Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:59:57 -0500 From: Steve Sickels

Anyone out there come up with any tactics to preserve the French army during the seemingly unending mauling they take at the hands of the Huns during the opening turns of TGWIE? if ANYONE has any suggestions on this i would LOVE to hear them. (the road to Paris is paved with 'Pantalone Rouge') Perhaps there is an erratum that helps. That also would be appreciated.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 09:22:04 -0500 From: Patrick Collins

Anyone out there come up with any tactics to preserve the French army during the seemingly unending mauling they take at the hands of the Huns during the opening turns of TGWIE? if ANYONE has any suggestions on this i would LOVE to hear them. (the road to Paris is paved with 'Pantalone Rouge') Perhaps there is an erratum that helps. That also would be appreciated.

Not much help. The combat modifiers pretty much mandate a lot of blue pieces in the dead pile. Use a second line to slow the CP down, but you will need to strike in the east to make the CP use the Ober Ost counter there.

It looks grim, but you CAN hang on, and push him back if he gets to ambitious.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 10:29:03 -0400 From: David Fox

Do you have the errata that says that units can't move to a hex which would put them out of supply, and captured secondary supply sources only convert at the end of an operational turn ? This pretty much limits the German advance through Belgium to five hexes per turn, and usually allows the Frogs to put a line together along the Somme. I have found that viscious counterattacks at the German spearheads, even at low odds, can eliminate enough good German divisions to slow them down. But once the line forms, I'm afraid there's little to do except run around and plug the German holes. And that OHW chit can be disastrous, allowing the Germans to punch big holes in the French line wherever used.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:27:29 -0400 From: Dave Powell

In a message dated 96-08-05 10:25:43 EDT, you write:

Not much help. The combat modifiers pretty much mandate a lot of blue pieces in the dead pile. Use a second line to slow the CP down, but you will need to strike in the east to make the CP use the Ober Ost counter there.

It looks grim, but you CAN hang on, and push him back if he gets to ambitious.

The other thing I would suggest is press him as hard as possible in the East - force him to divert troops and rebuilds to save East Prussia.

My own opinion is that if the German player is allowed a free hand in the west, he will get ahead of the attrition curve and bleed the allies to death by early 1916 or so.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:10:41 -0400 From: Ted Raicer

Dave Powell writes:

If the Germans are given a free hand in the west...they can bleed the French [and win].

I agree. If either side is given a free hand anywhere they can win. TGWiE is a game of multiple fronts-and the winner will be the player who keeps the big picture in view at all times. In my last game I was beaten as the CP by Jim Falling because his Allied armies put so much pressure on in so many areas that I lost track of my own priorities-he overloaded my mental circuits so to speak-and my resulting mistakes cost me the game.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:28:13 -0400 From: Allan Rothberg

I have managed to drub the Boche by the simple expedient of maintaining reserves. A few pieces, perhaps as few as a dozen divisions, gives you the flexibility to both plug any unseemly holes and to launch vicious counterattacks on weakened Hun attackers. We did modify the CRT slightly. We introduced a middle table for 3-4 defenders and sort of interpolated the results between the old 1-3 and 4-6 defender tables. That and you better have an aggresive Russian ally hammering the German defenders (no, not the Austrians). I suppose a modicum of bad German luck coupled these facts keep the French in the game. Mind you, we've only played twice, but even so, both times, it was the Germans, by late 1915, that were more reactive, than the French.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:34:53 -0400 From: Dave Powell

In a message dated 96-08-05 21:28:06 EDT, you write:

I have managed to drub the Boche by the simple expedient of maintaining reserves. A few pieces, perhaps as few as a dozen divisions, gives you the flexibility to both plug any unseemly holes and to launch vicious counterattacks on weakened Hun attackers. We did modify the CRT slightly. We introduced a middle table for 3-4 defenders and sort of interpolated the results between the old 1-3 and 4-6 defender tables. That and you better have an aggresive Russian ally hammering the German defenders (no, not the Austrians). I suppose a modicum of bad German luck coupled these facts keep the French in the game. Mind you, we've only played twice, but even so, both times, it was the Germans, by late 1915, that were more reactive, than the French.

Any chance of posting the table? The abrupt shift - based on defender size only - has always bothered me a little. I'd love the chance to tinker...

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 18:58:42 -0400 From: Terry Rooker

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Ted Raicer wrote:

In my last game I was beaten as the CP by Jim Falling because his Allied armies put so much pressure on in so many areas that I lost track of my own priorities-he overloaded my mental circuits so to speak-and my resulting mistakes cost me the game.

Not to reopen the old thread, but I found this comment interesting. It is the Lind definition of maneuver warfare. One side maintaining focus on its objective while forcing their opponent to lose focus, and eventually fall of the end of the decision cycle. And they said it couldn't be done in a wargame.... :-)

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:34:47 -0400 From: Dave Powell

In a message dated 96-08-05 18:58:53 EDT, you write:

In my last game I was beaten as the CP by Jim Falling because his Allied armies put so much pressure on in so many areas that I lost track of my own priorities-he overloaded my mental circuits so to speak-and my resulting mistakes cost me the game. Not to reopen the old thread, but I found this comment interesting. It is the Lind definition of maneuver warfare. One side maintaining focus on its objective while forcing their opponent to lose focus, and eventually fall of the end of the decision cycle. And they said it couldn't be done in a wargame.... :-)

Well, I'm not sure I'd call WWI manuver warfare, even obliquely:)

However, TGWIE does a rather good job of displaying these conflicting priorities. Historically, the western Allies put tremendous pressure for the Russians to keep up the attacks in the East, even to the detriment of the Tsar's own military machine. One of the things that most impressed me about the game was how well it duplicated this pressure.

Date sent: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 23:17:26 -0400 From: Allan Rothberg

Dave (and all and sundry), this is what we used (pause while I dig it out of the basement.........) please forgive the dopey layout:

    1-2 defending units
die roll   1:2     1:1     2:1    3:1    4:1     5:1
  -1       4/0      3/0    3/0    3/0    3/0     2/0
   0       3/0      3/0    2/0    2/0    2/0     2/1
   1       3/0      2/0    2/0    2/0    2/1     1/1
   2       2/0      2/0    2/0    2/1    1/1     1/2
   3       2/0      2/0    2/1    1/1    1/2     1/2
   4       2/1      2/1    2/1    1/1    1/2     0/2
   5       2/1      1/1    1/1    1/2    0/2     0/E
   6       1/1      1/1    1/2    0/2    0/E     0/E
   7       1/2      1/2    0/2    0/E    0/E     0/E
   8       1/2      0/2    0/E    0/E    0/E     0/E

3-4 DEFENDING UNITS
DR      1:2   1:1   2:1    3:1     4:1     5:1
-1      5/0   5/0   4/0    4/0     4/0     3/1
0       4/0   4/0   3/0    3/1     3/1     2/2
1       4/0   3/0   3/1    2/1     2/2     2/3
2       3/0   3/1   2/1    2/2     2/2     2/3
3       3/0   3/1   2/2    2/2     2/3     1/4
4       3/1   2/1   2/2    2/3     1/3     1/4
5       2/1   2/2   2/3    1/3     1/4     0/4
6       2/1   2/2   1/3    1/4     0/4     0/E
7       1/2   1/3   1/4    0/4     0/E     0/E
8       1/3   1/3   0/4    0/E     0/E     0/E

5-6 DEFENDING UNITS
DR      1:2     1:1     2:1     3:1     4:1     5:1
-1      6/0     6/0     5/0     5/0     4/1     4/2
0       5/0     5/0     5/1     4/1     3/2     3/3
1       5/0     4/1     4/1     4/2     3/3     3/4
2       4/0     4/1     4/2     4/2     3/3     3/4
3       4/1     4/2     3/2     3/3     3/4     3/5
4       4/1     4/2     3/3     3/3     3/4     2/5
5       3/1     3/2     3/3     3/4     2/5     2/5
6       3/2     3/3     3/4     2/4     2/5     2/6
7       2/2     2/3     2/4     2/5     2/6     1/E
8       2/3     2/4     2/5     1/5     1/E     1/E

drm's
air, bruchmuller concentric  +1
flamethrower,gas, mine       +2
shocktroops: 1-3, +1, 4+, +2
kaiserschlacht +3
per odds over 5:1 +1
tanks +1 or +2
air (d) -1
trench -1 or -2

Finally, when calculating odds round 0.75 up (i.e. 1.75:1=2:1) Let me know how this works for you. We made it a bit worse for the attacker, and the anomolies are still there, but we like it. Apologies for any typos or other misrepresentations. Most of the table is courtesy of Hermann Luttmann, a good gaming buddy for many years now.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 03:36:54 -0400 From: Ted Raicer

While players may of course tinker all they want, the "abrupt shift" (as Dave Powell puts it) between the CRTs was deliberate, and flattening out the CRTs by adding a middle table takes away an element of the design. In game terms, the dramatic choice the defender is given in his style of defense is removed-instead of a decision the defender will simply hold the hex with whatever he has available, while with the game's CRTs holding with 3, 4, or 5 units represents a different choice of defensive tactics.

Historical note: The seeming anomaly at 4 divisions-that 4 divisions have a greater chance to lose a hex than 3 or 5 units, is based in history. At 1-3 divisions a player is holding a hex without packing his trenches so they present a juicy target for artillery. At five or 6 divisions he is doing the same, with one or two divisions in reserve. But at 4 divisions he is considered to be defending as the French did at the Chemin des Dames in 1918: too many men up front presenting a target backed up with no reserves.

Finally, I note once again that for every player who posts an Allies can't win message, somebody posts a German can't win one. Which from my point of view is an indication both sides have about an equal shot.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 07:28:33 -0400 From: Dave Powell

In a message dated 96-08-06 03:36:00 EDT, you write:

The main concern I have with the CRT is the ability of one side or the other to get ahead of the attrition curve, and bleed his opponent dry. It is possible for one side to gain enough of a strength advantage that he can effectively destroy two stacks of three defenders a turn, and lose only 2 units at most for it. Thus, Falkenhayn's attrition strategy is successful, given a 3-1 loss ratio of defender to attacker. I think that the war proved a deliberate attrition strategy bankrupt, in that it cost the attacker as much as the defender, and should have the same problems in the game

Note that I don't think this is a "german only" advantage - I agree with you that the game is pretty balanced, and either side can use this to great advantage. I would like the attacker to bleed more, however.

PS, Ted, please don't take this as an implied attack on TGWIE as a whole. As I think I've said often enough elsewhere, this is a great game...

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 07:58:45 -0400 From: Ted Raicer

I'm not taking any of this as attacks on TGWiE, Dave-the fact that players are talking about TGWiE a year after publication is gratifying, regardless of whether I agree.

As to your attrition strategy-the game WAS designed to encourage aggressive play, also to allow the outnumbered Germans to beat up on the large Russian army, so the CRTs don't punish the attackers as much as some would like. Still, against a -2 entrenchment a 3-1 attack on the A table has a 50% chance of inflicting 2 losses to the defender's 1-this seems about right to me.

As I've argued before, imo the advantages of the defense in WWI have been exaggerated. The First Day of the Somme was the exception, not the rule. If in the end the attacker's losses were slightly (rarely much) higher than the defender's, it was because of aggressive counterattacks-the German losses at Verdun did not rise above the French until well after the initial assault period, when the French began to respond with local, and then general counterattacks.

In game terms, the biggest problem with the west front imo was solved with the optional western front trench mentality rule (which I always use in play), which limits easy switching of attacks up and down the front, and greatly helps a defending player who has kept some reserves.

I'll be away till Saturday by the way.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 11:28:09 -0500 From: Patrick Collins

On Aug 5, 9:28pm, Allan Rothberg wrote:

I disagree. You need to hammer BOTH the Germans and the A-H'ers. I think you need to press AH harder. That will cause a potential hole that the Germans will need to fix.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:36:59 -0400 From: Dave Powell

In a message dated 96-08-06 08:03:05 EDT, you write:

Glad to see you're not taking this personally, Ted, sometimes the fact that I work so closely with Dean at The Gamers is misconstrued into a hidden agenda:)

If everyone attacked at 3-1, I'd agree wholeheartely Ted, the numbers work well there. However, I never attack at 3-1, instead always choosing 4-1 plus, and and on the lesser table to boot (1-3 Divisions.) This is fairly easy to do (especially for the Germans, with their 4 rated divisions) given the large front a defender has to cover, and all but garuantees an exchange rate of 3 to 1 or better for the attacker. Worse, by refusing to advance, the attacker precludes his opponent from a similar easy kill.

As one side slowly lags behind in the numbers game, this equation accelerates into a viscious spiral that the weaker side cannot surmount. Counter-attacks, risky before, now become impossible, since massing enough force to incur a similar exchange rate on your opponent means stripping your own line to the point where he can repeat the process not just on a few points, but multiple sectors.

I agree, the hidden aspect of the WWI defensive equation was the counter-attack. However, I think most of those counter-attacks were - in game terms - below the resolution level of the game, in-hex and with local reserves represented by the force stacked in the hex that was just killed. Corps and Armies fed troops into the line, but strategic use of reserves wasonly a portion of the process you are trying to capture here - and that remaining , in-hex portion is not shown in the current CRT.

One final item - I have thought that maybe forcing the attacker to use the larger CRT if either side has any single stack of four or more divisions would do the trick, but have not played with it to see. any thoughts? I don't like the idea that the attacker gets complete control over tempo and massing for attacks, without any defender response.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:14:40 -0400 From: Mark Herman

The French need to play carefully. I got to within 8 hexes of Paris at AvalonCon against TRaicer and another fellow won with the CP. So anything is possible in this game. Mark

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:42:15 -0400 From: Allan Rothberg

Ted,

Excuse me if I butt in, but...

Even with the trench warfare rule reducing mobility, we have found it way too easy to concentrate several stacks (3-4) of 6 units at any select point of the front. This occurs, almost always, after the quarterly replacements. I assume that it represents the "big push" at a select section of the front and thus is limited to once a quarter.

(It is rare that a player will husband his resources and attack a turn or so after the replacements/reinforcements come in, unless, of course, he is the Russians, who can't get the new unit to the front immediately.) Was it historically so that the defenders had no clue as to where the "big push" (bp) would come? If that is so I can agree with th inability of the defender to marshall troops to a threatened sector of the front until after the bp has occured. We have found that the front was too easily ruptured along a 3-4 hex width, almost guarenteeing the defender's inability to seal the breach. I suggested a modification (previous to your trench warfare movement limitation addition) to the movement wherein you paid an extra 1 or 2 MP to move adjacent to an enemy stack (EF/WF). Your limitation nicely did away with that need, while still allowing reserves the flexibilty to be deployed laterally across the front. (I am a big proponent of reserves.)

Your point on the divisional deployment (so many divisions in the trenches, so many in tactical reserve) is well taken, but we found too many people "gaming" the CRT, and the 4 unit deployment gave the defenders no reserve capability to stop the offensive. So while the CRT may be correct historically, the game mechanics preclude the defender from reaping the benefits of historical deployments. I for one do not claim to be any expert on the great war. My little reading/research certainly corroborates your statements that the attacker suffered as many losses from the inevitable counterattack from the local reserves as suffered by either the defender or the attacker in the original assault. But, the IgoYugo sequence coupled with the time and distance scales don't allow this result to be seen directly. If the "anomolies" of the CRT are in fact the method which you use to model this, then I say, "I see, now". The few (compared to you) times we did play, however, we found the defender almost always suffering the greater losses. Thus, we did not "see" this local counter- attack situation hurting the attacker. The CRT, as you suggested, did force both sides, regardless of the overall situation, to be very attack oriented.

Be that as it may, the game has given us many fun hours of gaming, and we all wish to thank you for bringing this little explored venue to the public in an acccessable and enjoyable format. Up until now, the only strategic WWI games available were sorely lacking in the approachability you have brought.

Date sent: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:50:00 -0400 From: Allan Rothberg

Hammering the AH is well and good, and does draw off elsewhere needed German troops, but, the AH can always fall back, losing wothless Galicia along the way.

If you want to see the Central Poweres really sweat, start threatening German cities. In our admittedly limited experience, AH doesn't last much longer than it takes for the Italians and Allies in Greece to start poking at them. I do agree that it is important to hammer AH, but I'd rather have the Germans fighting to retake Prussia than Poland.

The AH have rarely, if ever, been an offensive threat against the Russians, and there are a lot of Russians to absorb the AH attacks. I've seen whole sections of 6-stacked Russians evaporate when the Germans decide to Drang nach Osten.

But that's the beauty of this game, it plays different every time, and by different I mean strategically, not tactically. There is a ton of room for all of us armchair generals to try new strategies, and, despite its size, to test and evaluate them. But, isn't what this hobbies all about? What fun!

Date sent: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:40:33 -0500 From: Patrick Collins

On Aug 6, 10:50pm, Allan Rothberg wrote:

Subject: Re: can the French hold in TGWIE? Hammering the AH is well and good, and does draw off elsewhere needed German troops, but, the AH can always fall back, losing wothless Galicia along the way. If you want to see the Central Poweres really sweat, start threatening German cities.

AH is easier to hit than the Germans. Supply will limit you unless you tie up a lot of HQ's taking German cities. Not easily done. I tried that, but had better success in Poland and punching through the Carpathians into the "yellow space beyond".

than Poland. The AH have rarely, if ever, been an offensive threat against the Russians, and there are a lot of Russians to absorb the AH attacks. I've seen whole sections of 6-stacked Russians evaporate when the Germans decide to Drang nach Osten.

But then then aren't pushing onto Paris, are they? You can then hammer them in Belgium!

But that's the beauty of this game, it plays different every time, and by different I mean strategically, not tactically. There is a ton of room for all of us armchair generals to try new strategies, and, despite its size, to test and evaluate them.

Agreed. It's a classic, beyond any doubt.

Date sent: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:47:59 -0400 From: David Fox

Yes, I must admit that AH's future is indeed dim, just as it was historically. As the Aussies I always give up Galicia and retreat right into the mountains (holding only Krakow) while concentrating as many divisions as possible for a quick knock-out of Serbia and a hook into Montenegro. Two VP cities that can be gained for the CP's in a hurry.

Date sent: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:19:22 -0400 From: David Fox

Something that I have been experimenting with in GWIE, and I mean only dabbling lightly, as this could possibly be a massive undertaking, is a command rule, where I try to assign the historical army commanders to their respective headquarters and give them Attack and Defend Command ratings. The Attack rating is the number of divisions that can attack at full strength within that commander's range (adjacent or within 2 hexes, I'm not sure which), while all others attack at half strength, while the Defense rating is the number of divisions that can be moved 2 or 3 hexes before the combat phase. This would give the commanders some personality- Kluck's aggressiveness vs. French's almost manic caution- and limit the all-out nature of the attacker and allow the defender to shuffle reserves around or even get out from under.

Again, I've only dabbled in this, and have no idea how it would effect the game over a long period of time (nor do I have any idea how to rate some of those Bulgarian and Rumanian doofuses, let alone who they are), but I'm curious to see how it works.

Date sent: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:17:19 -0400 From: John Desch

This would give the commanders some personality- Kluck's aggressiveness vs. French's almost manic caution- and limit the all-out nature of the attacker and allow the defender to shuffle reserves around or even get out from under.

David, this is a good idea. I would recommend giving Pershing a fairly good rating and Hunter Liggett and excellent one for the AEF.

Date sent: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:57:10 -0500 From: Patrick Collins

On Aug 8, 12:17pm, John Desch wrote:

David, this is a good idea. I would recommend giving Pershing a fairly good rating and Hunter Liggett and excellent one for the AEF.

Ah, an excellent use for the Gamers's vanity counters - A Haig counter with a "4" on one side, and a "0" on the other - for both sides of the debate!

Date sent: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:10:53 -0400 From: Ted Raicer

Back from Vermont.

A lot of interesting posts here.

First, Dave Powell wrote:

I have thought that maybe forcing the attacker to use the larger CRT if either side has any single stack of 4 or more divisions.

This wont work, as you'll soon see, because the German player would rapidly bleed to death attacking in the east.

It is true that one side can get behind the attrition curve over time, but not,I think because of a flaw in the CRTs but because of bad play. Passive play as either side vs. an attrition strategy is doomed to failure-but then it should be. If the CP goes for attrition in the west he can only do so (against aggressive Russian play) at great risk of AH collapse-or even the loss of Berlin-in the east. And a German player who sends everything east and is passive in the west will (against correct Allied play) find himself falling behind the curve in France. It's the ability to juggle the needs of 3 (or 4 or 5) different fronts that gives TGWiE its flavor.

In my last game with Jim Falling we were both attacking in the west for much of the game-with the result of heavy but about equal losses on both sides, and little ground changing hands-very historical, and showing that the game can play in a historic way as it stands-but without locking the players into doing so.

Allen Rothberg writes:

the CRT did force both sides, regardless of the overall situation, to be very attack oriented

And that is why they were designed that way. I believe the CRTs abstractly model the historic tactics, as I've explained before. But more important to me than modelling the tactical part of the war was getting the strategic part right. A game that increased the ability of the defense would lock down the west front in a way that would either allow an unrealistic concentration against the Russians, or simply have both sides hunker down waiting to see who arrived first, the yanks and tanks or the stoss. As it is, players are encouraged to act as if they can win the war in 1915 or 16 (though with good play on both sides the game will almost always go to 17-18).

By the way, the Allies won the second game that Mark Herman mentioned, not the CP. I know-Jim Falling was the Allies and thoroughly whipped me as the CP.

As to adding leaders, that is the sort of complexity I avoided in the initial design. But now that TGWiE seems well established, I'm willing to add optional rules for those who want more detail-so I will be doing a set of optional leader rules in the next few months. David Fox, or anyone else, is invited to send me their ideas on this subject.

Finally, I think the Germans should avoid abandoning East Prussia IF THEY CAN. But to paraphrase Manstein-better to lose a province than an army. If you have to give it up, the line Danzig-Thorn-Posen is the place to make your stand.

Date sent: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:15:20 -0400 From: Jimbo Fal

Hey Guys,

I'm Jim Falling and I had a thoroughly enjoyable time playing Ted at Avaloncon. He's very kind to say I was "whupping" him. He was ahead in VPs and in strong shape with his forces. I was able to derail his Schleiffen opening with a new-to-him set up of my French cav. This caused difficulty with his reduction of Antwerp and let me start forming a line along the the Belgian border instead of the usual Somme line. But, this is probably a "one trick pony" and he will be able to work around it the next time we play (Avaloncon 97, Ted?).

I always shy away from playing TGWIE multiplayer because of the coordination required (especially CP) between the two fronts. Ted and Mark played the CP against me and I was able to escape serious harm the first turns because of this Ludendorf/Hindenberg two mind game. I was also able to be somewhat more agressive with my Serb forces and was able to push up the road towards Budapest. This had a lot more bark than bite, but I think it started to overload Ted's AH forces.

Anyway, I wanted to give my thoughts on the "French Problem". I think that the French can hold out, but they can get beat up also. I've lost the game many times on the West front playing the Allies. My set up seeks to limit French losses the first few turns. I do this by stacking my French either in single stacks or in 5-6 unit stacks, never in 2 or 3 unit stacks. The 1 unit stacks I usually place in the clear hexes, because they're gonna get beat up anyway. 2 or 3 unit stacks are especially vulnerable because the German will bring up enough to get 4-1 and then the most he can lose in 1 unit and the French have the chance to lose 2-3. That attrition curve starts up then.

From the German perspective, if you really want to try to bleed the French the first turn, look for stacks of 4 French units in clear terrain. These stacks will have defense strengths of 12, possibly 13 if a 3-4-4 is in the hex. A single German 4 strength attacking unit can get a 1-3 attack bounced up to a 1-1 on the big table by using the shift and a HQ. The most the German can lose is one unit, but the French can expect to lose 3 units on average. (If you fear a 3-4-4 is in the stack, then the German needs to throw in total strength of 5 - he atmost loses 2 units then.)

Once the entrenchment come into being, I try to have the Brits cover as much of the front as possible so that they take most of the beating at -2 drms. The French I try to stack to make them "5-1 proof". 5-1 is the cut of point. Defender loses 2 for sure, while attacker may lose one. If the attacker has enough force to set up the 5-1s, don't stack 2 or 3 units.

If the CP have the initiative on the West, then the French should go nuts on the turn before a strat turn. Using cities and HQ to place new units can allow you to really concentrate your units and attack to attrite the Germans. If I'm in this position and I see a solid French line, I know that I'm missing opportunities. During the following new units phase, your rebuilt units can nicely fill in the gaps.

When the Germans really start pounding the French, it can look pretty grim. Don't forget about your six Italians that can be railed over. They can be useful to guard cities behind the lines, be the soakoff unit in big attacks, or perform the gallant speedbump maneuver.

People will say that the French can be attritioned to death. If the Germans do not use Ost/OKH, flipflops, and Stoss well, it is the allied who can get inside the curve. Take a look at total reinforcements and replacement during 1916 - it can get pretty scary when you add up all the allied units. As the Russians, I always salivate when I see four Germans or AH units stacked. This was how I took Krakow from Ted in our last game. He lost the 5 unit garrison and about 8 units drawing sole supply from the city! One lucky roll on those big tables can be horrific. On another attack, I pinched off four German units (including the alpenkorps) by attacking the stack with concentric Russians. Ow!

I've lost my head as the French during a German flipflop to the West front. I knew it was coming and I tried to have a thin crust of units and then cover the cities behind the line with single garrisons. Disaster! I now know that If I see something like this coming again, I need to pull back as far as I can, leaving speedbumps in the frontline towns to slow up the German supply advancement and then set the line up around the second line of cities.

Date sent: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 10:29:45 -0400 From: Ted Raicer

I think Jim Falling is being too modest-though the CP weren't in danger of collapse, Jim had set back their (my) offensive prospects so much the future was grim. But wait till next year Jim!