First World War Campaigns - Optional Rules

[BigDuke66]

After having the experience from the Napoleonic and Civil War series that OR can have a big impact on the game play I wonder what should or should not be used in this series.
A quick glanced showed me that a lot of the the OR are turned On by default, should any of these be turned OFF?

Now about those that are not On by default:
Manual Defensive Fire/Automatic Defensive Fire
From the other series I ended up giving up on turn gameplay and switching the phased gameplay, is that also recommended in this series?

Optional Fire Results/Optional Assault Results
OK these two seem to make outcomes more predictable, in the other series I turned them ON, should it be done here too?

Locking Zones Of Control
Now this is interesting, in Panzer Campaigns the standard battalions can be split into companies, seems that this is not possible here and the manual explains:
"The purpose of this rule is to compensate for the inability to break down larger units into smaller ones so that continuous lines of defense can be constructed."
So with breakdown not possible here, should it be turned On?

Higher Fatigue Recovery
I had this turned On in the Civil War series after seeing the even low fatigue units can hit high fatigue area after a failed melee what basically turns them into fire-and-forget weapons that can't be sued for the rest of the game, further more the fatigue calculation looked strange as the unit took fatigue in an amount that should simply not be possible according to the calculation explained in the manual.
Now I have no experience how it runs here, any recommendations?

Counterbattery Fire
After seeing that a lot differs in the field of artillery compared to the Panzer Campaign series I guess it is OK to leave this OFF for the First World War while it seems mandatory for the Second World War.
On the other hand it's set by the PDT either to 0% and so isn't used at all or it has a higher percentage and so is intended by the scenario designer to be used, so turning Off seems to make no sense or do I miss something here?

No Low Fuel Effects
With so few units that are motorized the rules won't have a big impact but still why should it not be used?

Explicit Supply
Like with Counterbattery Fire OR it seems again to make no sense to turn it Off because according to the manual:
"When a scenario does not contain Supply Units, then this optional rule does not apply and the normal Resupply rules apply."
So either the normal rules are used or if supply units are in the scenario the rule should be used as the designer intended this. Again do I miss something?

[Mr Grumpy]

While only Volcano Man as the designer can answer each point in detail, I will just say that the opt rules that are checked when you hit "default" where the rules that were used when the title was tested for play balance, so using any other combination might upset that balance, so while players are of course free to select whatever combination they wish, they need to be aware that there might be unseen consequences to that decision.

[Ashantai]

For single player I kinda like turns. I’m a bit of a throwback to the old Battleground games and I’ve never really been reconciled to phases.
For multiplayer phases are essential though, even with automatic defensive fire.

[jonnymacbrown]

After having the experience from the Napoleonic and Civil War series that OR can have a big impact on the game play I wonder what should or should not be used in this series.
A quick glanced showed me that a lot of the the OR are turned On by default, should any of these be turned OFF?

Now about those that are not On by default:
Manual Defensive Fire/Automatic Defensive Fire
From the other series I ended up giving up on turn gameplay and switching the phased gameplay, is that also recommended in this series?

Optional Fire Results/Optional Assault Results
OK these two seem to make outcomes more predictable, in the other series I turned them ON, should it be done here too?

Locking Zones Of Control
Now this is interesting, in Panzer Campaigns the standard battalions can be split into companies, seems that this is not possible here and the manual explains:
"The purpose of this rule is to compensate for the inability to break down larger units into smaller ones so that continuous lines of defense can be constructed."
So with breakdown not possible here, should it be turned On?

Higher Fatigue Recovery
I had this turned On in the Civil War series after seeing the even low fatigue units can hit high fatigue area after a failed melee what basically turns them into fire-and-forget weapons that can't be sued for the rest of the game, further more the fatigue calculation looked strange as the unit took fatigue in an amount that should simply not be possible according to the calculation explained in the manual.
Now I have no experience how it runs here, any recommendations?

Counterbattery Fire
After seeing that a lot differs in the field of artillery compared to the Panzer Campaign series I guess it is OK to leave this OFF for the First World War while it seems mandatory for the Second World War.
On the other hand it's set by the PDT either to 0% and so isn't used at all or it has a higher percentage and so is intended by the scenario designer to be used, so turning Off seems to make no sense or do I miss something here?

No Low Fuel Effects
With so few units that are motorized the rules won't have a big impact but still why should it not be used?

Explicit Supply
Like with Counterbattery Fire OR it seems again to make no sense to turn it Off because according to the manual:
"When a scenario does not contain Supply Units, then this optional rule does not apply and the normal Resupply rules apply."
So either the normal rules are used or if supply units are in the scenario the rule should be used as the designer intended this. Again do I miss something?

There is no counter-battery fire because most of the arty are direct fire guns and those that aren't were not engaged in counter-battery fire.
Manual defensive fire means that the game takes twice as long so who wants that? And in this series the defense is paramount so auto defensive fire gives the offense a better chance.
If you blow a unit on an assault, it is usually hors d combat for three days so be careful. Higher fatigue recovery leads to an unrealistic overuse of assault IMO.
Nobody that I know of what's to play with locking ZOCs. Without them we get more mobile actions.
The game has widely variable assault and fire resolutions; why mess with that?
The series is pretty complicated, so who wants to deal with supply wagons. I know I don't. jonny

[Volcano Man]

The default rules are how that particular game is intended to be played. These optional rules might vary from game to game depending on time period -- they are specific to the individual title, not the series (although I think they are common so far). With the default rules on, then you know that you are getting the intended experience. If you adjust them then you just have to be aware that you are adjusting how the game plays, and your experience may vary.

Other than that, choose which rules you want to use at your own discretion. Explicit Supply is one that is a personal preference thing.

[BigDuke66]

@Mr Grumpy
Here it really depends on what was intended, a "balance"(that was historically not there) or a historical correct gameplay & outcome, the later was never achieved in the CW nor Napi series with default rules.


@Ashantai
I see it the opposite way, turns are a necessary evil for team games as phases would lead to mails being send forth and back within the team to give everyone his chunk of the various phases, that is unbelievable time consuming.
Phases are not more work than turns(when using Automated Defensive Fire) and can achieve better results as you get rid of that unreliable defensive fire that is usually trigger when not need and not triggered when needed.


@jonnymacbrown

There is no counter-battery fire because most of the arty are direct fire guns and those that aren't were not engaged in counter-battery fire.

Indeed that would make sense.

Manual defensive fire means that the game takes twice as long so who wants that? And in this series the defense is paramount so auto defensive fire gives the offense a better chance.

Twice as long? Well without Automated Defensive Fire you seem to need 6 mails exchanges to get a turn done instead of 2 but with Automated Defensive Fire it is not more time consuming than turns and may achieve better results as gamey tactics won't work.

If you blow a unit on an assault, it is usually hors d combat for three days so be careful. Higher fatigue recovery leads to an unrealistic overuse of assault IMO.

Well 3 days sound a bit long, at least it was so for the CW & Napi series as most battles didn't last that long so you basically just had one assault and after it the unit had to stay behind for the rest of the game, that simply doesn't fit to accounts of units being able to assault more than once a battle or even a day.
Maybe the fatigue calculation works better(inside of what the manual states) in this series and there really is no need for the higher recovery rates.

Nobody that I know of what's to play with locking ZOCs. Without them we get more mobile actions.

That seems at least in the early phase to be good.

The game has widely variable assault and fire resolutions; why mess with that?

As said you get more predictable results when the calculation is made twice and the averange value is used. Again relating to the CW the time a turn takes makes it unlikely that for example fire results should tend to be near the extreme values as that would mean the unit either shot all the time in the clouds or all the time like sharpshooters, both cases seem unlikely.

The series is pretty complicated, so who wants to deal with supply wagons. I know I don't.

Well if the designer has them in I guess he intends that the player uses them, if the are not in the standard rules are used so no problem.
BTW please check you PM.


@Volcano Man
Not that I doubt your words but as mentioned the default rules never worked out in CW and Napi and if not adjusted you got anything except historical correct gameplay and outcome.
This is just discussed in another club that focuses on the CW titles and there it's clear that alone the switch from turn the phase gameplay resembles much more the way assault where conducted in the Civil War.
Maybe I take my experience with these 2 series that are more of a tactical nature as too general and should not use the lessons learned there in this series that seems of a more operational nature but I'm just too worried because wrong settings can make a very frustrating start into a series and I learned that twice already.

[jim pfleck]

Duke,

regarding alternative fire and historicity, it depends on preference---do you want it predictable or unpredictable (to me, the later is more historical in the sense that it is unpredictable, but perhaps the more predictable outcomes lead to better historical representation over time--I play both ways with no real preference).

I have always hated hard ZOC, leads to gamey tactics to surround units, IMHO.


Regarding Johnny's comments on blown units and assaults, he does not say all assaults, only blown units. In the WWI games this is important. When I play, I focus more on fatigue management and preventing units from breaking more than anything else. If you let them get high fatigue, they can take 2-3 days to fully recover and 1.5 days at least to return to combat. Broken units take forever to un-break ( I have not seen one recover and I am told they will eventually in the longer scenarios-I am only in turn 40 of Race to the Sea and nothing has been broken)

Having played at least 10 PBEM to conclusion, most of them at least 30 turns (and most in France 14), I am very happy with how the system models history--losses are on historic levels, doctrines and unit capabilities are well modeled (maybe some of the French units should have slightly higher morale), and the flow of the battles seems to more or less match history.

I think one of the reasons I enjoy this series so much (there are a few of us who have developed a near cult like obsession over the last year or two), is that the scenarios are so well balanced, not because history is tweaked, but of the VP locations and amounts etc.

I get the impression that you have not played them much or at all and I would encourage you to do so---I think they model history better than the ACW and NWC games.

[Volcano Man]

Well, WRT to the idea that Optional Rules break the experience or turn it into a-historical situations, the Optional Rules exist for two reasons: 1) To actually have the game play differently, such as Counter Battery Fire, which is intended to be used in later years of the war. If someone wants to use it in 1914, then that is up to them. 2) To suit someone's personal taste, such as Explicit Supply.

In either case, I always remove the most destructive stuff from the Optional Rules that I think are too detrimental to the game play (such as Delayed Disruption in this series, as it was felt it applied more to WW2 and modern combat, and made things too difficult for the attacker). So at least you can take comfort in that. :)

[Ashantai]

I see it the opposite way, turns are a necessary evil for team games as phases would lead to mails being send forth and back within the team to give everyone his chunk of the various phases, that is unbelievable time consuming.
Phases are not more work than turns(when using Automated Defensive Fire) and can achieve better results as you get rid of that unreliable defensive fire that is usually trigger when not need and not triggered when needed.

I totally got it around the wrong way...turns in multiplayer, phases in singleplayer for me. My bad.

[jonnymacbrown]

I think one of the reasons I enjoy this series so much (there are a few of us who have developed a near cult like obsession over the last year or two), is that the scenarios are so well balanced, not because history is tweaked, but of the VP locations and amounts etc.
I get the impression that you have not played them much or at all and I would encourage you to do so---I think they model history better than the ACW and NWC games.

I agree completely Jim. Ed channeled the era; he was guided to preserve and protect the memories of the brave men who suffered and died 100 years ago. The First World War Campaigns is a true work of genius, and is the only true Napoleonic game available to us. As I have said many times here, this series accurately simulates the mood and movements of Napoleonic warfare with musket and round shot cannon replaced by machine guns and rapid fire artillery with exploding shells and the resultant horrific casualties. Players have no choice but to adopt Napoleonic strategy and tactics but to then figure out a way to somehow survive in a battle environment to doesn't actually support those movements! For example beginning players, myself included, tend to use MG sections and artillery as tanks, moving them up close and deploying in the enemy's minimum range fire zone; and you can't do that! The game is much too slow for people who are playing WWII PzC games. There are no tanks! There is nothing even closely resembling a tank. The attack is difficult; the defense much easier but even that requires careful tactical planning. jonny