Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The War To End All Wars - A UK MP AAR using the World War One mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Had they abandoned the Ukraine offensive, and indeed the pointless long line inside Russia they occupied, they would've had the troops to face the Rainbow Offensive.

Operations in the east had already reached a point of no return by this stage Poach. Yes, cancelling the offensive into Russia would mean the Rainbow Offensive could be dealt with, but then what? By this point there'd be no hope of going on the offensive in the west and winning, so the only realistic option was to continue pressing in Russia. Rumania could and should have been covered (my preference would have simply been an invasion to gain precious manpower, resources and security), no doubt that that strategic flaw lost us the game.

Regarding my rather huge army by the end of the war, I must have pumped out a good third of that army size in just the last few months...At this stage of the war, my fronts were secure (as secure as feasibly possible when facing the brunt of Britain while having to cope with other fronts :D) but my manpower was still around the 800 mark. I knew the war would now not be decided long term, so technology didn't matter as much, therefore I switched to minimal training to pump out a huge quantity of troops in a short space of time, in a hope to go on the offensive once more when I switched my training law back again. About 150k went to the Istanbul Front, 100k to the Caucasus, another 50k I guess went as a reserve to the middle east, while the rest was sent to central Turkey to act as a strategic reserve against any massed allied naval landings. Due to poor infra in Turkey (I put a lot of effort into alleviating this inevitable problem during the early game, but there was only so much I could do) these took a long time to reach full org and were only really combat ready towards the very end of the game session.

I was just about to throw some of these troops against the British in a counter-offensive designed to try and lift the pressure off my allies in the west, but the task was simply too great to achieve, with supply issues hampering my advance even further...

My point is, do not mistake the massive Turkish forces by the end game for me being comfortable throughout the majority; I was really on the ropes against numerically superior foes :p

- Oh how I yearn to play as a major in our next game! :unsure:

Please feel free to ask me any specific questions regarding the Ottoman Empire, I'd be more than happy to answer!
 
VonMudra said:
Seems to me like allies were somewhat overpowered. The Germans showed a consistent tactical and strategic superiority in WW1 that made up for their lower numbers, so I think that somehow needs to be represented. Differences in schools of thought on trench building (Germans built to last, allies built under the idea that trenches wouldn't last), assualt tactics (stosstrupp versus french human waves versus the british still walking into combat on the Somme, and then simply adopting human wave afterwards). Same for navy, the British had that habit of stacking ammunition all around the ship, causing one or two hits to explode the entire ship, plus German gunnery training was superior, whilst british make up for that with better commanders and better guns. Also, it seems that tanks were rather overrepresented in this game, seeing the French have tanks in 1914 is rather disappointing, and for that matter, should be extremely ineffective. Half of french tank casualties alone in WW1 were caused by small arms, the generic armour piercing rounds the Germans issued to every man were more than capable of penetrating side armour on most of the allied tanks, especially in volleys. Add to that that a large number of the tanks in any offensive broke down and were unable to even enter combat, and that tanks that did enter combat suffered around 30-50% casualties for every day of battle, and you see something that should be rapidly ineffective in combat.

So in general, I think the Germans need buffing, Austrians need more manpower, and there should also be tighter restrictions on declaring war on neutrals (apart from Belgium). One thing that would be nice is a chain of events for Greece that could, depending on relations, go historical, pro-allied, and pro-german. I'd also be interested in how amphibious assualts could be prevented from being common place, since that would make it rather easy to tear apart Turkey.
Click to expand...
The Germans need a manpower nerf, more than anything. The Austrians could do with more manpower and France could do with a minor leadership nerf. The entire tech situation was ridiculous, too. As for the amphibious assaults: they were all risky and only succeeded due to enemy negligence.
I WUB PUGS said:
Neither of those events happened. No one fielded armor, only armored cars and only Istanbul was bombed as UK had bases right next to it.
Click to expand...
I did have armor, actually. It was a total waste.
Poach said:
Some stats of army sizes at the start of the last session:

Germany: 882 brigades
AH: 807
OE: 469
Total CP: 2158 brigades

Russian Empire: 805
France: 686
UK: 518
Italy: 222

Total Entente: 2231 brigades (+226 if you add Belgium and Spain, both with 113 each in total)

2158/2457 = 0.89, or with player brigades only 2158/2231 = 0.967

The Central Powers were, at the start of Session 6, very slightly outnumbered. Considering historically they were rather significantly outnumbered I don't feel the Entente was overpowered at all in terms of troop numbers. We should be closer to 2:1.

We won the war because we fought smarter. The Germans didn't press us in France, deploying little more than a holding force and following a Russia first strategy. This allowed me to focus on the Ottomans and put them under siege. The CP continued to pour men and material into Russia, extending their frontlines by a ridiculous amount and leaving the entire Romanian area wide open. Taking Petrograd like that was amusing but the German frontline stretched from Prussia all the way up the Baltic coast for almost no reason.

The result was a UK and France that had no pressing commitments, and a Germany and Austria-Hungary that had extended their lines far too much in the wrong places whilst failing to contest crucial points like Greece and Bulgaria. They let us build up down there without cancelling the Ukraine offensive when the Ottoman player had already pointed out that we could come storming through Romania at any time.

In the West they had 1.2 million Germans and half a million Austrians.

In the East they had 1 million Germans and 1 million Austrians.

In the South they had half a million Austrians.

The Turks had 650,000 in the Middle East, facing 581,000 British. They had 227,000 facing 229,000 Russians in the mountains. They had 217,000 around Istanbul facing 160,000 British.

Had they abandoned the Ukraine offensive, and indeed the pointless long line inside Russia they occupied, they would've had the troops to face the Rainbow Offensive.
Click to expand...
Also, had they stationed units near Romania, they could've stabilized that. Had they looked at how weak my western front was, they might cracked through there with an extra corps or two. It was a close run, despite us being on the offensive. If you think about it, four players versus three gave us the biggest advantage. The Central Powers had a great player on the Ottomans and a new player on Austria-Hungary. Had those two switched, it could've been a bit nastier. Then again, who knows!
 
I know you had armor but you hadn't researched the attachments did you? They were are all 1920 tech and the light armor has no capability without the attachments.
 
I would just like to add something as the German player;

The offensive in the West was deemed impossible when we begun. France was at that time outnumbering me and the Entente could field more troops in that area.
Once Romania was attacked, AH was given 200k(!) to contain it with from the Western Front. Had France attacked I wouldn't be able to rotate my defence.
AH failed in garrisoning ports and having defence in depth.
Romania could have quickly been dealt with, and was being dealt with, when the Entente stroke the AH flanks which had been neglected due to the Romanian invasion.
The long line in Russia was no problem; I was easily beating back the Russians. I took Minsk with ease for example, though fortified.

And if those are end game numbers, they're not that correct. I deployed around 30 divisions at the end of last game and was pumping out more, but Germany can't hold a line going from Belgium to Switzerland to Austria to Poland to Prussia.
 
Doesn't seem that far from a balanced game. Here are some suggestions:
The removal of lots of tech means less tech to research. Was this the main cause of Germany almost having 1920 tech small arms? You should either add more techs, make them harder or lessen leadership to avoid overall future technology for everyone
The dig-in bonus is probably more suited for simulating trench warfare, specially when i don't think the AI will employ forts in any logical manner.
And of course, some more events are always welcome. You could look at already made WW1 scenarios for event inspiration if anything, darkest hour has one, and there was a mod for it in hoi2.
 
Very cool game, guys. I enjoyed it! :)

I need to give this mod a shot sometime!

Balancing for this mod is difficult because in real life the Entente did have the advantage. So, we have to decide whether we want to unrealistically balance the game for entertainment or if we want to stick with a more historical balancing (which results in an Entente advantage). Each side has its positives.
 
superjames1992 said:
Very cool game, guys. I enjoyed it! :)

I need to give this mod a shot sometime!

Balancing for this mod is difficult because in real life the Entente did have the advantage. So, we have to decide whether we want to unrealistically balance the game for entertainment or if we want to stick with a more historical balancing (which results in an Entente advantage). Each side has its positives.
Click to expand...

The CP are always going to have the advantage of a more disciplined army (at least for the Germans), and of a central position (France moving troops to Russia is difficult, Germany moving troops from the Russian front to the French is much easier) - a historical sisutaiton wouldn't be unbalanced, at least so long as the US stays out of the war.
 
Hakomar said:
The mod is public and in the modifications section - I don't think you need permission.
Click to expand...
I know i just thought as this mod is still in beta testing and isn't very well known that I'd ask.
 
It is my understanding the Poach will be working on this more over the coming holiday.
 
Excellent AAR

Interesting to reflect on how history and ARRland follow different paths but with similar responses . Why did Germany keep moving into Russia?

Personally I think it is a testosterone thing. Once you start down the invaid Russia thing - you can't help yourself - even when Southern and Eastern fronts ought to engage your attention.
 
I have to say, this was an epic AAR. The updates by PUGS were absolutely superb, and I have to say your update about having to attack was quite stirring haha. While I agree that Germany knocking out France and focusing on the West would've been great on paper, that leaves the problem about Russia. I am, of course, speaking as a backseat driver so feel free to smack me around ;)

As evidenced from PUGS updates, to leave the bear asleep wouldve been catastrophic in the long run as Russia could build up and field enormous amount of troops. Not as much or as high quality as Germany perhaps, but enough to really press on its eastern flank and threaten it should a quick war against France not be possible. This was historically THE underlying fear for unified Germany and something that haunted it as the fabled sword of damocles. On the other hand, Russia as shown in this AAR, was caught flat-footed at the start with a weaker army and build than Germany, therefore it is extremely tempting to want to knock it out in a quick war. Therefore, if it was me in Germany's place, I think I would've done it too, knocking out Russia before turning to the West, as Germany did historically.

That does leave the question of the Southern front which proved to be decisive in this AAR. It seems that no one could challenge Britain's navy at all, giving it and France a lot of mobility to move to and fro. However, I think the decisive clincher in this would be Spain oddly enough and far away from this front. Spain and the Ottoman Empire. These two are the deciding factors over the control of the Med and I think (yet again, as a back-seat driver and armchair strategist so forgive me) had the CP given some more assistance to these two, they could've contested the Royal Navy by land. For example, chopping off a mountain corps or two to reinforce the Spanish border or something. This may sound odd but if Spain and the Ottomans were able to control the two access points to the Med, one could virtually leave the Southern Front unguarded as realistically speaking, the chances of France building masses of transports before the start of the war based in Marseille is relatively slim. This severely limits the Entente's mobility and frees up the Ottoman Empire to only focusing on one front, holding the Middle East and the Suez Canal. This does however leave two Secondary powers going up against two Great Powers but as an armchair strategist, I get to hypothesise and dream :D

For the CP, could they also have caused more troubles overseas for the Entente by wooing powers such as Brazil and Mexico? This might be a waste of leadership but forcing the Entente to have to mind another front, even if only detaching a few ships to guard trade routes to the US and Canada would cause more headaches and force the Entente to spread out a bit more, all for a little leadership. This is especially the case as there doesn't seem to be a lot to research which frees up some leadership unless you go for, as Germany did, 1920 small arms :p

Anyway, to end my preaching and hindsight-driven lecture, I think the situation for the Central Powers is rather precarious. I do think that AH needs a bit of a manpower buff from what I can see.
 
Rorky said:
I have to say, this was an epic AAR. The updates by PUGS were absolutely superb, and I have to say your update about having to attack was quite stirring haha. While I agree that Germany knocking out France and focusing on the West would've been great on paper, that leaves the problem about Russia. I am, of course, speaking as a backseat driver so feel free to smack me around ;)

As evidenced from PUGS updates, to leave the bear asleep wouldve been catastrophic in the long run as Russia could build up and field enormous amount of troops. Not as much or as high quality as Germany perhaps, but enough to really press on its eastern flank and threaten it should a quick war against France not be possible. This was historically THE underlying fear for unified Germany and something that haunted it as the fabled sword of damocles. On the other hand, Russia as shown in this AAR, was caught flat-footed at the start with a weaker army and build than Germany, therefore it is extremely tempting to want to knock it out in a quick war. Therefore, if it was me in Germany's place, I think I would've done it too, knocking out Russia before turning to the West, as Germany did historically.

That does leave the question of the Southern front which proved to be decisive in this AAR. It seems that no one could challenge Britain's navy at all, giving it and France a lot of mobility to move to and fro. However, I think the decisive clincher in this would be Spain oddly enough and far away from this front. Spain and the Ottoman Empire. These two are the deciding factors over the control of the Med and I think (yet again, as a back-seat driver and armchair strategist so forgive me) had the CP given some more assistance to these two, they could've contested the Royal Navy by land. For example, chopping off a mountain corps or two to reinforce the Spanish border or something. This may sound odd but if Spain and the Ottomans were able to control the two access points to the Med, one could virtually leave the Southern Front unguarded as realistically speaking, the chances of France building masses of transports before the start of the war based in Marseille is relatively slim. This severely limits the Entente's mobility and frees up the Ottoman Empire to only focusing on one front, holding the Middle East and the Suez Canal. This does however leave two Secondary powers going up against two Great Powers but as an armchair strategist, I get to hypothesise and dream :D

For the CP, could they also have caused more troubles overseas for the Entente by wooing powers such as Brazil and Mexico? This might be a waste of leadership but forcing the Entente to have to mind another front, even if only detaching a few ships to guard trade routes to the US and Canada would cause more headaches and force the Entente to spread out a bit more, all for a little leadership. This is especially the case as there doesn't seem to be a lot to research which frees up some leadership unless you go for, as Germany did, 1920 small arms :p

Anyway, to end my preaching and hindsight-driven lecture, I think the situation for the Central Powers is rather precarious. I do think that AH needs a bit of a manpower buff from what I can see.
Click to expand...
Spain couldn't even contest France on land. My few troops were vastly superior in doctrine, arms, and diversity. Spain needed a buff to be able to do anything and I don't think it expected an invasion; it would also require Germany to focus the Western Front, as I could've easily moved men over to Spain. Also, the Med was secured by France -- Great Britain sent in fleets for shore bombardment, not to stop any enemy navies. France, if you couldn't tell, was just as mobile as British forces were. The Central Powers would've done far better to win in the Western Front rather than march into the pit that was Russia. Germany had broken manpower and could've held against Russia while hammering me.
 
Indeed. While the advance into Russia seems glorious and successful, it did bleed one of the CP players of MP. Had Austria fought defensively which they did at the beginning, and well, and had Germany perhaps closed the Polish pocket and dug in with defense in depth, they would have forced Russia to commit to massive frontal assaults if France was threatened.

Germany held the Baltic and was closer to her base if she stayed in Poland. Austria was stretched thin into Ukraine. None of this would have mattered if the CP dug in and also staying linked up with the Ottomans would have been a plus.

Russia was grossly outmatched technologically by Germany even in 1915 and in 1916 it would have been a total mismatch. The CP feared Russian numbers too much even while these numbers were slow to come. The 2+ million more Russians to come in 1916 would all have been out-teched and out-doctrined by German troops and would be attacking into enemy defensive lines. Probably would have been futile.

France supplied the extra men and the IC needed to fuel the war. That should have been the target. German MP was broken enough that they could have taken on France while holding against Russia perhaps even at a .7 to 1 ratio. Any threat to France would have caused Britain to be more reactionary too instead of being able to focus on the Ottomans.

Again, was really fun. I hope we can give it another go after the New Year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back