I got to play a game of Ian Drury's World War One game recently. Now called Fall of Vaseys as in two epic massive offensives in Poland and the Ukraine during Summer 1914 I lost nearly 1.2 million kaiserliks by an epic display of doubling (all in four months - Plan 17 for Outer Space indeed). After my early dramatic losses (I am not a good roller of low dice) I abandoned almost all attacks (except my brave Ottomans to bashed away at the Brits) and left it up to the Allies to bash me. The Serbs and Russians were about to go (the Austrians having reserved their best popular support cards till last - or so it proved) when the Germans simply fell over and died. The swiftness of which was so like Autumn 1918 as to be uncanny (just two years too soon). Should I complain? Only marginally...... Fall of Eagles is a remarkably simple idea and played in about three hours, four if you are more competent/lucky. On a Diplomacy style map you slug it out using wee army markers and very little movement. (I did retreat my Austrians into the Carpathians, and why will soon become obvious). Movement only comes with retreats (and the follow up force may still get another attack - just like von Falkenhayn would want) or breakthroughs in which you need luck, better trained armies and a lot of technological strength. Twice my announcement of breakthroughs to the German Press led to loss of popular support when the Tsar was still sitting in Warsaw (the little Romanov swine!). Each nation has a pile of popular support cards (values from 1-4 in the best Nucleur Destruction style) but does not get to look at them. The Germans have 30 but the Austrians 18. On average spreads (and they never are average) this would indicate the Germans might take losses of 7.5 million (they cracked at about 6.6 million so not too bad). However, the number of some states (Russia for example) seems low and others (Serbia and the Turks) high so there is an element of more than just numbers. All these cards are drawn at the beginning of the game with some minor movement from strategy cards and, of course, combat losses. Nations then launch offensives in order of incompetence, so lacking a Romania it was down to me as the KuK. Offensives come in five levels, one might be light raiding and five is 30 days shelling plus bomber support and Messines Ridge. Nations are limited in the number of offensives by their Technical competence rating which alters by year. [Germany is 5-4-4-4-3*, and Britain 5-3-3-4-3]. Perhaps the technical level of each army should also limit the strength of the offensives. Alternatively one could get an allowance of double the tech value, say 10 points for the Germans, which is two level 5 offensives, or five level twos). I would also oblige all offensives to be ordered by all nations before any were decided by any nation The level of the offensive affects both sides' losses. The losses for the attacker are the total scores of as many pairs of dice as the level of the offensive, but any doubles and you dice again, and again, and again. Multiply the total score by 10,000 and you have your casualties, subject to card and technical modifiers. Divide total losses for the turn by 100,000 and deduct that much in terms of popular support from your pile. There is a lot of tension in this, the constant threat of doubles and the theatrical drawing of popular support cards, the bravado of a 4, and the panic as you draw four ones. Technical Levels Technical levels move up and down in a most satisfying fashion (see above) for example the Brits start high, sink low in the Kitchener New Armies era and then rebound. Other nations just go down the tubes, and the Germans are susceptible to sudden collapse once they tip. Of course in these matters it is relative difference that matters so on the Eastern Front Germany maintains a +2 advantage until 1917 where it goes to +3 over Russia. Russia and Austria match tech levels until 1916 where for one year the Russians get +1. There is a lot of determinism in these ratings, so a successful KuK army is still going to go down the drain eventually. The defender loses the score of as many D8s as the level of the offensive. This is modified by skill and by cards, so in partial recompense for my Austrian slaughter nearly 520,000 Russians perished defending against a massed attack in 1916 that used full technical support and German expertise. Clearly the average attacker (before doubles) will lose 70,000 per level to just over 40,000 for the defender. An attacker with +2 tech advantage would be playing off 50,000 to 40,000. What can one say? The initial knee-jerk reaction is surely the range of popular support would not be that wide (so restrict the card spread) but I have to say (as its victim) I do not believe that. Nations had given in quickly before (seven weeks for example) and might again. I was not to know one way or the other, but even the All Highest could detect something was rotten. I dare say Wilhelm got a bit of a shock too. One might squeeze the range if one wished. One thing the game does not demonstrate is everyone showing more stamina that was thought (unless this is by leaving more 1s in the undrawn pack than 4s). Losses I do think the losses were too high in general (but as I mentioned my rolling skewed the procedure even more). If Verdun cost 700,000 a side over three seasons I think we can assume a degree of at least a couple of level 5 attacks (with at least one level 3 counter-attack) which would on average yield (before doubles) almost double that number. To reverse the argument for each level of offensive we would lose 110,000 off both sides on average. For the three seasons that indicates two levels of offensive each season. Not quite Verdun. Of course there is no reason that the numbers should be exact, but this is too good an opportunity to miss. I would also simplify (or speed up) the die-rolling. The problem with doubles is that unless you have five sets of pairs that can be told apart you have to dice separately, and while as a coup de theatre it has its moments it also has its five minutes. Now in part this is because my mental arithmetic is so poor Ian disregarded it until, as the evening wore on, his got worse than mine. I would recast the combat as single die rolls (double the number of the level) rather than pairs with re-rolls on "1"s. This would allow you throw them all in one big blast. Average dice might be more effective (but you would need another double and redouble). Since losses appear a bit toppy one could usefully revisit the whole area. I was not sure the technical superiority worked as well as it should but then the Russian popular support was not as big as I expected so what goes around comes around. The strategic cards seemed oddly ineffective for me, although in fairness I did get a lot of interesting Allied cards! This reminds me of a game of We The People with Nick Barker where we each got each other's cards the whole game. The major use was of tactical counters as technological supports (and my major Russian busting offensive in Summer 1916 - which finished me off, we were betrayed I tell you - involved trench mortars, machine guns, and heavy artillery giving me 150,000 Russian dead before the 100,000 from my technical advantage without a dice rolled). The French and British shamelessly used their colonial armies to take casualties ("Excuse me cobber, mind popping your head over this parapet?") and I just missed getting Douggie Haig sacked. I would reduce the number but stick a number together on one card with the year determining which worked. One Change I did think that one change I would make whether or not one altered the popular support score range was to hand it out over the game rather than get it all at the beginning. So the Brits might start with hardly any PS, susceptible to being driven from the war and loath to launch big attacks. They would then build up and fall off again. Probably getting the PS surge before the tech ability improved. This way you might be pulled through by your people's bravery and there would be reasons to launch just one more offensive if one's opponents stack began to reduce in size. In addition although offensives seem jolly silly to us they could also generate popular support so that you should get some more cards for launching offensives. Indeed to switch it around having lost 2,000,000 Germans in Summer 1914 I wondered how I got away by sitting quietly thereafter. It's the governorship of Poznan for this child I fear. One is also (like Bunter) perpetually in anticipation of a postal order. It would also give some reason to a Schlieffen Plan which might knock out the Allies when things were rough. The current mechanism give little likelihood of the effects of either French or German war plans resulting in the near defeat of the French. We also failed to achieve a single breakthrough in the three years we managed before I went down Holland way. Cynics will note we could throw high dice for every purpose other than this one. In the last game Ian had suffered from drang nach osten and had tightened the scores needed. I must say I would give the Eastern Front more areas in depth (its areas are bigger than the western front anyway) and make the breakthrough correspondingly easier. Of course without some offensive limit more areas means more potential attacks. At the moment Fall of Eagles is a very ingenious game with lots of history - moving well towards We The People standards. For it to become more historical I think it needs to reduce the die-rolling and use the time saved to increase the tension of whether popular support exists. Regrettably this might mess up the game aspect. It also needs to recognise that not attacking anywhere is not politically viable and will in itself damage national morale. When all is said and done it played damned quick and had strong elements of being right. Shake it together with W.W.I and you would be moving. Ian Responds Thanks for your thoughts on FOE. I am off to COW this weekend to try some rules changes: 1.Tactical cards are dumped in favour of special chits ('materiellschlact chits'). These are divided into heavy artillery (same effects as before) and the usual variety of breakthrough options. The difference is they are dished out to Germany in reasonable quantities (3 or 4 per turn). The French get less, the Brits start with none but build up to 5, 6 or 7 (1916-18) representing the overwhelming power of British industry. (Happy days!) 2.More areas in Russia (as discussed) 3.Single (white) D6 per level of offensive + coloured D6 (gives proportion of defender's losses: 1,2 = a third, 3,4 = two thirds, 5,6 = same etc. -- Varied for TC, terrain and time of year). Then attacker re-rolls any 6s and keeps going. (CHV: Single White D6, isn't that a film starring Bridget Fonda?) Back to Perfidious Albion #93 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1996 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