Hi all.
If any of you saw a notification that I had posted , it was , unfortunately, in Local. I deleted it , soon as I realised .
Will have to do it “Live” later . Sorry!
1914 #2 Witt & Elrood (CP) vs Rommel & PP (Ent)
-
@Witt It is a shame, as my GB were just getting their act together. Germany’s African position is looking precarious. But the loss of Piedmont and Marseille and the mess we made of the Med, started when I threw away GB’s Med fleet, are pretty shattering.
-
@Elrood Well done winning the game, despite Leo’s German naval farce!
-
Yes, conceding the game was a joint decision. Well played. We just couldn’t dig ourselves out of the hole from the poor start. There was no room for further error or more bad dice, of which there was plenty.
-
Oh, I had the feeling it was just getting exciting.
Germany was in a stalemate with France and UK
Russia held firm
Austria made slow progress in Alps, but Allies amassed in tuscanyOnly Ottomans going wild in MED and against Cairo and Mekka was really different from the other scenarios.
Retrospectively I feel like:
- Centrals got good battles i important theatres and managed to go far out before “trench lockdown” was put into place and progress is achieved with much more effort
I wanted to know if we can manage to break russian border if the Bunker tech was breaking our neck. Especially since Germany had only a small flow of units for east front, which was about to break up, since all Stormtroopers went westways within the last few turns.
-
@elrood I also feel that Entente lacked some joint accords in how to proceed in each theatre. Some moves seemed erratic from my point of view.
-
The USA takes time to build up its forces and travel to the frontline. Normally, the USA can arrive in time to stop a breakthrough, but in this game, the Axis were already overwhelming and had reached parity in income and production.
-
There’s a lot of luck in tech discoveries in 1914. Russia only had 1 tech, despite spending lots of cash; while Italy was very lucky with all 3 defense techs, despite spending little on tech. Russia could have been much more secure with its many HG’s defending at 5 and if it were building free infantry every turn in St Pete. Italy would have had to pull back sooner, without free infantry every turn. Allies require more coordination, which requires more communication and discussion and time.
-
@fmerwinrommel
Science is surely something which neither party should rely upon. Austria was also big on tech, Germany struggled hard with it.I think centrals were mostly able to achieve victory by:
- aligning strategy and agreeing on combined moves as far as possible
- entente disarray when it came to combined strategy
I cannot really say we got lucky on rolls. We both had very good and very bad dice now and then.
Point 2 was really what broke your back, imho. if allies play strong and united, centrals have no chance in this game. Defending key positions is so easy with trenches and the lack of reliable attack units like a bunch of Bombers in G40.
-
@elrood I think how PP and I divided the countries between us was good. France and UK require close coordination in W. Europe and so were played by the same player. Serbs need assistance from France and UK, and were played by same player. Italy is localized and needs defensive assistance from France. But the G move to Switz in mass and the quick demise of Serbia, made the CP advance too quick to properly plan for. Arabs, Russia and USA are isolated and need little coordination. In my experience, an oversight or bad dice in a battle usually don’t cause an immediate loss of a particular country (unless small like Arabs). Most countries can still hold out for a long time due to the defensive nature of the game. In this game however, several early oversights/miscalculations in a short period, put the Allies behind the curve. The USA sent out a good size fleet to the Med, but couldn’t duplicate it, and France and Italy can’t spend on fleets but the Turks could. The total absence of Brit fleet in Med was devastating.
-
Elrood and PP, would either of you be interested in playing a set of 1 on 1 games of 1914 against me?
-
@fmerwinrommel said in 1914 #2 Witt & Elrood (CP) vs Rommel & PP (Ent):
The total absence of Brit fleet in Med was devastating.
Yes it was :anguished:
-
@elrood said in 1914 #2 Witt & Elrood (CP) vs Rommel & PP (Ent):
@elrood I also feel that Entente lacked some joint accords in how to proceed in each theatre. Some moves seemed erratic from my point of view.
FM and I did not co-ordinate well. The abandonment of the F stack in Piedmont being a good example. No doubt this is largely my fault. I don’t spend time looking at the game and yet object to being told what to do! On the other hand I thought Italy and Russia’s spend on trenches so as to avoid swapping territories was not ideal strategically.
-
I think the failure to sink the Ottoman’s TT, paired with the failure to protect greece accordingly proved to be fatal there… that capture of greece in ottoman’s 1st go sent ripples thorugh the med for many turns to follow.
-
@private-panic I avoid trenches whenever possible. Prefer to build troops instead. Russia and Italy had fewer trenches than most opponents that I’ve played against. And Arabia had far more Bedouin than trenches. Odessa was the exception. I hadn’t considered trading possession of it with Austria. Maintaining defense for it and Belarus was becoming more difficult to impossible. But it didn’t seem like I had sufficient units and power to counterattack successfully. My St Pete builds were close to providing more support for Belarus however.
-
As Austria, I’ve learned to trade Milan, rather than try to keep it permanently. As Italy in this game, I never built trenches in Milan, as Austria captured and recaptured it and then I couldn’t displace him from it.
-
@elrood True! Both France & Serbia did try. But also I failed to recognise the threat to Greece.
-
@fmerwinrommel The trenches debate is a long-standing one I have with @Witt . He loves trenches almost as much as he loves his German navy!
-
@fmerwinrommel I will think about it. But I am not an enthusiastic 1on1 Player… I rather revel in the warmth and comfort a team games gives. :-)
-
@elrood said in 1914 #2 Witt & Elrood (CP) vs Rommel & PP (Ent):
@fmerwinrommel I will think about it. But I am not an enthusiastic 1on1 Player… I rather revel in the warmth and comfort a team games gives. :-)
Me too. I have only played team games for the last few years.
Suggested Topics
