Lars Silver - 05:51am Jun 7, 1997 PST (#321 of 326)

Things NOT to like in All Quiet (there are even more good things though): 

1. Tank units with a defensive strength of "4", equal to infantry divisions are put into the trenches for defense. 

2. No point in using reserves for the non-initiative player, every unit goes into the first line of defense. 

3. Defensive artillery barrages tend to blow the attacker to smithereens before the attack even starts. 

4. To much reliance in the combat systems on steps. You end up counting steps all over the place, constantly stretching
the defensive lines to counter enemy offensives. (You know, the typical "everybody takes three steps to the left" all along
the front). 

5. Mighty hard to get good german offensives going after the first one, which is pretty easy due to the fixed set-up (the
entente must leave some hexes open). Penetrations can be made, but they come at great cost and it is hard to exploit your
breakthrough. (Could be that I havenīt found out a good way of attacking). 

Small unfortunate things that degrades the game from "terrific" to "very good" as an historical analysis. Any objections?
House rules? 

             Richard Simon - 03:36pm Jun 7, 1997 PST (#322 of 326)
             I still miss my Ex but my aim is improving!

     Defensive artillery barrages tend to blow the attacker to smithereens before the
     attack even starts. 

I think that's what Counter-Barrages are for, to take out the enemy HQ's so their barrages can't kill you before you
attack. I'm only midway through my first playing but I have found setting up a good defense a lot harder than it looks.
Without the extensive defensive benefits, defending is tough. 

Yes, breakthroughs are expensive (especially when your opponent rolls '6's) but then, they were expensive in real life too. 

Ted Raicer - 05:07pm Jun 7, 1997 PST (#323 of 326)

The designer responds: 

     >Things NOT to like in All Quiet (there are even more good things though): 1.
     Tank units with a defensive strength of "4", equal to infantry divisions are put
     into the trenches for defense.<< 

I had weaker defense strengths in my ealier design, but on reading accounts of tanks being thrown into the breach (and
halting German attacks in the process) I changed my mind. But putting the tanks in the trenches is a waste; they should be
used early on for key counterattacks. 

     >2. No point in using reserves for the non-initiative player, every unit goes
     into the first line of defense.<< Well, the developers changed the campaign set
     up, limiting the units that could start in the rear. That was done, I'm told for
     play balance; but in my version the Allies could have any divisions in the rear
     as long as the front line was covered. Historically, most units were on the front
     line, but there was a larger reserve than the current campaign set up allows. In
     any case reserves, properly positioned on a rail line,are quite useful to head
     off stoss units heading for a morale hex. 

     >3. Defensive artillery barrages tend to blow the attacker to smithereens before
     the attack even starts.<< 

Not if you CBS barrage (that is indeed what is for). Of course if your CBS barrage fails...but that's why I usually use air
spotting and Bruchmuller on CBS. 

     >4. To much reliance in the combat systems on steps. You end up counting steps
     all over the place, constantly stretching the defensive lines to counter enemy
     offensives. (You know, the typical "everybody takes three steps to the left" all
     along the front).<< I'm not sure I understand your point here. It can be a bit of
     a pain playability wise, but that's more a function of the game's size than
     anything else. 

     >5. Mighty hard to get good german offensives going after the first one, which is
     pretty easy due to the fixed set-up (the entente must leave some hexes open).
     Penetrations can be made, but they come at great cost and it is hard to exploit
     your breakthrough. (Could be that I havenīt found out a good way of attacking).<<

Well, the only major German breakthru after Michel was Blucher along the Chemin des Dames, and that was due to the
local French commander's incompetence. But if the Germans hold back 24 Stoss divisions in reserve, a second offensive
can be devastating if it is launched at the right time and the right target. In this case the 1st offensive is used to pull the
Allies out of position to deal with the second blow. Converesely, knowing the Germans have a big reserve can cause the
Allied player to hesitate to pull units off the line to oppose the initial attack. In that case, consider using the reserve to
reinforce your initial assault. 

None of which is meant, by the way, to stifle criticism. I'm as interested in hearing what people don't like as what they like.
Thanks for the post. I may not agree with your points, but it was interesting reading. (For me anyway.) 

Ted Raicer 

sysop - 06:44pm Jun 7, 1997 PST (#324 of 326)
John Kranz (Phoenix, AZ)

Lars and Ted, I appreciate the fine exchange you have had on some points in the game design! Nice to see
this sort of thing... 

Lars Silver - 05:49am Jun 8, 1997 PST (#325 of 326)

My point about the tanks as well as the reserves is that since there is no cost whatsoever for withdrawing units out of the
combat lines, you will definitely set up in the trenches. As the defender you basically need to get anything with a defense
capability, that is steps, in your front line. Tanks can be rebuilt in no time, so it is no real problem if you lose them. In reply
to Tedīs response, in my interpretation of history tanks were essentially weapons used in carefully planned offensives, not
the type of mobile defensive weapons the Germans used in Ukraine in 1943-44. They tended to breakdown and god
knows what... Therefore, it seems that the tank units in the game work more like German Panzer divisions than the slow
moving, vulnerable and breakdown-prone monsters I recalled from the history books. 

Admittedly, most of the units were deployed in the lines, or rather relatively close behind the lines. And yet it was a
common practice that some divisions were in army reserve, as any OB will tell you. In the game, as in many others, there
is no reason to do that. On top of that, if for example Operation Michael get started (it will), and the french will have to
reinforce the British (they will have to) another typical "Game-ish" thing happens. You basically move every French unit
(or every other, at least) three or four hexes northwards to fill up the gaps, what I call "stretching the lines". Admittedly,
this happens in most games, but this one is somewhat sensitive as steps are so important. 

Steps...if you defend with two steps in the trenches (not referring to the part south of Verdun) it is relatively easy to break
through, three steps requires some effort and against four steps you will need to attack from two hexes, which requires
soak-offs (costly!) etc. My point here is that the number of steps determines where, and if you will attack. It is relatively
easy to make a probability analysis on how to maximize your chances to succeed (and the cost of not breaking through is
awesome, a lot of casualties and you will have to start all over again). I just donīt like to plan my attacks with a pocket
calculator, perhaps just a matter of taste... 

All in all, a reserve rule of some sort for the defender may be a solution (on the map, but in reserve). It would have to be
combined with some penalty for leaving the lines (not unthinkable considering the time span of 1-3 days). 

Defensive artillery: Far to good. It seems as if the defender always is as well stacked with artillery rounds as the attacker.
CBS helps, but it is a pain to make sure that you headquarters is within range of the enemy HQīs, eventually the HQīs
starts chasing eachother in order to be within/outside range. And when did the attacking HQīs historically start the
offensive in the trenches? Suggestion: Assume that CBS automatically happens before offensives. Linking the artillery so
close to the HQ units make no sense. "Oh guys, we need some more arty for this offensive, perhaps we should set up
another HQ or two in the trenches". 

Finally, Iīve tried having 24 Stoss in the reserve, it didnīt really help Op Michael though...Seriously, I cannot imagine how
the Germans would be able to reach the lines that are used for the set up of the entente offensive on game turn 9. Whatīs
even worse is that it would be suicide to attempt it as any wise german player would avoid leaving the original trenches
more than necessary. Isnīt the difference between the original trench lines and open ground (a.k.a. hastily constructed
trenches) too big? 

I hope you take these remarks as you usually do, Ted (and Richard), it is still the game of the year for me. Great fun. I will
be away for two weeks on research conferences and some vacation, but I will be eager to check out any replies when I
return. 

Sorry about the length of this piece, John. 

Ted Raicer - 08:56am Jun 8, 1997 PST (#326 of 326)

Well, I wrote an even longer reply, which unfortunately got lost in the cyber ether so this "short" version will have to do:
Tanks (You're welcome): The tanks in AQ are hardly panzers (WWII panzers would in AQ terms be something like
18-10-40 not 7-4-4). By 1918 breakdowns took place mostly on the battlefield, not on the way, and those are
accounted for by the automatic tank losses. As for the ease of replacing tanks, take a look at the Allied tank production
figures by 1918. Lots. 

I had a long section dealing with the reserves, "stretching", and steps, but I don't have time to rewrite it all here. Suffice to
say the games I've played and seen played don't lead me to want to make any changes in the way of a NIP reserve. 

CBS: While the other areas are open to debate, here I feel that criticism is way off the mark. The artillery rules work
historically and exactly as I intended. Defensive artillery in WWI was devastating unless supressed, and that suppression
was NOT automatic. On the contrary, on several occassions in 1918 both sides suffered heavily when they failed to
supress the defender's guns. Nor is there any reason for HQs to run from one another. The defender wants his HQ in
range-CBS may fail, and in any case it uses up guns that would otherwise be pounding the infantry. For the attacker, using
CBS is just part of the job. Finally, as for HQs in trenches, I thought it was pretty obvious that HQs represent an abstract
center of gravity of an army's operations, rather than an actual unit in a certain hex.. They provide realistic range limits for
the army's artillery, logistics and command functions. When an HQ is overrun it represents the enemy breaking into your
rear and disrupting those functions, not the capture of a staff or an artillery park (though those may be taking place as
well). 

Trenches: The trench lines on the map represent years of work, involving (especially on the German side) tons of steel and
concrete. The fieldworks thrown up after an advance can't compare with them. (Consider how quickly the German July II
line was rolled back.) 

In general I think the Germans are much more capable of gaining ground than you seem to think. And deciding to attack
based on numbers of steps is not the sole key. Most of the French front line will start with 4 steps; the Germans are quite
capable of blowing large holes in such a line. (And combined attacks are not to be avoided. Breaking the line costs
troops-the Germans have to accept that.) 

But the German goal is not just to take ground-while you can in my experience take as much ground as the Germans did
historically, they lost by doing so. Indeed, the Allies often win by letting the Germans advance into open space, causing the
Boche to spread out more and more units to hold their flanks till they have nothing left to spearhead a further advance.
Along most of the front the Allies can't prevent a well conducted German attack from breaking through. The trick is to
make that breakthru as costly as possible, then channel the advance away from critical objectives (without seeming to do
so of course). 

Your turn! (Anyway else want to jump in on either side of this debate, please do.) 

Ted