Strategic Command series

[Silva]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

 

[Catacombs]

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good?

Do an LP, and we'll find out together.

 

[tindrli]

Agreed with Mr. Catacombs. We'll wait for your LP

 

[Tanaka]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

I love the Strategic Command series but yes some people cannot deal with the one unit per hex. As for naval each unit represents more than one ship but a lot of players cannot see that. If you understand the series for what it is you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is Panzer General on a grand scale:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11908&t=385538

And yes I think it is one of the best WW1 games out there.

 

[Silva]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

I love the Strategic Command series but yes some people cannot deal with the one unit per hex. As for naval each unit represents more than one ship but a lot of players cannot see that. If you understand the series for what it is you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is Panzer General on a grand scale:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11908&t=385538

And yes I think it is one of the best WW1 games out there.

Thanks for the info. I'll read it with calm later.

Is the WW1 entry good for beginners or would you recommend another one?

 

[Tanaka]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

I love the Strategic Command series but yes some people cannot deal with the one unit per hex. As for naval each unit represents more than one ship but a lot of players cannot see that. If you understand the series for what it is you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is Panzer General on a grand scale:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11908&t=385538

And yes I think it is one of the best WW1 games out there.

Thanks for the info. I'll read it with calm later.

Is the WW1 entry good for beginners or would you recommend another one?

I would actually recommend SCACW as a good one for beginners. Yes it is a large map but it scales quite slowly. You start with a few units and go from there. Unlike the mega campaigns of the world wars.

 

[Silva]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

I love the Strategic Command series but yes some people cannot deal with the one unit per hex. As for naval each unit represents more than one ship but a lot of players cannot see that. If you understand the series for what it is you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is Panzer General on a grand scale:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11908&t=385538

And yes I think it is one of the best WW1 games out there.

Thanks for the info. I'll read it with calm later.

Is the WW1 entry good for beginners or would you recommend another one?

I would actually recommend SCACW as a good one for beginners. Yes it is a large map but it scales quite slowly. You start with a few units and go from there. Unlike the mega campaigns of the world wars.

Too late, I got the ww1 one (with the DLC included). But I'll probably get the others down the road, as I really like what I see here.

Got Italy as a tutorial for the small front and forces (in '17 though, didn't find a '15 scenario when it enters the war). Am I right to conclude there's two layers of play...

1) the strategical one where I must decide my main goals/cities/targets and plan accordingly in terms of allocation of MPP into diplo, research, new units, etc. and..

2) an operational layer where I must manage the individual engagements correctly, like how to use the different elements correctly (unit types, routes, terrains, functions like entrench, recon, etc).

Basically that right? Forgive if the question seem stupid but I come from Civs and Pdox games which feel a bit different in that they feel more based on management than execution, if that makes sense.

 

[Tanaka]

On a ww1 kick lately and realized I've never played a proper ww1 strategy game. I'm not much of a wargamer, admitedly, the nearest I came to the genre was probably with HoI2 and some Nobunaga's Ambition/RoTK. After some googling, it seems this game is frequently suggested for players like me, for having enough substance while keeping things simple. The biggest criticisms I've found are "naval battles are ass" and "one division per hex is not realistic", which I can live with.

So, my fellow 'dexers, is this good? Anybody here played? What should I expect?



Bonus for coming with neat, pleasant looking counters like these:

I love the Strategic Command series but yes some people cannot deal with the one unit per hex. As for naval each unit represents more than one ship but a lot of players cannot see that. If you understand the series for what it is you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is Panzer General on a grand scale:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11908&t=385538

And yes I think it is one of the best WW1 games out there.

Thanks for the info. I'll read it with calm later.

Is the WW1 entry good for beginners or would you recommend another one?

I would actually recommend SCACW as a good one for beginners. Yes it is a large map but it scales quite slowly. You start with a few units and go from there. Unlike the mega campaigns of the world wars.

Too late, I got the ww1 one (with the DLC included). But I'll probably get the others down the road, as I really like what I see here.

Got Italy as a tutorial for the small front and forces (in '17 though, didn't find a '15 scenario when it enters the war). Am I right to conclude there's two layers of play...

1) the strategical one where I must decide my main goals/cities/targets and plan accordingly in terms of allocation of MPP into diplo, research, new units, etc. and..

2) an operational layer where I must manage the individual engagements correctly, like how to use the different elements correctly (unit types, routes, terrains, functions like entrench, recon, etc).

Basically that right? Forgive if the question seem stupid but I come from Civs and Pdox games which feel a bit different in that they feel more based on management than execution, if that makes sense.

Yes SC games strengths are the strategic and operational aspects not tactical. I would recommend watching some YouTube Lets Plays as well:

 

[Silva]

Thanks Tanaka, I'll watch it later.

About Italy, is there a way to play it in a earlier date? It seems the only way would be starting in '14 and waiting a full year until '15. Is that right? (how long is each turn, btw? One month?).

 

[Raghar]

Congratulations for finding cute counters mod. Now kill UK navy and invade UK.

 

[Tanaka]

Thanks Tanaka, I'll watch it later.

About Italy, is there a way to play it in a earlier date? It seems the only way would be starting in '14 and waiting a full year until '15. Is that right? (how long is each turn, btw? One month?).

There are two campaigns. One historical Italy (1914 Call to Arms) and one Italy is Axis (1914 Triple Alliance).

 

[rezaf]

I thought the game was neat, but the game engine was clearly not built with this conflict in mind. Wargames, especially hex-based ones, are always chock full of abstractions, that's the only way something like this can work, but I always find it worrying when a game system makes it impossible to replicate the actual historical events as they occurred in the real world.
In SCWW1, this especially applies to the eastern front. The way this was conducted irl does not feature in this game, instead the eastern front is just another trenchline which is quite difficult do defend due to it's sheer length.
The western front is kinda sorta depicted historically, except breakthroughs and concentrated attacks are impossible due to the 1UPT rule. What happens is that half of the french territory ends up filled to the brim with units from entente countries. Progress IS possible, but extremely time consuming.
I only played two or three games as the middle powers, and the way I won was by carefully whittling down the Royal Navy with the Kriegsmarine until I had naval supremacy. This would lower national morale of the entente to the point where they could be tipped over into capitulation by way of losses of ground troops.
After I had been successful with this strategy, which felt a little bit gamey, I deliberately wanted to avoid it in another game and I successfully tried to bring Spain into the war on my side. But even though I had prepared a force to be shipped to Spain right after it flipped, the entente still had enough time to pull more than enough troops from the main front to establish yet another trenchline on the spanish/french border. There were so many entente troops in France that I hardly noticed the difference when it came to the main frontline. So, in the end, I won yet again by way of sinking the RN.
Go figure.

 

[Silva]

I thought the game was neat, but the game engine was clearly not built with this conflict in mind. Wargames, especially hex-based ones, are always chock full of abstractions, that's the only way something like this can work, but I always find it worrying when a game system makes it impossible to replicate the actual historical events as they occurred in the real world.
In SCWW1, this especially applies to the eastern front. The way this was conducted irl does not feature in this game, instead the eastern front is just another trenchline which is quite difficult do defend due to it's sheer length.
The western front is kinda sorta depicted historically, except breakthroughs and concentrated attacks are impossible due to the 1UPT rule. What happens is that half of the french territory ends up filled to the brim with units from entente countries. Progress IS possible, but extremely time consuming.
I only played two or three games as the middle powers, and the way I won was by carefully whittling down the Royal Navy with the Kriegsmarine until I had naval supremacy. This would lower national morale of the entente to the point where they could be tipped over into capitulation by way of losses of ground troops.
After I had been successful with this strategy, which felt a little bit gamey, I deliberately wanted to avoid it in another game and I successfully tried to bring Spain into the war on my side. But even though I had prepared a force to be shipped to Spain right after it flipped, the entente still had enough time to pull more than enough troops from the main front to establish yet another trenchline on the spanish/french border. There were so many entente troops in France that I hardly noticed the difference when it came to the main frontline. So, in the end, I won yet again by way of sinking the RN.
Go figure.

So the game is not good in representing maneuver warfare, only attrition warfare, is that it? Interesting. I mean, it's not that bad then, seeing as attrition was predominant in WW1 and one expects a game based on it to give it the most attention (I think the Eastern front was the sole exception/maneuver based). But how bad are we talking the Eastern front here? Say, can Russian troops fill a continuous line of corps from north to south with no gaps and hold it like what happens in the west? If so, that would be weird indeed.

Edit: I see the game comes with "zoomed-in" scenarios that change the scale of the map/turns/movement/units stats/etc to depict specific ops, with Tannenberg being one of them? Have you checked it? Maybe it depicts that front better?

___

About the effectiveness of defensive warfare by the Entente: isn't that to be expected and a sign the game gets it right then? If it was easy to break defenses it wouldn't be a good WW1 game. And are you sure you researched enough and correctly to break defenses more effectively?

Neat thing you did pulling Spain to your side to create a new front and spread the Entente forces. Shame it didn't work as intended.

Edit: I see there's a Ludendorff Offense zoom-in scenario. Maybe it depicts better the kind of breakthroughs that ensued in '18 with infiltration tactics, stormtroopers, etc.?

 

[rezaf]

But how bad are we talking the Eastern front here? Say, can Russian troops fill a continuous line of corps from north to south with no gaps and hold it like what happens in the west? If so, that would be weird indeed.

I haven't checked out the scenarios, only the main campaign.
In it, it's definitely leaning towards a continuous line, though iirc there were a few gaps here and there, mostly because the central powers lack the manpower (unit chits) to completely occupy the entirety of the front. Instead of the somewhat mobile warfare that occurred historically, what happens is a mad scramble to get enough German troops to Prussia to stabilize the frontline. It's still a tight rope, and I have lost a game when I put the defensive line too far ahead so the Russians could encircle me - you're well advised to trade in some portions of Prussia to shorten the frontline, imo. You throw troops wherever the Russians are advancing, and eventually this forms a coherent line for the most part.
In a similar manner, it's imperative to form a frontline on the Austrian border with their troops (it's quite difficult to do that AND take out the Balkan countries, so those survived very long in my campaigns), eventually the line will be mostly continuous, and the few gaps too small for either side to break through.
Then the two lines will converge and there will be one long front from Königsberg to Romania, as I mentioned maybe with a few tiny gaps here and there.

Paradoxically, the Russians have fewer troops than France and it's allies, so Russia can be whittled down and you can get a little movement going even before/without the October Revolution.

 

[Silva]

Is it normal for AI turns to take 4min long? Holy shit, I must be waiting around longer than actually playing the game at this point. And that's with "watch AI moves" setting Off. With it ON, it takes even longer.

By the way, speaking of it, is there a way to show AI moves only within my force (Italy) sight range? When it's ON I must watch my whole Entente allies moves and their nearby enemies too. But when I turn it OFF everything vanishes even the times that enemies attack me. A middle ground would be ideal.

 

[rezaf]

It's normal, unfortunately. You should play for real, controlling all powers on one side, which at least results in a more favorable ratio, but yeah, turns are slow.
Restricing visibility is also impossible, afaik. The engine actually executes all moves in the background, visible or not, one after the other, or so it seems.
Thankfully, if you play as one of the intended sides, there's little you don't want to see once the war has commenced for real.
This is a "serious" series, not something like Panzer General.

 

[Serus]

But how bad are we talking the Eastern front here? Say, can Russian troops fill a continuous line of corps from north to south with no gaps and hold it like what happens in the west? If so, that would be weird indeed.

I haven't checked out the scenarios, only the main campaign.
In it, it's definitely leaning towards a continuous line, though iirc there were a few gaps here and there, mostly because the central powers lack the manpower (unit chits) to completely occupy the entirety of the front. Instead of the somewhat mobile warfare that occurred historically, what happens is a mad scramble to get enough German troops to Prussia to stabilize the frontline. It's still a tight rope, and I have lost a game when I put the defensive line too far ahead so the Russians could encircle me - you're well advised to trade in some portions of Prussia to shorten the frontline, imo. You throw troops wherever the Russians are advancing, and eventually this forms a coherent line for the most part.
In a similar manner, it's imperative to form a frontline on the Austrian border with their troops (it's quite difficult to do that AND take out the Balkan countries, so those survived very long in my campaigns), eventually the line will be mostly continuous, and the few gaps too small for either side to break through.
Then the two lines will converge and there will be one long front from Königsberg to Romania, as I mentioned maybe with a few tiny gaps here and there.

Paradoxically, the Russians have fewer troops than France and it's allies, so Russia can be whittled down and you can get a little movement going even before/without the October Revolution.

Historically Germans, in plans made before the war, considered completely abandoning East Prussia and retreat behide Vistula. Eastern Prussia was one of the least developed and low populated provinces anyway. In the end they decided against it and victory at Tannenberg alowed then to keep it.

 

[rezaf]

Historically Germans, in plans made before the war, considered completely abandoning East Prussia and retreat behide Vistula. Eastern Prussia was one of the least developed and low populated provinces anyway. In the end they decided against it and victory at Tannenberg alowed then to keep it.

That may very well be the case, but my point was, what happened in history basically cannot happen in the game. Russia gets a ton of troops and starts offensive maneuvers almost right out of the gate.
Wasn't the main strategic idea a holding action on the eastern front while finishing off the French quickly to then have free troops to move over and crush the Russians?
This obviously didn't work as intended, but I think there would have SOME chance of it working, after all, however small. In the game, the chance is 0% as you get bogged down in Belgium and France gets flooded with troops, 1UPT means no room to maneuver around them even when they are still relatively few in number.
So what actually transpires in SCWW1 is the exact opposite from Germany's war plan, a holding action in the west with the majority of fighting taking place in the east until you start pushing the Russians back and/or the October revolution starts.
Progress in the west is only really feasible when you can soften up the defenders with loads of artillery, but the enemy has artillery, too, so it's a mostly static front where every inch of progress is hard fought for. The most historical aspect of the game, I guess.

 

[flyingjohn]

but I always find it worrying when a game system makes it impossible to replicate the actual historical events as they occurred in the real world.

Do you have any examples of wargames that actually accomplish replicating history? Minus Garry games of course.

 

[Silva]

Historically Germans, in plans made before the war, considered completely abandoning East Prussia and retreat behide Vistula. Eastern Prussia was one of the least developed and low populated provinces anyway. In the end they decided against it and victory at Tannenberg alowed then to keep it.

That may very well be the case, but my point was, what happened in history basically cannot happen in the game. Russia gets a ton of troops and starts offensive maneuvers almost right out of the gate.
Wasn't the main strategic idea a holding action on the eastern front while finishing off the French quickly to then have free troops to move over and crush the Russians?
This obviously didn't work as intended, but I think there would have SOME chance of it working, after all, however small. In the game, the chance is 0% as you get bogged down in Belgium and France gets flooded with troops, 1UPT means no room to maneuver around them even when they are still relatively few in number.
So what actually transpires in SCWW1 is the exact opposite from Germany's war plan, a holding action in the west with the majority of fighting taking place in the east until you start pushing the Russians back and/or the October revolution starts.
Progress in the west is only really feasible when you can soften up the defenders with loads of artillery, but the enemy has artillery, too, so it's a mostly static front where every inch of progress is hard fought for. The most historical aspect of the game, I guess.

Seems to me you just faced the same problems real world German generals faced with their Schlieffen Plan, aka: it doesn't work. That the game actually reflects this sounds cool to me.

 

[Serus]

Historically Germans, in plans made before the war, considered completely abandoning East Prussia and retreat behide Vistula. Eastern Prussia was one of the least developed and low populated provinces anyway. In the end they decided against it and victory at Tannenberg alowed then to keep it.

That may very well be the case, but my point was, what happened in history basically cannot happen in the game. Russia gets a ton of troops and starts offensive maneuvers almost right out of the gate.
Wasn't the main strategic idea a holding action on the eastern front while finishing off the French quickly to then have free troops to move over and crush the Russians?
This obviously didn't work as intended, but I think there would have SOME chance of it working, after all, however small. In the game, the chance is 0% as you get bogged down in Belgium and France gets flooded with troops, 1UPT means no room to maneuver around them even when they are still relatively few in number.
So what actually transpires in SCWW1 is the exact opposite from Germany's war plan, a holding action in the west with the majority of fighting taking place in the east until you start pushing the Russians back and/or the October revolution starts.
Progress in the west is only really feasible when you can soften up the defenders with loads of artillery, but the enemy has artillery, too, so it's a mostly static front where every inch of progress is hard fought for. The most historical aspect of the game, I guess.

But that was exactly what Russia did. Battle of Tannenberg stoped them in the north and they did progress into Austria occupying in the end most of Galizia and were only repelled at the Carparthia mountain line. In reality Germans had enough advantage in quality of troops and leadership (hence Tannenberg battle) that they could hold in the east even being outumbered and Austro-Hungary had to retreat some and use terrain to their advantage. However the concept that Germany need to go very fast in the west because the Russians will advance as quicqly as possible is historical. This is where the plan to abandon Eastern Prussia was considered - to buy time at the cost of some relatively unimportant terrain. Have you tried to do it and see if it would work? Go all west and let Russians advance? Or is Russia so much overpowered/too fast?

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Strategic Command is a good game, especially with that counter and map mod.

Also 'Commander the Great War' is surprisingly good by slithering as well. I think they are about equal quality. Commander the Great war has very good 'feeling' music, art etc and is very incline in immersing in the period. I was very surprised at how well they made the game feel, it was enjoyable to play, if not a bit difficult, at least playing the central powers, which is the only side I ever got around to playing.

 

[rezaf]

Do you have any examples of wargames that actually accomplish replicating history? Minus Garry games of course.

No game is perfect, but that's is why I wrote earlier this engine was not made for WW1. Strategic Command: War in Europe works much better, imo, and it replicates the gist of WW2 fairly well. Not all of it, mind you, there's some caveats, but by and large, I think it's much more successful than SCWW1.
Beyond that, my favorite wargame is probably Ageod's American Civil War (the first one, I prefer the stylish hand-drawn map to the bland 3Dish map of the sequel). Won that game multiple times as both the Union as well as the Confederates. The letter have a suitably harder time and can only really hope to win by "gaming the system" - for example by winning a very early decisive victory before the union can bring their greatest strengths into play.

But that was exactly what Russia did. Battle of Tannenberg stoped them in the north and they did progress into Austria occupying in the end most of Galizia and were only repelled at the Carparthia mountain line. In reality Germans had enough advantage in quality of troops and leadership (hence Tannenberg battle) that they could hold in the east even being outumbered and Austro-Hungary had to retreat some and use terrain to their advantage. However the concept that Germany need to go very fast in the west because the Russians will advance as quicqly as possible is historical. This is where the plan to abandon Eastern Prussia was considered - to buy time at the cost of some relatively unimportant terrain. Have you tried to do it and see if it would work? Go all west and let Russians advance? Or is Russia so much overpowered/too fast?

Like I wrote earlier, 1UPT makes any sort of rapid advance an impossibility. Early on, troops are too weak for it to be realistic to remove them from the game in a timely manner, later on, troops are more powerful, but so are defenses and artillery.
You can later gain some ground by amassing artillery, which can be devastating, but you'll then advance into unfavorable positions you have to defend against the equally powerful enemy troops and artillery.
In the very late war, tanks can make a difference, but they are obviously very late game tech and severely limited in number.
To sum things up, no, I don't think a tactic like that has any hope of succeeding in this game.

Strategic Command is a good game, especially with that counter and map mod.

I agree, I didn't want to imply the game isn't fun (if you enjoy hex wargames like that, obviously).

 

[Silva]

Do you have any examples of wargames that actually accomplish replicating history? Minus Garry games of course.

No game is perfect, but that's is why I wrote earlier this engine was not made for WW1. Strategic Command: War in Europe works much better, imo, and it replicates the gist of WW2 fairly well. Not all of it, mind you, there's some caveats, but by and large, I think it's much more successful than SCWW1.
Beyond that, my favorite wargame is probably Ageod's American Civil War (the first one, I prefer the stylish hand-drawn map to the bland 3Dish map of the sequel). Won that game multiple times as both the Union as well as the Confederates. The letter have a suitably harder time and can only really hope to win by "gaming the system" - for example by winning a very early decisive victory before the union can bring their greatest strengths into play.

But that was exactly what Russia did. Battle of Tannenberg stoped them in the north and they did progress into Austria occupying in the end most of Galizia and were only repelled at the Carparthia mountain line. In reality Germans had enough advantage in quality of troops and leadership (hence Tannenberg battle) that they could hold in the east even being outumbered and Austro-Hungary had to retreat some and use terrain to their advantage. However the concept that Germany need to go very fast in the west because the Russians will advance as quicqly as possible is historical. This is where the plan to abandon Eastern Prussia was considered - to buy time at the cost of some relatively unimportant terrain. Have you tried to do it and see if it would work? Go all west and let Russians advance? Or is Russia so much overpowered/too fast?

Like I wrote earlier, 1UPT makes any sort of rapid advance an impossibility. Early on, troops are too weak for it to be realistic to remove them from the game in a timely manner, later on, troops are more powerful, but so are defenses and artillery.
You can later gain some ground by amassing artillery, which can be devastating, but you'll then advance into unfavorable positions you have to defend against the equally powerful enemy troops and artillery.
In the very late war, tanks can make a difference, but they are obviously very late game tech and severely limited in number.
To sum things up, no, I don't think a tactic like that has any hope of succeeding in this game.

Strategic Command is a good game, especially with that counter and map mod.

I agree, I didn't want to imply the game isn't fun (if you enjoy hex wargames like that, obviously).

Not trying to argue since I'm surely less knowledgeable at the game than you. But you still haven't supported your claims with a good argument. WW1 was characterized by attrition warfare, not mobile. Which the game seems to implement well by your own admition. But then you keep saying "the game fails short at depicting ww1" by citing as example the eastern front, which was, AFAIK, the sole exception to the (attritional) nature of the war everywhere else. Aka: not a good example, as that's just 1/4 of all fronts present in the game. It seems a more fair conclusion based on what you say would be "the game is good at representing WW1 except for the eastern front", which is very different than the "game is bad at representing WW1" that you gave.

Just sayin.

BTW, you say their WW2 game is better as it allows more maneuver warfare. How so? I would guess it does away with the entrench mechanics that give defense such an advantage here, and perhaps more mobile units/with more action points thus making flanking/encirclements more common?

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Do you have any examples of wargames that actually accomplish replicating history? Minus Garry games of course.

No game is perfect, but that's is why I wrote earlier this engine was not made for WW1. Strategic Command: War in Europe works much better, imo, and it replicates the gist of WW2 fairly well. Not all of it, mind you, there's some caveats, but by and large, I think it's much more successful than SCWW1.
Beyond that, my favorite wargame is probably Ageod's American Civil War (the first one, I prefer the stylish hand-drawn map to the bland 3Dish map of the sequel). Won that game multiple times as both the Union as well as the Confederates. The letter have a suitably harder time and can only really hope to win by "gaming the system" - for example by winning a very early decisive victory before the union can bring their greatest strengths into play.

But that was exactly what Russia did. Battle of Tannenberg stoped them in the north and they did progress into Austria occupying in the end most of Galizia and were only repelled at the Carparthia mountain line. In reality Germans had enough advantage in quality of troops and leadership (hence Tannenberg battle) that they could hold in the east even being outumbered and Austro-Hungary had to retreat some and use terrain to their advantage. However the concept that Germany need to go very fast in the west because the Russians will advance as quicqly as possible is historical. This is where the plan to abandon Eastern Prussia was considered - to buy time at the cost of some relatively unimportant terrain. Have you tried to do it and see if it would work? Go all west and let Russians advance? Or is Russia so much overpowered/too fast?

Like I wrote earlier, 1UPT makes any sort of rapid advance an impossibility. Early on, troops are too weak for it to be realistic to remove them from the game in a timely manner, later on, troops are more powerful, but so are defenses and artillery.
You can later gain some ground by amassing artillery, which can be devastating, but you'll then advance into unfavorable positions you have to defend against the equally powerful enemy troops and artillery.
In the very late war, tanks can make a difference, but they are obviously very late game tech and severely limited in number.
To sum things up, no, I don't think a tactic like that has any hope of succeeding in this game.

Strategic Command is a good game, especially with that counter and map mod.

I agree, I didn't want to imply the game isn't fun (if you enjoy hex wargames like that, obviously).

Not trying to argue since I'm surely less knowledgeable at the game than you. But you still haven't supported your claims with a good reasoning. WW1 was characterized by attrition warfare, not mobile. Which the game seems to implement well by your own admition. But then you keep saying "the game fails short at depicting ww1" by citing as example the eastern front, which was, AFAIK, the sole exception to the (attritional) nature of the war everywhere else. Aka: not a good example, as that's just 1/4 of all fronts present in the game. It seems a more fair conclusion based on what you present is "the game is good at representing WW1 except for the eastern front", which is very different than the "game is bad at representing WW1" that you gave.

Just sayin.

BTW, you say their WW2 game is better as it allows more maneuver warfare. How so? I would guess it does away with the entrench mechanics that give defense such an advantage here, and perhaps more mobile units/with more action points thus making flanking/encirclements more common?

Personally I like their Civil War game and WW1 games better than their WW2 games. The best war games I have ever played have been complex hex board games, even playing them solo. But they are very complicated, take up a huge amount of space and time. Unity of Command II is a pretty decent WW2 computer game, as far as playability and fun go, I prefer it to games like "War in the East". WiTE is just a poor rendition of a board game that relies far too heavily on throwing a bunch of numbers into a mix and thinking that its a more 'realistic' result because they tried to account for literally every single gun in a Division firing against each other.