Thank you so much!
Is Germany screwed?
-
Posted this snippet of the German moves described by Larry.
This illustrates that (with no rail movement) it takes Germany 3 turns to get new units to the Western front (i.e. Belgium & Lorraine).
In contrast, France can push new builds straight into Lorraine, while the UK can ship pieces directly to Picardy or Belgium.
I find it hard to see how Germany can win this fight in the long term: so is the Kaiser finished if he doesn’t take Paris by turn 3?
-
Well, Germany certainly will buy Infantry every round so there will be reinforcements every round. This isn’t Global 1940 where you are buying Mech/Arm with Germany. The route could be different, but likely
Berlin -> Hanover
Next turn could hit/reinforce:
Kiel, Ruhr, or AlsaceOr you go Berlin -> Kiel -> Ruhr
In the East of course is easier: Berlin -> Prussia/Silesia -> Poland
So, yes it takes longer for a specific purchase to make it there, but you will have 50%+ unit Purchases in each Territory between Berlin and Western Front. The amount you split your forces between East/West/South is the key.
-
Well as long as germany -takes- some ground. They’re the ones who are better off by defending it.
-
What if Austria can send a little help in southern France. Not a lot just enough to take away from the defence of France from Germany. Maybe that will be enough to crush France.
-
However they do it, Germany is still left, every single turn, with a bunch of units sitting uselessly “in transit” in Kiel/Hanover/Munich, while every allied unit is on the front line doing service. It took Germany about a week to transfer an entire army from front to front, here it takes 3 turns (a year?) to march from the centre of Germany to the French border.
It also means that Germany has in effect to plan moves three turns ahead instead of being able to react to changing fortunes, something the Allies can do instantly.At the very least, allow G & A to move units 2 spaces in non-combat moves.
-
The dice shall do the talking.
-
The thing is, Germany has to plan its moves so far ahead that the Allies will know exactly what’s coming at them every turn. Without the ability to switch from front to front German strategy will be transparent, hence easily countered.
-
Unless Germany is so strong that the other allies have no other option but to rush units to the Western Front or else lose Paris.
-
Well Germany was screwed in real life so it makes sense it would be screwed no  :-D.
Though with stronger allies than in real life (the dice assumes all men are the same standard) then I think it’s a little early to decide how the game works out just yet.
-
Maybe it’s the other way around.
Maybe Germany needs the space to give her time before the allies can reach Berlin. I agree that telegraphing what’s to come to the front lines is a disadvantage on the offense. However, it may be balanced by giving Germany an advantage when on the defense.
-
Germany goes on defense they die.
-
It will also make Germany a boring power to play. All you really have to decide is how many new units to send east, and how many west. Without being able to switch emphasis with rail movement you have no strategic manouver whatsoever.
The only alternative strategy available is to move your units by sea, essentially using the Baltic and Gulf of Bothnia to invade Russia via Petrograd. This practically invites Britain to invade Kiel, though you may have enough to defend here.
The whole character of war between 1860 and 1945 was that of railway movement allowing powers to reinforce their armies before decisive breakthroughs could be made, hence the heavy attrition.If Germany takes 3 turns just to reinforce a static front against western Allies who can move units much further by sea; if the map design means that Poland, the likely main battle ground in the East, is the same distance from Berlin as from Moscow, then German is fatally crippled.
I maintain that the Central Powers need rail movement to stand a prayer in this game. Only a huge and artificial material advantage at the start and a swift victory over France and Russia, probably before turn 4, gives them any hope.
Yes, they lost the war in reality. But the main advantage that might have given them a victory was fast internal lines of communication. By robbing them of that you doom them.
-
Germany did have a very good rail network. A big reason for some of the big defeats Germany inflicted on Russia was due to the ability to move large amounts of troops by rail to come up on certain fronts. That was also something that worried the main Russian General (forget his name now) who was planning the big Russian offensive in 1916.
Perhaps that should be reflected in the game somehow, like an extra space in NCM. -
Your constant pleas for rail movement could be made irrelevant if production worked how I suggested.
Powers may place one infantry in any uncontested original territory with an IPC value of two or more.
-
Well, yes, but I’m assuming that when Larry says all new units are placed in the capital he means it, however retrograde the idea is.
-
If rail movement was done, however it would be done, would be clunky, only because it would add an extra layer to the game.
(spare me your simplified version of rail movement, the ONLY simple version would be a “strategic redeployment phase” where a power can move X units triple distance or something)Production in all original contiguous 2+ IPC territories would have been a GREAT stopgap to avoid all this insanity.
Because I get what you are saying about the long march to the Western Front.HOWEVER your map may be wrong, Hanover might not exist and be part of the Berlin territory, allowing German units to shuttle right into Ruhr or Alsace.
-
Larry specifically mentions Hanover, which can only be where I’ve placed it. The borders may be slightly different, i.e. Alsace may have a border with Tyrolia, but I’m sure this map is essentially correct for Germany.
There is nothing clunky about my rail rule. You simply make all combat moves first, then move remaining units by unlimited rail. This really is how it was done - Germany DID move entire armies by rail across the length of the country in the space of a week - why do people have a problem with that?
Again, the entire character of warfare in this period was shaped by the ability to quickly reinforce front lines by utilizing the rail networks. Without it, the game more closely resembles the Napoleonic conflict.
-
I agree with you Flashman. Simple and effective non combat Rail movement rules could of been made for this game. It could still work out well. We’ll have to see when we get the game.
-
Germany did have a very good rail network. A big reason for some of the big defeats Germany inflicted on Russia was due to the ability to move large amounts of troops by rail to come up on certain fronts. That was also something that worried the main Russian General (forget his name now) who was planning the big Russian offensive in 1916.
Perhaps that should be reflected in the game somehow, like an extra space in NCM.Brusliov
-
Perhaps it is and we just don’t know it yet……Perhaps units have unlimited movement amongst contiguous original territory. (or maybe just Germany does because the Ottomans don’t deserve such a rule)
Suggested Topics
