Thank you!
Trench Warfare, A New Way of Thinking. by Viceroy63
Spoiler
Trench Warfare, A New Way of Thinking.
By Viceroy63
For the record and before all, I must express that no Tournament Organizers or Players of this type of setting were consulted for the writing of this article. This is simply my understanding of "Slow and Gradual Expansionism" which is how this type of game is won. At least that is the impression that I get after reading so many forum threads about Trench Warfare. Anyone wishing to correct or add further to my understanding of the following ideas and concepts is most welcomed to contact me through PM. I shall very much enjoy any and all dialog about this topic, especially if you have played or organized any TW games. I will even follow this article through with other articles as facts and figures come to my attention. Or better still, if you would like to write your own article on your strategy for TW games, it would be a privilege to post it right here in the strategy section of the Newsletter. A discussion thread also exist for this article as well and any strategy discussions that may ensue. The Link is at the bottom of the page. I would also enjoy very much being invited to any newly created threads on this topic. Thank You!
[1] I only recently learned about the new setting, “Trench Warfare.” Probably, like most of us, I assumed that it was some new World War I European map. But then like most of us, I discovered that it was a new setting on the same old maps but with a different twist to it. For those of us who are unfamiliar with this new setting, let me quickly lay it out for You. No more marching across continents and regions and conquering the world in one single turn. With this setting you can only conquer Adjacent Territories or Regions and then you can go no further on that turn. So for example on the classic map, if you conquer Moscow from Dubai, you can still conquer say Nairobi from Dubai but you can not conquer any region from Moscow on that turn as Moscow is a recently conquered region as would also be Nairobi for that turn. You must wait until the next turn to conquer from Moscow or Nairobi and again, any regions conquered from Moscow or Nairobi must then also wait until the next turn after that to be used to attack from there. Is everyone still with me so far?
[2] The setting is like for a time when armies fought and lived in trenches or dugouts and dug their way through the earth around to the enemy in order to outflank them. In their trenches they were safe from the flying bullets overhead, but the progress of the war efforts were slow and difficult. Now obviously this makes for a much longer game but it also allows for strategy and singular armies to play a more key role in the game. It also necessitates the forming of alliances. Something that in regular CC mode games is really not a desirable option because the game goes by so quickly (in the majority of the games) that no sooner is an alliance formed that the opportunity to take advantage of it by breaking the newly form alliance arrives. So why even bother? It even makes one appear like their word is no good. “Man, you make an alliance with me, only to break it?” But in TW, an early alliance can make all the difference if done correctly and last for a while or even till the end of the game if the alliance works well together. At least I am of that opinion.
[3] Now why am I of the opinion that alliances need to be formed in order to gain the advantage? Because the simple fact that there are no sweeping attacks mean that the world has to be conquered systematically by way of slow expansionism. There simply is no other way. Consider for example the strategy of the stack. This strategy works because like a spring uncoils and jumps forward, so is the potential energy that is stored in the stack, that is ready to spring forward in the assault. The potential power to eliminate another player is contained within the concentration of troops in that stack. But when the stacks can not jump then there is no advantage in the diverse stacks in different parts of the game map. In other words the single (1) standing army is now the objective to achieve, and not the different stacks.
[4] The stacks are now delegated to the position of a standing army in that Zone on TW games. It can not effect another zone or jump to another zone but must move around within it's adjacent regions one region at a time per turn. Since the standing army can only effect a zone more effectively than a stack (from a non TW game), because a stack no longer has any say in the matter because it no longer exist with the potential power that it does in a regular CC game map, then a strong standing army is what is required for the control of a zone. Imaging if you would, two players each using the different strategies just outlined. player “A” has three stacks of 10 troops in each stack in different parts of the game map and player “B” has just one standing army of 30 troops anywhere on the map. Let's say North America. Both have the same number of troops only in different uses. But the stacks can no longer effect the standing army in NA. Unless one of those stacks exist already in North America.
[5] Now obviously the standing army in North America commands more control in the NA zone, in a TW game, than any of the other stacks. None of the stacks can successfully stand against or even reach the standing NA army. At least not in the same turn. The three stacks must all be combined into one standing army in order to Challenge the standing army in North America. So it is this kind of warfare between singular armies rather then correctly position stacks waiting to just jump into the game play, that is the order of the day. Also the standing army can gradually progress forward leaving a secured zone behind. Since it has an ally guarding it's other border(s). This means that instead of several stacks vying for survival throughout the game map, you then have just one combined army (of 3 stacks in one), achieving the same objective, the security of the zone and the expansion of the borders. Many may not accept this new pattern for play but if slow expansionism is the way to win then this is how game play must proceed for greater success.
[6] Understanding this principle that the strategy of strong standing armies is the goal and not the stacks is why alliances then become a necessity. When you have to fight on all borders then you tend to distribute your troops more liberally because you are trying to hold on to all of your borders. But when one of your bordering sides is protected by an ally and naturally you are protecting your Allied border as well, then you can concentrate the distribution of your troops in a smaller area or region thus forming your standing army more easily. And this is why Alliances become a necessity in these types of game settings. If you try to do it alone then the game becomes that much more arduous and grueling with only minimal progress being made per turn as you play for Spoils in hope of receiving that timely right spoil which never comes because all the sets of spoils are timely in TW games. The player who establishes and maintains a standing army in their zones however, will eventually stand better then those who have only “stacks” here and there and everywhere.
[7] And so then this brings me to another thought. If slow and certain expansionism is the way to win, as it is in TW games, then does it not make sense to concentrate all of your attention into a single zone and expand outwardly from there? Or does having stacks spread throughout the game map offer any real assistance in conquering the world? In other words, on the one hand you are trying to just grab a slice of pizza on the run and on the other hand you are trying for the whole pizza pie on the run? It seems to me that grabbing a slice on the run is more of a doable option than trying to grab the whole Pizza Pie. And so is concentrating all of your efforts into a single zone more doable then having stacks all over the game map that are all eventually subject to attacks by different players during the course of the game, especially when the spoils get high enough. It has to be easier to maintain a single standing army in a zone rather then build up stacks all over the place. The single standing army will greatly benefit from all of your undivided attention where as your stacks will not.
[8] Here again we see where the need for an early alliance comes into play. Say you are going to concentrate in North America on the classic map. And so you set about concentrating and dropping and attacking solely in North America allowing all of your other troops throughout the rest of the world to face defeat and shame at the hands of other armies in those zones. Now at the same time another player is concentrating his efforts in Europe for example. Doing the same as you are and building a strong standing army in Europe at the cost of all of his other troops else where on the game map. Does it not make sense then that if North America and Europe form an Alliance that the border of Montreal and Reykjavic need not be built upon thus allowing the North American standing army to concentrate to the West and to the South. Similarly the European standing army can also concentrate to the East and to the South? Because neither player need to concern themselves with the North American/European border, then both standing armies could concentrate their war efforts to the trenches at hand and thus expand each one in their different, other directions.
[9] But some may ask? “Shouldn't one wait to see how the others are developed before allying yourself to anyone?” I say, “No!” The whole point of an alliance is to make it easier to develop in the first place. The sooner that alliances are made the sooner that the players can begin to benefit from those alliances. It matters not even if both armies are in the same zone, say in Asia. If in the early rounds an alliance is formed then one can develop to the East while the other develops to the West both covering each others borders making it easier to develop both armies and thus expand outward from there. Even the possibility of carding off of each can exist between Allies that are not attempting to take each others regions but simply carding out of necessity.
[10] Again I state that those who can form early alliances with other players, will have an advantage over those who do not. In the end, an early alliance can only; Promote stability in the regions; Create the possible card spot for those difficult situation or should troops become depleted; Assure protection to the borders of both players; Allow for the concentration of fire power in order to expand in other directions and; Most definitely gain the troop advantage over other players who are not allied to any other players in the game themselves. With so many Benefits and advantages to an early alliance, how can anyone possibly reject the idea right off hand? True that eventually alliances must be broken But I personally would rather enjoy the greater chance of making it to the number two position because I allied myself to another player, rather then face an early elimination from the game. And breaking the alliance is all in the timing, but that is for another article. Those who choose to go it alone will face just that in view of a superior standing army. An Early Elimination.
[11] Two thoughts that need to be addressed however:
One is that escalating spoils is the setting that should be used in these types of Trench Warfare games, unless you want your games to last an eternity. The escalating spoils then mean that eventually the bonus zones are not what you are trying to gain or control but a certain area or space for your standing army to grow and flourish in. This means the removal of others in your zone or area as quickly as possible becomes a priority before the spoils get really high and any stacks still in your area of even perhaps three troops could become a potential threat to your standing army in your zone. But as pointed out to me in conversation by Dhallmeyer; Escalating and Freestyle do not make a good combination for the most fairest of games as most people can not take full advantage of this and those who can will. I see now that the most fairest game setting would be Sequential with flat rate. A No spoils setting would tend to give the advantage to those who own the bonus regions and again, but it may not take forever to finish the game. And to me personally, Nuclear doesn't fit well with the theme of the setting either. Also, it would be best to put a round limit on these games as they will just tend to go on for ever otherwise.
[12] Two is that you will always encounter players who still play by the strategy of the “Stacks.” Given the opportunity to move a stack into your low populated zone will be enticing to them. But eventually this is what it comes down to. The fight for your zone or area. They must then either adapt to the new way of playing and face the eliminations of their stacks by all of their neighboring players or resign and retreat from your standing army in the zone. If you think about it, to invest troops into stacks only to lose the stacks is not logical. When the spoils get high enough the process of eliminating the stacks will commence. And with the elimination of the stacks could also come the elimination of players. So the very strategy of stacks is what could lead to your own elimination. But the player with a standing army in a zone under his control will then be able to march that standing army into battle later on in the game. After all these games will not be determined by the stacks or how many stacks, but by the sheer force of the standing armies that are left.
[13] So in summing this article up; The new way of thinking in Trench Warfare is the singular standing army and how best to build and to maintain it. You can not play this type of setting with the old style strategies and game play. A whole new book of strategy and game play must be written for TW games. The idea of building up stacks in diverse parts of the game map is no longer a functional concept but a dysfunctional one bound to bring disaster as the individual stacks are attacked by different players and disappear during the progression of the game as the spoils increase. The strategy of the stack could even lead to the elimination of players when the spoils get high enough. The building and maintaining of one standing army in the zone and later on, another second standing army as the need arises in order to expand into other zones thus allowing for the maximum fire power possible is, in my opinion, the way to go in these types of games. Expansionism can only come from a force that's within and that force is the singular standing army and not the strategically placed stacks all over the map that have little or no power in the face of a superior standing army. Those who commit to playing this type of setting with the old rule book are bound to learn a hard lesson in defeat.
All photos used in this article were compile from the following websites.
http://herolettersww1.blogspot.com/2010 ... m-wwi.html
And the Youtube Video from, Youtube.
By Viceroy63
For the record and before all, I must express that no Tournament Organizers or Players of this type of setting were consulted for the writing of this article. This is simply my understanding of "Slow and Gradual Expansionism" which is how this type of game is won. At least that is the impression that I get after reading so many forum threads about Trench Warfare. Anyone wishing to correct or add further to my understanding of the following ideas and concepts is most welcomed to contact me through PM. I shall very much enjoy any and all dialog about this topic, especially if you have played or organized any TW games. I will even follow this article through with other articles as facts and figures come to my attention. Or better still, if you would like to write your own article on your strategy for TW games, it would be a privilege to post it right here in the strategy section of the Newsletter. A discussion thread also exist for this article as well and any strategy discussions that may ensue. The Link is at the bottom of the page. I would also enjoy very much being invited to any newly created threads on this topic. Thank You!
[1] I only recently learned about the new setting, “Trench Warfare.” Probably, like most of us, I assumed that it was some new World War I European map. But then like most of us, I discovered that it was a new setting on the same old maps but with a different twist to it. For those of us who are unfamiliar with this new setting, let me quickly lay it out for You. No more marching across continents and regions and conquering the world in one single turn. With this setting you can only conquer Adjacent Territories or Regions and then you can go no further on that turn. So for example on the classic map, if you conquer Moscow from Dubai, you can still conquer say Nairobi from Dubai but you can not conquer any region from Moscow on that turn as Moscow is a recently conquered region as would also be Nairobi for that turn. You must wait until the next turn to conquer from Moscow or Nairobi and again, any regions conquered from Moscow or Nairobi must then also wait until the next turn after that to be used to attack from there. Is everyone still with me so far?
[2] The setting is like for a time when armies fought and lived in trenches or dugouts and dug their way through the earth around to the enemy in order to outflank them. In their trenches they were safe from the flying bullets overhead, but the progress of the war efforts were slow and difficult. Now obviously this makes for a much longer game but it also allows for strategy and singular armies to play a more key role in the game. It also necessitates the forming of alliances. Something that in regular CC mode games is really not a desirable option because the game goes by so quickly (in the majority of the games) that no sooner is an alliance formed that the opportunity to take advantage of it by breaking the newly form alliance arrives. So why even bother? It even makes one appear like their word is no good. “Man, you make an alliance with me, only to break it?” But in TW, an early alliance can make all the difference if done correctly and last for a while or even till the end of the game if the alliance works well together. At least I am of that opinion.
[3] Now why am I of the opinion that alliances need to be formed in order to gain the advantage? Because the simple fact that there are no sweeping attacks mean that the world has to be conquered systematically by way of slow expansionism. There simply is no other way. Consider for example the strategy of the stack. This strategy works because like a spring uncoils and jumps forward, so is the potential energy that is stored in the stack, that is ready to spring forward in the assault. The potential power to eliminate another player is contained within the concentration of troops in that stack. But when the stacks can not jump then there is no advantage in the diverse stacks in different parts of the game map. In other words the single (1) standing army is now the objective to achieve, and not the different stacks.
[4] The stacks are now delegated to the position of a standing army in that Zone on TW games. It can not effect another zone or jump to another zone but must move around within it's adjacent regions one region at a time per turn. Since the standing army can only effect a zone more effectively than a stack (from a non TW game), because a stack no longer has any say in the matter because it no longer exist with the potential power that it does in a regular CC game map, then a strong standing army is what is required for the control of a zone. Imaging if you would, two players each using the different strategies just outlined. player “A” has three stacks of 10 troops in each stack in different parts of the game map and player “B” has just one standing army of 30 troops anywhere on the map. Let's say North America. Both have the same number of troops only in different uses. But the stacks can no longer effect the standing army in NA. Unless one of those stacks exist already in North America.
[5] Now obviously the standing army in North America commands more control in the NA zone, in a TW game, than any of the other stacks. None of the stacks can successfully stand against or even reach the standing NA army. At least not in the same turn. The three stacks must all be combined into one standing army in order to Challenge the standing army in North America. So it is this kind of warfare between singular armies rather then correctly position stacks waiting to just jump into the game play, that is the order of the day. Also the standing army can gradually progress forward leaving a secured zone behind. Since it has an ally guarding it's other border(s). This means that instead of several stacks vying for survival throughout the game map, you then have just one combined army (of 3 stacks in one), achieving the same objective, the security of the zone and the expansion of the borders. Many may not accept this new pattern for play but if slow expansionism is the way to win then this is how game play must proceed for greater success.
[6] Understanding this principle that the strategy of strong standing armies is the goal and not the stacks is why alliances then become a necessity. When you have to fight on all borders then you tend to distribute your troops more liberally because you are trying to hold on to all of your borders. But when one of your bordering sides is protected by an ally and naturally you are protecting your Allied border as well, then you can concentrate the distribution of your troops in a smaller area or region thus forming your standing army more easily. And this is why Alliances become a necessity in these types of game settings. If you try to do it alone then the game becomes that much more arduous and grueling with only minimal progress being made per turn as you play for Spoils in hope of receiving that timely right spoil which never comes because all the sets of spoils are timely in TW games. The player who establishes and maintains a standing army in their zones however, will eventually stand better then those who have only “stacks” here and there and everywhere.
[7] And so then this brings me to another thought. If slow and certain expansionism is the way to win, as it is in TW games, then does it not make sense to concentrate all of your attention into a single zone and expand outwardly from there? Or does having stacks spread throughout the game map offer any real assistance in conquering the world? In other words, on the one hand you are trying to just grab a slice of pizza on the run and on the other hand you are trying for the whole pizza pie on the run? It seems to me that grabbing a slice on the run is more of a doable option than trying to grab the whole Pizza Pie. And so is concentrating all of your efforts into a single zone more doable then having stacks all over the game map that are all eventually subject to attacks by different players during the course of the game, especially when the spoils get high enough. It has to be easier to maintain a single standing army in a zone rather then build up stacks all over the place. The single standing army will greatly benefit from all of your undivided attention where as your stacks will not.
[8] Here again we see where the need for an early alliance comes into play. Say you are going to concentrate in North America on the classic map. And so you set about concentrating and dropping and attacking solely in North America allowing all of your other troops throughout the rest of the world to face defeat and shame at the hands of other armies in those zones. Now at the same time another player is concentrating his efforts in Europe for example. Doing the same as you are and building a strong standing army in Europe at the cost of all of his other troops else where on the game map. Does it not make sense then that if North America and Europe form an Alliance that the border of Montreal and Reykjavic need not be built upon thus allowing the North American standing army to concentrate to the West and to the South. Similarly the European standing army can also concentrate to the East and to the South? Because neither player need to concern themselves with the North American/European border, then both standing armies could concentrate their war efforts to the trenches at hand and thus expand each one in their different, other directions.
[9] But some may ask? “Shouldn't one wait to see how the others are developed before allying yourself to anyone?” I say, “No!” The whole point of an alliance is to make it easier to develop in the first place. The sooner that alliances are made the sooner that the players can begin to benefit from those alliances. It matters not even if both armies are in the same zone, say in Asia. If in the early rounds an alliance is formed then one can develop to the East while the other develops to the West both covering each others borders making it easier to develop both armies and thus expand outward from there. Even the possibility of carding off of each can exist between Allies that are not attempting to take each others regions but simply carding out of necessity.
[10] Again I state that those who can form early alliances with other players, will have an advantage over those who do not. In the end, an early alliance can only; Promote stability in the regions; Create the possible card spot for those difficult situation or should troops become depleted; Assure protection to the borders of both players; Allow for the concentration of fire power in order to expand in other directions and; Most definitely gain the troop advantage over other players who are not allied to any other players in the game themselves. With so many Benefits and advantages to an early alliance, how can anyone possibly reject the idea right off hand? True that eventually alliances must be broken But I personally would rather enjoy the greater chance of making it to the number two position because I allied myself to another player, rather then face an early elimination from the game. And breaking the alliance is all in the timing, but that is for another article. Those who choose to go it alone will face just that in view of a superior standing army. An Early Elimination.
[11] Two thoughts that need to be addressed however:
One is that escalating spoils is the setting that should be used in these types of Trench Warfare games, unless you want your games to last an eternity. The escalating spoils then mean that eventually the bonus zones are not what you are trying to gain or control but a certain area or space for your standing army to grow and flourish in. This means the removal of others in your zone or area as quickly as possible becomes a priority before the spoils get really high and any stacks still in your area of even perhaps three troops could become a potential threat to your standing army in your zone. But as pointed out to me in conversation by Dhallmeyer; Escalating and Freestyle do not make a good combination for the most fairest of games as most people can not take full advantage of this and those who can will. I see now that the most fairest game setting would be Sequential with flat rate. A No spoils setting would tend to give the advantage to those who own the bonus regions and again, but it may not take forever to finish the game. And to me personally, Nuclear doesn't fit well with the theme of the setting either. Also, it would be best to put a round limit on these games as they will just tend to go on for ever otherwise.
[12] Two is that you will always encounter players who still play by the strategy of the “Stacks.” Given the opportunity to move a stack into your low populated zone will be enticing to them. But eventually this is what it comes down to. The fight for your zone or area. They must then either adapt to the new way of playing and face the eliminations of their stacks by all of their neighboring players or resign and retreat from your standing army in the zone. If you think about it, to invest troops into stacks only to lose the stacks is not logical. When the spoils get high enough the process of eliminating the stacks will commence. And with the elimination of the stacks could also come the elimination of players. So the very strategy of stacks is what could lead to your own elimination. But the player with a standing army in a zone under his control will then be able to march that standing army into battle later on in the game. After all these games will not be determined by the stacks or how many stacks, but by the sheer force of the standing armies that are left.
[13] So in summing this article up; The new way of thinking in Trench Warfare is the singular standing army and how best to build and to maintain it. You can not play this type of setting with the old style strategies and game play. A whole new book of strategy and game play must be written for TW games. The idea of building up stacks in diverse parts of the game map is no longer a functional concept but a dysfunctional one bound to bring disaster as the individual stacks are attacked by different players and disappear during the progression of the game as the spoils increase. The strategy of the stack could even lead to the elimination of players when the spoils get high enough. The building and maintaining of one standing army in the zone and later on, another second standing army as the need arises in order to expand into other zones thus allowing for the maximum fire power possible is, in my opinion, the way to go in these types of games. Expansionism can only come from a force that's within and that force is the singular standing army and not the strategically placed stacks all over the map that have little or no power in the face of a superior standing army. Those who commit to playing this type of setting with the old rule book are bound to learn a hard lesson in defeat.
All photos used in this article were compile from the following websites.
http://herolettersww1.blogspot.com/2010 ... m-wwi.html
And the Youtube Video from, Youtube.
