Recommend
64 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

World War I» Forums » Reviews

Subject: A Little Gem…With A Single Flaw rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
World War 1 – 1914-1918



Two-player Strategic Simulation of the First World War
Playable in less than 3 hours
Designed by James F. Dunnigan
Published in Strategy & Tactics Magazine #51 (1975)




World War 1 is the game that almost was. It has so much going for it.

Let’s start with the really outstanding aspects of WW1 – and there are lots of them.

There are 8 pages of rules that are clearly written and easily remembered. You can get into the game very quickly.

The game actually looks good.
There is a sheet of a mere 100 counters and they look quite good – they are not cluttered with unnecessary information. They have a nice range of colours. The map is a mere 16” by 22”. It is a touch bland but shows Europe from the Mediterranean to the Baltic and from Paris to Kiev.

The game is a fairly reasonable simulation of some aspects of the war.
The game concentrates on the economic ability of the combatants to support a large scale war. There is not a lot of manoeuvre so the movement phase doesn’t take long. This is not a problem as the focus of the game is really on the attritional nature of the war and the economic ability of a nation to support wide-spread slaughter at the front. The game moves along at a good pace and there is very little downtime while your opponent is busy slaughtering his own troops in an attempt to make a valiant breakthrough of some sort.

If you don’t analyse the game it is actually very exciting to play. If you do analyse the game you will discover that the Germans can’t lose and, even worse, it is totally boring once you work out the best way to play to ensure a victory.

Anyway, let’s look at how the game works.
The game is an army-level simulation of the Great War. Each turn represents six months of real time.
The French force is made up of 10 infantry armies and a single tank army. The British force is represented by 7 armies. The Netherlands and Belgium have an army each. The United States has three armies. Italy is made up of 8 armies. Russia has 12 armies. Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey have two armies each. Austria has 11 armies and Germany has 15 armies plus 4 Stosstruppen armies that come into play towards the end of the war and will bring certain victory to the Central Powers – providing that they have sufficient Combat Resource Points (CRPs) in reserve.

The very key to the game is the saving and use of CRPs.

The Sequence of Play is a little unusual.
1. Allied Movement – all units have five movement points. Clear hexes cost one movement point, rough hexes cost two and moving along rail-lines only costs 1/3 of a movement point.
2. Central Powers Movement
3. Superior Play Determination Phase – this sounds more grandiose than it really is. It just means that the person with the most CRP’s is deemed to be superior. This just means that they have their combat phase before the other person. I was disappointed with this as I usually feel that I am the superior player and so naturally should fight first regardless of which side I control.
4. Superior Player’s First Attack Phase – the superior player makes any attacks he wants to between adjacent units – combat is completely voluntary.
5. Inferior Player’s First Attack Phase
6. Superior Player’s Second Attack Phase
7. Inferior Player’s Second Attack Phase
8. Superior Player’s Third Attack Phase
9. Inferior Player’s Third Attack Phase
10. CRP Allocation & Build Phase – players add CRP’s to the CRP track (each nation has its own supply of CRPs) and then use CRPs to build new units. At the end of the phase players can give CRPs to other allied nations. At this time excess CRPs are saved for use during the upcoming attack phases. Out of supply units are destroyed at this time.



Stacking??? There is no stacking in the game – units can move through other units but can never remain in the same hex at the end of movement or combat.

Supply??? Supply is very simple – units must be in supply to move or attack. Supply lines are blocked by enemy zones of control. The presence of a friendly unit negates the enemy zone of control as far as tracing supply lines is concerned.



Combat
is the most important single element in the game. It gives the game verisimilitude but also causes the games weakness due to imbalance.

Combat is voluntary. You work out the differential between the attacking units and the defending units (e.g. if 12 factors of Germans attack 4 factors of French the German play will resolve the combat on the +8 column). The Combat Result Table is plausible, logical and costly. After you roll the die and compare the result to the appropriate column of the CRT you will see two numbers (a#/D#) – the number is the number of points that must be consumed – you can Consume points by retreating the defending unit, spending a number of CRPs and/or eliminating the defending unit. Most times you will, as the defender, wish to spend CRPs so as to be able to hold the line – if you run out of CRPs you will have no option but to retreat and/or eliminate units. The CRP’s represent the nation’s ability to keep an effective army at the front. If you are the attack you will also have to spend CRPs or eliminate units – retreat is not an option for the attacker. Neither player can voluntarily eliminate units until the third attack phase.

The problem with the CRT is that most times the attacker will lose more CRPs than the defender, no matter which column the attack is resolved on. On the ‘0’ differential column the average attacker loss is 2 CRP while for the defender it is only 1.2. If we look at the most favourable column for the attacker (the ‘+10’ column) the average attacker loss is 4 while the average defender loss is 3.2. The maths is obvious – it costs you more to attack than it does to defend. This is historically valid and so we ask ourselves why do we launch an attack if it is going to cost us more than it is going to cost the defender?

The Importance of CRPs
Throughout the game the Allies received 724 CRPs compared to the Central Powers 524. The Allies aim is to attack the Central Powers so as to completely bankrupt them of CRPs before the arrival of the Stosstruppen.


What the Heck are Stosstruppen?
Starting in turn 6 the German player is allowed to build one Stosstruppen unit per turn. These represent new combat techniques developed by the Germans. The special ability of the stosstruppen is that when involved in combat, if they inflict a ‘2’ or greater loss on the defending unit the defending unit must make a mandatory 1 hex retreat. This means that if the Germans have enough CRPs their army becomes unstoppable from turn six onwards. Given that the Germans can have 4 stosstruppen in the field by the last turn of the game and that there are 3 attack phases the German army can make great inroads into the Allied player’s territory.


Victory
Points are awarded for control of resource hexes (most of these are in the north-west corner of the map). Germany also gets extra points based on how quickly it can force Russia to surrender. The Allies receive an automatic 75 points simply for the naval blockade of Germany.



There are 23 resource hexes on the map and none of these are in Russia. Given that the Germans don’t make a serious, or even a non-serious, attempt to defeat Russia they can still win easily just by taking out resources hexes.

Having done the maths, the best way for the Central Powers to win is to do absolutely nothing in the first six turns of the game apart from watch the Allies bleed themselves in a large series of pointless and expensive attacks. From turn 7 onwards, thanks to stosstruppen, the Central Powers can make a small number of attacks that will force the Allied troops to retreat from resource hexes.


Overall
I suspect that the game is fairly accurate historically. But it is a puzzle and as long as the Central Power player has sufficient strength of will to sit and do no attacks for the first six turns he will win.

If you would prefer that both players simply make a series of mindless attacks it can actually be a very exciting game. But if you are actually playing to win make sure that you don’t play the Allied side.







45 
 Thumb up
1.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
heh heh HEH! David, THAT so-called "plan of inaction" is a 'Fred hoarding hopes' actuality, since you'll have to garner plenty of RESOURCES quickly somehow during those last 4 TURNS, in order to offset the 75 VPs that the Allies will already then HAVE! Mind you, it also means obtaining the requisite "die rolls" during this, for that to occur as well and 'planned'. You definitely will need to be shoring up any Allied Nations of Germany too during it all, since these are their 'Achilles Heelhounds' of which they'll doggedly attest. I ought to "CHALLENGE" you-all on doing what you think were *Optimum* in these regards with that aspect, just so's I can dispute such through actual Game Play, where it will become dis-proven, and eventually disdained!

13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

S&T 51 was the third issue of my initial subscription, and like the two issues prior (Frederick the Great and Battle for Germany), it completely captivated me.

World War 1 remains one of my favorite folios of all-time. Thnx for the trip down memory lane...
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GROGnads wrote:
heh heh HEH! David, THAT so-called "plan of inaction" is a 'Fred hoarding hopes' actuality, since you'll have to garner plenty of RESOURCES quickly somehow during those last 4 TURNS, in order to offset the 75 VPs that the Allies will already then HAVE! Mind you, it also means obtaining the requisite "die rolls" during this, for that to occur as well and 'planned'. You definitely will need to be shoring up any Allied Nations of Germany too during it all, since these are their 'Achilles Heelhounds' of which they'll doggedly attest. I ought to "CHALLENGE" you-all on doing what you think were *Optimum* in these regards with that aspect, just so's I can dispute such through actual Game Play, where it will become dis-proven, and eventually disdained!



Spoken
Like a rEAl GrOgNaD!
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve Carey wrote:

S&T 51 was the third issue of my initial subscription, and like the two issues prior (Frederick the Great and Battle for Germany), it completely captivated me.

World War 1 remains one of my favorite folios of all-time. Thnx for the trip down memory lane...


That was certainly a good run of three consecutive games - you picked a fine time to start up a subscription.

cool
16 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
da pyrate wrote:
Steve Carey wrote:

S&T 51 was the third issue of my initial subscription, and like the two issues prior (Frederick the Great and Battle for Germany), it completely captivated me.

World War 1 remains one of my favorite folios of all-time. Thnx for the trip down memory lane...


That was certainly a good run of three consecutive games - you picked a fine time to start up a subscription.

cool


My thoughts exactly, David - I often think of the powerful impact that these issues had in shaping my interest in history and in wargaming.

I was a lucky lad, indeed....
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Belli
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
designer
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another fine review. thumbsup

Quote:
Starting in turn 6 the German player is allowed to build one Stosstruppen unit per turn. These represent new combat techniques developed by the Germans...


This brings up an interesting question about wargame design theory. Before I begin please let me say that I think SPIs WWI is a nice little game. I used to own a copy myself.

The Stosstruppen arrive on Turn 6. Why? Probably because that is when they appeared in significant numbers in WWI... but this is an example of structured design that simply thrusts a famous historical event into the game's narrative.

Stosstruppen were active in small units earlier in the war. The British were tinkering with similar ideas. I could even offer an excellent example of Stosstruppen tactics from the American Civil War (the Confederate assault on Fort Stedman in 1865) so the development of these infiltration methods could have occurred any time after the trench stalemate. Or maybe the technique will never fully blossom in WWI, even though the basic tools of the Stosstruppen (light machine guns, flamethrowers, grenades) were available in 1914.

My point is this: a carefully crafted design could avoid this deterministic pattern. The Stosstruppen tactics could appear earlier in the war or not at all. Perhaps they can be developed after a sickening number of casualties have been recorded and the generals finally awaken from their stupor. It could be a random event... anything to avoid the "Sitzkrieg" while the Kaiser waits for Turn 6. Certainly the Allies would employ the tactics too, once the Germans showed their hand.

My two cents. Thanks for allowing me to conduct a minor rant.

33 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pete belli wrote:
The Stosstruppen tactics could appear earlier in the war or not at all.
Of course, this would then outrage another section of the gaming community, horrified by the a-historical timeline presented...
17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pete belli wrote:
The Stosstruppen arrive on Turn 6. Why? Probably because that is when they appeared in significant numbers in WWI... but this is an example of structured design that simply thrusts a famous historical event into the game's narrative....My two cents. Thanks for allowing me to conduct a minor rant.



I have played some computer wargames solitaire where the AI has been 'hard-wired'.

One of the games I've played (and I forget the name) was about Operation Barbarossa. The Russians were programmed to do a full retreat on Turn 6. As the German player you could sit back, do nothing, make no attacks, and know that on turn six all Soviet units would start retreating on Turn 6. This sort of design is rather 'ham-fisted'.

I like the way your head works.

10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Lawson
United States
Rutland
Vermont
flag msg tools
Boston Redsox
badge
New England Patriots!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brings back old memories. The UPS truck would bring the magazine, I would often read the rules and play the game the same day! Played a lot of this one.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pete belli wrote:
Another fine review. thumbsup

Quote:
Starting in turn 6 the German player is allowed to build one Stosstruppen unit per turn. These represent new combat techniques developed by the Germans...


This brings up an interesting question about wargame design theory. Before I begin please let me say that I think SPIs WWI is a nice little game. I used to own a copy myself.

The Stosstruppen arrive on Turn 6. Why? Probably because that is when they appeared in significant numbers in WWI... but this is an example of structured design that simply thrusts a famous historical event into the game's narrative.

Stosstruppen were active in small units earlier in the war. The British were tinkering with similar ideas. I could even offer an excellent example of Stosstruppen tactics from the American Civil War (the Confederate assault on Fort Stedman in 1865) so the development of these infiltration methods could have occurred any time after the trench stalemate. Or maybe the technique will never fully blossom in WWI, even though the basic tools of the Stosstruppen (light machine guns, flamethrowers, grenades) were available in 1914.

My point is this: a carefully crafted design could avoid this deterministic pattern. The Stosstruppen tactics could appear earlier in the war or not at all. Perhaps they can be developed after a sickening number of casualties have been recorded and the generals finally awaken from their stupor. It could be a random event... anything to avoid the "Sitzkrieg" while the Kaiser waits for Turn 6. Certainly the Allies would employ the tactics too, once the Germans showed their hand.

My two cents. Thanks for allowing me to conduct a minor rant.



Historically, new battle- or war-winning tactics were developed out of frustration and failure. It took Sherman, for instance, several years of intense emotional turmoil to finally figure out a viable invasion tactic (although, from what I can see, Thomas had the idea from the beginning, but was never given the sweeping authority to implement his daring plans).

So: introduction of Stosstruppen armies should follow only after a number of losses suffered through assault. Germany's timetable would be advanced by the entrance of America into the war (desperation), and the Allies' timetable by the collapse of Russia (again, desperation).
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Train
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for mentioning this Pete - I have thought along these lines myself for a long time, ever since my first plays of 3rd Reich when the German player gets four or five Volkssturm counters in late 1944 - fine if he's on the ropes, but if he's been doing well why should they even appear?

In this game the stosstruppen appear on turn 6. In The Guns of August, the only other strategic WW I game commonly available around that time, stosstruppen magically appear to be constructed on the July 1917 turn. So do tank units, for the Allies. Nicely symmetrical but something that is both historical and ahistorical at the same time, and so guaranteed to annoy everyone (as if you weren't annoyed enough at that game already).

I can't recall offhand how Ted Raicer treated this issue in his WW I games.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ltmurnau wrote:
Nicely symmetrical but something that is both historical and ahistorical at the same time, and so guaranteed to annoy everyone (as if you weren't annoyed enough at that game already).


Well said Brian - as a respected game designer, I'm sure you've been down this path often enough (i.e., damned if you do, damned if you don't). At the moment of truth, a design decision needs to be made.

At the scale and abstraction level of WW1, I have no problem with it at all.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Smith
United Kingdom
Wigton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Only a single flaw? This is the game where a solid line of defending units on the Western front is worse than one every other hex because it provides more potential loss points to attrition. I know about defense in depth in WW I and the weakness of crowding the front defence lines, but thats at the tactical/operational scale. At the strategic scale the Western Front consumed the attentions of vast numbers - it does not convince me that the frontline in this game should comprise the fewest number of armies and the maximum number of ZOCs without leaving a hole.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Train
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve! My personal preference is not to script things too heavily, but hindsight should not be allowed to influence the design too much. An example here would be from my game on the Algerian counterinsurgency, where I needed to put in a rule to model the sloth of the initial French reaction - if in history they had jumped on the rebellion with both feet and a dozen Army divisions in 1954, there would have been no war (and subsequently, no game, but that's getting into a rather circular argument), but as it was it was ignored and allowed to spread.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Peekaboo!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Speaking as the guy who wrote his only "professional" review/strategic overview on the subject of this very game (Moves magazine #25), nice work! I don't agree with your assessment of the viability of Central Powers turtling, but having not played the game in so long, I will concede you may be onto something. Either way, nice overview.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterG wrote:
Speaking as the guy who wrote his only "professional" review/strategic overview on the subject of this very game (Moves magazine #25), nice work! I don't agree with your assessment of the viability of Central Powers turtling, but having not played the game in so long, I will concede you may be onto something. Either way, nice overview.


Thanks!

I'm rather surprised no-one has challenged my comments about German strategy yet.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Peekaboo!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
da pyrate wrote:
MisterG wrote:
Speaking as the guy who wrote his only "professional" review/strategic overview on the subject of this very game (Moves magazine #25), nice work! I don't agree with your assessment of the viability of Central Powers turtling, but having not played the game in so long, I will concede you may be onto something. Either way, nice overview.


Thanks!

I'm rather surprised no-one has challenged my comments about German strategy yet.


I think Mr. Wesley did, but I could be misinterpreting.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G. Cox Esq.
Australia
Port Macquarie
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterG wrote:
I think Mr. Wesley did, but I could be misinterpreting.


He's such a colourful character it is sometimes hard to know what he really means.

I think he was just excited.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Glass
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I've been quiet but I guess I'll have to "challenge" the German Strategy issue.

1st - I learned WW1 with this verison but actually like the Decision games redo much better.
2nd - I only play the historical verison so all countries come in as per historical. In a 6 month turn with the movement sequence as per this game, countires had plenty of warning when another was going to enter, once the war was underway, and they could get ready.
3rd - I use some of the optional rules that have been published as they seem to give the game just that extra touch to really make it all work. I've posted the rules our game group has used for years elswhere in the WW1 thread

I've seen the German startegy mentioned here tried several times and have yet to see it win, especially if some of the optional rules, such as adding the 2nd Allied tank unit, are in play. As soon as the Germans start to hold back RPs, the Balkan and Italian efforts with max Brit/French support on both fronts, kicks in. Plus the French front becomes a major push every phase to force the Germans to absorb the RPs or give up land early.

I often see Austria fall under combined Russian/other Allies attacks with forces well into their central area and southern Germany. In another, there was a major see-saw in France over the resource hexes, and in several the Allies have linked up with Russia through Bulgaria or Turkey (each having fell more than once) while still attacking in France.

From turn 5 on the Allies have more RPs than the CP, and read carefully, but Americans show up with their RPs immediately available, then get replenished at the end of the same turn. Next turn lends means everyone has enough to go full bore in France and germany has to back up to save the RPs for Stross use. And since if the Germans take a unit in a Stross attack, it must come from the Stross unit first, they will use those RPs to save that unit.

If the Allied player sits back and "let's" the CP player accumulate RPs, he deserves to lose. But in our group, this strategy is always met with continuous boardwide attacks that will ultimately force Germany to lend RPs to save his partners and/or give up land to save his own RPs so he can build Stross.

It has been close a few times, but they've never won, while beating Russia and holding in the west has led to several CP victories. I will mention I always like to see a CP player try it though, as the games turn into a real brawl.

Ron
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bart brodowski
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Interesting thoughts on this game. I have been playing it for years and I have never seen A-H fall. If they do, Germany was doing something wrong. German pressure on Russia is a must early in the game. I generally forgo too many early attacks on the Western front and send all reinforcements east. With average die rolls, the Germans (with some Austrian help) should be able to eventually push the Russians back and out of play.

The mistake I see too many players make is buying too many armies. A-H does need to buy a few to solidify its Italian and Russian fronts, but if they do, then they need to be very conservative with their attacks. Forget Serbia - it's not worth the investment.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luke Hughes
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Well it's been 30 years but after enjoying the game quite a bit as a teenager I came to exactly the same conclusion about German strategy.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Lai
Hong Kong
Happy Valley
None
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lhughes41 wrote:
Well it's been 30 years but after enjoying the game quite a bit as a teenager I came to exactly the same conclusion about German strategy.


You beat me to it... I got this about 20 years ago and we came to the same conclusion... we temporarily fixed this problem by making mandated attacks in the first 4 turns of the game by both sides... it was suppose to simulate the stupid confidences of the generals at the time and the tendency to bashed their armies against the opposition's strongest defensive positions during WW1... For us that made the game fun and we felt that was the way the game was meant to be played spiritually.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Windsor
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My recollection of the SPI version is that the Allies just keep attacking. Sure you lose, but the German also loses, and the Allies have more to give. The Allied "war of attrition" strategy starts to seem more viable as you go on, and you get into the mindset of "I'll just bleed these Germans dry." Remember that the Allies get that 100 points at the end of the game for the blockade.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:
pete belli wrote:
y point is this: a carefully crafted design could avoid this deterministic pattern. The Stosstruppen tactics could appear earlier in the war or not at all. Perhaps they can be developed after a sickening number of casualties have been recorded and the generals finally awaken from their stupor. It could be a random event... anything to avoid the "Sitzkrieg" while the Kaiser waits for Turn 6. Certainly the Allies would employ the tactics too, once the Germans showed their hand.

My two cents. Thanks for allowing me to conduct a minor rant.


So: introduction of Stosstruppen armies should follow only after a number of losses suffered through assault. Germany's timetable would be advanced by the entrance of America into the war (desperation), and the Allies' timetable by the collapse of Russia (again, desperation).


That was my thought after reading Pete's post, too.

You might have a chit-pull system where, at the end of each turn, you can draw out so many chits based on the number of attacks made or perhaps a number of objectives taken. Stosstruppen, tanks, American entry...several things could be variable and it's all based on making those terrible attritive rolls.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.