France '14 Historical outcome

[Volcano Man]

Actually, I assumed that someone will be interested in playing it now. So here is a link to get it if you want it:

http://www.volcanomods.com/temporary/191...rly_v2.zip

As I said, I named this with "v2" on the end so it doesn't overwrite anything until the v1.03 update. Consider this the now official version of the scenario, but you should delete this file after the next update becomes available because I will adopt the original filename at that point (don't know when that will be yet).

Here is the text that will appear in the v1.03 notes:

- Drastically improved the VP levels and objective values in the #1914_0822_01s_Campaign_Early scenario. Based on feedback from campaign results, the old VP levels and objective values have been quartered. The change is minimal, but it has a drastic impact on the game play since greater historical emphasis is now placed on casualties than before (for example, von Moltke's historical decision to turn away from Paris was based largely on the desire of destroying the French Army by inflicting heavy losses on it in a double envelopment). It is rationalized that any losses sustained on a level that is massively out of proportion to the enemy's (on a difference of a half of a field army of men or more) would have influenced the outcome of the war, as the political will to fight a prolonged conflict would have likely been broken immediately. In regards to the changes to the campaign the following points must be mentioned...
a) Neither side can no longer afford to lose over a hundred thousand men and thousands of guns more than their enemy, doing so will alter the outcome.
b) If one side manages the elusive "holy grail" result of isolating and destroying an entire enemy field army then the campaign will likely be won easily. This was not possible before.
c) It has now been calculated that the Allies can afford to fall back from the start to the Marne, and still keep the game close in the draw result region. Losses above or beyond this, or taking back or losing objectives along the final line should tip the result one way or the other.
d) A forward Allied defense that disregards all losses should reliably result in no better result for them than a draw now, depending on how many losses were inflicted and which objectives were held of course. However, such an Allied tactic is risky because, combined with high losses, and just "a few more objectives" taken by the Germans will likely result in a Central Powers victory, rarely resulting in an Allied victory unless something miraculous occurs (such as like loss ratios are kept close).
e) Because of the changes above, the odds are stacked a little more fairly. A successful Allied tactic now is to bloody the Germans at the start, then break contact and fall back and repeat. Continue to fall back, periodically holding or counter attacking (delaying) in some areas as you, overall, continue the strategic withdrawal. The point in which the Allies should withdraw is once the Germans begin inflicting heavier casualties than the the Allies themselves are inflicting, taking into consideration also the time spent delaying the German advance. In other words, a series of delaying actions, with each disengaging at the point when the Germans begin to get the upper hand is advised. Near the end of the campaign, perhaps in the final week or so, the Allies should be looking to hold fast and counter attack where possible. Do this too early and the Germans may decimate the Allies and win from objectives and casualties inflicted. Do this at the right time and the Allies can push the Germans back and possibly administer heavier losses on the enemy (think of the historical out flanking at the Marne for example, and the near destruction of the German 1.Armee).

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think the big issue in my original calculations was my false assumption that if the Allies held early then they would collapse totally, thus opening the way to the big point objectives. This clearly does not seem to be the case because both sides are more or less very equally matched (which is a good/historical thing), thus the requirement of my recalculation here.

Anyway, these changes here are probably not perfect, but what is? At least we can be confident that it can only be better now, and it will be tweaked over time if need be. ;)