-
Swagteamfivethousand
- Conscript
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 1:15 am
-
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm
Swagteamfivethousand wrote:Maybe you could have a "No War of 1812" scenario which would prevent the war of 1812 from happening and freeing up British troops, and making the US more friendly towards the Brits
What would be the 'rationale" behind that? The amount of British troops locked by that war was minimal, their real effort occurred in 1814 when the war in Europe was over...and the French navy was no longer a challenge, so overall the war did not make a large impact on the course of events against Napoleon... My 2 cents
The Napoleonic Era was a time of deep division in the United States. With Thomas Jefferson in charge of a pro-French coalition, the possibility of an active alliance between France and the United States was real. How this would play out in an alt-history scenario would be increased naval resources for France.
One of the major impediments to a larger and newer French fleet was the lack of resources to build a fleet. This alt-history presupposes the Jay Treaty of 1794 was not ratified between Britain and the United States, so the festering sores of British exports flooding US markets while US exports were blocked; the continued occupation of northern forts Britain had agreed to vacate in the Treaty of Paris which supported Native American attacks in those areas; and the impressments of American sailors and the seizure of naval and military supplies bound for neutral ports provoke the US.
The alt-history begins, perhaps pre-game, with US raiders preying on British naval commerce beginning in1794. Instead of building only the super frigates of history, the US commits to building ships-of-the-line for France. France has the waters of the new world in which to train its crews to a higher standard.
The scope of this alt-history could be flexible:
Minor increase in French supply, decrease of British supply.
Medium increase in the above plus a more active US navy.
Major increase in the above plus up to a doubling of the French fleet. Including admirals who have more experience at sea and with more aggressive naval tactics. Learned, of course, from the audacious American sea captains ; - )
One of the major impediments to a larger and newer French fleet was the lack of resources to build a fleet. This alt-history presupposes the Jay Treaty of 1794 was not ratified between Britain and the United States, so the festering sores of British exports flooding US markets while US exports were blocked; the continued occupation of northern forts Britain had agreed to vacate in the Treaty of Paris which supported Native American attacks in those areas; and the impressments of American sailors and the seizure of naval and military supplies bound for neutral ports provoke the US.
The alt-history begins, perhaps pre-game, with US raiders preying on British naval commerce beginning in1794. Instead of building only the super frigates of history, the US commits to building ships-of-the-line for France. France has the waters of the new world in which to train its crews to a higher standard.
The scope of this alt-history could be flexible:
Minor increase in French supply, decrease of British supply.
Medium increase in the above plus a more active US navy.
Major increase in the above plus up to a doubling of the French fleet. Including admirals who have more experience at sea and with more aggressive naval tactics. Learned, of course, from the audacious American sea captains ; - )
Ah! I would suggest 2 moves-
1. Prussia is allied to Austria and Russia in the opening of 1805-6 campaign, a hugely different campaign and the French forces will get stretched thin.
Coupled with this an option for the Austrians and Prussians to deploy closer to Vienna and Berlin and be defensive till the massive, lumbering Russian Steamroller gets activated (Russia was a huge force in the Napoleonic Wars early part also, also Russian Leadership though a bit too slow to take initiative and go on the offensive wasn't so easily crushed by Nappy).
2. Nelson wins Trafalgar and stays alive (chances less than 25%). Result? English navy is led by the sea god/monster (view point ) Nelson. With Nelson alive, any coupling of French and Spanish navies even including the Americans in 1812 will result in the English gaining crushing victories in equal battles.
1. Prussia is allied to Austria and Russia in the opening of 1805-6 campaign, a hugely different campaign and the French forces will get stretched thin.
Coupled with this an option for the Austrians and Prussians to deploy closer to Vienna and Berlin and be defensive till the massive, lumbering Russian Steamroller gets activated (Russia was a huge force in the Napoleonic Wars early part also, also Russian Leadership though a bit too slow to take initiative and go on the offensive wasn't so easily crushed by Nappy).
2. Nelson wins Trafalgar and stays alive (chances less than 25%). Result? English navy is led by the sea god/monster (view point ) Nelson. With Nelson alive, any coupling of French and Spanish navies even including the Americans in 1812 will result in the English gaining crushing victories in equal battles.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
-
Vimy Varmint
- Conscript
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:51 pm
"Can you imagine the consequences of such move by the US?"? Yes I can, these "consequences" was called the War of 1812. This war is already covered in Birth of America 2. Why would you want to redo that war for the 3rd time (BoA & BoA2)?
I am curious how the designers of this new Napoleonic game think US intervention would differ from history. The regular U.S. Army was in it's infancy in 1812 and lost more battles than they won when fighting the British in Canada. They certainly would not have had enough troops to commit to the European continent and even if they had, those would have been slaughtered by any the professional European armies.
As for the U.S. Navy, while it and American privateers enjoyed early successes in single ship encounters against the British, this advantage disappeared when the British adopted the convoy system and forbid frigate captains from engaging the larger American frigates in one on one battles. This tactic eventually paid off as American warships were either sunk, captured or blockaded in American ports. The success of the British strategy can be seen by the fact that by 1814 the Royal Navy controlled the Eastern Seaboard of the US and could land troops anywhere on the American east coast at will.
So again I ask, what is the point?
I am curious how the designers of this new Napoleonic game think US intervention would differ from history. The regular U.S. Army was in it's infancy in 1812 and lost more battles than they won when fighting the British in Canada. They certainly would not have had enough troops to commit to the European continent and even if they had, those would have been slaughtered by any the professional European armies.
As for the U.S. Navy, while it and American privateers enjoyed early successes in single ship encounters against the British, this advantage disappeared when the British adopted the convoy system and forbid frigate captains from engaging the larger American frigates in one on one battles. This tactic eventually paid off as American warships were either sunk, captured or blockaded in American ports. The success of the British strategy can be seen by the fact that by 1814 the Royal Navy controlled the Eastern Seaboard of the US and could land troops anywhere on the American east coast at will.
So again I ask, what is the point?
@Durk.
I like your opinions and insights, but i guess you have skipped a century ahead. 1812 USA wasn't 1912 USA.
The English would have thrashed the USA in 1812 if war had gone on longer, the British Army's curve went to a crash for about a Generation between the end of the seven years war circa 1765 and 1790, this was when the USA won their Revolution.
By late 1700s the British army was back to near peak efficiency. Fighting simultaneously a world-wide campaign in a repeat of the 7 year war, they fought in Asia, Africa, North Africa and Europe and won all. Also subsidies to the Prussians and Russians paid huge dividends.
The treasury nurtured exceptionally by the young Mr. Pitt from 1782 till 1806, meant that England was never close to bankruptcy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars unlike the American Revolutionary wars when they had a severe economic crisis.
Most gamers and historians find economics boring, but wars are often won with money not body-bags.
P.S.: The Royal Navy under Nelson was more powerful than any navy in History until 1944-45 USN. The US navy of 1810s would have been sunk in the Atlantic very soon.
I like your opinions and insights, but i guess you have skipped a century ahead. 1812 USA wasn't 1912 USA.
The English would have thrashed the USA in 1812 if war had gone on longer, the British Army's curve went to a crash for about a Generation between the end of the seven years war circa 1765 and 1790, this was when the USA won their Revolution.
By late 1700s the British army was back to near peak efficiency. Fighting simultaneously a world-wide campaign in a repeat of the 7 year war, they fought in Asia, Africa, North Africa and Europe and won all. Also subsidies to the Prussians and Russians paid huge dividends.
The treasury nurtured exceptionally by the young Mr. Pitt from 1782 till 1806, meant that England was never close to bankruptcy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars unlike the American Revolutionary wars when they had a severe economic crisis.
Most gamers and historians find economics boring, but wars are often won with money not body-bags.
P.S.: The Royal Navy under Nelson was more powerful than any navy in History until 1944-45 USN. The US navy of 1810s would have been sunk in the Atlantic very soon.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
No difference if Nelson is dead or alive, the Royal Navy was the most powerful fleet of the time and "invincible".
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
FENRIS wrote:No difference if Nelson is dead or alive, the Royal Navy was the most powerful fleet of the time and "invincible".
Just think of the Royal Navy as the 1805 French Army, under Davout or Messina probably victory would have been won but under NAPPY it was decisive crushing victory- Ulm + Austerlitz.
Now, from land swim into the seas and see what Nelson can do to the enemy. Difference between victory and annihilation.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
-
FENRIS
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
- Location: Marseille (France)
Yes, i agree with you, but i don't think it will make a great difference in the game but who knows.. (sorry, my english is bad... :mdr 
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)
" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I][/I]
Shri wrote:@Durk.
I like your opinions and insights, but i guess you have skipped a century ahead. 1812 USA wasn't 1912 USA.
The English would have thrashed the USA in 1812 if war had gone on longer, the British Army's curve went to a crash for about a Generation between the end of the seven years war circa 1765 and 1790, this was when the USA won their Revolution.
By late 1700s the British army was back to near peak efficiency. Fighting simultaneously a world-wide campaign in a repeat of the 7 year war, they fought in Asia, Africa, North Africa and Europe and won all. Also subsidies to the Prussians and Russians paid huge dividends.
The treasury nurtured exceptionally by the young Mr. Pitt from 1782 till 1806, meant that England was never close to bankruptcy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars unlike the American Revolutionary wars when they had a severe economic crisis.
Most gamers and historians find economics boring, but wars are often won with money not body-bags.
P.S.: The Royal Navy under Nelson was more powerful than any navy in History until 1944-45 USN. The US navy of 1810s would have been sunk in the Atlantic very soon.
Ah Shri, how true what you say. However, this is a place for what ifs. What if France had the necessary naval stores to mount a navy and waters in which to train. Remember, I predicated this alt-history as beginning in 1794, the moment in history when the British fleet was at its nadir. The French have access to abundant wood and other naval stores and the use of American ports for construction. So the French/American fleets build in tandem with the resurgent British fleet.
In the 17-18 and till mid 19th century, the Ships were all wooden, the best stores for such wood was in Scandinavia, Baltics and Northern Russia.
I.E. Russian Empire and Swedish Empire controlled these stores.
Throughout the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars under Catherine the Great and Alexander I the Russians were anti-French and thus pro-English/British.
except for the brief reign of the MAD Paul and the 'Molotov-Ribbentrop type treaty of Tilsit signed by Alexander I to gain time' the Russians wouldn't have supplied Naval Stores in plenty.
Sweden again was pro-England and anti-France as they were a Protestant North European power on the wane and feared Russian Aggression.
So, how does France get abundant wood and stores? of equal quality of the English.
Even if we suppose, North American supplies assure this, there is an old naval saying-
It takes 3 years to build a ship but 300 to build a tradition. The Royal Navy since the Elizabethan period had built a tradition/reputation of a powerful, huge, successful navy, its commanders were recruited as 12-13 year old powder monkeys and trained for 20 years before assuming command of ships, by the time they were in their 40s and leading ships of the line these men had 30 odd years of experience.
The Franco-Spanish lacked this tradition, it wasn't so easy to conjure it up over-night.
To support my argument, we can see the HCF of the Great war built by Tirpitz, Ship for Ship the Germans had better guns, more rate of fire though cramped quarters but compensated by better protection of vital assets but still Adm. Sheer (an exceptional commander in my opinion) was apprehensive (and rightly so) of the Royal Navy's Tradition and Morale.
I.E. Russian Empire and Swedish Empire controlled these stores.
Throughout the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars under Catherine the Great and Alexander I the Russians were anti-French and thus pro-English/British.
except for the brief reign of the MAD Paul and the 'Molotov-Ribbentrop type treaty of Tilsit signed by Alexander I to gain time' the Russians wouldn't have supplied Naval Stores in plenty.
Sweden again was pro-England and anti-France as they were a Protestant North European power on the wane and feared Russian Aggression.
So, how does France get abundant wood and stores? of equal quality of the English.
Even if we suppose, North American supplies assure this, there is an old naval saying-
It takes 3 years to build a ship but 300 to build a tradition. The Royal Navy since the Elizabethan period had built a tradition/reputation of a powerful, huge, successful navy, its commanders were recruited as 12-13 year old powder monkeys and trained for 20 years before assuming command of ships, by the time they were in their 40s and leading ships of the line these men had 30 odd years of experience.
The Franco-Spanish lacked this tradition, it wasn't so easy to conjure it up over-night.
To support my argument, we can see the HCF of the Great war built by Tirpitz, Ship for Ship the Germans had better guns, more rate of fire though cramped quarters but compensated by better protection of vital assets but still Adm. Sheer (an exceptional commander in my opinion) was apprehensive (and rightly so) of the Royal Navy's Tradition and Morale.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
True to a point -
In 1705 Britain shifted its supply of naval stores from Sweden, which had become monopolistic and consequently had doubled the price of its products, to America. The longleaf pine of the Carolinas provided, not only the framing lumber, but the tar, pitch and turpentine essential to naval construction. From New England the large white pines provided the masts. So by the time of the alt-history, the colonies were doing a thriving business in provision of naval stores and had developed the facilities to produce capital ships.
The American Revolution forced the British to change their source of supply which meant relying upon the Dutch trade with Sweden to obtain naval stores. This left the American resources free for use in a different project. The French had just completed a world wide naval war with Britain. They had not only held their own, but had bested the British Navy on several occasions. Had the revolutionary forces not dismissed the General Naval Staff (another historical what if) the long French naval tradition would have been brought forward. Perhaps it is incredulous to allow this naval tradition to move forward, consequently the alt-history I propose relies upon the mutual revolutionary passions of the Americans and the French creating a new corps of naval officers.
But do not put too much faith in tradition over initiative and elan. Hidebound is another name for tradition.
In 1705 Britain shifted its supply of naval stores from Sweden, which had become monopolistic and consequently had doubled the price of its products, to America. The longleaf pine of the Carolinas provided, not only the framing lumber, but the tar, pitch and turpentine essential to naval construction. From New England the large white pines provided the masts. So by the time of the alt-history, the colonies were doing a thriving business in provision of naval stores and had developed the facilities to produce capital ships.
The American Revolution forced the British to change their source of supply which meant relying upon the Dutch trade with Sweden to obtain naval stores. This left the American resources free for use in a different project. The French had just completed a world wide naval war with Britain. They had not only held their own, but had bested the British Navy on several occasions. Had the revolutionary forces not dismissed the General Naval Staff (another historical what if) the long French naval tradition would have been brought forward. Perhaps it is incredulous to allow this naval tradition to move forward, consequently the alt-history I propose relies upon the mutual revolutionary passions of the Americans and the French creating a new corps of naval officers.
But do not put too much faith in tradition over initiative and elan. Hidebound is another name for tradition.
I agree, with your North American supplies theory; in fact i did mention it and did not outright reject it.
Now going back to my point, ever since the Elizabethan era the English power was rising vis-a-vis any and all, it did have some troughs but most of the time it was at its peak. 1765 to 1785 was a period when due to the financial mishandling (a rare occurrence ) there was a cash-crunch and the Army & Navy suffered due to it. The reforms of the young Mr. Pitt starting in 1782 and intensifying by 1785-86 (he was only Chancellor of the Exchequer but after 1784 onwards became PM for nearly 17 years at a stretch) made it possible for the English to start mobilising for war just in time for the French Revolution.
The Franco-American-Spanish alliance had beat the English in that "GAP era", if we go a few years back, the French were thrashed on Land by Frederick the Great and at Sea by the English in the 7 year War and the Sea thrashing intensified in the Napoleonic Wars simply because the budget was there for it.
Now to tradition, tradition isn't actually Hidebound or Moribund; true tradition is this-
The Royal Navy since the Elizabethan period had built a tradition/reputation of a powerful, huge, successful navy, its commanders were recruited as 12-13 year old powder monkeys and trained for 20 years before assuming command of ships, by the time they were in their late 30s and 40s and leading ships of the line these men had 25-30 years of experience.
The Franco-Spanish lacked this tradition, it wasn't so easy to conjure it up over-night.
England was an island and a natural sea power, the tradition i meant was experience; the eagerness of young men of talent to join the navy and risk scurvy etc.
I will go back to my Hochseeflotte example also, the Prussian army had a long tradition of winning on land, dating back to the Teutonic Knights (via the Junker Officers) and it easily rebuilt its armies again and again in History and came back strong after every defeat till Prussia itself was dissolved (that is another story altogether) but they never could get the knack of the Seas mainly due to paucity of "Tradition".
Initiative and Elan are excellent qualities but in the wrong hands (FOCH anyone?) could lead to Disaster (Battle of Frontiers anyone?).
Anyway, US history isn't my strong-point and i may be totally wrong about the USA's ship supplies and ship building capabilities. So, let's call a truce? Shall we and wait for the PHILS to decide.
Now going back to my point, ever since the Elizabethan era the English power was rising vis-a-vis any and all, it did have some troughs but most of the time it was at its peak. 1765 to 1785 was a period when due to the financial mishandling (a rare occurrence ) there was a cash-crunch and the Army & Navy suffered due to it. The reforms of the young Mr. Pitt starting in 1782 and intensifying by 1785-86 (he was only Chancellor of the Exchequer but after 1784 onwards became PM for nearly 17 years at a stretch) made it possible for the English to start mobilising for war just in time for the French Revolution.
The Franco-American-Spanish alliance had beat the English in that "GAP era", if we go a few years back, the French were thrashed on Land by Frederick the Great and at Sea by the English in the 7 year War and the Sea thrashing intensified in the Napoleonic Wars simply because the budget was there for it.
Now to tradition, tradition isn't actually Hidebound or Moribund; true tradition is this-
The Royal Navy since the Elizabethan period had built a tradition/reputation of a powerful, huge, successful navy, its commanders were recruited as 12-13 year old powder monkeys and trained for 20 years before assuming command of ships, by the time they were in their late 30s and 40s and leading ships of the line these men had 25-30 years of experience.
The Franco-Spanish lacked this tradition, it wasn't so easy to conjure it up over-night.
England was an island and a natural sea power, the tradition i meant was experience; the eagerness of young men of talent to join the navy and risk scurvy etc.
I will go back to my Hochseeflotte example also, the Prussian army had a long tradition of winning on land, dating back to the Teutonic Knights (via the Junker Officers) and it easily rebuilt its armies again and again in History and came back strong after every defeat till Prussia itself was dissolved (that is another story altogether) but they never could get the knack of the Seas mainly due to paucity of "Tradition".
Initiative and Elan are excellent qualities but in the wrong hands (FOCH anyone?) could lead to Disaster (Battle of Frontiers anyone?).
Anyway, US history isn't my strong-point and i may be totally wrong about the USA's ship supplies and ship building capabilities. So, let's call a truce? Shall we and wait for the PHILS to decide.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:I agree, with your North American supplies theory; in fact i did mention it and did not outright reject it.
Now going back to my point, ever since the Elizabethan era the English power was rising vis-a-vis any and all, it did have some troughs but most of the time it was at its peak. 1765 to 1785 was a period when due to the financial mishandling (a rare occurrence ) there was a cash-crunch and the Army & Navy suffered due to it. The reforms of the young Mr. Pitt starting in 1782 and intensifying by 1785-86 (he was only Chancellor of the Exchequer but after 1784 onwards became PM for nearly 17 years at a stretch) made it possible for the English to start mobilising for war just in time for the French Revolution.
The Franco-American-Spanish alliance had beat the English in that "GAP era", if we go a few years back, the French were thrashed on Land by Frederick the Great and at Sea by the English in the 7 year War and the Sea thrashing intensified in the Napoleonic Wars simply because the budget was there for it.
Now to tradition, tradition isn't actually Hidebound or Moribund; true tradition is this-
The Royal Navy since the Elizabethan period had built a tradition/reputation of a powerful, huge, successful navy, its commanders were recruited as 12-13 year old powder monkeys and trained for 20 years before assuming command of ships, by the time they were in their late 30s and 40s and leading ships of the line these men had 25-30 years of experience.
The Franco-Spanish lacked this tradition, it wasn't so easy to conjure it up over-night.
England was an island and a natural sea power, the tradition i meant was experience; the eagerness of young men of talent to join the navy and risk scurvy etc.
I will go back to my Hochseeflotte example also, the Prussian army had a long tradition of winning on land, dating back to the Teutonic Knights (via the Junker Officers) and it easily rebuilt its armies again and again in History and came back strong after every defeat till Prussia itself was dissolved (that is another story altogether) but they never could get the knack of the Seas mainly due to paucity of "Tradition".
Initiative and Elan are excellent qualities but in the wrong hands (FOCH anyone?) could lead to Disaster (Battle of Frontiers anyone?).
Anyway, US history isn't my strong-point and i may be totally wrong about the USA's ship supplies and ship building capabilities. So, let's call a truce? Shall we and wait for the PHILS to decide.
with all the respect - we are talking alternative history scenarios here...
your points are right, your knowledge is great - so why dont you use it to actually built some what if scenarios rather then oppsing others?
i think there was a Chance for spanish and french navy to be in better shape in 1805 then it acctualy was - perhaps with napoleon financing navy more then army, perhaps with france dealing better with navy in revolution years, perhaps with spain and france going through late XVIII financial problems better way then they actuaty did....
my point is that we should use these forum to use our devotion to the game and our knowledge of history to build scenarios.....
Indeed, what if options might not please everyone, that is why they are options. Some can be too far stretched and we will try to remain plausible, but they are that, 'what if', 'hypothetical history'. Sometime events happen and retrospectively they had a very very slim chance to succeed, but as they happened we don't think too much about it.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Another What if could be if Napoleon didn't Marry Joséphine or rather repudiated/divorced her before becoming emperor, knowing full well that at age 41 she was extremely unlikely to give him a heir to stabilise his empire straight away. The core of the what-if is that Napoleon marries a daughter of a reigning family as he becomes emperor. Now I know Marie-Louise would have been too young so the question I ask is "who could that somewhat realistically be and what would the game implicatins be ?"
EDIT : Say he marries Maria-Pavlona, the oldest living sister of Alexander the 1st who was born in 1784 and IRL married in august 1804 the great duke of Saxe-Weimar, Charles Frederick. What would the implications be ?
EDIT 2: Or say Maria-Isabela of Spain doesn't marry a the Bourbon of the 2 Siciles in 1802 but marries Napoleon instead, ensuring a long lasting alliance and no peninsular war ?
EDIT : Say he marries Maria-Pavlona, the oldest living sister of Alexander the 1st who was born in 1784 and IRL married in august 1804 the great duke of Saxe-Weimar, Charles Frederick. What would the implications be ?
EDIT 2: Or say Maria-Isabela of Spain doesn't marry a the Bourbon of the 2 Siciles in 1802 but marries Napoleon instead, ensuring a long lasting alliance and no peninsular war ?
@Durk
Well thanks, US history i am a total '0', i do not know for starters where is IOWA and where is INDIANA, Europe on the other hand i have a good mental map whether it is Borodino or Trafalgar, Jena or Cannae or Salamanca. The reason is my country- Bharat/India is quite similar to Europe.
@marek1978
I am not opposed to ALTERNATE SCENARIOS, just stating that sometimes we get carried away with battles and forget some important things (boring things)-
GDP, Per Capital Income, Literacy, Medical capabilities, Supplies, Logistics, Raw Material Sources etc.
@Veji1
That is quite interesting. But don't you believe the URBAN LEGEND of Josephine being Lucky for Napoleon and Napoleon being a firm believer in Luck.
Well thanks, US history i am a total '0', i do not know for starters where is IOWA and where is INDIANA, Europe on the other hand i have a good mental map whether it is Borodino or Trafalgar, Jena or Cannae or Salamanca. The reason is my country- Bharat/India is quite similar to Europe.
@marek1978
I am not opposed to ALTERNATE SCENARIOS, just stating that sometimes we get carried away with battles and forget some important things (boring things)-
GDP, Per Capital Income, Literacy, Medical capabilities, Supplies, Logistics, Raw Material Sources etc.
@Veji1
That is quite interesting. But don't you believe the URBAN LEGEND of Josephine being Lucky for Napoleon and Napoleon being a firm believer in Luck.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:@Veji1
That is quite interesting. But don't you believe the URBAN LEGEND of Josephine being Lucky for Napoleon and Napoleon being a firm believer in Luck.
Sure, but if we are exploring what-ifs, this looks like a pretty reasonable one doesn't it ? After all once he decided to become emperor and place family members everywhere, marrying into established royalty was the next natural step. Had he been less mad about Joséphine he would have acted sooner.
As a what if I think it opens possibilities, particularly regarding Spain.
veji1 wrote:Sure, but if we are exploring what-ifs, this looks like a pretty reasonable one doesn't it ? After all once he decided to become emperor and place family members everywhere, marrying into established royalty was the next natural step. Had he been less mad about Joséphine he would have acted sooner.
As a what if I think it opens possibilities, particularly regarding Spain.
Well, that sounds really plausible. Marrying Maria-Isabella will make Napoleon's offspring at-least a semi-legitimate candidate for the throne of Spain.
This sounds very interesting. With the Spanish Flank pacified, the French army might still fail in Russia but may fight a better battle in Central Europe.
The loss of all those veterans did hit them very hard in 1813 +.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Getting Spain without having to fight a costly war with them(well Spanish people) should be a priority for France. That option and also having an influence over more important decisions of the time could be very interesting.
For example, if Napoleon defeats Austria he will get to choose what course of action will be undertaken and if he wants to marry or not. Same should apply for rest of Europe conquests.
This could transcend into gameplay in some very interesting ways.
Also most of the players will know that Russia campaign was doom for France ergo they will try to avoid that mistake, same goes for Spain.
Thus there must be an incentive for France to go into Russia or lash out against GB.
In game terms= unable to win a game without defeating either Russia or GB since they both stirr trouble for you and vice-versa GB and Russia need to use diplomacy and alliences to hasten the war to an end and weaken France before fully commiting.
For example, if Napoleon defeats Austria he will get to choose what course of action will be undertaken and if he wants to marry or not. Same should apply for rest of Europe conquests.
This could transcend into gameplay in some very interesting ways.
Also most of the players will know that Russia campaign was doom for France ergo they will try to avoid that mistake, same goes for Spain.
Thus there must be an incentive for France to go into Russia or lash out against GB.
In game terms= unable to win a game without defeating either Russia or GB since they both stirr trouble for you and vice-versa GB and Russia need to use diplomacy and alliences to hasten the war to an end and weaken France before fully commiting.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
Yes, that's a good what if and somehow easy to set in place. It opens new possibilities. Now what about the other side of the coin. How to have a what if where Spain is at war with France since the start and an adamant ally of GBR?
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Well, Spanish aligment to Britain is proportional to a French "bad" behavior in Spanish peninsula...without that there is not much chance for an alliance.
Since Spain dislike for Britain and Portugal is strong (alliance of those two should be a cornerstone here) and this dislike was present even during Peninsular war.
For Britain perhaps better option is to make Spain neutral in the conflict if not ally, especially early in the campaign.
They would actually get a good deal:
+even weaker enemy navy
+Portugal is safe
+no need to send armies through Spain, able to commit elsewhere (Italy, Denmark, Russia, Low countries)
-Ofcourse on the other hand, French armies would not be weakened by fighting in Spain.
Still from the perspective of the time, Peninsular war was not viewed as a great way how to win a war in Britain. It almost ended in a total disaster quite a few times and it was only until later date when it turned out to be a way to victory (after third siege of Badajoz in 1812).
Diplomatic game of early months and years could be very interesting here, it could shift balance and balance in many ways.
Since Spain dislike for Britain and Portugal is strong (alliance of those two should be a cornerstone here) and this dislike was present even during Peninsular war.
For Britain perhaps better option is to make Spain neutral in the conflict if not ally, especially early in the campaign.
They would actually get a good deal:
+even weaker enemy navy
+Portugal is safe
+no need to send armies through Spain, able to commit elsewhere (Italy, Denmark, Russia, Low countries)
-Ofcourse on the other hand, French armies would not be weakened by fighting in Spain.
Still from the perspective of the time, Peninsular war was not viewed as a great way how to win a war in Britain. It almost ended in a total disaster quite a few times and it was only until later date when it turned out to be a way to victory (after third siege of Badajoz in 1812).
Diplomatic game of early months and years could be very interesting here, it could shift balance and balance in many ways.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
Pocus wrote:Yes, that's a good what if and somehow easy to set in place. It opens new possibilities. Now what about the other side of the coin. How to have a what if where Spain is at war with France since the start and an adamant ally of GBR?
Such a scenario in not pure fantasy, lets imagine that Napoleon was successful in his colonial policy prior to 1805 and Luisiana, Haiti and Cape Town are in french hands... Spain is uncertain about its holdings in Cuba while is having an hungry eye on New Orleans,,,
Lets imagine Ferdinand being a king, UK having some kind of demarcation treaty with spain in the new world and spain having an agenda in italy - meaning spain willing to regain naples, parma, milano...
It was spanish political goal during XVIII century, spanish army was active in italian wars in 1740-1748
So maybe we can imagine some kind of general treaty between uk and spain being signed in 1804 - uk prommising to protect spanish empire and support spanish war goals
Maybe even uk supporting spaing getting back Flandress...
marek1978 wrote:Such a scenario in not pure fantasy, lets imagine that Napoleon was successful in his colonial policy prior to 1805 and Luisiana, Haiti and Cape Town are in french hands... Spain is uncertain about its holdings in Cuba while is having an hungry eye on New Orleans,,,
Lets imagine Ferdinand being a king, UK having some kind of demarcation treaty with spain in the new world and spain having an agenda in italy - meaning spain willing to regain naples, parma, milano...
It was spanish political goal during XVIII century, spanish army was active in italian wars in 1740-1748
So maybe we can imagine some kind of general treaty between uk and spain being signed in 1804 - uk prommising to protect spanish empire and support spanish war goals
Maybe even uk supporting spaing getting back Flandress...
This would be hard to imagine even with earlier game start date. I picture game start around 1804/5 (ofcourse having it span period from Revolution till Waterloo would be awesome).
Alliance between Spain and Britain in 1804? Well there would have to be a serious diplomatic struggle decades before to get this kind of a deal and actually it was quite the opposite.
Reasons why it´s that unplausable:
1) Spaniards really didn´t like Brits (still don´t Gibraltar is still British afterall) and there was a huge rivalry between them.
2) But the most important fact here is that Spain was aligned to Rev. France since 1796 and de facto in war with Britain the whole time (war of the first coalition-ended in 1802), then it started again in 1804 and lasted technically until 1808.
3)After Trafalgar and French behavior in Spain it shifted to a more pro-british stance but still there were serious issues.
Plus Spanish state was weak internally and although Italy were their goal in 18th century, here they mostly wanted Portugal thus the alliance with France.
When that imploded they had enough problems to keep things together really, chance of getting Flanders...no way they had no pull for this kind of deal.
In-game I can imagine possible netrality (if game starts in 1804) or in case of Spain allied to France reluctant support and minimum backing. In reality Spain gave Napoleon their best troops, fought with them at Trafalgar, invaded Portugal in 1807 with them (mostly succesfully) and the rift come because French got bit out of hand and Spanish got rightfully concerned about occupation by France.
Possible things that would influence Spain decision:
A. Continental Blockade ( British goods refused in european ports, Portugal didn´t care = Nappy got angry)
B. France won´t try to invade Britain thus no Trafalgar = chance for better relations in case of Spain and Portugal.
C. France won´t be able to secure hegemony in Europe against Austria and Prussia.
....possible few more things.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
Well
Definietely, spanish british alliance is a hard thing to imagine but spain being a part of the large european coalition fighting the french domination in europe is actually a thing that happened on many occasions in late XVII century
And dont forget spain was part of the first coalition.
So lets think about spain fighting france in 1805 as an not very possible but still an option in the game
Definietely, spanish british alliance is a hard thing to imagine but spain being a part of the large european coalition fighting the french domination in europe is actually a thing that happened on many occasions in late XVII century
And dont forget spain was part of the first coalition.
So lets think about spain fighting france in 1805 as an not very possible but still an option in the game
Smitzer52 wrote:This would be hard to imagine even with earlier game start date. I picture game start around 1804/5 (ofcourse having it span period from Revolution till Waterloo would be awesome).
Alliance between Spain and Britain in 1804? Well there would have to be a serious diplomatic struggle decades before to get this kind of a deal and actually it was quite the opposite.
Reasons why it´s that unplausable:
1) Spaniards really didn´t like Brits (still don´t Gibraltar is still British afterall) and there was a huge rivalry between them.
2) But the most important fact here is that Spain was aligned to Rev. France since 1796 and de facto in war with Britain the whole time (war of the first coalition-ended in 1802), then it started again in 1804 and lasted technically until 1808.
3)After Trafalgar and French behavior in Spain it shifted to a more pro-british stance but still there were serious issues.
Plus Spanish state was weak internally and although Italy were their goal in 18th century, here they mostly wanted Portugal thus the alliance with France.
When that imploded they had enough problems to keep things together really, chance of getting Flanders...no way they had no pull for this kind of deal.
In-game I can imagine possible netrality (if game starts in 1804) or in case of Spain allied to France reluctant support and minimum backing. In reality Spain gave Napoleon their best troops, fought with them at Trafalgar, invaded Portugal in 1807 with them (mostly succesfully) and the rift come because French got bit out of hand and Spanish got rightfully concerned about occupation by France.
Possible things that would influence Spain decision:
A. Continental Blockade ( British goods refused in european ports, Portugal didn´t care = Nappy got angry)
B. France won´t try to invade Britain thus no Trafalgar = chance for better relations in case of Spain and Portugal.
C. France won´t be able to secure hegemony in Europe against Austria and Prussia.
....possible few more things.
True, Spain changed sides kinda quick here didn´t they. Although their involvement in first coalition was kinda "meeh" let´s not risk much (well entire first coalition was kinda "meeh").
This kind of behavior was typical for Napoleonic wars and pre-wars so yeah flexibility here could really be fun.
But it will really depend on the startdate. Some things are simply set in 1804/5.
Although their involvement in first coalition was kinda "meeh" let´s not risk much (well entire first coalition was kinda "meeh").
This kind of behavior was typical for Napoleonic wars and pre-wars so yeah flexibility here could really be fun.
But it will really depend on the startdate. Some things are simply set in 1804/5.
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
European Powers routinely changed sides in the 16-19 centuries in all wars.
Eg: In War of Austrian Succession, France sided with Prussia and against Austria, within a few years; France and Austria were allied in the 7 year war.
So, European powers changing sides isn't too surprising, Spain could have been neutral.
Eg: In War of Austrian Succession, France sided with Prussia and against Austria, within a few years; France and Austria were allied in the 7 year war.
So, European powers changing sides isn't too surprising, Spain could have been neutral.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Lets make it harder for France
Lets make german states stronger - both Prussia and Austria
I recently read very interesting history of Prussia - "Iron Kingdom"
Very interesting approach.
Author points that although there is a widespread believe that 1806 defeat was such a a shock for Prussian elites that they decided to go on with huge state and army reforms it is not tottaly true.
There was a strong reformist wing active in Prussian state and army, and it was calling for reformes before 1806 as it saw dangerous things happening inside of prussia.
Such a "reformist party" had a program and a people - like Gneisnau for example - and existence of such a group was a reason for post 1807 reform to be actually successful so fast....
What if those reforms were introduced before 1805/1806?
In game terms it could translate in Prussian cities producing more money and manpower and supplies ( as the better run country is richer)
And prussian army could have better statisct, with army being bit bigger, bit better trained, experienced , having more manpower resources, better organization and generals having better statistics ( partly to represent better training of officer corps)
The very same could go to Austria as there was strong reformist party in the army and in the country - it came to power after 1805 defeat and produced much more cappable army of 1809.
So why not to imagine Austria conducting reforms prior 1805, having Charles as a commander, and having bit better army as well
Lets make german states stronger - both Prussia and Austria
I recently read very interesting history of Prussia - "Iron Kingdom"
Very interesting approach.
Author points that although there is a widespread believe that 1806 defeat was such a a shock for Prussian elites that they decided to go on with huge state and army reforms it is not tottaly true.
There was a strong reformist wing active in Prussian state and army, and it was calling for reformes before 1806 as it saw dangerous things happening inside of prussia.
Such a "reformist party" had a program and a people - like Gneisnau for example - and existence of such a group was a reason for post 1807 reform to be actually successful so fast....
What if those reforms were introduced before 1805/1806?
In game terms it could translate in Prussian cities producing more money and manpower and supplies ( as the better run country is richer)
And prussian army could have better statisct, with army being bit bigger, bit better trained, experienced , having more manpower resources, better organization and generals having better statistics ( partly to represent better training of officer corps)
The very same could go to Austria as there was strong reformist party in the army and in the country - it came to power after 1805 defeat and produced much more cappable army of 1809.
So why not to imagine Austria conducting reforms prior 1805, having Charles as a commander, and having bit better army as well
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests