Any consensus on F 14?

[jonnymacbrown]

I'm in turn 53 in one game as the French and the decision is still in doubt. I'm in another in turn 24, ditto. Has anyone actually played out the full early campaign besides in play-testing? Did the play-testers ever play out a full campaign? What were the usual results? jonny :smoke:

[jonnymacbrown]

Bye the way, no disrespect intended: I love this game. Just wondering if any 153 turn early campaign games were played to the finish and what happened? jonny

[Jison]

You don't seem to have much luck with your questions lately, Jonny... Lol. I dont have an answer for you, but I do have some sympathy. ;) Hang in there!

Jison

[Volcano Man]

Unfortunately, because of the sheer size and scope of the campaign and the number of campaign scenarios in F14 (it probably should have been at least two separate games -- Marne '14 and Race to the Sea '14 -- what a great deal F14 is! :)), the testing period wasn't able to fully finish the early campaign. However, as with every other game (large campaigns are rarely played through completely in testing), partial play thoughs with careful thinking produces good professional estimates on VP levels and I would say that the average result should probably be a draw or very close Allied Minor Victory.

Of course another complication is the fact that the campaign can be played any different number of ways, and any commitment of reinforcements to a given area by either side will drastically change the situation (but that too is what makes it a deep campaign with tons of re playability IMO). Combine this with the fact that player skill in F14/FWWC can play a huge factor in the outcome makes it difficult to work out (someone might lose half or an entire army for example).

Oh well, should it prove to be one sided in VP levels in the future then VP levels and improvements may be subtly adjusted as necessary.

Speaking of which, I would love to play a team based PBEM campaign one day, but I am too busy at the moment. My big dream would be to play a team based TCP/IP campaign at Tillercon where each army is controlled by a person. The turns would go relatively quick and coordination between armies would be historically difficult and would have to be planned out by an overall person. How cool would that be! :smoke:

[Bushido]

I am playing this campaign as french but have not played so many turns yet. So impossibel to say how this will play out in the end. But looks like the french have a fighting chance and I like that :-)

F'14 is a fantastic game in many ways I like it better than PZC.

Must say I look very much forward for new titles in this series!

[Mr Grumpy]

In my time testing with Ed he has proved (to me) that his VP levels are almost always in the right area with often only some small tweaks needed post testing, i cannot think of an occasion when they were way out, this is a skill that comes with years of playing and designing scenarios and of course some natural ability to go with a gut feeling for what feels "right".

[jonnymacbrown]

"But looks like the french have a fighting chance and I like that :-)"

I agree. The Germans pack a lot of punch but so do the French, and it's a long slog to Paris and environs. jonny:cool2:

---

"Of course another complication is the fact that the campaign can be played any different number of ways, and any commitment of reinforcements to a given area by either side will drastically change the situation (but that too is what makes it a deep campaign with tons of re playability IMO). Combine this with the fact that player skill in F14/FWWC can play a huge factor in the outcome makes it difficult to work out (someone might lose half or an entire army for example)."

I've always maintained that you can be outplayed tactically and still win if you make better strategic decisions. My experience so far, is that the game is much more difficult as the French: The German player can make his moves much more quickly because he doesn't have so many decisions to make; just point Das Deutsches Heer in the right direction and shoot. The French have to make so many shifts to re balance the position as the bulk of their army begins the game out of position; and the shifts are on the divisional, corps and army level as well. Should the French player not grasp the situation rightly, yes half or all of the army can be lost methinks. jonny :(

[Volcano Man]

Actually, you hit the nail on the head. The mindset of 1914 was that the tactical level was largely irrelevant (it sounds strange but it is true). The emphasis was instead at the operational level where, because of the size of the armies, it was thought that tactical success could be negated by operational level maneuver. A good way to think of how this might have been true is to think of a division, brigade or battalion that meets with local success, but those successes are made null and void because a corps on the flank gave way or the flank was open and an enemy corps moved around it. So, theoretically, if you could maneuver the armies well enough then you could overcome any tactical setbacks that were occurring anywhere along the front.

As a matter of fact, it was widely accepted at the time that armies could lose many divisions or even corps in a campaign and this would play no huge impact on the outcome if operational maneuver was such that it could overcome the loss. Of course the more formations that are lost then the harder it would be to compensate for it at the operational level.

A good book to read is _Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918_ by Bruce Gundmundsson. He goes into eye raising detail in regards to the evolution of this train of through throughout the war and he does a good job showing how the whole way of thinking was turned on its head by the war's end when it was (ironically) the successes at the tactical level that were bringing about a result to the conflict - essentially the birth of modern warfare.

[jonnymacbrown]

A good way to think of how this might have been true is to think of a division, brigade or battalion that meets with local success, but those successes are made null and void because a corps on the flank gave way or the flank was open and an enemy corps moved around it.

Which will the title of of one of your future games in this series no doubt: Brusilov 1916, or B 16, in which the good General reached the Hungarian plain but had to fall back on account of reverses elsewhere on his flanks. jonny :conf:

[jonnymacbrown]

"The mindset of 1914 was that the tactical level was largely irrelevant (it sounds strange but it is true). The emphasis was instead at the operational level where, because of the size of the armies, it was thought that tactical success could be negated by operational level maneuver."

This seems to be the case in 1914. I feel like the French can be beat up badly, but so long as there is a semblance of a line, they will prevail; as what enemy forces can exploit a breakthrough? There isn't that much cavalry to begin with and German cavalry divisions don't seem to have the firepower to hold any ground; French cavalry even is a bit better in that respect with more divisional MG sections. In 1940 those Panzer divisions could not only hold ground but exploit huge breakthroughs. There's nothing like that in 1914. As long as the French player is not outmaneuvered strategically the German player isn't getting to Paris: However it is easy to make large scale strategic errors in this game especially if one is not used to thinking in those terms but rather tactically. The French player has to actually create new armies on the go and get them to the right place. That's something the German player doesn't have to worry about. In the game I'm playing in the 53rd turn the Allied armies have lost 300,000 men (to 250,000 Germans) but L' Armee Francaise still has over 1 million men and close to 5000 guns. I still feel safe but... jonny :whis: