WW I...again

[unmerged(847)]

I know there are numerous questions on WWI and how it would be handled eventwise, etc. but i have a questino on the actual mechanics of gameplay. Vicky seems to be based more or less on the HOI engine (at least at this point), so what are the ideas on how the Western Frotn will be simulated? I mean, the armies pretty much occupied the same spaces, sat there, and pretty much blasted the bits out of each other. Are armies gonig to be allowed to occupy the same province then? And likewise, since there was such a stalemate will the player actually be allowed to launch offensives? or will you mroe or less just send ur army out and try to manage ur economy well so that you aren't the first one to win the race to collapse/ Personally, it sounds intriguing to me to have something like there where if you screw up your resources and supplies, then the army loses morale and material and you fall behind. Paradox could finnaly do total war right i think.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

In WWII, the armies occupied the same province, but in HOI the static front is in two different provinces. In HOI (like the wAARmongerers current game) I have seen static fronts created in France between the Allies and Germany. I am guessing that it will be the same in Vic, especially with the smaller province size.

There is a WWI mod for HOI being created, maybe you can check their ideas out.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Well, one of the reasons why it became such a stalemate in WWI was beacause the generals used old-fashioned tactics for new technology. The player will surely not make that mistake and the war might have a very abrupt end .

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Well, one of the reasons why it became such a stalemate in WWI was beacause the generals used old-fashioned tactics for new technology. The player will surely not make that mistake and the war might have a very abrupt end .

I agree about the failure of tactics. Difficult to simulate better tacics on a division level game though.

From what I recall if the German generals had carried out the Shlieffen (SP?) Plan and not diverted course the war would have been over early. Problem was the Shlieffen Plan was abondoned and what followed was each army (on the western front) attempted, without success, to outlflank one another until all that was left was a series of trenches across the whole front.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
I agree about the failure of tactics. Difficult to simulate better tacics on a division level game though.

From what I recall if the German generals had carried out the Shlieffen (SP?) Plan and not diverted course the war would have been over early. Problem was the Shlieffen Plan was abondoned and what followed was each army (on the western front) attempted, without success, to outlflank one another until all that was left was a series of trenches across the whole front.

I don't think the original Schlieffen plan would have helped. The Russians were much further in their development than in Schlieffen's days and a sizeable force had to be stationed in the East. A crushing of France before the Russians could have fully mobilize wasn't an option anymore. Besides, the roads of France could hardly cope with the vast amounts of men and horses as it was. Had the Germans deployed even more men, they probably wouldn't have been able to keep their offensive going.

 

[crazy canuck]

I can't really remember the details but I thought that they started the war in the west by following the plan, which I think call for the main drive moving along the Enlish Channel coast and then coming at Paris from the north and curling around from the west - but the timetable was thrown off a bit because of unexpected resistance in Belgium. The General Staff paniced a bit because they wanted the war over early and so planned a more direct route to paris which ran straight into the main allied force.

As I recall it if the Germans had kept to the plan there would have been very little resistance in the way.

Of course I may be remembering this all wrong.

 

[John Poole]

Well not quite. First Schlieffen had presumed two things that did not happen. First that the Russians would not mobilize fast enough to invade Germany while the Germans were fighting France....that was certainly incorrect. Secondly he presumed the Italians would be in the war on Germany's side and would hold in ALsace while the Germans deployed their entire army on the northern front. Also Schlieffen completely ignored the nearly impossible communications and logistical situation that the Generals in the field could not ignore. The German Army had to send troops to the Easter Front in the middle of the campaign and had to put too many of their forces in Alsace since the Italains remained neutral. They simply did not have enough troops to carry out Schlieffen's plan and further their troops were tired, hungry and demoralized as they approached Paris and the 2nd Army was advancing slower than the 1st which resulted in a large gap opening between them, which Von Kluck's turn was an attempt to address.

If the German 1st Army had gone around Paris to the West as the original plan called the French Sixth Army would have been between the 1st and 2nd German Armies and the likely result would have been Von Kluck's entire army being cut off and destroyed. The German 1st Army needed to wait for the 2nd Army to catch up and rest its troops but Von Kluck did not want to stop while the enemy was on the run so he did the best he could but he rashly uncovered his flank to the French. All in all that campaign didn't go too badly for the Germans they did very well to get as far as they did, it certainly could have been alot worse.

 

[crazy canuck]

Thanks for the clarification John.

 

[King of Men]

The analysis is a bit simplistic. First the tactics : Certainly the generals were using old-fashioned tactics, but what choice had they? Their fastest means of communications were field telephones whose cables instantly broke under enemy bombardment. In practice they relied on runners who at least had a chance of getting through, even if it took six hours. Under the circumstances, tactics more complex than "Attack in maximum force after a heavy bombardment" are rather difficult to implement; and at that, the Germans solved the problem near the end by allowing their lowest-level subordinates much more initiative and not bothering about their flank security - essentially blitzkrieg without the tanks.

Second, strategy. The Schlieffen plan was not adhered to as strictly as it might have been, true. But as written, there just wasn't room for all the divisions that Schlieffen put to the north and west of Paris. There simply were not enough roads for all those men to march on. So it is a matter of some debate how exactly the Schlieffen plan could have been executed even in the best case.

As for

As I recall it if the Germans had kept to the plan there would have been very little resistance in the way.

Well, yes, assuming that the Allies did everything exactly the same. Which would have been pretty stupid of them, no? You can't change the actions of the Germans and argue that the Allies would respond in precisely the same fashion to the new circumstances.

 

[peo]

The Germans were close to winning but von Moltke lost his nerve and ordered a change.
This made a gap appear between 2 of the armies and the French counterattacked and it all got bogged down.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by peo
The Germans were close to winning but von Moltke lost his nerve and ordered a change.
This made a gap appear between 2 of the armies and the French counterattacked and it all got bogged down.

Which thing did von Moltke do that cost them the battle?

His first "mistake" was ordering the corps to the Eastern Front once the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies were invading East Prussia but...well I think this was the right move you cant just ASSUME your enemy is incompetently led even when fighting Tsarist Russia! I think if the Russians had properly cooperated those troops would have been needed. The Germans were not willing to let East Prussia be ravaged by the cossacks.

I suppose his second "mistake" was ordering the armies to retreat from the Marne but actually I think it was time to retreat, even though the "westerners" in the German army were furious.

I think von Moltke's main problem was the fact he acted out of control and in despair, I dont know if he made any very serious mistakes.

 

[peo]

Originally posted by John Poole
Which thing did von Moltke do that cost them the battle?

His first "mistake" was ordering the corps to the Eastern Front once the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies were invading East Prussia but...well I think this was the right move you cant just ASSUME your enemy is incompetently led even when fighting Tsarist Russia! I think if the Russians had properly cooperated those troops would have been needed. The Germans were not willing to let East Prussia be ravaged by the cossacks.

I suppose his second "mistake" was ordering the armies to retreat from the Marne but actually I think it was time to retreat, even though the "westerners" in the German army were furious.

I think von Moltke's main problem was the fact he acted out of control and in despair, I dont know if he made any very serious mistakes.

The 2nd one.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by peo
The Germans were close to winning but von Moltke lost his nerve and ordered a change.
This made a gap appear between 2 of the armies and the French counterattacked and it all got bogged down.

The gap had already appeared, a French commander on the front used it, Moltke (way behind front) heard of French units where there should be none, panicked and sounded the retreat.

By this time the plan was lost already anyway, friction had made the western units swing too little and they were not in a position to encircle Paris. (That they had gone as far as humanly possible and that the extra forces that Schleiffen had indicated could only have joined them by teleportation are other matters entirely )

 

[unmerged(10591)]

Also the origanal plan called for the top of the manover to cut through a tiny portion of the Netherlands and then fall down on the Channel ports, taking them. However Moltke didnt want to risk pervoking the Netherlands and sent the top arch through Beligum, slowing them and meaning the Channel ports would remain in Allied hands.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by Ivan the Mad
Also the origanal plan called for the top of the manover to cut through a tiny portion of the Netherlands and then fall down on the Channel ports, taking them. However Moltke didnt want to risk pervoking the Netherlands and sent the top arch through Beligum, slowing them and meaning the Channel ports would remain in Allied hands.

Yep, the Germans lost the war, because they were afraid of us!

And so they should have been....

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
The gap had already appeared, a French commander on the front used it, Moltke (way behind front) heard of French units where there should be none, panicked and sounded the retreat.

By this time the plan was lost already anyway, friction had made the western units swing too little and they were not in a position to encircle Paris. (That they had gone as far as humanly possible and that the extra forces that Schleiffen had indicated could only have joined them by teleportation are other matters entirely )

Ha. Teleportation. Something else that we need to add to the tech tree

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
The gap had already appeared, a French commander on the front used it, Moltke (way behind front) heard of French units where there should be none, panicked and sounded the retreat.

By this time the plan was lost already anyway, friction had made the western units swing too little and they were not in a position to encircle Paris. (That they had gone as far as humanly possible and that the extra forces that Schleiffen had indicated could only have joined them by teleportation are other matters entirely )

Yep that about sums it up. The Germans performed admirably all the way around in 1914 I think but I believe their goals were beyond their capability to achieve...at least with one ally who spent 1914 desperately trying to destroy their own army as fast as possible (Austria-Hungary) and another "ally" ready to sell out to the highest bidder (Italy). I think the main reason Germany lost both World Wars was their unbelievable ability to piss off the strong and court the weak.

 

[unmerged(6876)]

Didn't Schlieffen's Plan also assume the Belgians (and maybe the Dutch) would let the German Army pass thru unopposed? IIRC, the Germans got temporarily bogged down trying to take fortifications in Belgium.

 

[supergamelin]

Yes. The Germans did not expect Belgian Resistance. That put them out of track from the very begining. They lost several days in front of Liege and then had to divert significant forces to watch for the Belgian field army in Antwerp.

German troops were not even aware of the plan and once the Germans captured Brussels some thought it was Paris and the campaign was over.

The BEF also came as a bad surprise and slowed the German advance at a critical stage.

 

[Rundris]

If you want a great account of the opening days of the war read "The Guns of August". It's really amazing.

It seemed in that account that if the Germans had not removed forces from the western front in the middle of the battle to reinforce the east, they may have had just enough to do it. It was a waste because the Germans defeated the Russians with what they had before the transferred troops arived.

As it was they basically could have entered Paris if they wanted to, but as there was a large allied army near by they choose to attack the army instead, based on the German military docterine that you never attack a city while the enemy still has an army in the field (which is a good docterine).

I disagree when people say the tactics in WW1 were that bad. Sure the French and British gernerals at the start of the war were aweful, but the German generals and tactics were quite good, they were just badly outnumbered.

After the drive for Paris failed, the Germans choose to retreat to execellent defensive positions, basically high hills and ridges, and dig in to fight a defensive war, and they did a pretty good job of it.