War. What is it good for?

hobbsyoyo said:

Yes war weariness was in CIV but not CiV. But you are missing two important factors in CiV completely.

When you are winning a war and annexing/puppeting cities, you are going to accumulate a lot of unhappiness. This acts as war-weariness as your people transition from conquerors to occupiers and you now have to meet the needs of the people in your new cities (who hate you for conquering them).

If you are losing a war, then you are going to lose access to luxuries, bonuses, buildings and wonders that keep your happy faces up. This will cause unhappiness, and acts like war weariness.

If you aren't winning or losing, you will suffer unhappiness as tiles get pillaged over the span of the war.

Click to expand...

Just to add to this, if you're able to wage war while focusing on happiness you can somewhat negate the effects in CiV5. So if you're in a low casualty low expense war, "weariness" should really be negated. As in the city state example, I don't believe that is a scenario that should be addressed by a mechanic like war weariness. So we picked off a city states worker, who cares, we're autocrats!

So its not the declaration of war (wars can be cold too) that should matter so much as what is the impact of being at war on the population. For my playing style, I prefer the system they've implemented in CiV as well.

Do wonder though if they shouldn't have some type of "body count" penalty which accounts for significant loss of life over time ? Or would that be accounted for in an inability to produce growth buildings/improvements ?

Cassus Belli system like Europa Universallis is seriously needed.

This is a must.

whyidie said:

Do wonder though if they shouldn't have some type of "body count" penalty which accounts for significant loss of life over time ? Or would that be accounted for in an inability to produce growth buildings/improvements ?

Click to expand...

Yeah I don't know how you'd do a body count, but it would be interesting to see how many people have died. Of course, it would be a bit wonky since units don't cost population points, but I guess what you said about the opportunity costs of not making buildings or improvements applies - although it'd be hard to stretch that into the demographics of your army somehow.

nokmirt said:

Cassus Belli system like Europa Universallis is seriously needed.

This is a must.

Click to expand...

Haven't played Europa Universallis, but I agree nonetheless.

hobbsyoyo said:

Yes war weariness was in CIV but not CiV. But you are missing two important factors in CiV completely.

When you are winning a war and annexing/puppeting cities, you are going to accumulate a lot of unhappiness. This acts as war-weariness as your people transition from conquerors to occupiers and you now have to meet the needs of the people in your new cities (who hate you for conquering them).

If you are losing a war, then you are going to lose access to luxuries, bonuses, buildings and wonders that keep your happy faces up. This will cause unhappiness, and acts like war weariness.

If you aren't winning or losing, you will suffer unhappiness as tiles get pillaged over the span of the war.

One last thing, if unhappiness dips below -20, then you risk a rebellion every single turn where barbarian units with your most advanced technology will appear near the capital and go on the rampage. When I'm winning a war, I always think of these guys as the insurgency that popped up from the newly conquered lands.

All in all, while CiV doesn't have direct war weariness, I feel these features do a great job of standing in for it.

Click to expand...

Great is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? When you can be in a millenia-long stalemate, losing the equivalent of 100,000's of troops your people will still be ecstatic as long as luxuries are not pillaged (and they frequently aren't). If you quickly and brutally win a war without losing a single unit your people can wind up furious, or even revolt.

No, 'war-weariness' is not modeled.

hobbsyoyo said:

If territory isn't changing hands, how does these wars amount to more than just skirmishes?

Click to expand...

The First World War was just some skirmishing, then?

hobbsyoyo said:

If the AI doesn't want to end a war, why is this a problem? Because you want wars to have a shelf-life? This doesn't reflect reality and I don't see how it would add anything to the game aside from satisfying you. If you aren't winning (by winning I mean taking territory), then they aren't losing anything beside replaceable units. What is the AI's incentive to quit or offer terms that amount to anything more than a no-fault cease fire?

Click to expand...

Yes, wars should have a shelf-life...wars cannot, and do not, go on forever. Also, the AI's incentive should be "I'm losing units". Remember, these aren't just 'units' they are the AI's citizens, drafted or otherwise coerced to fight. You cannot go on slaughtering your own population forever in futile efforts without some sort of push back.

hobbsyoyo said:

As for an endless war with an AI, this has happened irl all the time. The Persians and the Romans fought pretty much through their entire existence even after their borders became pretty static. North and South Korea are still technically at war and still attack each other occasionaly. These are but a few examples.

Click to expand...

Border skirmishing on the frontiers is to be expected....but it isn't "war" in the true sense of the word (see the British and French 'wars' in North America before 1754). Likewise, the North and South Korea situation is not a "War" anymore than the Cold War was. If it were a real war the border guards would be shooting at each other, and both nations would make efforts to try to 'win' militarily (which neither side is genuinely doing).

Now, there is an argument as to whether or not the ancient and medieval periods should have war-weariness....but it is an area I'm not well-acquainted with enough to provide any reasonable suggestions. I would say, though, that even in wars like the 100 years war there were long breaks and, frankly, very little military activity (thus making a comparison with more recent wars even more difficult). Personally, I would support war-weariness for the entire game for purposes of continuity, if nothing else. Perhaps certain techs or SPs could make war-weariness worse as the game goes on?

jjkrause84 said:

Border skirmishing on the frontiers is to be expected....but it isn't "war" in the true sense of the word (see the British and French 'wars' in North America before 1754). Likewise, the North and South Korea situation is not a "War" anymore than the Cold War was. If it were a real war the border guards would be shooting at each other, and both nations would make efforts to try to 'win' militarily (which neither side is genuinely doing).

Now, there is an argument as to whether or not the ancient and medieval periods should have war-weariness....but it is an area I'm not well-acquainted with enough to provide any reasonable suggestions. I would say, though, that even in wars like the 100 years war there were long breaks and, frankly, very little military activity (thus making a comparison with more recent wars even more difficult). Personally, I would support war-weariness for the entire game for purposes of continuity, if nothing else. Perhaps certain techs or SPs could make war-weariness worse as the game goes on?

Click to expand...

I'd love to have this debate with you, but as nefloyd noted, we're probably flirting with a thread lock or at least a scolding from a mod. Feel free to PM if you would like to discuss the historical merits - I'm not trying to just ignore you. This goes for Kwami as well.

jjkrause84 said:

Yes, wars should have a shelf-life...wars cannot, and do not, go on forever. Also, the AI's incentive should be "I'm losing units". Remember, these aren't just 'units' they are the AI's citizens, drafted or otherwise coerced to fight. You cannot go on slaughtering your own population forever in futile efforts without some sort of push back.

Click to expand...

They are just 'units' because neither you or the AI have to spend population to make them. They do count as people in the 'pointy sticks' demographics I guess, but if you aren't using population points to make them, then they are just 'units'. Especially when you consider they can be around for almost 3k years. There is no draft mechanic in CiV either.

jjkrause84 said:

Great is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? When you can be in a millenia-long stalemate, losing the equivalent of 100,000's of troops your people will still be ecstatic as long as luxuries are not pillaged (and they frequently aren't). If you quickly and brutally win a war without losing a single unit your people can wind up furious, or even revolt.

No, 'war-weariness' is not modeled.

Click to expand...

Considering the happiness function also performs other roles than just war weariness, and given my feelings on how a war weariness function would further hamper the AI, I do think it does a great job.

As myself and others have noted, the AI actually does do a good job asking for peace. It doesn't offer good terms all the time, but it does make the offer.

By time-limiting wars, you really are hampering both the AI and the player to make war-fighting decisions. You are forcing a mechanic that wasn't previously in the game to create an affect you desire. I haven't heard many others speak out on this problem the way they complain about diplomacy or the AI not using sound tactics. In fact, outside of this thread and two posters, I've never heard anyone complain at all.

As I've previously stated, if the AI were better at fighting it you wouldn't be complaining about never ending wars, they would come to some sort of conclusion. It also isn't bad programming if the AI doesn't see reason to sue for peace when it isn't losing territory and you refuse to pursue the war actively. Essentially, you're complaining about an issue that you have created.

If you and others choose not to invade the AI to end a war - that's your perogative. (You know, you don't have to keep the cities you take to end a war if you don't want to) But if the AI doesn't want to quit, if it wants to keep trying, why is that a problem? A human player would make the same decision often times -especially when they aren't losing ground.

Further, if people aren't unhappy with the way it plays now, why should the devs change it? I know they put a lot of thought into how this should work from a game play perspective and without a mountain of people saying it works badly, I tend to side with them.

Edit: Winning a quick brutal war and getting major unhappiness is a function of the newly conquered people being unhappy and revolting because they just don't like you. I don't see a problem with that at all.

As for fighting millenia long wars and people being happy about it - it's hard to answer that because you and Kwami are mixing historical and gameplay reasons together and when I do the same I get slammed because 'oh it's just a game'. I've outlined historical and gameplay reasons why war weariness wouldn't work. I'd be happy to take the historical arguments to PM, and I've yet to see a good rebuttal on my gameplay issues.

I think I've said this before, but not sure: The bonuses the AI gets at higher difficulties is going to negate your war weariness factor to a large extent but leave the player handicapped. At the lower difficulties, the exact opposite would happen.

I don't see why we could not discuss history here....surely that shoudl be one of the cores of CivFanatics, no? If Civ-players didn't love history they'd probably play something other than Civ!

In any case, a question: If war-weariness worked, gameplay-wise, in previous Civs, what is special about Civ 5 which precludes it?

EDIT: I understand that the unhappiness hit for taking cities is meant to represent the unhappily occupied citizens...but why does it 'take it out' on your home cities? This is one of the major issues with global happiness....it doesn't "model" anything, it's just a game mechanic.

No sense rehashing the same arguments, but...

hobbsyoyo said:

I think I've said this before, but not sure: The bonuses the AI gets at higher difficulties is going to negate your war weariness factor to a large extent but leave the player handicapped. At the lower difficulties, the exact opposite would happen.

Click to expand...

You still seem to be assuming that war wariness must be implemented as unhappiness (possibly because that's what Civ IV did). There are certainly alternative ways to implement it. Loss of population? A reduction in beakers? Diplomatic hits with other civs? That last one would be folks outside of your territory becoming wear with the perpetual wars (just like we're all weary of the middle east wars), so maybe it's a different mechanic.

I'm sure that there are more alternatives, too. And like anything, the effectiveness of this mechanic would obviously vary with difficulty level.

jjkrause84 said:

I don't see why we could not discuss history here....surely that shoudl be one of the cores of CivFanatics, no? If Civ-players didn't love history they'd probably play something other than Civ!

Click to expand...

We really haven't gotten out of hand with nastiness or anything, but after a while of wandering off topic they try to reign us in.

In any case, a question: If war-weariness worked, gameplay-wise, in previous Civs, what is special about Civ 5 which precludes it?

Click to expand...

I've only heard arguments for war-weariness that involved happiness and nothing else. Further, the way it's been talked about being implemented so far would essentially time-limit a war, especially for the AI. The AI sucks at war fighting enough already and forcing it into an artificial (in the sense that it isn't in the game already) peace through war-weariness is going to straight-jacket it even more and open the system up to exploits, IMHO.

Combat just works so different than it did in the past, and I think adding this particular change in the way it's been discussed would cause unintended side effects for combat, warfare and AI routines. I do believe the Dev's considered this at the very least before doing without it. I can't speak for their reasons, just speculate and give my own as I have been.

EDIT: I understand that the unhappiness hit for taking cities is meant to represent the unhappily occupied citizens...but why does it 'take it out' on your home cities? This is one of the major issues with global happiness....it doesn't "model" anything, it's just a game mechanic.

Click to expand...

It 'takes them out' the same way Vietnam protestors took out home cities 40 years ago. People back home can be unhappy about winning a war as the conquered can be unhappy about losing it. Also, with the barbarian spawn, I feel this helps account for the tendency of uprisings and insurrections that can be caused by foreing insurgents as well as internal usurpers during a war.

Kwami said:

No sense rehashing the same arguments, but...
You still seem to be assuming that war wariness must be implemented as unhappiness (possibly because that's what Civ IV did). There are certainly alternative ways to implement it. Loss of population? A reduction in beakers? Diplomatic hits with other civs? That last one would be folks outside of your territory becoming wear with the perpetual wars (just like we're all weary of the middle east wars), so maybe it's a different mechanic.

I'm sure that there are more alternatives, too. And like anything, the effectiveness of this mechanic would obviously vary with difficulty level.

Click to expand...

I've countered it as an unhappiness mechanic because, AFAIK, there's been no mention of other ways (till now) to implement it in this thread - and that's how (IIRC) it worked in past games.

Actually, I kind of like the diplo hits with other civs...it could be analogous to trade embargoes and the like where a 3rd party gets mad at one civ for fighting another. Of course, that actually is in the game already I guess, but I guess it could be rejiggered.

My biggest objections to any more war-weariness mechanics are that:
It could artificially time-limit a war
It could straight jacket an already tactically challenged AI
Could be exploited in unforseen ways
Upper level AIs could safely ignore war-weariness, a player couldn't
Lower level players could safely ignore war-weariness but the AI couldn't

hobbsyoyo said:

We really haven't gotten out of hand with nastiness or anything, but after a while of wandering off topic they try to reign us in.


I've only heard arguments for war-weariness that involved happiness and nothing else. Further, the way it's been talked about being implemented so far would essentially time-limit a war, especially for the AI. The AI sucks at war fighting enough already and forcing it into an artificial (in the sense that it isn't in the game already) peace through war-weariness is going to straight-jacket it even more and open the system up to exploits, IMHO.

Combat just works so different than it did in the past, and I think adding this particular change in the way it's been discussed would cause unintended side effects for combat, warfare and AI routines. I do believe the Dev's considered this at the very least before doing without it. I can't speak for their reasons, just speculate and give my own as I have been.

Click to expand...

War-weariness doesn't necessarily have to cripple an empire...but it would provide at least a tangible benefit to moving from a protracted war to peace. I really do no see how this would hamstring the computer. Can you provide a plausible scenario?

[War-weariness] 'takes them out' the same way Vietnam protestors took out home cities 40 years ago. People back home can be unhappy about winning a war as the conquered can be unhappy about losing it.

Click to expand...

Vietnam is a poor example to counter the point I was making (in fact, it reinforces it!), if for no other reason than the US lost the war. A long, drawn-out war where progress is hard to measure SHOULD create war-weariness. In Civ5 terms people would never have got upset about Vietnam, but there would have been a near-collapse of society after Gulf War I. Nuts!

jjkrause84 said:

War-weariness doesn't necessarily have to cripple an empire...but it would provide at least a tangible benefit to moving from a protracted war to peace. I really do no see how this would hamstring the computer. Can you provide a plausible scenario?

Click to expand...

You define forcing an AI to give up a protracted war as a benefit. This is where I disagree with you. I feel it's unwarranted, forced, unrealistic and could upset the strategic balance and feel of the game.

Aside from all of the reasons I listed in my previous post, I will indulge you with a possible scenario. I have one caveat, that this is but one of many unforseen scenarios:

You are attacked by a runaway AI with a much bigger empire from another continent. You have superior defensive positions and manage to turtle yourself pretty well. You defeat most of the initial attack and try desperately to rush buy enough units to hold your ground.

The AI techs artillery while you are stuck with crossbows and trebuchets - and due to it's larger empire, it builds a fresh batch of units and sends them your way on a long journey across the ocean and through your continent. Before the invasion can arrive, the built in war-weariness timer counts down and forces the AI to sue for peace.

It could have won. It should have won. But it didn't because you wanted a war-weariness timer. How is this fun other than the fact that it allowed you to win an unwinnable scenario? The argument that the AI doesn't attack in waves is bunk - especially since the tactical upgrade it got with G&K.

Vietnam is a poor example to counter the point I was making (in fact, it reinforces it!), if for no other reason than the US lost the war. A long, drawn-out war where progress is hard to measure SHOULD create war-weariness. In Civ5 terms people would never have got upset about Vietnam, but there would have been a near-collapse of society after Gulf War I. Nuts!

Click to expand...

We were doing alright militarily in Vietnam, and we had even invaded the surrounded nations of Loas and Cambodia to root out Vietcong insurgents. This was particularly unpopular, and such invasions would also cause quite a bit of unhappiness in CiV. Not to mention the occupation of South Vietnam was essentially a puppeting mechanic, when translated to the video game. We pulled out because the war was unsustainably unpopular. You said:

I understand that the unhappiness hit for taking cities is meant to represent the unhappily occupied citizens...but why does it 'take it out' on your home cities? This is one of the major issues with global happiness....it doesn't "model" anything, it's just a game mechanic.

Click to expand...

My example answered your highlighted question. We didn't occupy Iraq in Gulf War I, and it was very popular - and since we weren't occupying, it wouldn't have caused a near-collapse in a hypothetical CiV environment. In fact, a lot of your complaints are that wars that don't involve a territory being gained or lost do not add unhappiness. This is exactly what happened in GWI. Your analysis is flawed, I'm sorry.

hobbsyoyo said:

You define forcing an AI to give up a protracted war as a benefit. This is where I disagree with you. I feel it's unwarranted, forced, unrealistic and could upset the strategic balance and feel of the game.

Aside from all of the reasons I listed in my previous post, I will indulge you with a possible scenario. I have one caveat, that this is but one of many unforseen scenarios:

You are attacked by a runaway AI with a much bigger empire from another continent. You have superior defensive positions and manage to turtle yourself pretty well. You defeat most of the initial attack and try desperately to rush buy enough units to hold your ground.

The AI techs artillery while you are stuck with crossbows and trebuchets - and due to it's larger empire, it builds a fresh batch of units and sends them your way on a long journey across the ocean and through your continent. Before the invasion can arrive, the built in war-weariness timer counts down and forces the AI to sue for peace.

It could have won. It should have won. But it didn't because you wanted a war-weariness timer. How is this fun other than the fact that it allowed you to win an unwinnable scenario?

Click to expand...

First off, war-weariness does present a 'timer' with firm "you MUST stop"...it merely provides an incentive to stop the war. Secondly, is there a reason the AI can't sue for peace while it's teching up in between waves? Are those ten turns (in which nothing would be happening anyway) going to make or break the larger effort?

We were doing alright militarily in Vietnam, and we had even invaded the surrounded nations of Loas and Cambodia to root out Vietcong insurgents. This was particularly unpopular, and such invasions would also cause quite a bit of unhappiness in CiV. Not to mention the occupation of South Vietnam was essentially a puppeting mechanic, when translated to the video game. We pulled out because the war was unsustainably unpopular.

Click to expand...

This is the popular perception, and the one perpetuated by the US military, but I do not think it is correct. The US inflicted countless tactical defeats against the NVA and VC. After Tet it would take years before the VC could launch serious efforts again (coordinated or otherwise). Unfortunately, tactical victories do not necessarily translate into strategic success in COIN. The US could not sap the Vietnamese will to continue, and thus could not win the war. Westmoreland essentially wasted the first few years trying to defeat the NVA militarily, rather than attacking the Viet Centre of Gravity (its population). Something along the lines of what the Brits did in Malaya would have been far more appropriate (although even that would nto have guaranteed success, owing to the Viet passion for freedom engendered by three decades of armed struggle against foreign invaders).

As for the US protesting, it peaked in 1968-9; the US did not pull out until 1973 (although, yes, the process took time). Not only did the US not pull out until 1973, but it had made substantial efforts in the early 70s to secure some form of victory. The most successful air campaigns (Linebacker I and II) were in the 70s. These campaigns allowed the US to reach a peace agreement with North Vietnam, which allowed the US to withdraw its forces and leave the South to their fate (Giap's forces would over-run Saigon just two years later). If US protesting had been the primary, rather than simply a contributing, cause for the US withdrawal then US forces would have withdrawn in a vastly different manner: it would likely have happened more quickly, and without the continued efforts to 'win' in the 70s.

We didn't occupy Iraq in Gulf War I, and it was very popular - and since we weren't occupying, it wouldn't have caused a near-collapse in a hypothetical CiV environment. In fact, a lot of your complaints are that wars that don't involve a territory being gained or lost do not add unhappiness. This is exactly what happened in GWI. Your analysis is flawed, I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

OK, I agree that GWI was a poor example, because the ground war was so quick, and the Coalition did not truly occupy. Perhaps this is a better example: Germany, 1940-1. Germany had won a series of short, sharp wars and stuck around to occupy the captured nations permanently, yet there was no war-weariness. To an extent, yes, any dissent would have been stifled by the Nazi state, but the reaction was not subdued...it was enthused. Another example: Britain in the Seven Years War: everyday Britons were rapturous with each successive conquest in North America, the Caribbean and India....no sign of war-weariness except amongst certain MPs who balked at the incredible debt Britain was racking up to support its continued war efforts.

jjkrause84 said:

The First World War was just some skirmishing, then?

Click to expand...

A lot of territory changed hands in the First World War.

Dachs said:

A lot of territory changed hands in the First World War.

Click to expand...

No, I know.....but the foremost image of the First World War is of the Western Front in which territorial changes were, relatively speaking, moderate.

[I'm a First World War historian so, I get it, trust me ]

jjkrause84 said:

First off, war-weariness does present a 'timer' with firm "you MUST stop"...it merely provides an incentive to stop the war. Secondly, is there a reason the AI can't sue for peace while it's teching up in between waves? Are those ten turns (in which nothing would be happening anyway) going to make or break the larger effort?

Click to expand...

Essentially a timer is the only way it's been described in this thread so far. Neither you or Kwami have gone into signficant detail other than to say you want war weariness to help end the 'endless war problem' (that I haven't seen others even mention). That's a timer, until you describe otherwise.

I didn't say the AI couldn't sue for peace, and it often does in similar situations. You asked me to lay out a reasonable situation where your vague new mechanic could be exploited and I did. Instead of offering a counterpoint on how the situation I outlined wouldn't apply to the fix you haven't defined, you've attacked the scenario. How is that fair or even constructive for this debate?

This is the popular perception, and the one perpetuated by the US military, but I do not think it is correct. etc....

Click to expand...

You can't tell me with a straight face that a global superpower that could absolutely level enemies across two oceans was beat by North Vietnam without taking war weariness into account. You can argue that we couldn't sap their will to fight. But for that to hold water you have to ignore what you've already admitted.

You said we didn't take it to their population, (my words now) we didn't take it to them hard. I'm not trying to downplay the autrocities we committed in that or any other war. But as you noted, and as I pointed out, we didn't fight that war with a take no prisoners, take control of the country mentality.

We never pushed into North Vietnam on the ground in a big way. Our drawdown began in 69 at the height of the protest. Yes, bombing increased, but there is a huge difference between our limited (in the context of the scope of our previous firebombing campaigns against civilians elsewhere) airial campaign and an outright invasion and occupation of the entirety of North Vietnam to bring it under US or S Vietnamese control.

Our goal to 'win' was to get the status quo back to where it was before our involvement, not to take over the North. And we gave up on that effort because our people were so against the war, against the draft and just in general unhappy and raging at home. Of course Northern stubborness and will to fight played a part in it, as did the supplies they got from abroad. But in any rational assesment of the conflict we gave up on keeping the status quo long before we had exhausted our potential to militarily defeat the North. War weariness and a lack of political will to pursue the conflict along traditional lines were mostly responsible for that.

How do any of your other examples about Germany or the French and Indian War adding anything to the debate? You've mentioned relatively short conflicts (or snippets of conflicts while ignoring the French resistance, the Polish uprising and everything else that has bearing on war weariness irl) which is wholly outside of anything to do with an 'endless war' situation in CiV. Especially with WWII you can't just snip out a short piece of the war and say 'ha! no war weariness!' and even if you do you are really only reinforcing my arguments that what we have already in game is fine. ---You get unhappiness taking or losing territory in the game, which accounts for unhappiness at home and in the new territories. How can you say with a straight face that early in the war people in France and elsewhere were not raging over the situation or that later in the war the German populace itself wasn't fed up with it? and rebellions happened in German occupied Europe in WWII (to use the game's mechanics) just like they actually do in CiV.

Dachs said:

A lot of territory changed hands in the First World War.

Click to expand...

Dachs! Didn't know you played CiV! Welcome to the party. This thread blew up faster than a texan holding a culture bomb

jjkrause84 said:

No, I know.....but the foremost image of the First World War is of the Western Front in which territorial changes were, relatively speaking, moderate.

[I'm a First World War historian so, I get it, trust me ]

Click to expand...

Really. Neat. I'm not caught up on the literature from the last couple years so well, but I remember the Zuber-Holmes/Foley Schlieffen catfight and it was possibly my favorite thing in journals ever. You have a bias anywhere in particular?

hobbsyoyo said:

Dachs! Didn't know you played CiV! Welcome to the party. This thread blew up faster than a texan holding a culture bomb

Click to expand...

I actually just got it on the recent Steam sale and have been poking around to see what the metagame looks like.

It's lots of fun. Did u pick up gods and kind too? If you have the scratch I highly recommend it. It is basically to CiV what BtS was to CIV. Major upgrade, it definately upped the fun level drastically. If u have any questions about CiV don't hesitate to ask

Dachs said:

Really. Neat. I'm not caught up on the literature from the last couple years so well, but I remember the Zuber-Holmes/Foley Schlieffen catfight and it was possibly my favorite thing in journals ever. You have a bias anywhere in particular?

Click to expand...

Don't forget Mombauer, she was writing about Schlieffen at the same time. I wish I could say a lot more but, this being a public forum I really probably shouldn't. I will, however, suggest you go out and pick up "Bloody Victory" (or "Three Armies on the Somme" if you are in the States) by William Philpott. It's "the" book on the battle of the Somme...came out in 2009.

Personally, I do the French army. Writing a book on Verdun at the moment (I have about three years to finish, and I've only just started....it's going to be rough).