Wed May 21, 2014 3:27 pm
I am curious about in-game trench warfare as well. IRL it really was about surviving in the death zone (as attacker and as defender) and about crossing it. Did some serious reading on it lately. I think, the defensive part of it often is failed to be seen:
Death zone towards 1918 meant
1. only a weak picket line up front, b/c those troops were going to die anyway,
2. defense in depth,
3. forces for immediate counterattack.
Like 1/3 for each of the 3 tasks, sometimes less for up front.
There were variables:
1. Army (XXXX) commanders, all manuals and regulations nonwithstanding, those were suprisingly free as to their defensive arrangements. Thus, even in 1918 some of them still used fully manned front trenches, some only picket lines.
2. Terrain: sometimes there simply wasn't enough for real depth.
3. Communications: Deployment, proximity to front and the very counter-attack were a delicate thing.
The offensive part of trench warfare normaly is simulated by special units, like powerful but less mobile arty, stosstruppen and tanks. The defensive part of it in games normally is reduced to digging in. But imagine this game mechanism in a WW1 strategic game:
1. Entrenched army or corps counters. ROE about the distribution of their divisions between front-line, defense in depth, counter-attack.
2. Army commanders with different defensive traits (counter-attacker, in-depth specialist).
3. A value for possible defensive depths per map province.
4. Chances of counterattacks depend on communication technology, command ability & traits.
So, even if the frontline doesn't move you'd have something to do without much micro-managing.
Last not least, the map is really looking good, But it would be great if the label Hesse wouldn't be close to the North Sea.
