FWWC - Adjustment to number of turns

[ComradeP]

The destruction of 2nd Army was in my opinion just as much due to Russian failure at the operational level than to German success, so I agree that Russian leadership in 2nd Army on that level was worse than the French. However, as can be seen in the Tannenberg scenario, the actual disaster could have been avoided. The Russian center is either not or not heavily opposed. The left flank is the only flank in real trouble, the right flank can still pull back and the Germans have no quick means of pursuit.

It's a good example of the destruction of the enemy force because the enemy allowed it to happen through poor leadership.

This is one thing that Rennenkampf was sure to avoid, however, so Russian C&C wasn't entirely awful. If you look at the initial position of 1st Army in the northern part of East Prussia and the opposition it faced, it becomes more clear why Rennenkampf was so cautious. He's facing about 4.5 divisions with about 4.5 divisions, due to one division being weakened and other being spreadout, and one of his corps is nowhere near the front. After that became clear at Gumbinnen, I'd say the logical response would indeed have been for him to reorganize before advancing. His pace still being slow after all his forces were at the front was overcautious.

In France, the situations where the French could have lost an army were due to flaws on the strategic level. Even if the French were better on the operational level than the Russians, their initial offensives into the Ardennes and Germany ended in narrowly averted disaster, as can be seen in the Early campaign. Lanrezac not turning around, or the Crown Prince not launching a premature counterattack could have lead to situations where one or more armies were in grave danger. As with 2nd Army in East Prussia, that would've been a situation that could only occur if the enemy let the Germans have their chance, which in this case didn't happen.

The flank protection of the BEF also wasn't ideal, which is why there are a number of scenarios that cover the possibility of  parts or all of the BEF being overtaken as it retreats.

Regardless of the merits and flaws of the adjusted Schlieffen Plan, it was one of the best counters to the French strategy.

The reason this is difficult to replicate is that, aside from having far more information on the starting points/initial dispositions of the German forces, you are also likely to pull back when faced with a flanking attack. The French happily kept attacking towards Germany as the Germans flanked through Belgium. The lack of fast movement or the ability to "catch" a retreating foe that doesn't want to be caught combined with having so much information makes this one of the series that is likely to play out differently than the historical situation.

In that sense, it's the opposite of PzC where it can be too easy to crush defenders that are slower than you, particularly lower quality ones like the average Soviet Rifle Division, which can end up being gobbled up by the division after being encircled.

It comes down to it being really difficult to encircle or destroy a force moving at the same speed as your units, even when Disrupted. The possibility is indeed there for disaster, but it's not likely to happen at the scale it did in the war.

There is one important "but" in all this, namely that as casualties are likely to be higher in the game than in the war at least in France, it might still be possible to achieve a favourable loss ratio similar to destroying a corps or more. Aside from the moments where the Germans hold, the war in East Prussia ended up being a fairly peaceful affair for the part of it I played until I conceded near the halfway point due to it being a war of movement mostly.

As to replacements or fatigue being more important: generally speaking, I'd say fatigue management is indeed more important like you say on the long term. However, loss management can be more important on the short term for the simple reason that you replace more losses than fatigue per turn.

About twice as quickly at 70 or more supply (so the full rate) in daylight turns, with ~1000 Men units receiving roughly 30 men per turn and the fatigue recovery rate being 15. You could thus compensate for at least the firepower penalty fatigue gives through recovering losses. I'd say it's unlikely your men will go down to far below 70 in a full Early campaign game if at all, as even the Germans at the Marne are at ~65 local supply.

There is a difference between the methodical slaughter type scenarios like Ypres where you start with a frontline in place and the meeting engagement turning into methodical slaughter campaigns, so I agree with your comments on unit rotation in the Ypres campaign. In a full campaign, there might be the option of moving a fresh corps in, whereas in the Ypres campaign or set-piece scenarios you have to rotate units to maintain combat integrity. Overall, maintaining support weapon strength is probably more important than infantry strength on the long term, so the Russian "strategy" of sacrificing men to save guns can pay dividends in a full campaign. 

As an aside, I've been thinking about ways to make moving small units by rail less of a nightmare in terms of rail capacity used. Maybe MG and foot movement infantry type units with less than 200 or so men not using rail capacity might be an option just in FWWC.

Creating a spearhead of MG units, a potential way this could be abused, is countered because they'd still be out of command range and thus have a lower quality level. Besides, in theory the side with larger MG units can already do this. The transport system not taking size into account can lead to odd situations that a full Panzer regiment in PzC costs as much to move as a gun company, and that a 30 Men French MG unit uses 1 point just like a 1253 Men Zoave infantry battalion. Small units not using rail capacity would mostly help the French, as moving a French division around is a pain due to all those MG units. A French regular infantry division require 34 rail capacity, and a German regular infantry division 25 (if the pioniere unit is combinable) whilst German divisions are larger by about a battalion in terms of total manpower and having twice as many guns due to having a full cavalry regiment, more than 1 engineer company, larger infantry battalions, larger field gun units and divisional artillery.