Paths of Glory certainly seems to have attracted a large band of enthusiasts. I always had my doubts about the idea, partly because it is an area movement game and more because it uses multiple choice cards, both of which can create problems in my experience. Having read so much about POG however, I finally succumbed and bought the game.
The basic principles of the game are straightforward. It is fairly clear from the extensive discussions and reviews that long term strategy and card play that are crucial to the game. Thus I went into the game with a good understanding of the importance of certain features. From various comments it seems though that many players do play it with very little planning or long term strategy. It is a case of get in there and fight, to hell with the strategy.
Map
Lots of people have criticised the map and I can see why. It shows up all the errors of area movement games. The focus is on game playing rather than on accuracy. The way some areas connect or more importantly do not connect is a baffling. Certain major developed regions are almost devoid of movement areas, look at central Germany and Austria for example. The low number of areas mean it is possible to move over far larger distances in comparison to the more congested ‘battle fronts’. Paradoxically though transport routes have ceased to exist in central Europe, it is for example not possible to move direct from Frankfurt to Nuremburg or from there to Prague! Another region where the area count is odd is the Russian Front. Although the area count is reasonable when compared to the Western Front it does not really reflect the lack of decent roads.
The worst example is the Near East inset map. This was a region with virtually no railways the only rail line ran from Constantinople to Aleppo and then south to Medina. There was a further line being built to Baghdad but this was incomplete. The roads were pretty appalling, particularly those in eastern Anatolia. The Turks had to rail their units via a low capacity track to Aleppo and then march them to the eastern front. Yet here its only 6 areas from Constantinople to Ezerum, a distance of approx 1,100Km, compared to 8 areas from Marseilles to Calais, a distance of only approx 900Km. You almost need to double movement costs on the Near East map to make it reflect the true distances and lack of roads.
Supply
The supply rules are far too simplistic. There has been criticism of how ‘out of supply’ units are automatically eliminated and It is difficult to accept the rationale behind this rule. It might make sense in some games but not here, particularly in relation to certain other rules. The combination is wrong and it creates an unrealistic situation. I agree with the PA suggestion that units should be reduced if out of supply rather than eliminated.
Certainly armies maintained a largely continuous front. That is very difficult to do in POG due to the low counter density. Spread yourself out too far to cover the gaps and you leave weak spots. Because of the ‘eye in the sky factor’ it is too easy for the other side to find the weak spots and focus on them. Once you get a hole in the line then units can move through at full speed. One sensible proposal I saw suggested that moving through uncontrolled areas should cost 2 MP’s, unless it was the last area you were entering. This at least would cut down on the ability to send a single sacrificial corps racing through a gap. As an alternative you should actually have to occupy the area to cut supply. The mere fact that a corps moving through an area is enough to cut the supply line is a bit excessive.
What the game seems to overlook is the fact that these are very long turns and movement was largely ‘simultaneous’ on this scale. In a tactical level game with daily or weekly turns ‘sequential’ movement fits in. On this scale armies were moving within days of each other. It was not so much a case that they did not allow gaps to occur but when they did they moved to cover them. Look at the Marne, a gap opened up that threatened the Germans and when they realised the danger they retreated to close the line. Similarly on the Austrian front large gaps opened up at times but nobody could move fast enough to exploit the. As one side moved, the other reacted to plug the gap.
The other aspect of supply is that there is no supply network of depots that has to be built up and extended. Supply simply magically leaps forward vast distances over often terrible terrain or weather. On the western front this is viable given the fairly confined nature of the front. Even there, if armies advanced too fast they would outrun their supplies for a period although on this scale though that probably isn’t significant.
Incidentally, winter, particularly in Russia, does not affect supply or movement and has only an occasional minor effect on combat! You are kidding.
In the east though things were very different. Road and rail links between Austria and Russia were poor and those between Germany and Poland only marginally better. They certainly weren’t up to the standard of northern France. Within their own borders those countries could trace a reasonable supply network but once they advanced all sides started to encounter problems in bringing up supplies. They did advance the network but invariably with some kind of time delay. Here however the Germans can plunge hundreds of miles into Russia with whole armies and still keep the supply trains going at full speed.
It gets even worse on the Near East map. The Turks struggled to supply their forces in eastern Anatolia, even resorting to using the cruiser ‘Breslau’ as a fast transport. It took them months to march up reinforcements. In POG though because of the low number of areas this becomes far easier than it should. The constraint is the entirely artificial one of the limitation of Operations points. Some may argue that the result is the same but It is not. The Turks did move forces up, based on their own decisions, not on those of some arbitrary rule that determined how many units could move a turn.
Similarly the Russians could only just supply their forces once they reached Ezerum. To have gone any further in that countryside was pretty much beyond them and they never tried. In POG however they can march up to the gates of Constantinople still well fed and firing off unlimited quantities of ammunition.
Replacements
The replacement levels are pretty odd all round, as they do not reflect the current status of a country. This is particularly unbalanced in the case of Russia, the country most likely to lose large slabs of territory. They can be beaten all the way back to the five untouchable supply cities and still be churning out replacements at the same old rate.
By 1916 the Turkish eastern army was disintegrating under the Russian advance. Units were fading away through mass desertions and starvation. After the punishment they received from the Allies and treatment they endured from their own side it was inevitable that the army would start to disintegrate. The Turks were tough but not supermen. Yet none of this is reflected in the game.
Artificial Rules
The artificial nature of the game is reflected in some of the special rules, of which the British Middle East Army and the Russian Caucasus Army are fine examples. They cannot receive replacements but this is done not for historical reasons but to mask the basic flaws in the movement and supply systems. The British poured huge numbers of reinforcements into Gallipoli to make up for the losses they sustained there. The restriction is in place to limit the British use of the MEF, otherwise they will simply hammer away in a war of attrition to wear down the Turks. To a lesser extent the same applies to the Caucasus Army. This was a fairly weak army at best and given limited replacements but it was rebuilt several times after its successful offensives, from local resources. Again the constraints exist to stop the Russians hammering away at the Turks but the real constraints here should be terrain, supply and transport. Another reflection of the way the game has to fudge things is that the Caucasus Army was probably weaker than the Canadian or Australian Corps, whereas in the game this is reversed.
Why does it cost more to activate the MEF? What does this represent? Extra supply, in which case why do not the Caucasus Army or the British NE Army or the Turkish forces cost more to move as well? On that point where is the Turkish army? They massed huge numbers of troops at Gallipoli but in the game can only use corps. What they do have is the Kemal card, which effectively allows them to fight as an army. The odd thing is that the Turks have cards, which allow them to raise two weak armies. Only one of these was actually raised in eastern Anatolia and was pretty ineffective, the other would have been little better than a strong corps and was never raised.
Countries
Of course the Turks in POG can always bring Bulgarian or German corps to help them out if things get sticky. Somehow I find this one hard to believe. The Germans quite frankly did not give a damn. Turkey was a sacrificial pawn intended to soak off British and Russian forces. Even in Turkey's most desperate hours at Gallipoli the Germans never sent more than a few technical staff and leaders. As for the Bulgarians! Well, despite the fact that they were on the same side they pretty much hated each other. I find it hard to believe the Bulgarians would have sent more than a few corps to defend Turkey, as it was they did not send a thing.
The position of Italy is a surprise and it is odd the play testing failed to pick up the weakness of Italy. It really is a bit silly to make them so vulnerable to an opening counter-strike. Given their overall value and limited ability to soak off Austrian forces you have to wonder, as clearly many players do, whether it is even worth bothering to bring Italy into the war. This applies even more so to the Rumanians, who are not be worth bothering about. Their Corps are to weak to be of any use and who wants to waste Operations points moving a few ineffectual Corps in an irrelevant area of the map. It merely highlights the lack of realism reflected in the Operations Points system. Interestingly they even introduced a rule to limit the tendency of Allied players to defer Italian or Rumanian entry as long as possible and use the card for Operations and Replacements instead!
Card Selection
There are a number of aspects of the whole process of card selection that concern me. I simply do not like multiple choice cards because it forces you into quite absurd alternatives. The constraints are artificial, leaders did not ponder over; do we implement a blockade, move an army, launch an attack or bring on reinforcements this month! If they had the resources available they invariably did the lot! Sure, you want ‘chaos’ and I’ve no objection to random events or unpredictability. You can have the political events and reinforcements based on cards but movement combat and replacements should be based on other factors. Movement and/or combat per turn can be based on a dice roll or chit pull at the start of each round or turn. Replacements should be based on the countries current level of resources or even players decisions.
Commanders did not decide, well we can only manage the paperwork to order three units to move this month so sorry but while we know the Rumanian Army (or whatever) is ready to go but you’ll just have to wait until we’ve got nothing better to do! National commanders took these decisions based on; their own assessment of the situation, their own abilities and the status of their forces, supply and ammunition. Provided they had the resources the primary limitation was the competency of the local leadership. The limitation can’t even be said to reflect the issue of supply, after all it costs you just as much to move or fight three stacked armies as it does to move or fight a single half Corps!
Action in minor theatres particularly is limited by card play. While its valid to say that this represents the concentration on the actions of larger armies on the main front it also means that minor theatres remain untouched because they are not cost effective. During WW1 these fronts did move at corps level that is, the Balkans, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Egypt. It would make more sense to have the cost of moving a corps count as only half an Operations Point.
The game becomes far to opportunistic. Sure, you have to have a broad strategy but at the same time your immediate actions are dictated by the cards you are dealt. Granted there is the chaos of war but players should still have more control over their medium term plans. What I am thinking of in particular is the major offensives. These took months to prepare, It is not just the planning but the training and concentration of vast quantities of ammunition. They also, particularly on the Western Front, lasted for many months with a sustained series of attacks. None of this really comes over in the game. With the move or fight system it can take an operation to bring the forces into place but then each battle lasts only one operation. Are these battles meant to represent several months sustained of offensive or do they represent only a few weeks fighting and require several operations to represent say the Somme?
Going back to the Russian Caucasus Army, players tend to use this when they happen to have a spare operations point left over, not as part of a deliberate planned pre-emptive strike. Actually Yudenitch was one of the better Russian commanders, with limited resources he planned a series of deliberate pre-emptive assault that kept the Turks off balance. He took the offensive when he was ready, not when the operations cards happened to have a spare point!
Trenches
Trenches are another oddity. They are pretty hard to build even with the optional rule and as they cost an Operations Point (which raises again the question of what do Ops points represent?) are pretty expensive, especially if the attempt fails. It appears that few games see trenches built on anything like the historical scale. It is certainly debatable trying to build Russian trenches.
Play Balance
After all the discussion I had a pretty good understanding of the subtleties of the game and the importance of card play. I played it solitaire twice and got a good feel for the game. There were a number of aspects of the system I have reservations about, a big concern is play balance. It seemed to me that the Germans could do too much damage on either the French or Russians if they put their mind to it. In my games the Russians were getting chewed to pieces by 1916. Yes, I have looked at the issue of what can the AP do to counter the German operations by counter moves, reinforcements etc.
Then I played two games with a friend of mine. He and another friend have played POG approx 35 times. Many of those games did not get past 1915 as one side or the other gave up and none of the games lasted past 1916. Now, both are extremely good players with a ruthless ability to analyse a game, review alternative strategies, counter moves etc and find the best strategy. From long experience I have learnt to respect their assessment of any game.
Their analysis of the game was that it was pro CP and properly played the Germans, given reasonable card pulls and dice rolls, should stand a 50% chance of knocking France out of the war in 1914. Failing this the Germans could turn on Russia and stood a good chance of defeating them. There was little the AP could do to save France against aggressive German play. Now I know the POG enthusiast will tell me this analysis is wrong but so far I haven’t seen a valid counter strategy and looking at the discussion board a number of people seem to agree that the Germans have a very good chance of knocking out France early. Which rather spoils the opening game to my mind.
If the Germans put all their effort into attacking the French and inflicting casualties the French Army can be ground down to a point where it is unable to hold the line. Once they go past a certain level of losses their position became irretrievable. We’ve looked at alternate strategies. Action by the Russians was largely ineffectual. Sure, they can make some attacks and put pressure on the eastern front. They might blow away a few Austrian units or even the German 8th Army and make territorial gains but it was all for naught. In the process the French were being decimated to an even greater extent and the Austrians could afford to fall back. The other option is to bring in British reinforcements but that effectively takes two impulses.
This approach was demonstrated to me very clearly in the two games we played. The French got hammered and there was little I could do to stop it, even after extended discussion on the options. The opening moves came down to dice rolls and card draw. A useful German card being the Landwehr. If they get that then they can build the 7th Army in one impulse and threaten Belfort with an advance after combat. That means the French have to reinforce Belfort. As an aside I wonder if many players appreciate that the Germans can move through Amiens, even if they have not played ‘Race for the Sea’, they simply can’t end a move there.
It becomes something of a war of attrition. Two French armies in the open fire on the 6-8 column but two German armies fire on the 9-11 column and have a chance of inflicting greater losses on the French. One of the keys to the offensive is the retreat rule, if you opt to hold a ‘cancel retreat’ area then you have to lose a step. The French can’t afford to lose too many areas and particularly not Verdun and Nancy.
The latter are keys to the French position, the forts and trenches make them too valuable to lose. Against Verdun and Nancy three German units can attack on the 12-14 column. At Verdun two French units will defend on the on the 12-14 column and at Nancy on the 9-11 column. This is where the retreat rule kicks in. If the Germans inflict more losses then the French have to take an additional step loss in order to avoid the retreat. If the Germans win on four attacks ie inflict more losses and remove 5 army steps from the French then they have probably beaten them. If the French take too many losses in relation to the Germans then they are finished as they simply can’t replace them fast enough and do not have enough units to hold the front.
Doubtless the enthusiasts will tell me that four games are not enough to learn the game or we are playing all wrong. It seems to me however that a number of people have a problem with the play balance and we certainly have a sound understanding of the features and options of the game. More seriously I worry about games where understanding the game system is so crucial to winning, that generally means you are playing the system and not history. Agreed an experienced player should generally beat an inexperienced player but that performance should be based more on the application of accepted military principles rather than knowledge of a game system.
Conclusion
Overall POG is a fun game. The emphasis however is on the word ‘game’. If that is what people want then fine and it is certainly popular, although I wonder if this isn’t a reflection of the poor quality of many games on the market these days. For me it is superficial, flawed and takes to long to play for such a simple game. I like a more authentic system that reflects the real constraints the combatants operated under and to be given the option to try alternative strategies rather than being tied to a restrictive game system and inaccurate map.
Back to Perfidious Albion #103 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com