FWWC - Adjustment to number of turns

[BigDuke66]

Hi
Currently I'm playing a scenario in August 1914 and while I have not played many scenarios I looked at the pace of my troops and the impact they can make on the enemy each day and I feel that there needs to be more, more distance to be covered and more combat to be conducted.
So I looked at the daytime available and found a rather good page for it and used roughly used the center of the map from my current scenario(1914_0820_01s: Von Moltke's Indecisiveness):
http://www.sonnenverlauf.de/#/48.8278,6....20/12:03/1
As you can see there are over 14 hours of pure daylight and over 1 hour of dawn & dusk combined, dawn & dusk use the Civil_twilight(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight#Civil_twilight) and can surely be extended by another 10-15% where there would be acceptable light in clear sky conditions.
As you see we talk about +15 hours and 14 minutes with enough light to conduction operations.

Now throughout the France 14 game the turn layout is 6 turns per day covering 12 hours and 2 turns at night also covering 12 hours, the use of day & night turns only differs from the Panzer Campaign series where there are also dawn & dusk turns.
I see a problem with the missing dawn & dusk turns because it neither allows to prepare for the day nor for the night. Just take cavalry that has to dismount to recover fatigue what means you already have to do it in the last day turn in order to gain recovery on both nigh turns, just like you have to use the first day turn to get into position for any assault because any move at night(unless in column on roads) disrupts your unit what leads to 1/2 Fire Value and the inability to assault and bad roles would lead ti such units not being able to assault for not just 1 but more turns.
Besides that there is also the problem that France 14, unlike Panzer Campaign games, covers a big timeframe from early August to mid November what in reality would lead to daylight getting much less over the course of the game.
The combination of this is that there is pace & combat missing for the August to September scenarios while there is too much pace & combat for the late October to November scenarios.
Both seems bad as the pace & combat is needed for early scenario where there is still a mobile warfare, while the late scenarios depicting an already very solid frontline don't need it as the combatants are often already massed toe to toe and already depict the kind of slaughtering that would be regular the following years.

So seeing all this made me think that there needs to be an adjustment to make the scenarios roughly giving back a day turn number that resembles the daylight + dawn & dusk available at that time.

I don't know the internals of this series but I can imaging that the missing dawn & dusk turns are something that the engine completely misses, if that is true the adjustment can only be done by adjusting the number of day turns.
I doubt that it needs to be done scenario by scenario but rather by doing it like the OOBs were done, by depicting certain phases of the France 1914 campaign and giving each a proper PDT file. There could be an early PDT version that gives 8 day turns, an mid-early version with 7 day turns and a late version that only gives 5 day turns while the current PDT with 6 day turns could be used as a mid-late version.
+1-2 turns for early & mid-early to also cover dawn & dusk completely where operations were still possible, and only -1 for late again to take dawn & dusk into the math.

Examples are my current scenario(1914_0820_01s: Von Moltke's Indecisiveness) where we talk about 15 hours and 14 minutes what still can justify 8 day turns covering 16 hours when you imaging that preparations were often done even before dawn and after dusk.
A late example would be scenarios like Ypress(1914_1111_01s: The Prussian Guard's Grand Finale) where you have at best around 10 hours and 20 minutes daylight + dawn & dusk what justifies 5 day turns only.

So these are my thoughts, I just had to post this as it kept circling in my head for some time now.

Comments are very welcome.

[burroughs]

This is a good remark, but I'll need to consider a bit more.

However, unless the manual points to that clearly and as a matter of fact once I read that a few years ago I have rarely consulted that since then, sticking to learning on the job and seeing what comes out of that. I used to consider dismounting the cavalry while not on the move and obviously in their night lagers for obvious reasons like keeping that real, but then decided against on certain occasions since , partially due to the reasons described above, I would be missing a turn to mount them back etc. But that's another thing: observing what is happening in my EP '14 campaigns apparently the German cavalry do not gain fatigue at night while mounted - or just at a much slower rate - and moreover they seem to be accepting replacements. Hard to say anything about the Russians, they are mostly to widely spread to remain within their respective HQs' command range, but same for the K.U.K. cavalry in "Saving Silesia". Not entirely sure though, I just seem to be noticing such phenomena or I am just missing the entire picture.

What bothers me more is the ability of infantry battalions to stage multiple attacks a day and then up to another at night including moving to and fro to their jump off points and staging areas which is always a click distance at last each time IICR. With quite a few books on the subject over the last five years I think that wasn't such an easy business with rotating units and subunits into and out of combat within hours. I think the French who reached Mullhouse in 1914 were such exhausted that thy couldn't even put up a decent fight or withdraw in order so they were dropping out like mad on their way back with Germans in pursuit, but also barely able to organize anything like a proper chase and mostly unwilling to do that. Maybe not the most accurate account, but one of my many impressions based on some source materials .

Unless someone can point to deficiencies in my observations and conclusions, I would compare that to the situation we have in MG '44, namely the overpotent Allied paras who are virtually unstoppable even against hard targets - my MG '44 full campaign was the only game out of barely everything which found its way into PC wargaming about MG and I could get my hands on that enabled me as the Allies to actually win it and achieve all of the operational objectives, including the bridge at Arnhem. There were custom remakes of the stock scenarios which were trying to address the issue with fixing them at night to limit their ability to move and strike etc. I then attempted to play the campaign from the German side and was properly wrecked even without a chance to retrace the patch of historic course of events which was described in "It Never Snows in Septemeber" - Germans could not do anything to prevent Allies from doing what they wanted to apart from being a mere nuisance in the background of the whole picture, a dummy enemy at best.

[Mr Grumpy]

observing what is happening in my EP '14 campaigns apparently the German cavalry do not gain fatigue at night while mounted - or just at a much slower rate - and moreover they seem to be accepting replacements. Hard to say anything about the Russians, they are mostly to widely spread to remain within their respective HQs' command range, but same for the K.U.K. cavalry in "Saving Silesia". Not entirely sure though, I just seem to be noticing such phenomena or I am just missing the entire picture.

Well I can say for certain that in the scenarios i have played both the German and Russian cavalry do gain fatigue if you move them at night, just like other units the amount of fatigue accumulated is random from zero up to 35 points (I have never seen 40+), so with a random rule in place it might be that you have been lucky and your cavalry has avoided the worst effects of this rules random effects?

[burroughs]

I didn't write anything about moving at night since anything that moves at night gets automatically disrupted ( unless in a T-mode on a road obviously ) which is obviously even worse than a fatigue gained as it renders a subunit pretty much useless - I was writing about keeping - otherwise undisrupted - cavalry squadrons mounted at night - they're operational so a state of tactical readiness at night should make them prone to and actually gaining fatigue even if the old cavalry hands learnt the old good skill of sleeping in their saddles.

Besides I used the phrase " while not on the move".

[Volcano Man]

Not sure if the original post is directed to me or what, but all I can say is that it was felt that having 4 night hour turns with dawn/dusk was too "Panzer Campaign like" for 1914, in my view.

The idea was that 1914 and 1915 campaigns would have no dawn/dusk, but would have six hour night turns to limit operations to something I felt was more realistic of the period, at least for the most part. IIRC, the idea was that somewhere around 1917 it would transition to a more literal day cycle to be more similar to Panzer Campaigns in order to allow more activity, and to begin to blur the line between to the two. So, literally, it wasn't dark by 1800 hours, but the turns are limited as they are out of the abstraction of curtailing unrealistic progress. It also helps to make the longer campaigns more manageable in turn count, which might otherwise just be adding additional turns for no good reason. I am also certain the Germans need no help with additional turns in EP14, and they seem to need no help in F14 with the latest change towards quicker movement of units overall.

It is true that there were a few cases of night attacks in 1914 (I recall one along the Marne in the eastern part of the St Gond sector by von Hausen) but this was quite rare and you can be successful in a night attack if you move into assault positions on the last day turn. Also, IMO there are plenty of opportunities to "prepare" during the night turns - in a campaign I am currently playing we (Germans) move our field guns into attack positions two hexes from the enemy line during the night at the expense of having them disrupted, but this is realistic to me as dawn/dusk type movement would produce the same results I think (a sacrifice to get them into close position).

Of course by all means, mod away to your hearts content, but just know that it was limited for a reason. ;)

[ComradeP]

I would say that the pace of combat in terms of the ability to press home an attack feels too slow at times, which combined with support weapons taking multiple turns to deploy (MG's and field guns) or setup (artillery) and Disrupted units having full movement during daytime makes it difficult to make a decisive attack.

Because units move around slowly relative to how much daylight time they use for each move and that you have no exploitation weapons aside from vulnerable cavalry, it can be too easy for the defender to disappear, or to use delaying tactics to slow down the attacker to such an extent that he runs out of time (primarily in France '14, and then particularly in the Grand Campaign variants like Plan Michel which feature improved initial French defensive opportunities).

These potential issues are amplified by the fact that in the FWWC series, defending players who understand the system are unlikely to play like their historical counterparts. Historically, both sides wanted to stay mobile and always ready to go on the offensive, with defensive doctrine being unsuitable for the capabilities offered by quick firing field guns and MG's.

Defending players are much more likely to dig in somewhere, fall back when under too much pressure, dig in again and so forth. We understand what support weapons can do, and the difficulties the attacker has with taking a defensive position in this stage of the war.

That makes the fewer daylight turns more of a problem for the attacker than the defender.

-

burroughs: mounted cavalry units never gain fatigue when idle at night or day, and don't need to dismount to gain replacements through the "replacements" and/or "recovery" mechanics. They only need to dismount to recover fatigue.

[jim pfleck]

I am finding that the full disordered movement rate heavily cuts down on captured units in F14 (and even EP14). I do not mind the daylight length but I wonder if some of the scenarios need to be recalibrated and retested to adjust to the more rapid disordered units.

Regarding digging in, I think that the Germans, at least (and Russians) would dig in as they moved (Brits too), with the French less likely to do so. With the reduction in trench value this mitigates our obsession with digging in. What we have are low-tech trenches, not the more exhaustive ones from the later periods of the war.

To me, it is less about the mechanics and more about historical knowledge. Whether it is a French player not mimicking the initial attacks that were historically made in a scenario, or moving from the start to a better defensive position, it is not replicating history that provides the balance issues. It is my understanding that exploitation in 1914 was, in fact, quite limited, for a variety of reasons.

So, I would rather see the VP levels and hexes recalibrated (as for the Von Moltke's Indecisiveness that was just redone), rather than the actual pace of the game changed by adding turns.

Regarding actual play, I too am not the super aggressive French player that was real history. I prep and pace my attacks to preserve fatigue and wear out my opponent (I do the same as the Germans too). But, as the French, when I have the unit density, I am an aggressive counter attacker and try to be ready to move over to the offensive when facing an over aggressive and/or disorganized German. I see many French players miss opportunities against me by being too passive on the defensive.

What is difficult is to defend really hard to hold a line for 3 days, and then pull back under pressure. I fight very differently in ling scenarios (Race to the Sea, Lodz Campaign, EP Campaign being the 3 I have played), than I do in the short "battle" scenarios, which require historical aggressiveness to win...

[ComradeP]

Both sides having more or less the same speed favours the side pulling back, as the attacker is likely to be more cautious for fear of walking into a trap.

Retreating from a line of trenches to the next line of trenches is indeed not as effective as it could be in France '14 due to the low French SA value, but walking into the fire of the excellent French field guns turn after turn is painful. One thing many players forget is that it isn't necessary, or often: possible, to stop the attacker. Slowing him down for several days might be good enough to win.

Due to the high replacement rates for the initial stage of the war for the French, units melting away is unlikely. The kind of disasters the French literally walked into during the opening stages of the war are unlikely to occur. The same goes for a Tannenberg-like battle, which is also unlikely to happen. The destruction of most of one or more armies was a realistic possibility during the opening stage on the Western Front, just like it happened in East Prussia, but it isn't likely to happen in the game against a competent player.

We tend to play to hold objectives, not to hold a certain line if there's no benefit for doing so and with no French objectives in the area north of the Aisne and west of the Meuse, the situation at the start of the Early Campaign or the Charleroi/Lanrezac the defiant scenario is less likely to be recreated in a full campaign.

It's a juggling act between holding ground and retreating, but you can retreat pretty far and win as the Entente in the early campaign in France '14. With good loss management and clever counterattacks, time starts to work against the Germans fairly soon.

[Mr Grumpy]

Good points/observations made in the last couple of posts, indeed it is the French 75 FG units that are the "glue" that holds the French line together and they must be preserved in the longer scenarios if the French are to be successful, the placement of these units is vital as they must have a escape route once the German pressure is too much and the line has to pull back, so the ability of these units to move back at least one hex the same move they change into T mode is vital to their survival to move and set up on the next line wearing down the German advance as Comrade P points out.

Unfortunately I still see French players placing the FG units in hex's from which they cannot change into T mode and retreat on the same move, the continual losses this incurs just makes life so much easier for the German player who will (or should) always prioritise the destruction of these units over everything else.

It is possible that the change to the movement rules for disrupted units which post dated the release of F14 might have altered the play balance in certain scenarios, I have not seen that personally, but it is a possibility.

[Volcano Man]

In F14 the campaign's VP levels were changed drastically, combined with the removal of forward objectives from earlier versions of the campaign scenario. This makes it where the allies do not have to feel like they need to defend the terrain in their forward positions, and it also makes it where if the Germans can defeat an army (or at least bleed the French heavily) if the allies refuse to fall back, and still win. Most importantly though, the VP levels were cut down enough that casualties actually matter (in v1 the allies could throw concerns about casualties out the window and sacrifice full armies for time).

I have already seen a situation in the new campaign where the allies sacrificed an army for VPs and I am happy with it (the VPs given up will essentially make up for the time lost, thereby making it that the Germans do not have to take as many objectives, or many not even at all to win).  As ComradeP said, of course a good allied commander will realize that it is better to fight a delaying action across the map than to dig in and hold from the start (although they cannot afford to fight a delaying action around Nancy, that place has to hold - and the Germans can use that as a Verdun like grind). Even still, most allied players I have seen (from results sent to me and from participating in campaigns myself) still choose to hold-at-all-costs and this does not work in their favor. It only introduces the likelyhood that the defense will reach critical mass to the point where it cannot effectively defend or delay for the other half of the campaign. What I mean is, the allies can get to a point in the campaign where they have delayed the Germans for a week or so, but if it means they lose all their "glue" in the process (all MGs sections and field guns) then after they crack, the allies, at least in that sector, have no chance at all to hold the Germans at that point as infantry-only forces can be brushed aside.

As usual though, it all depends on how your opponent(s) play. You may find that the German advance will end up days behind but that it becomes irrelevant because you can grind down the allies for VPs (seen it). Obviously the ideal strategy would be to hold in defense for as long as possible and counter attack where possible to keep the Germans off balance, but know when to fall back and repeat. This is the approach that draws off the most time while giving up as few VPs in "the grind" as possible. Just falling back immediately and all the time would be too quick though, I think. Then again, it is certainly possible to pull back early and often with the allies at the start, then in the last third of the campaign dig in and hold at all costs somewhere (historically this was the Marne).

As for more turns added, I just don't see it as necessary at the present time. I suppose it could be done in F14 and not in EP14 (they don't have to be identical), just out of the idea that the west needs more time than the east does, but like I said I haven't seen it as a necessity at this point. The original reasons for not doing this still stand, especially with the higher tactical mobility in recent updates. Again though, a lot of it depends on what both commanders do in the first 2/3rds of the campaign however.