First game recap - a Central Powers victory

Thanks for your feedback and comments, Flashman.  I think Britain was in a tough position stategically in this game.  Although they were never really under threat of attack and enjoyed naval superiority, from the beginning of the game they were saddled with two very weak allies (Russia and Italy), a third that was on the defensive from the start (France) and a fourth (U.S.) that would be useless until really about turn 6.  They also had to split up their forces between reinforcing France and threatening the Ottoman.  They had planned on a fairly quick knockout of Ottoman (hopefully by turn 6), but unfortunately that never materialized.  Russia was not able to hang on long enough to destroy the Ottoman’s invading forces or at least keep them occupied, and by the time Britain made it to Ankara (which was contested in turn 5 and ultimately taken over by Britain in turn 8 ), the Ottoman troops who had been supporting Austria-Hungary in Russia were able to make it back to Constantinople, requiring Britain to spend additional turns building new forces in India and diverting some of their resources from Europe.  Also, the naval superiority Britain enjoys is kind of overrated IMHO.  Once the Axis fleet was destroyed, there was really no use for the warships other than to discourage the Axis from even bothering to build a navy.  (In retrospect, that strangely turned out to be a bad thing for the Allies, as Germany kept spending their entire income on infantry, artillery, planes, and eventually tanks instead of wasting any income on ships until very late in the game when a CP victory was almost imminent.)  The merits of this strategy can certainly be debated, in hindsight.  But it was the first game, so the first crack at trying different strategies.  I will say this for Britain, that this strategy was thisclose to working.  By turn 5, Ottoman was on the run with British forces having taken over as far as Ankara and Syrian Desert, and they managed to capture Belgium, interrupting the German supply line and dividing the German forces.  Soon the German forces behind enemy lines were destroyed, and an Allied push east seemed inevitable.  I think if Germany hadn’t built tanks starting in turn 4, this strategy actually would have worked and the Allies would have won the war.  It was really that close, and at 17 turns a good long game.  It wasn’t until turn 8 that the German tanks finally arrived in Belgium and the tide turned towards the Central Powers.  So I still think it can be a viable British strategy depending on what the German player does (and it would be immensely helpful if Russia could manage to survive for even a little bit longer).

On tanks, the problem the Brits faced was that Germany constantly had a front loaded with artillery, and tanks are not immune to artillery fire during amphibeous assaults.  (Germany consistently built an approximately even distribution of artillery and infantry.)  Most countries along Germany’s coastal supply line consistently had five or six artillery along with at least a few infantry.  The Brits did not want to lose their expensive tanks and then wind up with no realistic chance of taking over one of these countries after their remaining force was reduced by artillery fire.  So early in the game Britain opted to land troops in Picardy to reinforce the French.  They made their assault on Belgium in turn 4 (which was the easiest target for Britain at that point in the game, with only a couple artillery and a few infantry), and took it over in turn 5.  But even then, Germany was able to contest Belgium again beginning in turn 6, and the Brits never really had enough of a foothold there to where tanks wouldn’t be vulnerable to a German counterattack.  There was a ray of light when American and French troops showed up in Belgium, but by then the German tanks had arrived.  In hindsight, the British player could have built a lot of tanks in this game, but I think it would have been very costly and probably a waste as several of them got destroyed by artillery fire and German counterattacks.  I really think tanks are set up for the CP, and especially Germany, more so than the allies.  Tanks in India might have been useful against Ottoman, but in view of their cost and the two-front war, Britain opted to focus on buying less expensive infantry and artillery units for the most part.

On Spain, it was costly, but I think it worked out ok and was ultimately a good decision.  France mobilized Portugal and attacked Spain with a decent force.  Basically, they got bad dice and could only contest Spain.  Those German troops weren’t truly a threat due to the rules about troops in contested territory.  Once the U.S. entered the war, they readily took over Spain and cleaned it up.  The extra 4 IPC in income helped America too.  The big problem for the U.S. is their distance from Europe.  The closest they can get in one turn from Washington is Spain.  American transports occasionally dropped troops off in Picardy or Belgium, but that required two turns.  America tried to time these landings to coincide with troops arriving overland from Spain through Paris or Burgundy, and it was effective in helping to keep France alive and destroy the German troops who were caught behind enemy lines when Britain invaded Belgium.  America is just really far away, and it takes them a long time to do anything.  At only 20 IPC a turn with not much chance to move up (24 in my game, with Spain), and not even entering the war until turn 4, they’re just really limited in what they can do in this game.

On the UK transports, I think you make a good point on Karelia - that looks like a missed opportunity in retrospect.  But Britain’s western front and UK transports were focused solely on reinforcing France.  I’d have to try this next time and see if it can be done without dividing their forces too much.  In this game, UK opted to help Russia by occupying the Ottoman and drawing their forces away from Russia, but obviously that wasn’t enough.  Britain considered Sevestapool as you suggest, but Ottoman took it over in the 1st turn and kept a decent amount of troops there (at least 4 or 5 infantry, as I recall) specifically to prevent Britain from using it as a bridge to help Russia.  By the time Ottoman units moved out of there to get back to Constantinople, the Russian Revolution (or even a CP takeover of Moscow) was inevitable and it was too late for Britain to try to take it over.  I suppose Britain could have taken over Afghanistan and tried to help in Russia via Kazakhstan, but that would have required them to divert serious forces away from their push towards Constantinople.  The troops in Egypt were used to take Trans-Jordan in round 1 and later walk towards Constantinople, so they couldn’t be used against Austria-Hungary.  I still think this was the better strategy.  Other than possibly reinforcing Albania, Britain can’t seriously threaten Austria-Hungary, with Trieste only one step from Vienna.  The inability to build ships in India is a huge impediment in that regard (although I realize it’s necessary for the sake of game balance).

I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and you make some very good points.  Of course, every game is different, and if Russia/France/Italy could hang on a little longer and get maybe some more favorable dice rolls than they did in my first game, I’m definitely going to try some of those strategies the next time.  Cheers.

@Flashman:

Interesting report, with very different conclusions from my own.

Why didn’t the UK build a tank army? In my game the British tank corps of 8 units was equally devastating as your Germans, winning big battles without suffering casualties. Germany by that time could not afford to counter-build, and the distance from Berlin was again crippling.

USA invading Spain seems insane; why add another 8 units to the CP army? Use the fleet to attack in Italy or the Balkans.

The UK is the powerhouse of the Allies, really the only one that can dictate strategy. Italy is just hanging on to survive; France needs every man it can find to push the Germans back into Alsace; Russia is just delaying the inevitable; America is a firefighter, going where it must to save its friends.

But the UK can fight almost anywhere; a fleet of 4 transports can shuck into Karelia and Belgium alternately, tanks if you can afford them (you should). Persia and Mesopotamia can be a staging post to support Russia through Sevastopol; Egypt can threaten the Balkans.

The key to Allied victory is the ability of the navies to send troops to any front, much more difficult for the CPs. A big army in Karelia (and another in Sevastopol) not only delays the fall of Russia, but immediately threatens to recapture CP conquests there, especially powerful now that the rules no longer force them to liberate these tts to Russia. The Allies shouldn’t allow the CP armies to just march back west once Russia falls.

@wittmann:

Thank you Kraftwrk. Enjoyed the read and gives me hope for my favoured side(the Germans).
I see, like me, you lost the German fleet early, but, unlike me, that was not the end for you.
I need to win my second game or be forever the loser!
Unlikely to play again for a while though.
Thanks again.

You’re welcome.  Let me know if you want any more specific advice on Germany.  8-)

@Texas:

For all the reasons you mentioned for the UK is why the Germans must build a navy.

I disagree.  As my game proved, if Germany can keep up a solid supply line along the coast with plenty of artillery, the Allied navy isn’t a dealbreaker.  It’s a waste of money for Germany to buy a navy IMHO.  They need to keep building land units to force their way into Moscow and Paris.  Not to mention that it will require a tremendous navy to even challenge the allies.  In my game, the Allies (Italy, France, Britain, and even the U.S.) eventually consolidated their navies in the London sea zone only one step away from Kiel.  It took several turns worth of German income spent almost solely on navy to finally clear that sea zone out towards the very end of the game.  And don’t buy subs - unrestricted submarine warfare is useless until very late in the game and will majorly backfire if used early in the game, as it will bring the U.S. into the war immediately on turn 1 or 2 for the sake of only 1 or 2 IPC’s!

@Texas:

Why wasn’t Albania activated until turn 4.  Did Italy just forget about it?  Also, if Italy moved its fleet out, what kept Austria from venturing out.

I misspoke - Italy actually activated Albania in turn 1, sorry.  Italy destroyed Austria-Hungary’s fleet in turn 1.  Unfortunately, Italy lost their transport to a mine in Constantinople while trying to help the Brits in Ankara (can’t remember which turn), and at that point there was nothing left for their fleet to do in the Mediterranean with Italy under heavy land assault from Austria-Hungary, so they moved the remainder of their fleet to the UK.

@KimRYoung:

Question,

Since you used the optional Russian Revolution rules, did youuse the rules from the game, or the new revisions from Krieg?

Thanks, looks like you had a great game!

Kim

Thanks, Kim.  I used the Russian Revolution rules from Krieg, which is great because that is how I was planning on playing anyway.  Make no mistake, RR is a GREAT thing for the Central Powers.  (Frankly, I think I even prefer it over capturing Moscow in retrospect.)