Clash of Empires EP 14

[jonnymacbrown]

I am surprised that this fabulous campaign scenario has only been played twice in the year the game is out. It's pretty straight forward and I am also a bit surprised that the Germans have won both times; Tom Quinn and I played this scenario 6 times in about 8 months and the Germans never won! This scenario can be quickly played (there is a 94 turn campaign) and even the 204 turn scenario can be quickly played because there aren't that many units involved and it is really easy for one side or the other to quickly screw up badly and surrender.

There are other great scenarios in EP too. The Battle of Gumbinnen is a 2 day battle with plenty of blasting! Likewise Tannenberg; the shooting starts on the 1st turn and doesn't let up! I really hope more players give this game a chance as you won't regret it.

PS The 1st Battle of the Masurian Lakes is wildly exciting too. If you are a defensive player you will be sorely tested! Lots of action!

Jonny

[Sgt Jasper]

I am surprised that this fabulous campaign scenario has only been played twice in the year the game is out. It's pretty straight forward and I am also a bit surprised that the Germans have won both times; Tom Quinn and I played this scenario 6 times in about 8 months and the Germans never won! This scenario can be quickly played (there is a 94 turn campaign) and even the 204 turn scenario can be quickly played because there aren't that many units involved and it is really easy for one side or the other to quickly screw up badly and surrender.

There are other great scenarios in EP too. The Battle of Gumbinnen is a 2 day battle with plenty of blasting! Likewise Tannenberg; the shooting starts on the 1st turn and doesn't let up! I really hope more players give this game a chance as you won't regret it.

PS The 1st Battle of the Masurian Lakes is wildly exciting too. If you are a defensive player you will be sorely tested! Lots of action!

Jonny

Wanna rumble? I'm up for any of those except the 204 turn campaign.

[jonnymacbrown]

I am surprised that this fabulous campaign scenario has only been played twice in the year the game is out. It's pretty straight forward and I am also a bit surprised that the Germans have won both times; Tom Quinn and I played this scenario 6 times in about 8 months and the Germans never won! This scenario can be quickly played (there is a 94 turn campaign) and even the 204 turn scenario can be quickly played because there aren't that many units involved and it is really easy for one side or the other to quickly screw up badly and surrender.

There are other great scenarios in EP too. The Battle of Gumbinnen is a 2 day battle with plenty of blasting! Likewise Tannenberg; the shooting starts on the 1st turn and doesn't let up! I really hope more players give this game a chance as you won't regret it.

PS The 1st Battle of the Masurian Lakes is wildly exciting too. If you are a defensive player you will be sorely tested! Lots of action!

Jonny

Wanna rumble? I'm up for any of those except the 204 turn campaign.

OK Gumbinnen. Pick your poison. jonny

[Sgt Jasper]

e-mail sent

[jim pfleck]

I have been playing a campaign, as the Russians, almost since the game came out and still have about 80 turns left. I know other people playing it too so I think it may be more of a case of completed games than actually games being played.

[ComradeP]

Looking at the summer and winter campaigns, most seem to have some way that the relative immobility of one side or the long flank can be exploited, which is why I have so far been reluctant to play them. The Russian cavalry quality is poor on average, which means they're not good for the front but can be useful elsewhere.

In the summer 1914 campaign, the Germans have a wide open western flank blocked only by obstacles and a very thin screen. All it takes to block rail movement is a unit on the rail line. More units show up later on, but I don't really see how the garrison units in the west can contain a Russian player who knows where the Germans are and who wants to use that knowledge to send out his cavalry in small groups to block rail movement and capture rear area objectives, quite possibly even triggering sudden death.

The main problem I see for the Lodz campaign is that the Russians have a significant numerical advantage over time, and there is no reason why they can't pull back until they can overwhelm the Germans. Considering that the numerical odds are certainly stacked against them, it's surprising that the Germans gained ground at all historically, albeit with near disaster at Lodz.

Having said that, the campaigns will certainly be enjoyable to players who have limited to no knowledge of enemy dispositions, I just assume I'm fighting against someone who has played the scenario before and thus knows (roughly) where everything is.

[jonnymacbrown]

"In the summer 1914 campaign, the Germans have a wide open western flank blocked only by obstacles and a very thin screen. All it takes to block rail movement is a unit on the rail line. More units show up later on, but I don't really see how the garrison units in the west can contain a Russian player who knows where the Germans are and who wants to use that knowledge to send out his cavalry in small groups to block rail movement and capture rear area objectives, quite possibly even triggering sudden death."

Russian 1st Army (Rennenkampf) fixes on and off continually, right through the 31st of August. Also it's not so easy for the Russians to get near the German RR lines that are quite far to the north, in fact, the few cavalry that the Russians possess will find it is impossible to cut German RR without infantry support from 2nd Army. The biggest problem the Germans face is strategic; how to extricate themselves from the battle @ Gumbinnen and to deploy their forces in such a way as to not get overwhelmed by the Russian Steamroller. Anyway that's my take on it. jonny

[jonnymacbrown]

I have been playing a campaign, as the Russians, almost since the game came out and still have about 80 turns left. I know other people playing it too so I think it may be more of a case of completed games than actually games being played.

Agreed, Tom and I had lots of time on our hands and would often play 2-4 turns a day. With the 1st Army fixes, the Russians sometimes don't have a whole lot to do. jonny

[Mr Grumpy]

The main problem I see for the Lodz campaign is that the Russians have a significant numerical advantage over time, and there is no reason why they can't pull back until they can overwhelm the Germans. Considering that the numerical odds are certainly stacked against them, it's surprising that the Germans gained ground at all historically, albeit with near disaster at Lodz.

All of the Russian II army units are fixed which allows the Germans to outflank them to the north, this puts the Russian player in a difficult position and pulling back east is not an option if the Germans have lodged in their rear. Although the I army arriving from the north changes the odds many of the units are D quality and of limited use of the offensive, so if the Russian player gives away too much ground he might find it very difficult to take the ground back?
We are about halfway through this campaign and will have a better view of things at the end.

[ComradeP]

jonnymacbrown: I was referring to the Russian units in the southwest, which face little opposition initially and which start relatively close to objectives. Territorial gains elsewhere combined with Russian cavalry in the rear might cause a sudden death victory based on comments from players thus far that the Russians were in some cases close to victory (before the arrival of German units from the northern part of the map) without a breakthrough to the German rear.

As you say, the on and off Fixing of units in the north reduces most of the potential gamey moves in that area, and the Germans seemingly have enough forces there to prevent being outflanked.

The problem with regulating the flow of the battle with Fixed units in a scenario like Lodz, where the chance of victory of the attacker depends on being able to take out forces without them concentrating (after withdrawing), is that there is often nothing that limits a withdrawal aside from being Fixed. Depending on the visibility and whether units are T-released at divisional level or higher, this can mean the defender can withdraw after being spotted, particularly when high point objectives are in the rear.

In FWWC, lots of points can be gained from destroying units due to how big they are, points that might be needed to win, but if you withdraw those points can't be gained by the attacker. It can be cheaper in terms of points to withdraw than to sacrifice units, also because initial defensive positions tend to be untenable so you'll lose both the units and the objectives near the initial frontline anyway if you stay and fight.

Without T-releases or without allowing the defender to withdraw, you might get the other extreme of the attacker being able to overrun the defender without the defender being able to do much about it due to being Fixed, a problem which increases almost exponentially if the attacker is more mobile (like in WWII titles in open terrain where the attacker has numerous mobile divisions and the defender doesn't combinedwith not having a second line force to "catch" the initial breakthrough).

In East Prussia, the differences in unit quality are not that significant (if they're different to begin with). The Russian handicap in terms of unit efficiency comes from their small HQ range and losing a quality level if out of that range, not from poor average unit quality like in early-mid war WWII titles. The D quality reserve units that serve as little more than a pinata for the Germans if left in place are backed by a pile of regular divisions.

Still, I'll start a campaign game soon to see what it's like in practice before drawing further conclusions based purely on the map and dispositions .