The Great War Discussion

[Menschenfresser]

Anyone kick or kicking the tires on this one?

Fired up a hotseat game yesterday and played through the first five turns.

West Front:
-Decided to go the historical route and dig Schlieffen's plan out of my filing cabinet. Belgium is history, except for Antwerp...which fell and then was retaken this turn by a lingering Belgian division. Germany is kicking the crap outta France, but given the huge number of corps they have, they can go on pluggin holes for a good long while, however, they have suffered several major envelopments losing at least two corps. I think France still has 4 or 5 corps soaking up the sun down south which I've yet to move north. Germany's divisions are doing fine. The Brits sent Corps I - III to cover France and part of Belgium.

East Front:
-Most of Germany's corps are available on turns 1 & 2. And given the number of divisions they can move around (14, compared to Russias 12) and the shorter distance, they can get everything they need to to the Eastern Front. Germany decided to just sit back and wait, spreading out their corps all along the front.
-Austro-Hungary decided to do the same concerning Russia. Reason here is that the Emperor wants his soldiers to kick the crap out of the Serbs.
-Russia decided on a two part offensive. In the north, they quickly moved up three armies to attack toward Koenigsberg, hoping to capture the three or four EEV cities along this strip. In the south, they attacked toward Lemberg from the north and southeast, hoping to pincer the city and destroy anything guarding it.
-So far the northern offensive met with success early on enveloping Loetzen and taking Gumbinnen, but the arrival of three additional corps to this front stopped the Russian offensive. The offensives left flank guarding the crossroads between Osterode and Torun found themselves outflanked, surrounded and then destroyed over the last two turns.
-The southern offensive, while unsuccessful, is still moving forward and hasn't suffered a devastating counter attack. The Russians aren't yet fully mobilized and much of the front is quiet with big, untested armies waiting at the borders.

Southern Front:
-The A-H chews away at the Serbs and Montenegrins but can't open any holes. It's the nature of this terrain and front, I suppose. Seeing that it is arched, it is easy to fall back and close down holes in the line. I doubt the A-H will take Niz, unless they manage to destroy a large section of the Serbian army.
-The Brits sent two fleets from the north to assist the relentless naval bombardment the Montenegrins are getting from the A-H fleet. However, the sortie ended in a catastrophe as the smaller A-H fleet wiped out the Brits without suffered a single loss. (I think there's something fishy about naval combat). Two more engagements ended in a stalemate as both sides suffered near 100% losses. (So far, the attacker in all three naval sorties comes out the loser...big time).
-The Brits also sent the entire I Cavalry Corps and the first division of the Egypt Exp Force to Egypt in preparation for a push over the canal into Palestine. They will have to reach Jaffa to get any kind of supply flowing. If some sort of Royal Navy presence still exists in the Med, I might even save the Marines for an invasion. Could change if the Germans hack apart the West Front before the Turks ramp up.

So far, it's been fun! Overall, I haven't been playing 100% against myself--meaning I'm not fretting over digging every last troop in or keeping 100% to the honor rules (although I have followed them 95%). I didn't put this in the AAR because I have no idea if I'll finish it and really just wanted to generate some discussion on this scen...which I've been waiting for for a while.

[JAMiAM]

Wow...didn't realize that Daniel had released this. Then went to his scenario page and saw the caveat. He must be really busy these days to do something so out of character... ;)

I've been looking for a suitable excuse to come out of semi-retirement. Want to play it? I played the Central Powers, primarily, in our playtesting, but I'd be happy to take either side.

[JAMiAM]

Oh...and I think that you meant Antwerp...NOT Amsterdam... ;)

[Menschenfresser]

Why the hell not...

I'll take the CP so you can see it from the Allied side. Expect T1 some time this afternoon. Will try and stick to the honor rules as best as I can. Let me know if you see something off kilter.

[Menschenfresser]

Oh yea...that I did.

BTW, is it Montenegrins(ens) or Montenegrinians? Wife says it is the latter, but the guy on the BBC last week said the former. Dunno.

[JAMiAM]

Oh yea...that I did.

BTW, is it Montenegrins(ens) or Montenegrinians? Wife says it is the latter, but the guy on the BBC last week said the former. Dunno.

Don't rightly know, but if the wife is reading this, then she is certainly correct... ;)

I've always used the former version though.

[JAMiAM]

I'd better download the latest rev, and print up the notes. And it probably wouldn't hurt to try and remember how to play this game again.

Now...what do all of these little buttons on the right hand side do???

[Foggy]

I thought it was the wife's IQ that went down after children :p

[Menschenfresser]

Hehe...I'm sure you've been using your kid's Fruit Loops to simulate the siege of Leningrad. Fess up!

Once you pour over the briefing (it's dense) I'm having a problem understanding the CP attack on Belgium. Mainly the required artillery attack. It doesn't come into play until next turn, so no rush.

Briefing says: "The CP player must attack either Liege or Namur with at least two German heavy artillery units, plus two RR artillery units, on the turn the trigger is used. Both Belgian forts will be removed on the following turn."

Given the low level of recon in this scen, the CP can't see the forts unless they cross into Belgium, so I'm wondering whether or not the Germans can attack the same turn they use the theater option. I don't see how you can get to Namur any other way.

[JAMiAM]

Once you pour over the briefing (it's dense) I'm having a problem understanding the CP attack on Belgium. Mainly the required artillery attack. It doesn't come into play until next turn, so no rush.

Briefing says: "The CP player must attack either Liege or Namur with at least two German heavy artillery units, plus two RR artillery units, on the turn the trigger is used. Both Belgian forts will be removed on the following turn."

Given the low level of recon in this scen, the CP can't see the forts unless they cross into Belgium, so I'm wondering whether or not the Germans can attack the same turn they use the theater option. I don't see how you can get to Namur any other way.

Essentially, for the CP, it goes like this, turn N, you move into Belgium, and attack either of the forts with the requisite forces. Make sure that on turn N, you choose the TO so that it gets the clock ticking on the various events that are linked to it. On turn N+1, the forts (if they are still surviving) will be removed, and the Brits will declare war against the CP, et cetera.

Other than the RR artillery having some difficulty reaching Namur on any particular turn N, the other units should have no problem reaching at least one of either Liege, or Namur. To get the Heavy Art Brigades to reach Namur, you would need to wait until turn 3, or later, since they would need to move off of the rail lines and up to the German-Belgian border.

I consider the use of tactical/local reserve settings on the requisite number of artillery units within range of the target hex to be sufficient to satisfy the honour rule. In other words, directed attacks are not necessary. The low movement allowance of the heavy art units will cause too many tactical rounds to be wasted if you choose direct fire, though the RR guns won't suffer from this problem.

[Stauffenberg]

That's a quick AAR I must say. I wanted to warn you off jumping into a planned long game right now as Pavel Voylov is revamping the entire Russian OB and map as we speak. Look for individually rated divisions (sheesh I always get out-minutaed by this guy), Russians grouped into their proper Corps HQs, weaker higher artillery but stronger individual divisions, and a plethora of name changes I flubbed on the map.

I am also testing out a version with the attrition level rated almost as high as possible to see what happens.

I can't really predict when the new version will be done but as it going to mostly Pavel's show, and knowing him, I expect it will be fairly soon.

I concur with James' thoughts on the Belgian fort situation and I'll splice that in. What I really need help on are the Naval and Command Control rubrics to work them down into something far more streamlined, even comprehensible. :-)

Anyway enjoy.

D.

[Fading Captain]

Link please? :)

[Menschenfresser]

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/

Rugged Defense

[Fading Captain]

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/

Rugged Defense

Thank you!!!

[Rick]

Wow...didn't realize that Daniel had released this. Then went to his scenario page and saw the caveat. He must be really busy these days to do something so out of character... ;)

I've been looking for a suitable excuse to come out of semi-retirement. Want to play it? I played the Central Powers, primarily, in our playtesting, but I'd be happy to take either side.

Where can you download it?
Rick

[Kraut]

Where can you download it?
Rick

LOL, look 2 posts above your post :D :nuts: :nuts:

[laszlo.nemedi]

LOL, look 2 posts above your post :D :nuts: :nuts:
Where? :D

[Rick]

LOL, look 2 posts above your post :D :nuts: :nuts:

Thanks. Rugged defense has it.

[RhinoBones]

Since the topic is WWI this seems like a good place to post a “Television Alert”.

This evening, 31 July, History Channel is kicking off a new series of one hour programs concerning the 1st World War. Local programming starts at 5pm PST and continues until midnight.

From the brief description given in the TV guide, this appears to be a companion of the earlier “WWII Color of War” series.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Enigma]

I am about finsihed with the other WWI scenario (CP and will be taking Paris soon) and we wanted to try out this new scenario. Any idea when the updated version of the Great War will be out?

I really like the scenario and the naval rules are really good. In my other WWI games the German navy has been much more powerful than I think was realistic (routine sorties to the English Channel)

Thanks

[Dan Neely]

Delurk

I've been messing around with the scen the last few weeks myself, and'm about 1/3rd done with t5 (cp deployments but no combat). Not having a copy of the Schiflenhiem plan handy as Menschenfresser did, I split the forces roughly by eye with a much stronger than normal force to the east. My gut feeling was that actaully knocking out either france or russia in 14 was logistically impossible becuase of crappy radii. That said I instead aimed at all the eev hexes within reach on both sides of the border, with the intent of keeping italy out for at least a year. Even ignoring the attrition I figure it's the equivilant of at least a dozen extra corps in not having to garrison the border heavily.

In the west I grabbed brussels at the end of t4, and'm next to verdun. I've taken most of the French border road/rail as well. I'm guessing Verdun+Lille will probably fall before I run out of steam although Besancon's likely out of reach. I might get as far as the 2nd line of french forts in the north although I think a stall somewhere between the 1st and 2nd line's more likely.

In the Balkans I'm hammering Serbia but leaving Montengro alone. NO supply point means I can encricle and starve them to death once the Serbs are dealt with. All but about 2 divs of the starting army's toast, maybe a 3rd of that by squads instead of units. I'm starting to feel outrun supplies though and enough of the early killed units are allready scheduled to return my initial push's looking to stall around kruseva. Unless alot more reconstitutes they'll have a dangling west flank to roll up, meaning they're sunk anyway. If the AH units aren't recovered enough a fresh German res corp or two'll almost certainly be able to punch a big opening to Nis. Bulgaria's army definately would finish them, although waiting that long would probably mean Italy did enter on schedule.

As I mentioned earlier I put alot more in the East than historically was there. Ruoughly 1bde/hex on the eastern part of prussia, 2div/3hex along the south, 1.25div/hex along poland west of the vistula, and about 1bde/hex along the AH front as well. Basically enough troops that excluding a few small local counterattacks the Czars waiting out the opening shock. In Glacia and to a lesser extent eastern Prussia I've exploited the Russians inability to fully breakdown all of thier divisions to make local gains and put a bit of space to cover the AH eev hexes. Poland's been hammered hard from 1 and two halves directions. The west bank of the Vistula's been completely cleared, and swinging down at an angle from the SE corner of Prussia I'm 2 hexes from warsaw in the north. Surprisingly I've managed to make almost as much headway between the vistula and the river running through Brest-Litovosk, although a fair ammount of luck was involved. The initial russian screening force near the vistula collapsed into a single hex, was encircled, and killed. I discovered the inability to break down all the russian divs when I disembarked the few I'd railed in to cover the eastern half of the sector and intially had nothing to block the light AH forces probing north. I'm 2 hexes from Devin nad Kovel, 5 from Brest-Litovosk although fresh russian troops've stopped this advance cold. Once the Germans force a crossing I might be able to carry out a limited attack in support but the eastern 2/3rds are digging in against a possible counterattack.

If I keep going, long enough I've got the 11th army + whatever reconstitutes to carry out a counterattack somewhere once the high CP shock wears off. The AH troops in Poland are the weakest section of the line but the nearest EEV location's 10 hexes back, compared to 4 for the one near the Romanian border. Eastern Turkey's an option as well I suppose, although the supply situation's rather odious to an attacker there. Tossing the 11th that way might force the ottomans to suspend thier attack on Egypt, then again without rail of thier own maybe not since the front'd largely be stabilized one way or the other before meaningful reinforcements could arrive.

Maybe SSes in a day or two.

Edit: Probably a table with reinforcements by country by year. I've got it on paper and just need to key it in. Took about 2hrs of systematically dismembering the dump via regexps, and then one more to add up what was left.

[Ben Turner]

Oh yea...that I did.

BTW, is it Montenegrins(ens) or Montenegrinians? Wife says it is the latter, but the guy on the BBC last week said the former. Dunno.

Well according to the BBC, in the summer temperatures in Arizona can exceed a hundred degrees centigrade....

I think I know who to trust.

The combination of Menschenfresser and discussion of another enormous Daniel McBride scenario has brought to my attention that this would be an ideal vehicle to repeat the experience of our current multiplayer DNO game. I'd be inclined to come up with differing objectives for the various powers.

Of course, there's the problem that the game must be hundreds of turns long. Oh well.

[Mantis]

I've only played out the first so many turns as well (hotseat), so I can't recall how many turns it is either...

A quick peek at v1.7 shows it as 230...

[Ben Turner]

A quick peek at v1.7 shows it as 230...

Yeah, weekly turns. 52 turns per year, so 230 turns is four years plus four months or so. July 1914 to November 1918.

I'll note here that 1918 is a bit of an arbitrary date for ending the scenario. I suppose Daniel is disinclined to get into figuring out what the Western Allies would have come up with for their Spring 1919 offensive, or what their publics would have thought about the war stretching to a full five years.

[shadow]

[QUOTE=Ben Turner]Well according to the BBC, in the summer temperatures in Arizona can exceed a hundred degrees centigrade....

I think I know who to trust.

QUOTE]

:laugh: no it only gets up to about 90C in the summer... :p

[Ben Turner]

:laugh: no it only gets up to about 90C in the summer... :p

At least it's a dry heat.

[RhinoBones]

I suppose Daniel is disinclined to get into figuring out what the Western Allies would have come up with for their Spring 1919 offensive, or what their publics would have thought about the war stretching to a full five years.

To model it properly after the historical armistice, he would have needed to factor in the Spanish Flu Pandemic. Wouldn’t be many troops left to play with if he had, so maybe it’s best he didn’t try to push the scenario into unknown territory.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Ben Turner]

To model it properly after the historical armistice, he would have needed to factor in the Spanish Flu Pandemic. Wouldn’t be many troops left to play with if he had, so maybe it’s best he didn’t try to push the scenario into unknown territory.

It's an interesting point. However, the deaths from Spanish flu were only around 20 million or so in all of Europe, weren't they? This was only around four or five percent of Europes population at the time, and if more recent flu epidemics are anything to go by, those who suffered most would be the very young, the very old and those already incapacitated- not the able-bodied men. Obviously the Spanish flu in combination with food shortages would be a problem- but I think an increase in the pestilence effect to six or seven would do.

I'm not saying Daniel's decision was wrong, of course. I can quite understand that given his emphasis on historical study (I believe he calls the scenario "a historical study") he doesn't want to get drawn into complicated hypotheticals.

[RhinoBones]

It's an interesting point. However, the deaths from Spanish flu were only around 20 million or so . . .

From what I have read, the trenches we a most efficient environment for the airborne transmission of flu virus. One scholar, name long forgotten, claimed that by the end of 1918 there were few healthy soldiers left to continue the war. That is probably a stretch in cause and effect, but it is not difficult to imagine the hospital tents filled with the sick.

Only 20 million!! That’s a factor of 100+ over the current tsunami count. Of course there wasn’t a global instantaneous press corps in 1918-20 to splash pain and anguish across the media, so the numbers were added up long after the fact, but still . . . only 20 million!! Must take quite a bit to impress you.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Ben Turner]

From what I have read, the trenches we a most efficient environment for the airborne transmission of flu virus.

Obviously this is a moot point in terms of simulation, since events will obviously have moved differently, but by the end of 1918 the fighting on the Western Front had moved beyond the original trench systems. The particular problem there was that due to prolonged use of heavy artillery the local drainage systems had been destroyed causing trenches to be flooded.

Only 20 million!! That’s a factor of 100+ over the current tsunami count.

...and the tsunami is statistically insignificant. A roughly similar number of people die of natural causes in SE Asia every day.

Really, one has to kill a lot of people before it has a statistical impact. At the time of the Spanish flu, Europe's population was 450 million. I reckon that in no single year of the First World War was the conflict responsible for more than perhaps a quarter to a third of all deaths in Europe. Of course, births did go down significantly during the war, reflected in the so-called "lean years" for conscription in the 1930s.

The Spanish flu I reckon is a statistically significant peak in the death rate- but not enormous. I expect it would have only served to maximise the problems caused by food shortages. Absent such shortages, the Western Front would probably not be a bad place to be, given that there were enormous medical facilities on-hand. Obviously these are designed to deal with gunshot wounds primarily, but they would have the necessary warm beds to treat flu patients.

Perhaps all this sounds a bit cold and heartless- but in scenario design this is sometimes necessary.

[Menschenfresser]

I've thought about using this scenario for Multi part 2. I want to do one. It would place two to three players on either side. France, Russia, Britian on one side (with someone also playing Serbia...probably the British player). And Germany and A-H on the other side. With Turkey coming in on T14-16.

I'd like a scenario where combat round management isn't a big deal and this might fall along those lines...outside the sparse shock turns. But with 230 turns, the Germans can take their time getting to Paris.

But returning to the scenario itself, and I'm no expert on WWI, the French, in my experiences so far, seem very capable of holding the Germans at the border. I can't say where the line would be at T20 after so many hard pushing attacks by the Germans. The Western Front degenerates into static hex exchanges pretty quickly. I think I recall Daniel making a comment about concern for long term replacements (whether or not they'll produce a good game). It seems to me, with 230 turns, winning might come down to sheer mathematics all offensives being equal.

[Ben Turner]

But returning to the scenario itself, and I'm no expert on WWI, the French, in my experiences so far, seem very capable of holding the Germans at the border.

Yeah. And they would have done this historically if they didn't lose a good chunk of their field army in Plan 17.

Personally, I would start a scenario on this subject after Plan 17 has been called off- thereby not having to recreate the various opening blunders. Of course, such a work would be a nightmare to research, and some people probably prefer the "what-if".

[Dan Neely]

...and the tsunami is statistically insignificant. A roughly similar number of people die of natural causes in SE Asia every day.


I can't let this one slide by without the liberal use of a cluebyfour. Even though if you streched your SE asia box to cover all of india and china you might be able to get a box with 150k natural deaths/day. Using 6bn pop, no growth, 60y life expectancy (numbers choosen for ease of math), I get ~280k deaths/day world wide. Even with most of SE asia being 3rd world stuffing half the deaths into that box seems a strech.

Even granting you that, though the losses were ANYTHING but evenly distributed. ACeh provice, the worst hit area, has taken an estimated 25% casualties!!!!!!!

Stalin's claim that a million deaths are merely a statistic, only goes to show what an :censored: he was. THe only difference between 1 and 1 million deaths is that the latter is a million seperate tragedys. **SNARL**


Really, one has to kill a lot of people before it has a statistical impact. At the time of the Spanish flu, Europe's population was 450 million. I reckon that in no single year of the First World War was the conflict responsible for more than perhaps a quarter to a third of all deaths in Europe. Of course, births did go down significantly during the war, reflected in the so-called "lean years" for conscription in the 1930s.


I don't have exact numbers infront of me, but the varius European countries all lost between 5 and 10% of thier total populations to the war, the average was IIRC ~8%, an average of ~2% per year. Using a 60 year life expectancy an no growth would give a natual death rate of only 1.7%, which would mean the war more than doubled the deathrate, with allmost all of the deaths coming from the most productive segment of the population, young males. In this case while the former assumption should be relatively close (the US LE was 65y when Roosevelt started the SS program). The nogrowth one is very much not the case, people were still having huge numbers of children although modern santitation was making major inroads into the childhood deathrate. Which means that the wartime lossrate was proportionately even higher than my rough guestimate would indicate. By 1918 the US was the only major power that wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel for warm bodies to put into uniform.


The Spanish flu I reckon is a statistically significant peak in the death rate- but not enormous. I expect it would have only served to maximise the problems caused by food shortages. Absent such shortages, the Western Front would probably not be a bad place to be, given that there were enormous medical facilities on-hand. Obviously these are designed to deal with gunshot wounds primarily, but they would have the necessary warm beds to treat flu patients.


Considering that peacetime hospitals were unable to do anything meaningful to help flu victims I can't imagine the field hospitals would either. Even today there'd be extremely little that could be done. With most viral infections treatments limited to supportive care while the immune system fights it's own battle, and monitoring and agressive intervention in the case of 2ndary bacterial infections. In some ways the situation would almost be worse if any of the antiviral drugs were effective since our stockpiles are nowhere near large enough to dose most of the country at once.

Edit: self censored for langauge, Ben's comment really ticked me off.

[Ben Turner]

I can't let this one slide by without the liberal use of a cluebyfour. Even though if you streched your SE asia box to cover all of india and china you might be able to get a box with 150k natural deaths/day. Using 6bn pop, no growth, 60y life expectancy (numbers choosen for ease of math), I get ~280k deaths/day world wide. Even with most of SE asia being 3rd world stuffing half the deaths into that box seems a strech.

I think with infant mortality it works out.

Stalin's claim that a million deaths are merely a statistic, only goes to show what an :censored: he was. THe only difference between 1 and 1 million deaths is that the latter is a million seperate tragedys. **SNARL**

Obviously people dying of natural causes and of unnatural (or at least unexpected) causes, whilst physically similar are morally totally different. I hope I didn't offend you.

I don't have exact numbers infront of me, but the varius European countries all lost between 5 and 10% of thier total populations to the war,

10% of Germany's population at the time would be about eight million. Their actual deaths were under two million.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to reply to the rest of this now.

[Dan Neely]

I think with infant mortality it works out.


Ok, you're making me go looking for real numbers. Using numbers primarily from the cia world factbook, indonesias daily birth/death numbers are 14k/4k. THe island of Sumtra has 12% of the total pop, Aceh province itself 3%. India and China add annother 24k deaths/day each. I don't think it's neccesary to add the numbers from the other smaller countries in the region to show that even under the broadest possible definition of SE asia you're off by a factor of at least two.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/countrylisting.html
http://indahnesia.com/Indonesia/Sumatera/Sumatera.php?code=SUMGEN



Obviously people dying of natural causes and of unnatural (or at least unexpected) causes, whilst physically similar are morally totally different. I hope I didn't offend you.


You did, but consider the issue dropped.


10% of Germany's population at the time would be about eight million. Their actual deaths were under two million.


I went digging for numbers, and it looks like I was conflating casualties and fatalities. German dead+wounded totaled slightly over 6M, which would be 7.5% of a 80M population. A bit more than half the total mobilized population. Casualty rates for most of the other major powers also ranged between one and two thirds of the mobilized forces.

http://www.roll-of-honour.com/WorldWar1Overview.html

[Ben Turner]

Ok, you're making me go looking for real numbers. Using numbers primarily from the cia world factbook, indonesias daily birth/death numbers are 14k/4k. THe island of Sumtra has 12% of the total pop, Aceh province itself 3%. India and China add annother 24k deaths/day each.

Assuming one thousand million people in each of India and China, your figures indicate that only one in every 114 people die each year. I would suggest that there's a flaw in them somewhere.

When I was thinking about this today (you succeeded in making me feel quite guilty for a while), I ended up with the point that mankind is incredibly hard to stop. Human beings have to die at an astonishing rate to actually prevent them from spreading. Even the most tremendous disasters in history were at worst minor setbacks to the human species. Whilst emotionally appalling at the time, in the long run we're always fine.

You did, but consider the issue dropped.

Thankyou.

I went digging for numbers, and it looks like I was conflating casualties and fatalities.

Yeah- a common error. What I highlighted originally was the change in birth rate, which is definitely significant, as it was noted by many observers in the 1930s. Not only those killed and maimed, but also those who were simply away for much of the war obviously contribute to this.

[Ben Turner]

Considering that peacetime hospitals were unable to do anything meaningful to help flu victims I can't imagine the field hospitals would either.

The interesting thing about the Western Front is that, unlike virtually every other campaign in history, it lead to an area having a very much higher military than civilian population for a very long period. Consequently, an enormous medical infrastructure must have built up to deal with this.

Even today there'd be extremely little that could be done. With most viral infections treatments limited to supportive care while the immune system fights it's own battle,

But that's exactly it. Things as simple as bed rest, warm, clean blankets and plenty of fluids would have been a problem in, for example, rural south Italy. Not so in a First World War field hospital.

[Dan Neely]

Assuming one thousand million people in each of India and China, your figures indicate that only one in every 114 people die each year. I would suggest that there's a flaw in them somewhere.


Your problem is assuming a steady state. China's still growing, albiet at a slowing pace, IIRC they're expected to peak and begin shrinking in annother 20-30years. India otoh is booming, unless something slows them down, they'll double in the next 50 years!

For china the numbers are:
Median age: 31.8 years
Birth rate: 12.98 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 6.92 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.57% (2004 est.)

Median age: 24.4 years
Birth rate: 22.8 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 8.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Population growth rate: 1.44% (2004 est.)

For comparison the US is:
Population: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.)
Median age: 36 years
Birth rate: 14.13 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.41 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.92% (2004 est.)

[Ben Turner]

Your problem is assuming a steady state.

It looks like your figures are closer to the fact than my own (it helps that you use my prefered source). At least I can say from the figures that SE Asia's population probably didn't drop on that day- though obviously rather more of them are Indians now.

China's still growing, albiet at a slowing pace, IIRC they're expected to peak and begin shrinking in annother 20-30years.

I expect that if China's population were to start shrinking then the tight government controls on birth rate will be lifted. In any case, as the country gets richer, it's likely that more and more people will be able to afford the tax costs of having extra children.

India otoh is booming, unless something slows them down, they'll double in the next 50 years!

Well, obviously a death rate of only one in every 120 is unsustainable for a third world country. Once the great mass of the population (their equivalent of a baby boom) catches up with their current life expectancy (64 years), the growth rate will drop dramatically. Same is true for most countries. Also, I believe India is trying to bring in exactly the same restrictions on numbers of children that China already has. Their much weaker central authority (it is, after all, a Federal state) makes this very difficult for them.

Wow... this really is off-topic now.

[Dan Neely]

I expect that if China's population were to start shrinking then the tight government controls on birth rate will be lifted. In any case, as the country gets richer, it's likely that more and more people will be able to afford the tax costs of having extra children.


Have they changed the rules, or'm I misremembering them. I thought the 2nd child penalties involved being assigned to crappy deadend jobs in the middle of nowhere. In any event the Chinese are about 2 generations into 1 family one child at this point, even if they lift restrictions today they're going to be facing a massive proportion of elderly people dieing off in the future. Also, as they industrialize the impetus towards large families will go away. The US's the only industrialized nation with a birthrate at the sustainment rate, everywhere else is below it. Thier population's almost certainly going to plumet in the coming decades, it's just a question of how hard and for how long. If kept in force long enough they could find themselves with a worse longterm problem than Europe.


Well, obviously a death rate of only one in every 120 is unsustainable for a third world country. Once the great mass of the population (their equivalent of a baby boom) catches up with their current life expectancy (64 years), the growth rate will drop dramatically. Same is true for most countries. Also, I believe India is trying to bring in exactly the same restrictions on numbers of children that China already has. Their much weaker central authority (it is, after all, a Federal state) makes this very difficult for them.


I don't know how to convert births/year into births/woman/lifetime, or even if it's possible without a detailed demographic breakdown, but with thier birthrate being ~2x as large as the USes I think they're still in the pre/early industrial raise huge family mode and putting out each generation much larger than the one before it. As for birthcontrol I know they tried it in the past for a while before giving up, I hadn't heard that they'd resumed trying. OTOH I wasn't exactly watching for any change it it either.


Wow... this really is off-topic now.

yup.

[Ben Turner]

Have they changed the rules, or'm I misremembering them. I thought the 2nd child penalties involved being assigned to crappy deadend jobs in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think their economy is that regulated- though I have to admit that I'm not an expert.

Also, as they industrialize the impetus towards large families will go away.

I expect that China will retain a large rural population for some time. These people will continue to tend to large families- just as they do in the USA.

The US's the only industrialized nation with a birthrate at the sustainment rate, everywhere else is below it.

The interesting thing about this is that a big chunk of that birth rate is the children first generation immigrants.

I don't know how to convert births/year into births/woman/lifetime,

The World Factbook you cited has that data anyway- 1.69 for China, 2.85 for India. Of that 2.85, however, subtract about 0.15 for infant mortality.

I think they're still in the pre/early industrial raise huge family mode and putting out each generation much larger than the one before it. As for birthcontrol I know they tried it in the past for a while before giving up, I hadn't heard that they'd resumed trying. OTOH I wasn't exactly watching for any change it it either.

A major factor in falling birthrates is the introduction of modern entertainment mediums such as radio and television. These are getting into India in a big way now, with the advent of the hand-powered radio and increasing efforts toward electrification.

[Dan Neely]

I played upto t6, and as promised here're a few SSes. Since I decided to stop at this point I only did a minimal TE turn, redeploying at the active combat zones only, and not slotting fresh divs into the line elsewhere and railing fresh reserves to the front. France and Russia both had enough, between fresh divs and reconstitution to max their rail capacity.

http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/France_6_te_end.jpg (295k)

The western front basically petrified t5s and 6, since I was almost entirely out of fresh german divs. I hammered a few exposed overstacked locations along the Southern Franco-Belgian border. The other action was storming Verdun, taking it t5 with a single burnt out div that didn't hold, and then securing it permanantly the next week with a larger force consisting of every relatively fresh div I could get into place. I also captured the two hexed immediately south of the fortress, precuding the frogs from being able to get a flanking bonus in their counteratacks. With the frog reserves online and mauled units reconstituting I could probably pull at least half, maybe all of the BEF out to cause trouble elsewhere in the next few turns. It'd result in deeper German penetrations ofc, but the only EEV hex in range is Lille, and the TE will need to gain a net +5 to counter CP gains along with one almost given capture if they want the 1915 entries to happen, and the easiest place to do that is by hammering the ottomans somewhere.



http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/Russia_6_te_end_full.jpg (628k)
http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/Russia_6_te_end_smaller.jpg (269k) - reduced to 70% and split horizontally near glacia.

In the East, the static situation remained everywhere except along the Vistula where German troops secured bridgeheads at Warsaw and midway between that city and Deblin the 1st week and expanded them sufficiently the next that a withdrawal from the fort was needed to preclude the pocketing of several divs. The shortening of the front here means I probably could push forward to take Siedice before having to stop, although committing the 1.5 reserve russian armies here instead of counterattacking the Austrians to the south would bring the push to a complete stop.



http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/Serbia_6_te_end.jpg (252k)

In serbia the austrians continued grinding forward, and're within 3 hexes of NIs at closest approach. WIth reduced supply and replacement rates the serbs might be able to hold off AH on their own, since their starting army's reconstituting at about 2divs/turn, and the AH forces are too weak to kill them off that fast anymore. Having to strech thier flank to linkup with Montenegran forces unable to operate more than 2 hexes from thier border, would leave them open to a german hammer once the RR line's fully rebuilt to the front. Short of violating the spirit of the TE Landing in Salonika trigger by dumping the BEF in Albania to reinforce the Serbs there's no real way to stop thier defeat. Actaully landing in Salonika wouldn't work since the Bulgarians would be able to blitzkreig the border before any brits could get close enough to help.

[Ben Turner]

The western front basically petrified t5s and 6, since I was almost entirely out of fresh german divs.

Yeah. What's striking here is that some of the brigades in your Eastern Front screenshot are as strong as the divisions in the West.

My inclination in this scenario would be to stop the Western offensive dead when both the shock effect and the fluid situation had come to an end and then shift all weight to the East where it's easier to concentrate.

[Dan Neely]

Yeah. What's striking here is that some of the brigades in your Eastern Front screenshot are as strong as the divisions in the West.


sronger in some cases, although the most of the western divs are at 65%ish manpower and completely out of ammo. The full strength bdes in the east are basically chunks of the front where there's been zero combat.


My inclination in this scenario would be to stop the Western offensive dead when both the shock effect and the fluid situation had come to an end and then shift all weight to the East where it's easier to concentrate.

That's probably what I'd do too, with Kiev being the primary objective. The other +10 eev cities are farther from the front, and Kiev has two +5s at the halfway point. Punchout russia in late 1915/early 1916 and then have annother year to try and batter through the massive French defences.

My do over list basically consists of canceling most of the attack in southern France beyond what was needed to support the push for verdun. The drive for Besancon, and the reduction of the forrested salient to the north to cover my flank wasted alot of manpower I could've used elsewhere.

In the east, the biggie would've been putting the forward russian positions in Poland farther rearward to avoid thier being mauled before reinforcements could arrive. The ones I took were roughly half a turn from the front so that a historical opening would let them begin pushing the 1st turn, which turned out to be too far forward in the event of a major German assualt.

[Dan Neely]

I keyed in the entry table I mentioned earlier. It should be mostly selfexplanatory, but I did leave a few notes on one page.

http://summoner.falldowngoboom.org/toaw/TheGreatWar.xls

I've also got a few questions/minor bugs(?). Does Stauffenberg still lurk here, or should I email him if I want a responce?

The Greek entry explanation needs clarified, not knowing the historical setup I was completely baffled about the Salonika landing/1917dow part. Even now I'm not clear if Greece will sitout the war if the TE doesn't make a landing or will automatically DOW in 17 regardless.

The idea that the greek government will simply stand by and let the CP overrun their nation if the TE doesn't land enough forces to hold the border seems rather screwy to me. I'm not sure what could be done though. Without more events the only thing I could think of would be orangelineing the greek army and not withdrawing them, but that has problems of it's own.

The apparent Russian bdes in the French Armee F d'Oreiet are colored Frech. Since the Greek/Portuguese units in TE formations have their national colors I assume this's a mistake.

Are the discontinuities in the turkish rail net norht of Cyprus, and near Amman Jordan deliberate to worsen their rail network farther, or bugs?

The way the map's drawn there really doesn't seem to be any possible benefit to invading and attempting to take Galipoli. Since there's no way to pass through the Darandelles without controlling the southern shore, unless the Ottoman navy's sunk completely, carrying forward to force the Bosphorus as well and gain access to the black sea's impossible.

I'm also tempted to start a pbem with this scen, and was wondering if the new version with the updated oob he mentioned earlier was approaching completion or doa.

[Ben Turner]

That's probably what I'd do too, with Kiev being the primary objective.

My primary objective would be to bite huge chunks out of the Russian army so I can keep advancing. Geographical objectives are secondary.

[Dan Neely]

My primary objective would be to bite huge chunks out of the Russian army so I can keep advancing. Geographical objectives are secondary.

IF there's a major weak point somewhere in the line it'll nataurally get pounced on first, the problem is that with only about 3 turns worth of supplies for attacking units massive breakthoughs aren't possible. Poor attack ratings combined with fortificaiton bonuses almost make attacking very bloody even with the opening shock bonus and defenders not well dug in attacking losses greatly exceed defender casualties. Attrition does have it's place, and with russia increasinly dependent on the smaller flow of light riflesquads grinding them away does have some merit, but ultimately victory will come down to the EEV hexes, and glacia/ukraine have the largest numbers readily available near the frontlines.

[Ben Turner]

IF there's a major weak point somewhere in the line it'll nataurally get pounced on first, the problem is that with only about 3 turns worth of supplies for attacking units massive breakthoughs aren't possible.

One should just endeavour to force the enemy to make difficult choices. Cutting off substantial forces may not be possible but one can oblige the enemy to abandon large tracts of territory.

Attrition does have it's place,

Not if you're Germany fighting the First World War it doesn't.

with russia increasinly dependent on the smaller flow of light riflesquads

Russia mobilised some twelve million men during the course of the war. Their supply of manpower shouldn't be the problem. The majority of those twelve million men were still serving in 1917, IIRC.

grinding them away does have some merit, but ultimately victory will come down to the EEV hexes, and glacia/ukraine have the largest numbers readily available near the frontlines.

I wonder how far the actual loss of territory impacted on the Russian home front? Given the behaviour of the Russians in both the Napoleonic and Second World Wars, I suspect that their collapse can be attributed as much to the lack of penetrations into Russia proper as to the gains that had been made.

[JAMiAM]

The Greek entry explanation needs clarified, not knowing the historical setup I was completely baffled about the Salonika landing/1917dow part. Even now I'm not clear if Greece will sitout the war if the TE doesn't make a landing or will automatically DOW in 17 regardless.

The idea that the greek government will simply stand by and let the CP overrun their nation if the TE doesn't land enough forces to hold the border seems rather screwy to me. I'm not sure what could be done though. Without more events the only thing I could think of would be orangelineing the greek army and not withdrawing them, but that has problems of it's own.


The wording of that section of the players notes could be improved a bit, but it was my understanding that the Greeks will dow in 1917, if not brought in, by the other methods. However, as we never reached that far in playtesting, AFAIK, nobody has ever confirmed the event structure being flawless in those cases.

Are the discontinuities in the turkish rail net norht of Cyprus, and near Amman Jordan deliberate to worsen their rail network farther, or bugs?
Yes, the state of the Turkish railnet at the beginning of the game is deliberate. There is a break in the lines, as well as many broken hexes that need to be repaired. The low movement rate of the Turkish RR engineer is deliberate, as well.

I'm also tempted to start a pbem with this scen, and was wondering if the new version with the updated oob he mentioned earlier was approaching completion or doa.
I'm playing Menschenfresser (more appropriately, resuming the game that we started several months ago) and am the TE player in that one. Would you care to take the TE against my CP? I can give you a demo on how the Schlieffen Plan was supposed to operate... ;)

[Dan Neely]

I'm playing Menschenfresser (more appropriately, resuming the game that we started several months ago) and am the TE player in that one. Would you care to take the TE against my CP? I can give you a demo on how the Schlieffen Plan was supposed to operate... ;)

It looks like you've covered most've my questions, excluding the few that'd need Stauffenberg's input directly. As for the game maybe. I was abit more interested in playing the cp but the historical outcome being an OV kinda bothered me for a scen that looked too large to practically mirror. IF you've gotten far enough to answer once the offensives wind down do the lines largely stabilize between shock triggers, and how much quicker do the subsequent turns go. 200turns X 6hours each is more than I'm willing to commit to, if most of the midgame turns are fairly static and only take 30-45m each it's something else entirely. The other part of my hesitation's due to the fact that I've burned out on toaw twice in the past and'm hesitant to start a scen that would take at least a year to finish.

[JAMiAM]

It looks like you've covered most've my questions, excluding the few that'd need Stauffenberg's input directly. As for the game maybe. I was abit more interested in playing the cp but the historical outcome being an OV kinda bothered me for a scen that looked too large to practically mirror. IF you've gotten far enough to answer once the offensives wind down do the lines largely stabilize between shock triggers, and how much quicker do the subsequent turns go. 200turns X 6hours each is more than I'm willing to commit to, if most of the midgame turns are fairly static and only take 30-45m each it's something else entirely. The other part of my hesitation's due to the fact that I've burned out on toaw twice in the past and'm hesitant to start a scen that would take at least a year to finish.
To be honest, we only got through a dozen turns, or so, each iteration that was playtested. The scenario is still very much in the late alpha, or early beta stage, and the long term viability of it, will depend greatly upon the skills and level of aggression that the players exhibit. I was CP in most of our tests, and I was generally able to beat the TE completely out of Belgium, take Lille and Verdun, threaten Rheims, while holding the Russians at bay through the second CP offensive.

The usual play would consist of the initial CP thrusts, until the first offensive ran out, the first TE offensive, then second CP offensive. At that stage we would restart with a new version...rinse and repeat. Hell if I had ladder points for every playtest turn that I've done on his scenarios, the ladder would have to add more stars to the top rank... ;)

I fully understand the burnout phases. Been through a couple of them myself. If we were to start a game, it would be with the understanding that at any point, either one of us could call for a resignation at the current level of victory, for the points of the truncated game. If you're still interested, let me know.

[Dan Neely]

To be honest, we only got through a dozen turns, or so, each iteration that was playtested. The scenario is still very much in the late alpha, or early beta stage, and the long term viability of it, will depend greatly upon the skills and level of aggression that the players exhibit. I was CP in most of our tests, and I was generally able to beat the TE completely out of Belgium, take Lille and Verdun, threaten Rheims, while holding the Russians at bay through the second CP offensive.


Ok, as for balancing it, I'm not convinced that scenarios on this scale can be properly balanced for more than a single skill pairing, so that much doesn't surprise me.


I fully understand the burnout phases. Been through a couple of them myself. If we were to start a game, it would be with the understanding that at any point, either one of us could call for a resignation at the current level of victory, for the points of the truncated game. If you're still interested, let me know.

I'm not obsessive enough to keep track of if all the divs are within 4 hexes of their hq, or've strayed out to 5 or 6. I'd guess I managed to keep between 80-95% compliance when hotseating. Possibly excluding the high command formations arty which tended to get splattered all over the map nothing egregious, they were within range of a corp/army hq pair but the kaiser/emperors couldn't be personally overseeing every sector of the front. I assume they were broken down and attached to whatever armys were attacking at the moment historically, regardless of the letter of the docs. Unless that's a problem I'm good to go.

I'm not sure if my email's on display here or not, so fire something off to summoner@hotpop.com and I'll give you a nonspam trap account.

[JAMiAM]

Emailed you. If you don't get the message, then PM me, or post here. Will be tied up for at least a day, but I will try to get you the first turn by Monday.

[Dan Neely]

Emailed you. If you don't get the message, then PM me, or post here. Will be tied up for at least a day, but I will try to get you the first turn by Monday.

recieved your email and pinged back from a good account.

[JAMiAM]

Got it. Thanks.

[JAMiAM]

First turn is off to you.

[JAMiAM]

Short of violating the spirit of the TE Landing in Salonika trigger by dumping the BEF in Albania to reinforce the Serbs there's no real way to stop thier defeat...
Just thought I'd address this issue. There is no violation of the spirit of the Salonika landing, for the TE to land in Albania. Daniel did it against me a couple of times. The problem with this, for the TE prior to Italian entry, is that they have no control ports (bases) in the Adriatic (Sea Zone I) and thus the TE must leave their forces in the middle of the Adriatic Sea for a turn, to allow the CP a chance to intercept the movement. This is for both the initial invasion, as well as all subsequent reinforcements. Thus, a landing at Durres would be very dicey. You could always try an end run to one of the AH ports that are control ports, but if you fail the invasion, then you could be up the proverbial creek...getting paddled... ;)

[Dan Neely]

Just thought I'd address this issue. There is no violation of the spirit of the Salonika landing, for the TE to land in Albania. Daniel did it against me a couple of times. The problem with this, for the TE prior to Italian entry, is that they have no control ports (bases) in the Adriatic (Sea Zone I) and thus the TE must leave their forces in the middle of the Adriatic Sea for a turn, to allow the CP a chance to intercept the movement. This is for both the initial invasion, as well as all subsequent reinforcements. Thus, a landing at Durres would be very dicey. You could always try an end run to one of the AH ports that are control ports, but if you fail the invasion, then you could be up the proverbial creek...getting paddled... ;)

True although the TE could bring enough naval superiority to make it unlikely the AH fleet could accomplish more than a phyric mauling of a single troop convoy. Soften them up with a 2x as large fleet blockading the sortie port and then the same covering the convoy. I'm not clear on if uping the ante by having the blockading fleet bombard the AH navy while in port would also be permitted or not, if so it'd be really ugly.

[rasmus]

Warning very off topic.

Dan might I ask where you got your quote. I went to John Ringos homepage and only found chapter one.

[Dan Neely]

Warning very off topic.

Dan might I ask where you got your quote. I went to John Ringos homepage and only found chapter one.

upto ch5 available here. Not sure if it's complete or not.

http://dahak.dynamic-site.net:8080/BookSamples/Collections/IntotheLookingGlassChapters/IntotheLookingGlass_00.php

jiltanith.thefifthimperium.com is the main address for the above.

More's occasionally being posted in ringos tavern on baens bar by one of John's minions (Glennis LeBlanc). New snippets generally showup on thefifthimperium within a day of being posted on the bar. IIRC registration's needed to view on the bar to keep webspiders out.

http://bar.baen.com

I was tempted to take something from the swat team or 'The charge of the redneck brigade' also in ch4, but none of them quite captured the same feel. :)

[rasmus]

Thanks a bunch :clap: :bounce: :thumup: