If ever a game irritated me it was The Great War In Europe, Storm in the West bored me so its third time lucky with Raicer's games as a visit to Just Games produces this 1993 game from Command. 1993 was the year when I was just beginning my business after being sacked by the fascist bastards for whom I used to work (not that I hold a grudge ye'll ken). Although I had time for gaming I had no money (or rather the Calvinist work ethic that lurks beneath the surface of most Vaseys prevented me spending what I had). While When Eagles Fight is not perfect (what is?) I believe it presents a most informative and exciting game that comes closer than any (with the possible exception of Gorlice-Tarnow) to giving a feel for the topic. Indeed its weak spots are those which most other games do not come vaguely near. It is also, as these games go, quick and very bloody without being very complex, but with its interesting strategic possibilities it remains one with high replay value. It is an excellent example of that middle level of gaming which Command has made its own, with strong appeal to all parties it is inclusive rather than exclusive. It also conveniently leads one's thought to Doing It Better, which is what all good games should do. To start at the beginning a big Mark Simonitch map greets us which stretches from Petrograd (as St Petersburg is rather naughtily entitled) south to Odessa, and from Silesia to Kiev. This means that very little of Rumania appears on the map (enough for the 4th Army but nothing for the rest) and none of the Serbian campaign. Wags from Newcastle might entitle this The Great War in The North-East. Like all Simonitch maps this is clear clean stuff. The lay of the land is seen as the plains of Poland up to the Masurian Forest, the Pripet Marshes and south into the Galician forests up to the Carpathians and West to the Bohemian Mountains. The place is covered in many towns and some cities (the latter having a different background colour to make spotting easier). These towns and cities are important for rail-travel and it is vital you know of the four missing towns (Ungar - 2430, Sziget - 2730, Vinnitsa - 3627, and Kisinev - 3831). This is particularly important to allow AH reinforcements to train to the base of the Carpathians. Fortresses (of which there were very many) are not marked on the map as such but represented by their garrison markers. This would permit you to do a variant where the Russians stripped the fortresses to supplement their ammo and artillery. In the past Russia appears to be a large and empty land. When Eagles Fight does not repeat this calumny, there is plenty of interaction of rivers, towns and forest (together with the major marsh areas). It compares extremely favourably with the Simonitch map for the Miranda Charles XII game (? On To Moscow). Counters The counters are big ones (5/8 inches I think) and are in strong and clear layout (give or take a less helpful font on the Russians). The majority are Corps level. They have Attack, Defence and Move factors. A large number of units are missing being the 1914 cavalry which Ted rejects as ineffective, since half their horses were dead or ill within a few weeks their tactical skill is perhaps less to blame than bad-fodder and poor saddles (the latter for the Austrians anyway). The Germans are white on black, high-value units. Most are double-sided (very important this - see below) certainly the Reserve and Active Corps are (the latter having a different symbol to remind you of their +1 modifier if on their first step). There are a number of one-sided Landwehr Corps counters, plus cavalry and some very important heavy artillery formations. While the Germans get a lot of units they have many fewer replacements than the Russians and accordingly their dead-pile can mount alarmingly. The Russians come into two main varieties one-step Corps or two-step Corps (there are other weaker one-steppers and a few cavalry). The combat system inflicts step losses on the attackers (the defender can absorb some by retreat) so unless you have a stack of attackers OR a double-stacker a loss can blow a hole in your line, opening the possibility of a concentric attack. On defence however the one-step corps can be useful when facing powerful German attacks (because if eliminated they only take step replacement unlike the two-stepper which is only marginally stronger but just as dead in an elimination). [In practice Russian doctrine favoured a strong front line - to prevent the breakthrough - rather than defence in depth - to absorb the breakthrough]. You can also chose at vital moments whether you need to bung holes in the line (bring one-steppers back from the dead) or build a punchy force (bring back two steppers). There is no Russian heavy artillery (or perhaps more accurately no heavy artillery doctrine, cf French tanks in 1940). The Austro-Hungarian army is weak, both in numbers and (I think) simulation. It has barely enough units to cover its front, loses them swiftly (they are one steppers) and then replaces them slowly. I just cannot see it as being possible to launch the number of attacks they did and continue to exist. Ingeniously Austrian Corps while all one-steppers come back from the dead with a weaker strength to cover all those dead cadres. In the short term my suspicions centres fewer replacements than necessary. However, by not attacking (a thing which the Austrians always did) the balance may be correct - in the two-wrongs-make-a-right sense. I will look at the position further below. Sequence Opens The sequence opens with Random Events which work pretty well at giving one the feel of other fronts impinging on this one. Then the Russians and Central Powers place reinforcements and replacements. The number of replacements is a key driver of activity. There is then strategic movement for both sides, this permits the Russians to move into Poland but otherwise Russia and Austria have to stop at their old national borders in moving troops forward. The Germans do have a limited ability to push troops by rail into Poland as they re-engineer the lines. The strategic movement occurs from town/city to town/city. It can be combined with movement in the player turn. Both sides then have their own player turn, Move, Fight, Check Attrition. Finally a victory check completes the turn. There are six monthly turns and two two-monthly turns in a year. The Russians get many more replacements than the Austrians who in turn outpace the Germans. Up until 1915 the Central Powers keep close to (and in some turns surpass) the Russians but in 1916 the numbers favour the Russians and one gets a real feel for why the French wanted the Russians as allies. These replacements levels will frequently be adjusted downward as other fronts take the scarce resources. But it gets worse than this a Russian replacement point can yield a 5-6-4, an Austrian will get a 3-4-3 and since a German Active Corps is worth 6-7-4 I guess one repple yields a mere 3-3-4 - not even as good as our KuK chums (although Landwehr steps yield a better harvest). However, if you bring back your Germans as one steppers only their value is closer to that of the Russians. The harsh choice of shovelling out half-trained men to block holes in the line or holding them back to form articulated combat units is one which you will encounter. The Russians are quite simply terrifying in their ability to take and recover from losses. The Turn One rules are limited to an enforced Russian first move into East Prussia (unless you elect for the free set-up) and one off the Combat Values for Russian units on attack or defence on Turn One (slow mobilisation). Norman Stone (following Dobrorolski who organised the thing) argues that the North-Western Front units were at full strength (many of them being at their peace-time station) so you may care to disregard this. Random Events neatly insert the influence of other fronts. Their historical appropriateness is covered by having a 1915 list and a 1916-1917 list. The twelve events cover a wide range of possibilities. There are the internal Russian matters: The Tsar takes Command (this covers the removal of Grand Duke Nicholas). The Stavka counter is removed and the Revolution advanced one notch. The Tsar Decrees Reforms, revolution checks are reduced Bread, Peace, Land: revolution checks increase as Bolsheviks go into action (at least three cities being in enemy hands being the prerequisite). Allied armies lending Russia a hand Allied Offensive on the Western Front, Major Allied Offensive on the Western Front, Italians launch Izonzo Offensive, Allied Victory at Gallipoli. Central Power reinforcements are lost, units withdrawn from the Front (to return later at a date determined by a die-roll) and Shell Shortages reduced Russian Armies on other fronts influencing matters Russians suffer a Defeat in the Caucasus Decisive Russian Victory in the Caucasus Central Power policies influencing matters Italy remains Neutral Austro-Hungarian Offensive in Italy Verdun: Units and replacements withdrawn. It removes 6 steps per turn (+1 Heavy Artillery unit) for TWO turns (12 steps and both Heavy Artillery in total). Each step is half a corps, or between 1 and 2 divisions so about 18 divisions go West (literally). Historically this happened just before the Brusilov Offensive, in the midst of Conrad von Hotzendorf's Italian ambitions. Each Random Event has sufficient preconditions to ensure that no great violence is done to historical accuracy. Supply and ZOCs are not as vital as in many games. One can always move out of supply. But if one is not back in supply after combat you perish. Supply is the usual infinite-length supply line stuff. ZOCs are non-existent. At 25 miles across a hex some presence is needed to block the space so a lack of ZOCs is acceptable, but the removal of cavalry formations (on the grounds that they were ineffective in combat) means that terrain that was previously loosely covered by cavalry (although not always effectively) is now open requiring a full corps. Of course with no ZOCs enemy formations can penetrate your line, but unless they (in turn) occupy all the hexes adjacent to your formations you can still retreat into empty hexes (because they in turn exert no ZOCs). The major reason for penetrating a line is to achieve a concentric attack (+1 in combat if Germans, +2 for the rest) which is enough to (at the very least) take the risk out of attacking. Keys of the Game The concentric attack is one of the keys of the game. All parties certainly feared having their flanks turned, although (argues Stone) "This reflected old-fashioned views of warfare. In earlier days, to have an enemy on the strategic flank was to risk all manner of tactical disadvantages - the enemy cavalry could cut communications with ease. Now, with cavalry so greatly reduced in serviceability, this danger was not so great". While this is undoubtedly true it is also the case that the fear existed. However, the lack of command control and All-Seeing Eye mean that any such gap is pounced on by skilled gamers in ways denied to our Archdukes in their command wagons. Combat is odds based with losses in terms of steps, breakthroughs and eliminations. Step losses must be absorbed by the attackers but one at least can be absorbed by retreat for the defence. Breakthroughs permit an advance and eliminations clear the relevant hex (and this is the case no matter how many steps occupy the hex). Before any modifiers a 1:1 attack (all combats are voluntary and you can bunch up) will produce 8 Attacker losses and 5 Defender losses. Assuming the defender can retreat this will become 8 to 1. The sort of result you would expect for this front. Apart from basic combat factors there is no skill benefit for the Germans as such and while artillery and Shell Shortages will give our Teutonic chums for a time a feeling of superiority it is a false one. The incompetence of the Russians is legendary, but to Ted Raicer it is just mythology. I suspend my judgement on the matter, but if you are playing the Germans you must respect your opponent (which means kicking him when he is down) If it was to be simulated it would need to be by means of Leader Counters and an inappropriate Attack Doctrine (see below). Such a system might be more historical but it would cut across the XTR approach of making their games approachable and open to player influences. There are many other modifiers: STAVKA can supply a +1; German Active Corps with no losses present a +1 to cover artillery support and training; Concentric attacks can give a +1/+2; German Heavy Artillery can give a +3 (which would alter the 1:1 by reducing Attacker losses from 8 to 3); terrain reduces attacks; the Brusilov Offensive provides advantages against Austro-Hungarian units; and fortresses exert a -1 (which would change those 1:1 results to 7 losses to none - only elims take out fortresses). Where the enemy has big stacks (three corps in the game although Ted Raicer recommends two stacks maximum) and lots of modifiers one defends in depth with many lines of reserves, in other cases a single line with stacking may work. Although cavalry units can retreat before combat they can be immediately followed up and their pursuers fight units they contact during their turn. Clever Twist A clever twist is the use of two HQ markers representing army major offensives. These can be used once every two turns. The STAVKA marker gives a die-roll advantage and prevents Shell Shortages be applied adjacent to it. The OberOst marker permits a second attack phase within range of this counter. The latter permits you to either crumble a position at double speed OR do Tannenberg (you need to launch two flanking attacks either side of Second Army, then in the second attack use concentric factors to eliminate the now encircled corps). Both are powerful and the difference between them very strong at reflecting the differences between the two armies. The Brusilov Offensive is most interestingly simulated. This three turn structure is not mandatory. It provides adjustments of +3, +2 and +1 for each of the respective turns on attacks of 2:1 and 1:1 only (reflecting the unconcentrated nature of the attacks). However these only affect Austro-Hungarian units, and the losses increase Shell Shortages and the chances of revolution. Shell Shortages are one of the cleverest mechanisms (although some may object to them as a matter of history). They are vital in simulating the rhythm of the campaign. In 1914 and early 1915 the Russians are still living off their shell stocks. By May 1915 through to August 1915 the effect of the unprecedented use of shells increases dramatically. The rule calls for a die-roll which gives a number of units suffering shell shortages. Half these markers are placed by one player half by the other. There are some rules to prevent "naughty" placings but in some turns 6 Russian corps will be affected where the Central Powers decide, they are halved on defence and attack, and this (combined with OberOst) is enough to rip open the line in the best tradition of Gorlice-Tarnow. This rule ushers in the key period for Central power offences Victory centres around the Russians racking up three Austrian victory points (Czernowicz, the Dukla Pass and Przemzyl plus their cities) and a number of German cities. This situation is unlikely unless the German has mounted some massed and unlucky attacks early on in the game OR late in the game (as can easily happen) the Russian simply outlasts the Germans and rips their lines apart once the Shell Shortages disappear. The Central Powers win by tipping Russia in Revolution. This is a function of 1d6 plus the number of Central Power controlled cities (Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, Talinin, Petrograd, Smolensk, Gomel, Kovno, Vina, Minsk, Kiev and Odessa - most of these avoided occupation for a long long time) plus modifiers (the Tsar taking command, the Brusilov Offensive and "Peace, Bread, Land" all increase by one, the Tsar decreeing reforms decreases by one) is compared to the score per turn (8 until 1916 where it goes up to 11). If you equal or exceed the number it is curtains for the Romanovs. To be seriously in contention the Central Powers are going to have to be deep into Lithuania, and this alone may indicate a strong northern policy on the offence. Balance of Power The game is particularly strong in covering the differing balance of power on the front. Some accounts feature Tannenberg as if it caused the eventual Russian defeat. But in reality this was a front where victory and defeat were serially unfaithful friends. The Germans can with luck nip off Samsonov in Masuria but the Austrians enforced offensive in Galicia is likely to leave vast holes in their lines (historically at one stage a gap 75 miles lay open - three hexes). There was still enough strength after Tannenberg for the Russians to continue to threaten Germany until 1915 and the winter campaigns including Lodz were largely to push the Russians back from the Reich's borders. The Carpathian campaigns in the winter saw continued AH offensives. The middle of 1915 was the German happy time with Gorlice-Tarnow but by the time the shell-shortage ended and the losses took hold of the Germans in 1916 the Russians were back launching offensives (of which Brusilov's was but one). When Eagles Fight covers this oscillation well, with the exception of the underplayed KuKs (who feel a bit whoozy). Weaker Where the game is (historically) weaker is that there is nothing to stop a negative Russian refusing to attack and simply sitting with multiple lines awaiting his fate. Similarly, for the Austrians. Well not quite nothing. The replacements are handed out each turn and you can only retain four a turn so you may find you have enough spare to occasionally launch a sally because otherwise they are going to be wasted. But while that works to a small degree there is always the risk of the pacific Russian leaving the German with an impossible task. Why would this not have happened? Well in game terms because the Russian is missing his chance of "going for gold" and Manly American Gamers (Silly MAGgers as we call them) would never do such a thing. The Russian can only win if he captures key German and Austrian Cities - but of course by doing this means he risks losing because the loss levels may be such that his replacements cannot save him in reverse. Furthermore, by letting the Central Powers battle away forever in 1916 there is a real chance of mounting a powerful Russian offensive to break through. In short you can win in the fourth quarter as well as the first as Russians. But in reality the real reason all sides attacked whenever they could was that their allies and their governments demanded it. If you fail to attack you lose Employment Victory Points and it is off to the Peter-and-Paul with you. Like most (all?) World War One games When Eagles Fight when it comes to it takes the commander out of the vicious circle in which he found himself in reality. Conrad von Hötzendorf may have been more aggressive than was sensible for his armies but he followed imperatives markedly different from those of the player of When Eagles Fight. Just to keep oneself in work and one's allies in the war all sides needed to court disaster. Of course Ted Raicer is at least halfway there with his Random Events which strip away resources to other fronts, but within the Eastern Front itself he gives the gamer a far greater freedom than he should have if he seeks a historical contest. A further area of weakness is the lack of any system to handle the gradual arrival of trench warfare in late 1915 and early 1916. If I read the sources aright by the time the great retreat ended German numbers and supplies were both in short supply. To bolster the front a policy of entrenchment followed that left the numerical superiority of the Russians unable to break through on the Strypa or at Lake Narotch. The Russians (per Stone) lapsed into a policy of passivity having first convinced themselves that failure was shell-based when they found they had the shells but still failed they threw in their hands. Brusilov's attack was intended to show this argument was fallacious although at a fearsome long-term cost to both the Russian and Habsburg Empires. Without any way of demonstrating this change When Eagles Fight presents the Russians with a more easy offensive situation than history would perhaps permit. Indeed the remarkable fluidity of 1914 and 1915 stands in marked contrast to 1916 and 1917. Even the Brusilov Offensive's butchers bill cannot disguise that it was not an exercise in capturing terrain. Given the limits of the counter-mix I cannot see an easy way around this problem, nor at this stage could I guess as how the trenches should be treated. Were they odds reducing, or loss-absorbing, or both? Whatever they were they are not here. Minor Points A couple of minor areas also arise. When Eagles Fight avoided the Gorlice-Tarnow concept of having armies and generals (whose individual battle-plans generated much of the opportunity of the real campaigns). However, in so doing it avoided the enmity between the two Russian Fronts (Warsaw Military District and Kiev Military District) who effectively carved the cake up into two and were damned if they would release reserves to other Fronts even if the enemy pressed harder still. I also thought the fortress siege rules did not work. Essentially you capture fortresses by assault. Concentric attacks do not work on them, their garrisons have a DRM but are pretty weak and can only be killed by an "E" (elimination) result. However, loading the glacis with lots of extra garrison troops does not exempt them from dying properly (they do suffer the CRT results), although it can make siege a very long job. It is my impression that in practice the fortresses, especial Przemysl, fell to an old-fashioned blockade (in this case by a separate army - 11th under Selivanov). I feel that some system akin to The King's War would be best - blockade points accruing each turn so that the Austrians can see how close surrender is and mass for a rescue. The siege of Przemysl while described as a heroic defence gets short shrift from Norman Stone - "the defenders had, in reality, very little to do but wait, since the Russians had little heavy artillery to knock down the defences, and could not manoeuvre such heavy guns as they had". Austria-Hungary: Hervig gives the Austrian forces as 38 infantry and 10 Cavalry Divisions (assuming both the A and B Staffel were in position) plus 13 German divisions, facing an astonishing 96 infantry and 37 cavalry from the Russians. (Although I reckon 30 of these were facing the German units). A figure made all the worse by the size of Russian divisions which were (according to Hervig) 60% bigger in terms of numbers. Conrad von Hotzendorf was sticking the KuK's head into jaws more than twice his army's size. The AG armies were deployed as follows: Dankl's First Army at Krasnik north of the San, Auffenberg's Fourth Army on Dankl's right flank as far as Rava-Ruska. Then a gap of quite enormous proportions down to Brudermann's Third Army fighting between Tarnopol and Czernowitz - a gap of at least three hexes to be blocked (one hopes) by Bohm-Ermolli's Second Army coming across the Carpathians. These three KuK Armies were facing four Russian Armies (including one led by Brusilov) with a fifth forming in Russian Poland. Clearly the KuK generals had not read the rules about concentric attacks - they were living in cloud-KuKoo land (Ed: that's it you're fired again). However, in their defence the fact that a huge hole lay between the armies was not necessarily as easily identifiable to the Russians as it is to a gamer. Firstly air reconnaissance was in its infancy, secondly the useless cavalry divisions of both sides (which Ted Raicer misses out as being entirely ineffectual) rather than scouting were busy skirmishing with each other. Phil Sheridan would have been fit to be tied! In Galicia the problem was particularly limited by the way the Armies lined up. The Russian 9th (forming in the early months) and 4th Armies double-teamed Dankl, 5th Russian fought 4th Austrian, and then 3rd and 8th Russians clashed with Brudermann. This got the Russians two double teams, but no-one tried to race through the middle to sack the quarterback. In practice this could only be handled by having HQs with limited command radii that would prevent excessive concentric attacks simply because the armies would be too widely spread - a major change to the mechanisms. Austrians vs. Russians In the game the 16 Austrian Corps (with extras this agrees to the 34 divisions mentioned above) including the B Staffel are facing 16 Russian Corps with more on the way, and with additional steps for some Russian units the opportunity exists for much greater concentrations of power. With the KuKs forced to attack they have to come forward and expose themselves to the simultaneous flank collapse which the Russians had planned for them. After these losses the Austrians will usually run for the hills. However, they were sufficiently resilient to make further offensives that year and (utter madness) in the depths of winter in the Carpathians. They would soon vanish in the game. I can only think that the game needs amending so as to increase the number of Austrian replacements and to require a number of attacks until even Conrad von Hotzendorf identifies his army is outclassed. This gives with one hand and takes away with the other. [The When Tigers Fight issue of Command contains the counters for a counter-Schlieffen Plan with a large German commitment in the east]. Ted Raicer responds I agree with most of your points. (Well, save one-that the Russians can win just by going on the defensive. Tried that repeatedly in playtesting and it almost never worked. If the CP are not kept off balance by attacks in the early part of the game they can organise a really crushing blow when the Heavy Artillery arrive.) Your points about the KuK are valid, and in fact I had leader rules, mandatory attacks etc. in an earlier version (then called Armies of the Tsar). They were dropped, as you suspected, for reasons of "inclusiveness" (not just simplicity but the aversion of so many gamers to command restrictions). In the end, I did indeed settle for representing the KuK by letting two wrongs (no mandated attacks, fewer replacements) cancel out. But going the other way would certainly be valid, and not harm the overall design, so how about trying something like this (this is off the top of my head): Double the Austrian RPs in 1915 only. At the start of each turn, starting on turn 2, roll 1 die -if the number rolled is less than the number of full strength 2 sided corps the Austrians have on the board (in other words ignore all 3-4-3's) they must make at least one attack at 1-1 or better involving such a corps that turn or lose that turn's RPs. (If such an attack was physically impossible because no Russian unit was in range of such an Austrian unit, there is no penalty.) Back to Perfidious Albion #95 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 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