From the game "To End All WArs", I expect...

[Templer]

I expect (Music) Preussens Gloria and the Radetzky Marsch on the German side.
And bring back the clock!

[Ironclad61]

I expect a reworked screen to show casualties, now you need count millions

[Templer]

I expect sub war and gas attacks.

[H Gilmer3]

I do hope that the naval war is a lot more detailed than any WW1 game I have seen to date.

[Shri]

The NAVAL war could never have been won by AXIS in real life but a concentrated effort on building U-Boats once war starts by stopping work on surface ships could have proved costly for the allies esp. UK. This should be modded well, the U-Boats should initially cause a lot of havoc in terms of economic points and National Will but later on (after extensive research) fall prey to allied destroyers.

[Person of Interest]

Shri, not to be picky but I think you meant to say Central Powers; Germany really; and not the AXIS.

[gekkoguy82]

....And bring back the clock!

Hear, hear!

[Ironclad61]

Not imposible win naval war as central powers... UK start in a very similar power in north sea... think that UK needs distract a lot of naval resources in other areas, in 1914 and early 1915 cental powers can win, first blocking BEF deploy in France and forcing UK naval forces avoid be close to french coast... that is the thing needs germany to try conquest some coast terrain.

I see this more like a 50% for both sides, luck influence could decide this in first turns if central power player is very agresive in sea... in the end the main wrong movement in WWI for germans was not use his navy in first part of war to win north sea, in the end they lose the navy without a serious fight to negate UK naval supremacy and if they fail... well, sub war with no restrictions, think that in WWI subs and surface units didnt cooperate.

I want see a little more detailed air war... and for air and naval war separate casualties (Ships, subs, fighters, bombers...) to control the material kill.

[Kensai]

What about the Russian Baltic fleet? Was it a threat to the German Hochseeflotte?

[enf91]

Don't forget that Germany had a huge surface fleet, too. If the Battle of Jutland had gone differently (not likely to have, but possible), the blockade would have been impossible.

[Shri]

Shri, not to be picky but I think you meant to say Central Powers; Germany really; and not the AXIS.

Oops. Wrong WAR!!! or Wrong war's terminology, i did mean the CP/Germany. CP was Germany + minors essentially just like in the second, AXIS was Germany + Japan + minors.

[Shri]

What about the Russian Baltic fleet? Was it a threat to the German Hochseeflotte?

Germany's small and outdated Baltic fleet of Pre-Dreadnoughts and Cruisers was able to keep the Russian Baltic Fleet in check on its own -
Historically under the leadership of Prinz. Henry Von Preuben.

[Shri]

Not imposible win naval war as central powers... UK start in a very similar power in north sea... think that UK needs distract a lot of naval resources in other areas, in 1914 and early 1915 cental powers can win, first blocking BEF deploy in France and forcing UK naval forces avoid be close to french coast... that is the thing needs germany to try conquest some coast terrain.

I see this more like a 50% for both sides, luck influence could decide this in first turns if central power player is very agresive in sea... in the end the main wrong movement in WWI for germans was not use his navy in first part of war to win north sea, in the end they lose the navy without a serious fight to negate UK naval supremacy and if they fail... well, sub war with no restrictions, think that in WWI subs and surface units didnt cooperate.

I want see a little more detailed air war... and for air and naval war separate casualties (Ships, subs, fighters, bombers...) to control the material kill.

more like 75:25 in RN favor than 50:50. RN had preponderance of ships in every class and esp. so in Dreadnoughts and Super-Dreadnoughts (which were the killer machines). The Queen Elizabeth class of Super Dreadnoughts were superior to any and all Dreadnoughts and were Oil Fired making them lighter and faster (relatively).

Don't forget that Germany had a huge surface fleet, too. If the Battle of Jutland had gone differently (not likely to have, but possible), the blockade would have been impossible.

Even if Germany had hypothetically won Jutland (i.e. favorable draw), the UK had several fleets in reserve (Channel Fleet, Med Fleet, Far-East Fleet) and also HOOD Class BCs and QE class Super-BBs under construction.

[Kensai]

From what I've understood about the High Seas Fleet is that realistically it was simply a "fleet-in-being", nothing more nothing less. It was there to pin down the Grand Fleet and perhaps take some actions of fortune, but it was definitely not able to ever have the initiative and challenge the British.

Nonetheless, the newest Bayern-class battleships were quite the ships. They could have challenged Queen-Elizabeth's British class anytime.

[Ironclad61]

True is that in 1914-1915 RN was in a very bad situation if Germany was more agresive... even know the german plans they fail allways to damage german fleet and well Jutland was in late 1916 when RN has more capital ships and even with advantage germans can deal more damage in a duel, they cant cover casualties like RN BUT in a single battle can deal a lot damage.

RN numeric superiority in early war was very small and even with the newest BB think they have a lot of BB and BC inferior to german designs because simple cant eat a lot damage, for example BCs VS german BCs .... when RN clear the seas of german ships and increase their production can concentrate main forces in north sea but in first year of war Germany being agresive sure have a great chance to win north sea naval war or destroying RN or simple mantein them hide on their bases with an open sea for sub war.

In the Baltic... well, Rusia was more and better ships usually BUT unlike germans they have problems to have on sea capital ships, is very interesting the SAI baltic campaign, as german you have lack of everything but is possible block russians in their bases and lauch an agresive mine-war but as rusians is possible to have in trouble germans if you are agresive and you can deal with some looses, apart this do a war against merchants is not hard using fast ships.

[Jim-NC]

In my opinion, the RN was very vulnerable due to outdated notions of how to armor ships (and how to store powder). They favored lighter armor, with bigger guns. They had several spectacular failures in battles with the Germans, which usually meant that most (if not all) of the crew went down with the ship (see HMS Queen Mary, during the battle of Jutland, where only 9 crew survived the ship's sinking). They even suffered from this going into WWII (see HMS Hood).

It doesn't matter if you have more ships, if yours explode every time they get hit.

[Shri]

Keeping a neutral and detached viewpoint and after extensive reading on the 17th-20th Century History, i make this opinion-

One must always fight to one's strengths and not to the opponents. The Prussian/German army led by Junker Officers was the strength of Prussia/Germany and for over 200 years dominated the battlefields. The navy was not their strength, it proved quite useless and was scuttled in the end. Also it added England/UK and Japan (both of whom were natural and age-old allies) to the enemy list. This itself was a product of the Kaiser's megalomania and bad diplomacy, foot-in-mouth and bad advisers like Tirpitz.
The cost of the navy was stupendous, in that cost 2-3 Korps of Infantry alongwith all the necessary additions could have been raised plus a medium-strong fleet of Fast Cruisers and Medium-Long Range U Boats have been built. Germany was recruiting just 53% of its available conscripts compared to France's 86%. By pouring more money in the army- more machine guns, more men, more artillery and finally and most importantly more reserves and reserve officers/ncos could have been created. Addition of about 3 Korps to standing army alongwith 1-2 reserves which would be automatically added due to it would have meant sufficient strength on the Western Front to win a decisive battle in 1914.

Bad Diplomacy meant-
Japan, a natural ally became an enemy
UK- another natural and long standing ally became enemy, they could have remained neutral if no HCF present.
USA- another possible ally or benevolent neutral became an enemy.
Italy, Rumania - Possible neutrals became enemies.

[Kensai]

Yes, but it in the end, it was the lack of a viable navy that made the German campaign of the Great War unattainable in the long run. Without a possibility to break up the blockade, the population and armed forces starved, lowering the morale to the point of mutinies, as they happened in 1918.

I kind of believe that the critical mistake in the Central Powers policy was that of Italy. Germany should have pressed Austria-Hungary to give away South Tirol in order to keep Italy in their alliance. This is the first thing I will abstract in my campaign when the game comes out, I really want to see how it will play out with Italy in the original alliance fighting against the French and leaving the Austrian flanks secure. Yes, A-H should lose a lot of morale for giving in Tirol, but it will be able to move an entire army against the Serbs and Russians in the Balkans. This will help a lot in those fronts. Moreover, France will probably have to move significant forces in Southeastern France to check the Italians, diluting their defenses elsewhere.

Italy's siding was the real wildcard in WWI. Its change of sides shuffled the cards for good. I really hope I could prove this in an alternate reality game of mine!

[Uawcat]

When playing the CP in WWI Gold I this was something I always tried to achieve. Although I tried to use "Diplomatic Poker" (Germany avoids declaring war and loses the pre-turn) predominately. I wonder if this mechanism will be modelled as well.

[Kensai]

Indeed, the initial decisions and plans was quite an interesting mechanism for WWI Gold (I have only played the demo, bear with me), it will be great if it was added or applied somehow to EAW as well.

The Italian Front was not the most important front in the overall conflict, but nonetheless it should be a gamechanger. We are talking about almost 13 million soldiers (5 million Italians and 8 million Austrians). Yes, the shock of ceding South Tyrol should be there for Austria (as Altaris has already anticipated) but imagine if these 13 million soldiers could be put elsewhere. We are talking about "Theater-sized" troop concentrations here that could definitely alter the balance both in the immediate East and remote West.

Actually, in order to balance the game and not make it too easy for the Central Powers in this case, I expect Italy to continue being neutral after 1915 and only entering the conflict if the Central Powers have clearly invested A LOT in their diplomatic courting and are winning the war. Otherwise, once Italy has South Tyrol, why should it fight in a conflict it is not interested? (although in theory you could say that Nice and the surrounding area may be a long-term irredentist goal for Italy, in an alternate reality, given how it was lost in the Risorgimento).

[Shri]

If no, HCF, no RN, no Blockade!!!
then the German army can steamroll Europe.

Italy and also Japan, big disappointments
If Japan had attacked Vladivostok in 1915 or so, Russia would have gone belly-up also UK would have forced to send a strong Naval Contingent to the Far East and thus weakening the Grand Fleet.

[Shri]

Indeed, the initial decisions and plans was quite an interesting mechanism for WWI Gold (I have only played the demo, bear with me), it will be great if it was added or applied somehow to EAW as well.

The Italian Front was not the most important front in the overall conflict, but nonetheless it should be a gamechanger. We are talking about almost 13 million soldiers (5 million Italians and 8 million Austrians). Yes, the shock of ceding South Tyrol should be there for Austria (as Altaris has already anticipated) but imagine if these 13 million soldiers could be put elsewhere. We are talking about "Theater-sized" troop concentrations here that could definitely alter the balance both in the immediate East and remote West.

Actually, in order to balance the game and not make it too easy for the Central Powers in this case, I expect Italy to continue being neutral after 1915 and only entering if the C.P. have clearly invested A LOT in their diplomatic courting and are winning the war. Otherwise, once Italy has South Tyrol, why should it fight a war it is not interested? (although in theory you could say that Nice and the surrounding area may be a long-term irredentist goal for Italy, in an alternate reality, given how it was lost in the Risorgimento).

8 Million is total Austrians mobilised. On Italian THEATRE it was more like 1.5 Million or so total troops committed, maximum troops were on Russian front and remaining on Serbian and Rumanian Fronts.
CP gaining Italy by giving up South Tyrol will increase the 'Problem of Nationalities' inside the Habsburg Monarchy

[Kensai]

Sure, even with smaller numbers. 1.5 million troops are two armies. That's not pocket change of manpower!! I am not sure how the game will handle rising nationalism (I expect a mix of lower NM and substantial rise of revolt probabilities in regions where the Austrian ethnicity is a minority), but nothing that cannot be solved with military police and leaving some militia behind for guard duties, as we do in Pride of Nations.

I think the Austrians having their mind free and sending these 1500000 men in the East will be quite the improvement, albeit taking the substantial national morale malus. After all, their main concern should be (1) attacking the weaker Serbians and (2) checking the stronger Russians. The rest of the Eastern campaign should be taken care of by the Germans.

For me, Italy NOT entering the war should be a gamechanger and duly abstracted in the game. It is even more important than Britain (if Belgium is not attacked) or USA (if unlimited submarine warfare is not allowed) NOT entering the war...

[Ironclad61]

To be clear, Germany has a navy to FIGHT not to control seas, this means for me that germans needs use from first day his navy to find and fight RN (and damage all they can the conection between UK and France) because before Jutland the balance between both navies is 50-50, RN has worst ships to fight BUT has more light units to block central powers supplies, RN win first part of war if avoid fight and block central powers AND germans avoid fight to (and after win like this in 1916 over this date they simple are to powerfull for german navy)... if germans try force RN fight in a naval battle RN simple cant avoid it, one thing is the skirmish tactic germans use where they scape and other is stand to fight. I see the RN tactic in WWI like a guerrilla tactic, they win if dont lose BUT germans needs use a regular army tactic, they lose if dont fight as in the end was, both try dont lose and this in the end was the winning tactic for RN not for german navy.

Well, italian front is more a problem for the limited resources for AH... even when in real life all nations send troops to the area to reinforce their weak allies... this is a interesting thing for me, how work the expeditionary forces??? they could be under the command of the allied army??? or you have them under your army control??? for example as cental power could be a surprise movement hold west front and try crack Italy to liberate the AH navy and their forces to clear balcans... and you can open a new front in France rear.

Interesting point with Italy... but something i need ask... is possible see very extreme what if situations??? i think in central powers attacking Ottoman empire in alliance with Rusia??? i refer, in the end the rusians plan was more mantein Poland and have a gate to the Mediterranean... this could be a very good movement for cental powers, alliance with russians trade for ottomans, they can concentrate their armies over west allies and AH over Italy (if is in entente).

[Templer]

This thread has now developed into a full-blown naval discussion.
Well, continue.

But in order to return to the meaning and the topic of this thread:
I am interested in submarines and the submarine war, and therefore I expect, I hope, I hope that in AGEOD "To End All Wars" the submarine war will be appealing, exciting, sophisticated modeled.

We all know how important and how dramatic the U-Boat war was - due this fact, I think it is imperative that this will be implemented in the game!

Incidentally, Developers!: I'd appreciate a screenshot of a German U-Boat from the game.

And bring back the clock!

[Ironclad61]

Naval pasion hehehe.

Ummm Submarines... is interesting for me know how works to the civil part in naval area... i think you can stack in naval boxes mechants and "scort navies" but... this scorts are going to need some tech research to be effective VS submarines??? i think in a "convoy system" you need research to reduce the kill rate of submarines and start killing them.

Game needs an AAR, the fear of credit cards

[Uawcat]

[quote="Kensai"]Indeed, the initial decisions and plans was quite an interesting mechanism for WWI Gold (I have only played the demo, bear with me), it will be great if it was added or applied somehow to EAW as well.

In one of the screenshots showing the ledger there was a page named "Warplans"...

[Kensai]

To be clear, Germany has a navy to FIGHT not to control seas, this means for me that germans needs use from first day his navy to find and fight RN (and damage all they can the conection between UK and France) because before Jutland the balance between both navies is 50-50

Well, if it was 50-50, then actually it is quite risky for both of them to desire a "decisive battle" that might cripple them. Imagine if the British lost, it could mean that the blockade could not be maintained adequately and they would risk in the future more audacious German moves, even reversing to a blockade of the British Islands! If the Germans lost, it would have worsened their situation, opening the possibility even for an invasion from the North or helping the Russians directly.

All in all, this supports the historical decision of both nations to stand their fleets in port, avoiding something risky that might have destroyed their future chances. It is not a coincidence that the last German action of the war, when they were losing, was supposed to be exactly a decisive battle against the Royal Navy, since they had nothing more to lose. Unfortunately for them, the crews mutinied in Kiel and it was the end.

[Ironclad61]

I think oposite, Germans need try win in sea, they have a navy to fight and negate UK blockage... is like be inside a fortress with 50.000 soldiers siege by 70.000 that can receive reinforcements... or you take iniciative or you fall yes or yes. Even if Germany fail to defeat UK at least they try it when they have a chance, was a little use a lot of resources to buy a navy only to sink it after lose war and dont try use them seriously.

UK strategy was ok because they know very well that even when are stronger than germans... not enough to survive a fail RN needs time because time play on their side unlike germans.

Is curious how in SAI a guy as german using an agresive strategy overrun RN because RN cant avoid combat... think in Mr Churchill hide in port with germans sailing on "their" sea, maybe germans can exploit the enemy "imperial pride" to made them do what they want.

http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/192/aar-imperial-germany-1914-1918

[Kensai]

The problem is, Ironclad61, that the Germans never had confidence in the 50-50 ratio of the early naval forces. They were thinking themselves better on land, worse on water. This is one of the reasons they did not risk: they believed it could only make things worse. If Jutland was a disaster, that would have completely destroyed their morale. Perhaps they would have crumbled earlier, not even defeating Russia.