Der Weltkrieg Series

[panzerde]

So Bawb and his flying mustache just tempted me into buying Tannenburg from this series. Operational WWI at divisional scale. Anyone give it a try in the past?

[ArizonaTank]

I have the entire series.  Although I have to admit I have only played on Vassal.  Counter management may be a problem in a physical game.  Not to bait you....but I think the system really comes into its own with the Grand Campaign. 

There are a few quirks, but overall, IMHO, the strengths of the system far outweigh the foibles.   

What I like:
-The entire Grand Campaign is on Vassal, not many monsters can say that.  For me, the game would be unplayable otherwise.  I just have no space
-Divisional level.  Corps are very fluid organizations. 
-I love the logistics system.  Nice balance between playability and representing logistical buildup needed for offensives.  Lack of supply early in the game, keeps sides from just attacking anywhere.
-The multiple terrain in a hex system helps make the game much more deep.
-Combat resolution is not odds based, but reflects actual strengths.  Allows the defender to pick retreat to save losses.
-Base rules are fairly short, 20 pages.  Great for a monster.
-Time and unit size scale seems to match.  3 day turns, with divisional units, just seems to play well for me.  Other games use corps and one week turns.

What I don't like:
-The designer has made some map size choices based too much on the real flow history.  For example, there is a big blank corner that chops into Russia south of Minsk, and northwest of Lvov.  At one point, the map edge is only 5 hexes from the Austria-Hungarian Border.  Historically, the Austrians were never going to go far in this area.  But the player might want to; lack of map spaces would stop this.  Similarly, the Austrians can't really get far in Italy, since the map stops going south around Bologna.  So no Austrian invasion of Rome.  In the real War, the Austrians had a very hard time making any progress in Italy, and the map reflects a front that plays historically; but that cuts off what the player might be able to do, if for example, the Entente does not send additional troops to the Italian front.  Overall, however, these are just minor irritations, not game killers. 
-Troop quality is too abstract for my liking.  The game kind of reflects troop quality in the strength of units.  But combat results are mostly where the Attacker losses x strength points, and the defender losses y points.  This works well in the meatgrinder conditions of the Western Front.  But in the game's Serbian campaign for example, where historically, the Serbs really out soldiered the Austrians in 1914, you never get the sense that the war is anything but a numbers game.
-The Grand Campaign has a fairly elaborate sea map to track seaborne movement of troops and supplies.  But the naval campaign is abstracted out.  It almost feels like the designer started putting it in, then decided not to. 

Despite the issues, don't get me wrong, I really love the game and the series.  Even the best game designs are not perfect.  Still lack of a somewhat detailed naval campaign, does seem to take a bit of flavor out of the game; for me anyway.  That is why I am really looking forward to Compass Games / John Gorkowski's Balance of Powers due out in April.

But back to Der Weltkrieg, I am always open for a game PBEM via Vassal, send me an IM if interested.

[bob48]

I've just downloaded and printed out the 'Sterling Edition' rules, and the vassal mod. Whilst not ever being much into WW1 games, I did think that this system looks very interesting (and so I nudged panzerde about it).

The only aspect that puts me off a little is that the counters are 1/2", which gives rise to that old problem of handling stacks of small counters in congested map area's.

[TacticalWargames]

Always fancied getting the West Front game..love the idea behind the divided hex terrain.

[bob48]

Yeah, the way terrain works is rather interesting - I'm reading the rules atm, and it does have some nice idea's.

[panzerde]

Well, Bob and I finally gave this a shot today, admittedly in without scenario specific rules since we're still waiting to receive the actual games. Bob really likes it and has been playing it solo (via Vassal) this week; I'm not entirely sold. We messed around with Tannenberg, and it seemed to me that the Russians had WAY too much mobility and flexibility.

For those who have played it, are we just missing a lot that would be part of the scenario specific rules, or are the rules such that the very significant differences between the armies of the belligerents sort of abstracted away?

I have to admit that the other thing that's bugging me about returning to boardgaming after years of playing PC only is how poorly boardgames deal with FOW. It makes me grumpy. 

[bob48]

 ;)

[panzerde]

Bob, the more I thought about this the more I think it was the lack of the supply rules that's bugging me about it. When you think about it, constrained supply with this system could dramatically impact not just the attacks, but the counterattacks as well. If you aren't tracking supply then you can always counterattack. However, if your supply points are constrained you have to make a decision about using points to pay for a counterattack - and it costs effectively twice as much supply for a counterattack.

Then there are the rules for strength reduction due to supply line length, which could also have a dramatic impact.

I'm pretty eager to give it another try once we have the rules for these scenarios and know how much supply the different HQs have, and what the supply replacement rates are. Not surprisingly, I think the real meat in this system is going to come down to the logistics!

[bob48]

Yep, after giving it some though, I agree with you. We were only really giving the system a try-out, and have the movement / combat rules pretty well sorted, but we also were playing as if both sides had abundant supplies to hand, and this may have greatly distorted the picture.

[ArizonaTank]

The supply rules actually give the game a great "flavor" IMHO.

On the Western Front in 1914, the French, and to some extent the Germans, have to be strategic about where they attack / defend at full strength because supplies are at a premium.

Also, attacking in rough terrain is even more difficult, because you have to keep your HQs close, so they can push supply to the attacking forces.

But I agree that one of the game's weaknesses is that there is little differentiation between units / nationalities. 

[southern_cross_116]

I am not sure if the scenario specific rules were changed (I rather doubt it) - but from what I could tell when I messed around with Tannenberg itself was that it had dummy rules that scripted the end result into a fait accompli -and that even if the Russian moves triggered western front reinforcements I never needed them since the Russian 2nd Army was always forced into moving into a position where it was going to be cut off and destroyed (mostly due to retreat eliminations).

There was (for me at any rate) not a lot of suspense.  But to be fair, that was just Tannenberg ... I don't think that the same would have applied to Galicia -but due to some odd marketing ideas for whatever reason this product was lumped into the Eastern Front title as opposed to just leaving things as is with the reprint versions (Tannenberg and Galicia had been in a single product formerly).

Fwiw I used to be the webmaster there ... they still use a lot of my graphics. It wasn't my best work but a lot of that was not really my fault. ;)

[ArizonaTank]

I am not sure if the scenario specific rules were changed (I rather doubt it) - but from what I could tell when I messed around with Tannenberg itself was that it had dummy rules that scripted the end result into a fait accompli -and that even if the Russian moves triggered western front reinforcements I never needed them since the Russian 2nd Army was always forced into moving into a position where it was going to be cut off and destroyed (mostly due to retreat eliminations).

There was (for me at any rate) not a lot of suspense.  But to be fair, that was just Tannenberg ... I don't think that the same would have applied to Galicia -but due to some odd marketing ideas for whatever reason this product was lumped into the Eastern Front title as opposed to just leaving things as is with the reprint versions (Tannenberg and Galicia had been in a single product formerly).

Fwiw I used to be the webmaster there ... they still use a lot of my graphics. It wasn't my best work but a lot of that was not really my fault. ;)

Are you referring to rules 7-1 through 7-5?  If so, I don't know about the earlier rule sets, but in the "sterling" edition of the rules, the "hard coded" objectives are optional rules. 

But it brings up a good point about the rules.  There are some "hard coded" actions that sometimes I grimace whenever I play.  My "favorite" flinch point is the rule that forces the French into suicidal attacks for the first five turns of the war.  This rule is how the designer forces some historical conditions on play.  Basically, the French fanatical adherence to the offensive (offensive á l'outrance) in the early days of the war.  It is one of those rules that forces the player to do what his historical "counter-parts" did, despite the fact that the player, with 20/20 hindsight can "do the match" and see its crazy.  I have mixed feelings about such rules, but in the end, I use them anyway.

As far as Tannenberg is concerned, I can see why players might want to use the initial hard coded objectives in a full campaign or linked East/West Front game.  Basically, no Russian player, given a free hand is going to lose so many troops, so dramatically that early in the game.  Without Tannenberg, the Germans would likely have to peel even more troops off from the Western Front to defend East Prussia; this might very well doom any chance for a German victory....IMHO

[ArizonaTank]

oops, double post...sorry

[southern_cross_116]

I think it was something about how as the Russian player that you had to move by the most direct path towards Koenigsberg -and you could manipulate what the most direct patch was by putting ZoC's on certain hexes making them, in effect, less direct paths - so that you literally funneled the Russian Army into a position that it would simply die in. I understand that is more or less what actually happened - but I was talking to the point of replayability and inevitability -not to mention being scripted.

It was 3.1 - 3.2, but I missed that they were optional. I don't know what special rulebook might be in the stand-alone Tannenberg and talking about the 'Sterling Edition' Tannenberg/Galicia rulebook from Eastern Front.