Serbia '14

[Ricky B]

And since you mentioned it Ed, one thing that captured my attention in testing was around the Marsch brigades. For example, in the 1st Invasion, there is 13.MarschBrig. You noted in the OOB that these Marsch battalions weren't supposed to be in battle, but the AH command threw these barely trained replacements into action throughout, massed with other untrained units. So wasteful of men's lives, and just one more weak point in the AH lines, even if they were placed in what was hoped would be quiet areas - that sure didn't always happen.

Rick

[Mr Grumpy]

The AH forces can achieve great things, but only if handled with kid gloves! 

[Volcano Man]

And since you mentioned it Ed, one thing that captured my attention in testing was around the Marsch brigades. For example, in the 1st Invasion, there is 13.MarschBrig. You noted in the OOB that these Marsch battalions weren't supposed to be in battle, but the AH command threw these barely trained replacements into action throughout, massed with other untrained units. So wasteful of men's lives, and just one more weak point in the AH lines, even if they were placed in what was hoped would be quiet areas - that sure didn't always happen.

Rick

Right, they found this to be an issue (similar to what the Germans ran into with the ersatz battalions).  That is, if you have a full battalion of troops standing around, acting as replacements, then the over commander of that replacement force (corps or army level commander) was very likely to commit the replacement battalions directly into the fight in "emergency situations".

The temptation was too great not to.  And of course the brigade HQ for those formations was very minimal and not capable, since they were not intended to lead those units into combat, so indeed it was both a wasteful and often abused system.

[KAreil]

You are a mean bunch...this are not nice things you are saying about my countrymen...
Just because they are true you shouldn't hurt my feelings that way...  

With all that I have seen an read about AH higher command during WW1 it's a miracle we managed to hold even that long, the whole thing was a serious mess. Watching the great WW1 series with Indy Neidell you hear again and again the word incompetence and it's so true.

I don't remember where I've read this but it's a bit of a joke (no idea if that translates well into English):

A German/Prussian staff officer describing the same dire situation:

German: The situation is serious but not critical.
Austrian. The situation is critical but not serious.

I'm really looking forward to get a game started, thanks a lot for your work!

[Mr Grumpy]

Hope you have as much fun playing it as we did creating it 

[Volcano Man]

You are a mean bunch...this are not nice things you are saying about my countrymen...
Just because they are true you shouldn't hurt my feelings that way...  

 

Well, I have great respect for the A-H Army and I tried to do them justice. I never try to be totally harsh with their representation. Yes they have serious flaws, but I tried to build in some of their strengths too (like the Russians). To me, what is fascinating is the fact that they they are so different and completely unique.  You can't play exactly the same with the Germans, as you would the Russians, French, British, or the A-H.  Obviously though, the Germans are the easiest to play with though.

Certainly I like to play as the A-H; actually they could be my favorite army to play with so far in the series (because they are so challenging). What will get very interesting (one day) is when the A-H Army is fighting the Russians. By then, everyone will have separate experience with both (from EP14 and S14) that they can merge together into a complete experience.

[jim pfleck]

Ed I have a question--from what I have read, A-H tactics were similar to those of the French in regards to favoring the bayonet over rifle fire. It seems you have found a happy medium- A-H infantry fires at a 2 rating vs soft and their melee value is higher than the Serbs. IMHO they melee value should be a little higher. Considering their supply, leadership, and morale challenges, I am glad you gave them a firepower of 2 so as not to further weaken them, but I am just wondering if I am wrong to think they should be rewarded for assaulting more often.

Thanks,
Jim

[ComradeP]

I'm not very familiar with Austro-Hungarian tactics, but in the game the assault ratings of any Austro-Hungarian infantry battalions except the rare German battalions seems to be at most 7, whilst Serbian 1st Ban units have 8.

[Volcano Man]

I read a lot about the Austro-Hungarians, and nothing I came across would point to them being comparable to the early 1914 French. The early war French were something else entirely. What you will find is that you will often prefer the assault with A-H because its the best way to get things done and the best way to cause casualties, when the enemy has been disrupted by mass MGs and some field guns. This is true especially against the Serbs, but that doesn't mean they should have assault values of 10 or 11 in my view (keep in mind too that the early war French have -1 defense, and -1 soft attack compared to the A-H, so their assault value is much higher to reflect that too).

Furthermore, I can't see the A-H having higher assault ratings than the Germans, since they were essentially very similar to the Germans in many ways, but they wouldn't be superior (identical at best, which is currently true for the German ethnic units). And giving the A-H a higher assault rating would also make them too similar (on average) to the Russians at 9 (who have a -1 defense), and that wouldn't be right either. Essentially, the defense value has to be factored into the assault at a 1:1 (single battalion vs. single battalion comparison) - so the Russian assault total is 14 for one battalion, while the A-H assault total is 13 for one battalion, which is a good sanity check that I did when coming up with the values.

These are general observations too, the OOB is actually a bit more detailed than that.

There actually ARE some A-H units with assault strength of 8, but these are the German ethnic units (pretty sure there is something in the notes about it). Also the Serbs vary as well, depending on the "ban". 1 Ban units are 8, 2 Ban units are 7, and 3 Ban units are 6. So, man to man, average A-H battalions are the equal of 2 ban Serb units (not factoring in quality/morale), while 1 ban is superior, and 3 ban is inferior. German ethnic A-H units are equal to 1 ban (again, independent of quality/morale). This is right on the mark to me. Then combine this with the fact that the A-H almost always outnumber the Serbs everywhere. So, in many cases the A-H will have a higher assault than the Serbs they are facing, but on average they will likely be equal, which is about what my experience says is correct.

It's all very carefully thought out and detailed, and in my opinion its near perfect (certainly not in a state that I will be easily convinced to change unit values).

[jim pfleck]

Ed,
its not that I don't think it is well thought, detailed, and balanced to get fairly historic results. It is just the reading I have done (all secondary sources covering the East Front and A-H) nearly all mention and center on Conrad's emphasis on dash, aggression, and the primacy of attack. And the losses it lead to in officers and men. I had wondered if you would model them similar to 1914 French infantry in order to encourage a high level of tactical aggression. Of course, with the morale and supply levels in this game, having a fire value of 1 would render them pretty impotent. Having played 17 turns of Cer so far, the balance of combat power between the Serbs and A-H does not seem off. I was simply curious.