Posts made by Preussener

Historically, Germany was supposed to send 80-90% of forces against France, Austria was to hold back Russia and Serbia, and Britain was not even supposed to enter the war.

Pre- World War 1 was a diplomatic disaster for the Kaiser, with only A/H as a stable ally. However, the Schlieffen Plan could still work, though it would likely need Austria/Hungary completely defending Germany’s eastern rear.

In extremely-simplified, “experimental” games I have played with just France and Germany, Germany wins only leaving Prussia’s armies behind. When Britain is added, Germany must send 100% of starting forces and the first 2 or 3 turns (5 inf, 5 art each turn) West to capture Paris. It takes another turn to secure any gains, all for a total of 6-10 turns.

(This is playing 1-space moves.)

Overall, it is difficult, but possible. Also, this was “experimental”, leaving out details like Turkey taking India from UK, and Austria losing to Italy.

I started a separate thread for the opposing view. (“Why you should take France first”)

Quick question to see if anyone else has done this before: When taking France, have you ever tried using a solid supply chain from Berlin along the coast, purchasing plenty of artillery with a couple planes?

The Gamebook Rules states in Land Combat - Assault, “… Immediately before the combat is resolved, any defending artillery present in the attacked territory can make a pre-emptive strike against all of your offloading land units and fighters as they come ashore.” (page 22, lower half) If the chain is attacked from sea, defending artillery is given a bonus like that of the battleship bombarding.

This strategy defends the North/West coastline, and can reinforce itself with the next army from Germany’s capital. Germany can also direct new troops to Russia after Paris is taken, thus using the same strategy to help in the Eastern Front.

This strategy has been tried successfully once. (Paris was conquered in 5 turns.)

(Disclaimer: The overall strategy asks for Austria/Hungary to defend Germany’s eastern and southern borders at all costs (especially Poland), anticipating that Germany can help east in Russia after it has finished in France. Thus, Germany needs to send all troops (initial and purchased) West to quickly capture Paris and guard the coastline.)

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!

@ MarineIquana: Don’t worry. In fact, my opponents have gotten a lot more experienced and I use a different plan now.

@Cow: If you do not reinforce the Western Front, then France, UK, and US become an ENORMOUS powerhouse.
*Also, you eventually need to take Paris to win the game.
*As you said, the Western Front is the most easily reinforced place for the Allies, so it eventually becomes filled with planes, artillery, and even tanks since France and UK have nothing else to do but create a horrific OFFENSIVE machine.

In other words, unless the Allies make a colossal mistake (which happens…), the Centrals eventually lose the game.

Attacking the British G1 is nearly necessary. Jutland would have been successful if only Germany had destroyed the Royal Navy (Germany has 4 additional attacking units, which is enough even if mines get some luck).

Unless the French go offensive (which is an essentially suicide), the Germans have little chance of reaching Paris with only starting units. My alternative: Buy two BB’s G1 just to scare the Brits, and purchase 5 art. and 5 or 6 inf. every turn. Just the basics, but lots of them!
One of Germany’s worst mistakes was that they did not have a good supply line, which is not solved by buying all planes.

June 28, 2014 is 100th Anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferninand. Since this is the A&A community, are there any interesting ideas for this Saturday in June?

One idea I have is to play both WWI and WWII side-by-side (inviting ~10 players). It would be educational for my friends who have only played WW2, but do not know a thing about WW1.

Another idea is to play Diplomacy, and play with the resulting alliances.

Anything else interesting? I would love to hear your ideas!

This version is currently my favorite. While I still love the sweeping-maneuvers of  WWII 1942, the slow, deliberate nature of the game puts a special emphasis on long-term planning.
Also, WWI 1914 seems quite balanced, with an historical slight edge for the Allies. Even with talks of a second edition, the First edition will still be played for a long time.

By the way, are there any big World War I 100th Anniversary get-togethers coming up? Any ideas for the Centennial?

@Chacmool:

@Tavenier:

I think to balance the Austria - Italy front. If one or two inf could immediatly could be moved to Northern Italy it would make things for AH more difficult.
Just my 2 cents.

With its 2 Transports and the Battleship offshore Bombardement France would always use this troops to land in Smyrna R1. After that Britain would take it on their turn. Would be too harsh for the Ottomans!

With two Battleships for France, among a few other things, the game is already tilted slightly Allies. I greatly prefer empty Marseilles (not to mention an Italy-as-CP game).

Sounds interesting. How about just using “1 player/ turn” option, where if a player owns both UK and France, but none else, he can move with just those two in an attack? Not as extreme (or interesting), but a little more realistic in some ways.

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare nearly won the war for Germany (according to multiple sources). That is clearly not happening in our games. To make it like the strategic bombing raids in earlier A&A versions would do wonders. It is the one house rule (yes, I tend to dislike HR’s) I will very likely use.

Bringing the number for US involvement down to 3 may make it a little more realistic, though, in my opinion.

Good discussion. I see a few things:
1. Focus on Russia.
2. Hold off France (Deutsche Army).
3. Hold off British (Kaiserliche Marine).

Yes, guys, I have been slightly changed on my position (for the better, right?). If France retreats all its forces, let it go.
However, I still hold that whenever France starts trying to go on the offensive (and losing more troops than you), punish it soundly.

Going after the British Navy is very rewarding, also…
@WILD:

We basically had Germany go full tilt West, and A/H go East (with some assistance to both). As stated one very strong axis army tends to work better then two weaker multinational armies side by side when on the attack. Â

The Germans can gain temporary control of the North Sea OOB w/o a major navy build up (reduction of French sz15 fleet helps), but I have to say we didn’t buy BB’s for Germany to prolong it, interesting idea though (could this be a key to success?). Yeah buying a couple BB’s would weaken your reinforcements coming in from Berlin, but if you had long term control of the sea, besides keeping the Brits out of France you could transport German units to Picardy from Kiel faster then if they had to make the long walk.

This is the strategy that has worked for me to keep Britain from the coasts of France (even when I play against experienced players).

By buying all/mostly navy on its turns, Germany has been able to accumulate ten battleships by the time the US becomes involved, with the UK hopelessly attempting to challenge them with their purchase of two BB’s a turn. This forces UK to focus on the Turks instead, who can then simply contract and pile infantry (sort of like France).

From the discussion, it seems that many have fallen into the trap of “following France into its den”. If France retreats, just focus on Russia until the French gain back their nerve.

@ColonelCarter:

@Preussener:

First of all, the Deutsche army should have virtually all of their forces in one place by the time they reach Paris.

What I listed for the Round 5 attack is every starting German west of Prussia and Silesia (-2 inf for taking Belgium). I actually failed to include one French purchase so the French would actually defend with every starting unit + 4 turns of buying 8 inf + 6 units from Portugal/Africa. So the actual Round 5 attack is G: 45 inf, 16 art, 3 fig vs. F: 60 inf, 9 art, 1 fig. Not winnable barring insane dice. And since you have only been building ~15 IPCs of ground/turn, postponing the attack will only yield worse ratios, since Paris won’t be contested. I suppose you could dive in R5 and then not attack for a while, but again, Russia or Italy is going to be threatening something by then.

Huh? Nearly 70 French units in Paris? Where did they come from? Perhaps they all retreated and France is broke on IPC’s? Where did France get the money?

@ColonelCarter:

@Preussener:

Once again, this strategy has been successfully tried numerous times.

And the 4-move checkmate in chess has been tried successfully numerous times. That does not make it a sound strategy.

I whole heartedly agree. That is why I intend to continue experimenting with this in real games (not just calculations).

@ColonelCarter:

@Preussener:

Side point: I prefer to use the Ottomans to simply send all Bulgarian and Turkish-produced forces to Russia.

So how is Britain not able to prevent this from Persia? Or supporting Russia through Kazakhstan? Are they even building in India or engaging in a futile naval buildup with Germany?

@Preussener:

Also, by attacking only one territory on a front at a time, the Austrians can lose very few units, too. This strategy has also been experimented with, and enabled Austria-Hungary to hold Italy with its Tyrolean, Trieste, and Bohemian armies, while the rest challenged the Ukraine. Even if Russia is able to hold off the Austrians (which is unlikely), the Ottomans easily side-step to Tatarstan, and threaten Moscow.

You’re using 18 inf, 6 art to hold off the Italians for an indefinite amount of time? Italy can attack Trieste with 17 inf, 6 art Round 2. That increases to 24 inf, 8 art for a Round 3 attack. This also leaves only 30 inf, 6 art starters to challenge a conservative 26 inf, 11 art in the Ukraine (4 inf in Sevastopol). Plus you are required to send unit(s) into Serbia. Plus Russia has those Romanians if you don’t kill them.

That is for an Eastern Front discussion.

@ColonelCarter:

Let’s look at the OOB Paris rush + naval buildup in a vacuum, with Low Luck for consistency.

Round 9 result: G: 2 inf, 3 art, 1 fig/F: 4 inf, 9 art->G: 14 inf, 4 art, 1 fig/F: 16 inf, 9 art (R10 beginning)

So while you may be just starting to overwhelm Paris, it’s taken you 10 rounds to do so. And one of Italy or Russia should be doing very well since Austria can’t hold them both off and the Ottomans’ full attention is on the Brits (since all of Britain’s money is going to India because they can’t get across the channel), and Germany had to stop buying navy R4 to make the seige of Paris mildly successful, so America’s navy (that they should be focusing on with all the German ships built) should easily be big enough to push the High Seas Fleet back into port and allow Brits across now that the Ottomans are no longer a threat.

First of all, the Deutsche army should have virtually all of their forces in one place by the time they reach Paris. With a higher attacker/defender ratio, the defender tends to lose all of its units in the first roll, and the attacker loses relatively few. It is extremely efficient. I march into Paris in 5 turns, and completely capture it the next turn. There are usually about 10 infantry, all 15 initial artillery, and a couple fighters left over in the end.

Once again, this strategy has been successfully tried numerous times.

@ColonelCarter:

So is Germany sending about 40 IPCs at France or building 2 battleships/turn? 2 battleships leaves Germany with only a piddly 16 IPCs to send at France, which will barely outmatch them even when Paris is contested. But if they don’t build those ships, Britain can send troops across the channel to help France out.

Clarification: The ~40 IPC’s worth of units that Germany sends is each of the initial “waves” of infantry it had in the beginning. Therefore, it is not buying any land units except a few from the leftover IPC’s. Instead, it is predominantly purchasing battleships (and lots of those). The British have no choice but to surrender their waters.
Side point: I prefer to use the Ottomans to simply send all Bulgarian and Turkish-produced forces to Russia. They do not need to survive (pessimistic, I know, but I care for the good of Germany much more). Also, by attacking only one territory on a front at a time, the Austrians can lose very few units, too. This strategy has also been experimented with, and enabled Austria-Hungary to hold Italy with its Tyrolean, Trieste, and Bohemian armies, while the rest challenged the Ukraine. Even if Russia is able to hold off the Austrians (which is unlikely), the Ottomans easily side-step to Tatarstan, and threaten Moscow.

@ossel:

My only question with this “snowball” strategy is: what is France doing while you’re combining all of your troops into one territory? Why wouldn’t they just go around you and drive through high-IPC areas like Munich and Berlin?

Same thing as if they went into the “Scorched Belgium” Trap: If one or two infantry side-step, send 4 or 5 to stop them. If a larger French army does this, annihilate it with your whole force.

@Chacmool:

@Preussener:

@Chacmool (on land strategy):
If France puts their dozens units in Lorraine, they get easily crushed by a full German attack from Belgium and Munich (and the Ruhr, if you play with 2-move).
Therefore, they can take Picardy with minimal effort.

@

You cannot attack Lorraine from Ruhr if you play with the 2-movement-rule because its a hostile tt. You can only move 2-tt into friendly or contested zones.

Well as I pointed out earlier, with its initial forces Germany can not take Picardy with “minimal effort”. I would say its nearly impossible if France plays as I described it earlier. Maybe I need a battle report from you ;-). You didn`t answered what happens to Belgium. Do you risk that the big german snowball is getting out of supply letting the Brits land there R2/R3?

First, thanks for the clarification. I have not played 2-move that way before.
However, I have always won with this strategy with 1-move (i.e. Munich and former-Ruhr/Alsace forces are all that are needed for Lorraine).

As for Belgium, a good general rule is to move into a stronger territory in the next turn (like moving all forces to Lorraine). If France is foolish enough to subsequently move all its forces into Belgium, you can then move in and overwhelm them. If the French player is a little more wise, you simply allow another wave of troops to arrive for one turn (Kiel/Hanover forces if 1-move, Berlin if 2-move).
After that, you can easily storm into Picardy.

Remember, France is producing only ~25 IPC’s per turn, while Germany is sending about 40 IPC’s worth per turn (preferably with newly-bought fighters, for extra firepower).

Finally, there is really no chance of Britain landing in France when Germany is making 2-4 battleships per turn (and has destroyed much of the initial Royal and French navies). That is the purpose of going all/mostly naval builds.

The way to attack is from two territories into one. By the time Germany reaches Paris, their forces have consolidated (somewhat like a snowball) into a large army at the capital. However, if you send the Hanover or Berlin armies to Russia instead, you run the risk of not having enough to take France (though you could if you were decently lucky). I send all forces West, except for a minimal force on the Eastern Front. By using all this, you have a very good “buffer” of troops.

@Chacmool (on land strategy):
If France puts their dozens units in Lorraine, they get easily crushed by a full German attack from Belgium and Munich (and the Ruhr, if you play with 2-move).
If, on the other hand, France puts all their armies in Picardy (or even Burgundy), you can simply build one more turn when you once again have a force nearly double what the French have. Just remember to resist the urge, and to not advance until you have enormous forces ready to swiftly and surely destroy the opponent.
As you pointed out, the French can send 8 infantry to the front each turn. However, the Germans essentially have a dozen infantry and 3 or 4 artillery (along with planes when you’re this rich) coming in each “wave”. Therefore, they can take Picardy with minimal effort.

@Chacmool (Sea-strat):
As long as the Kaiserliche Marine is pumping out 2-4 battleships per turn, the Brits can say “Au revoire” to the French coasts. (The Portuguese would meet a similar fate, too.)

The Germans are essentially fighting a one-front war against only France (the ideal situation for Germany).

@Gtsg:
I hear you also tried a naval approach. How exactly did the transports work?

Hello, all,

I have had a general strategy for Deutschland against Frankreich that has worked well, every time (6 times now).

Germany has so many land units in the beginning that they can simply go all-out navy-builds if they use their troops efficiently (something the Germans were usually known for). By using a land strategy of “Boom-and-Bust” sending overwhelming forces into one territory at a time, Germany loses very few soldiers. You will then move all armies in West and Central Germany to the west (only East Prussia and Silesia need to hold down Russia, especially when the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish players are attacking them).

Following this rule, the best thing to do on land would be to send all 14 infantry and 6 artillery into Belgium. On the second turn, use all 30-something units available (including Munich forces) to take Lorraine. Third, take Picardy. Fourth, storm into the capital with about 30-something units. And finally, the Berlin force of nearly 20 units will be “having lunch in Paris”.

As for its navy, the Germans can become a nightmare for the UK if they spend all on 2, and later 3-4 battleships, per turn. The Brits, and later the Americans, do not stand a chance on the high seas.

Once again, this strategy has worked very well for me, and I would be delighted to see how it comes out with someone else.

• Chris