole issue here is protecting the southern flank of the Central Powers by minimizing casualties in the Balkan territories of Albania, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria.
Taking control of SZ 17 prevents the Allies from mobilizing Albania.only one AH-BS and the two turkish cruisers will not be enough to hold off the british fleet (1 BS,2 Cruisers), the frenchies and the russians.
You will need two turns of complete naval buys as Austria to get strong enough in SZ17
-
I have a hard time understanding how this would work? In AH1, AH would send the fleet into sz17 and buy 1 BS right?
If the allies arent totally bad they would:
R1 - Attack sz20 with 2 cruisers from sz21 (lets assume they atleast get 1 of the ottoman cruisers)
F1 - Reinforce/Attack sz17 with 1BS and 1 Cruisers from sz16. F would surely destroy the remaining AH if there are any.
B1 - Reinforce sz17 with 1 CruiserSo with this in mind the Ottomans cant do anything with their navy(1 or zero cruisers), since the allies would have 1 BS+2 cruisers in sz17.
AH cant do crap in round 2 either with their 1 BS and buying 1 more would be a bigger waste, since in the british round 2, they would send in 1BS and 1Cruiser that started the game in sz29.In my opinion all AH have done is wasting 12IPC on a BS that was really needed for ground forces.
-
I am a bit humbled at these responses, honestly. The strategy works for me when playing against my peers, but you (Chacmool and Oddbjoern and alejsgo) are strategizing at an extremely high level of play. I salute you.
When I play as a CP player, I build a few German Battleships and keep the Atlantic routes in jeopardy for as long as possible. The British and French fleets are busy establishing Atlantic Supremacy, so they are not helping out in the Med (SZ 17). The Allies spend lots of IPCs doing this, but to delay them is the strategy for CP.
Your points to counter this are well made and valid.
I will rename this strategy as “Sea Zone 17 Gambit” and continue to hope that those whom I play do not read the countermoves as posted in this forum. -
I tend to play much more casual games. And whenever I’ve won as CP, it’s been with a decent amount of naval pumped into both Germany and Austria Hungary. AH is more for a Fleet in Being, whereas the Germans tend to run around the North Sea zone for as long as possible.
-
Hey, Kolonel K,
Where did you get the original idea for Germany’s putting all its units in Alsace? It seems very much like the German’s plan (Mannstein Plan) in WW2!
-
Well, you know how trying to repeat history in a board game usually doesn’t work?
All I am doing is trying to seek another solution for Central Powers to have at least a 50% chance of victory as the game rules allow.
The key point on Alsace was that Germany gets a jump of one turn on France, because France always (almost always) mobilizes Belgium on Turn 1; That small diversion of effort gives a concentrated Germany a space and time advantage. -
I think it’s a good strategy,like it…about the movement of ships,can’t find something about MUST ATTACKING when you are entering the sea zone with the enemies in it…just MUST STOP.
-
To alejsgo: On Turn 1, the thing that prevents France from consolidating transports off Canada is the remaining German subs that had the mission of sinking the British fleet on Turn 1.
To Dukla passer: you are right; I had misunderstood and thought that combat was required when enemy warships are in the same Sea Zone.This gambit only works when A-H successfully occupies SZ 17 AND when the Allied combined navies don’t immediately react.
As I said earlier, my opponents have been unconcerned about SZ 17 until it was too late. The Germans have been forcing 3 Allied Powers to build up navies in the north Atlantic by being aggressive early on with battleships. That is a very good IPC tradeoff.With all the moving parts, options, and player personalities, we have not had any games develop in the exact same way. This game has proved itself as very challenging for both Allies and Central Powers.
-
This post is deleted! -
Alejsgo, you are right.
I now calculate that the SZ 17 Gambit, along with the Kill France First Strategy, has maybe a 45% chance of success (downgrading from 50% earlier estimation).
Somehow, some way, there has to be a strategy for the Central Powers to have an even chance at winning.
On purchases, I have been buying approximately 1 Artillery for every 1 Infantry while in an Offensive Phase.
When the tide turns to Defense, I buy all Infantry. The exception is Fighters; I try to have enough to gain Air Supremacy on the most vital fronts.
I am now switching to a buy of 1 Artillery for every 2 Infantry, to cover casualties.
Anyone else have a purchase formula? -
This post is deleted! -
That is what I was trying to say earlier. The new tournament rules open this game up a lot. Giving the CP more options and allowing for more strategies. Personally, I think this makes the game more competitive and fun to play…though it does detract somewhat from the WWI theme of getting bogged down and slogging it out in the trenches. But if the game played that slow I would rarely have anyone play the games with me.
-
Moving just one space makes the CPs too predictable. The Allies have to be playing like puddings not to be able to anticipate every CP move and use sea movement to counter it.
-
Well, for what it is worth, I played Tournament Rules for the first time this weekend. Playing CP, had to go with Kill Russia First strategy, which worked well (CP had Economic Victory early on, and the tide turned around the 7th Round). The Sea Zone 17 Gambit was not available, because the Allies countered it early and gained domination of the Mediterranean.
Has anyone else found that early buys should be Infantry-Artillery balanced, but later buys should be 90% Infantry? -
Based on the assumption that you’re taking mainly infantry as casualties, yes. I tend to think and play in terms of building large artillery stacks, with enough air cover to make them effective; and just as much infantry as you need to protect the stacks. Finally, when you have an economic advantage, build a tank stack to finish the enemy off.
-
Hypothetical problem for your German Fleet ideas.
Assuming the Russian player is crazy/unpredictable they can move their Baltic BattleShip into the same seazone that already contains German ships without firing on them. That move passes through two minefields so the Russian Battleship would likely be tilted. Where does the German Fleet attack? The crippled Russian battleship or the British fleet?I though a mined sea zone was considered hostile? Which would prevent that move.
-
In OOB rules mined sea zones are not hostile, but I believe they are hostile in the PTR. I’m always afraid to move that battleship through 2 mined zones though so it usually just sits there uselessly for the whole game when we play.
The problem I see with the SeaZone 17 gambit is in my games the 2 Russian cruisers always hit the Ottoman cruisers in 19, mostly because they don’t have anything else to do. That sounds be a slight advantage to Ottomans due to the mines but it never seems to work out that way.
-
I enjoyed the discussion. My experience is OOB rules with no Russian Revolution. Under these conditions, the Central Powers have the odds stacked against them. The only chance they have is to spend for troops on the ground not navy.
-
I’m not sure i agree. The only times I’ve seen the Central Powers do any good at all are when Germany spends at least a little on navy. Just enough do the Allies have to think about it.
Suggested Topics
