|
The Western Entente Come on, do it for FRANCE.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
After giving it some thought, invading Switzerland just seem like a terrible idea, as it stretches Germany far too thin. Thus: German: B, the Moltke Plan Austria: B, The Kaiser Plan Together, this is the "Invade Russia" plan: Russia is so weak that Austria can actually fight their troops man-for-man on even terms, and a two front war on Russia could allow Germany the opportunity (depending on how thin the Eastern Entente forces are) to clear the Baltic Sea of coastal guns so that the German navy can actually be used for something. Once Russia is crippled by the initial blow, Germany can begin trickling more and more people west to put a check on Britain and France, who will eventually arrive in force at what should be a VERY well defended German border. While the Germans hold the line there, Germany can deliver a killing blow to Russia, and then use both ships and rail to move the bulk of the army against the Western Entente, who should be open to a flanking attack somewhere (the exact location depends on where they send most of their troops).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That's all well and good, but how many Zerbs will be killed if we follow this plan? 2B Austria makes it somewhat clear that they'll be dealt with, just at a later date. If they waste themselves attacking fortified defenses in the mean time, all the better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:We've heard these promises of Zerb blood for years with no actual Zerb blood. I am sick of out-of-touch politicians promising us Death To Zerbs but then invariably bait-and-switching us into killing Russians or Bulgarians. It's not the same. What madness is this? Serbia has been a trading partner of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for years, and was only lost because of the French, Russians and Germans to begin with! Hell, they were even ALLIES several decades ago! Once the French and Russians have been suitably punished for their interference, the Serbians will realize that their success against Bulgaria and the Ottomans was a fluke brought on through foreign money, and not some grand dawning of Serbian supremacy; we can discuss reparations after this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Well, there's a lot of Germans helping them out, but I have a feeling we are going to see a whole bunch of dead Austrians. Does this game model the general terribleness of Austro-Hungarian armies? Any danger of Serbia attacking? Though one would hope that defending against Serbia would be a little easier to pull a victory from that than marching all your men into the prepared killing grounds of Serb artillery and then yelling orders at them in a language they don't understand. Actually, the game had to improve Austria's generals a little bit because the leadership was so utterly terrible in real life: even so, it's very difficult for Austria to beat Serbia due to Serbia's defensive terrain and much better troops. Of course, the opposite is now true as well: if Serbia decides to attack (and they probably will), they'll have to face the same riving crossings and mountains that Austria had to, which will greatly even the odds. Also, as I said before, Austrian troops are roughly the same quality as the Russian troops, only the Russians have vastly more manpower...assuming they have the time to deploy it, which our plan hopes not to give them. All that said, holding France off might prove difficult, and Britain won't be needed to save the western front, so they might decide to move against the Ottomans, or even the Austrians instead. Even so, this is still a *much* better plan than the "attack the mountainous neutral country while France is lined up at Germany's borders" plan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:they still have an entente drift, and is one of two nations (the other being the US) that can never be convinced to join the CP. Of course, they can still end up favoring the CP if you don't use submarine warfare (among other things), which has some benefits: mostly, it gives the Entente a harder time pressuring the US into war. On the bright side, the CP can get Italy on their side by doing stupid poo poo like giving Italy some of Austria's best defensive terrain, on top of getting stupid lucky with diplomat visits! Italy might seem worthless...which it mostly is, on top of the opportunity cost being stupid high...but Italy guys!  Also, the Western Entente sadly can't declare war on the US as a method either, so it's impossible to make history go completely batshit bananas for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Give the Ottomans the ships, but not the gold: we want the Turks to join us eventually, but we also need Bulgaria (who should join eventually themselves) to actually make good use of the Ottoman soldiers. Without Bulgaria, the Ottomans don't have a whole lot of options for moving about, but bringing Bulgaria in too fast means being forced to step on toes (especially Romania's). If we time things right, the Ottomans should have a path to both the eastern and western front just as they join up, which should be a nasty surprise to for the Serb's and the Frogs. The big question is where to send the diplomats to: Bulgaria and Romania are obvious choices, but there are good arguments for both Italy and Britain. On the one hand, Italy might be kept out of the war entirely, freeing up troops to deal with Russia and France, but trying to delay Britain's entry into the war give GH some early breathing room, if he's lucky. Of course, if the Entente moves to keep the Ottomans out the war, things might change; doesn't seem likely though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:The uboats were on their way to the box they need to be in to raid. How the battlecruisers caught them I have no idea. Great Britain probably got lucky while moving to blockade the CP and found the submarines that way, blasting them while they were on the move. Also, either the subs were grouped together far too much, killing their evasion, or the British used the Intercept command on your practically leaderless force.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:I'd vote we wait on Turkey for now, just because everything the CP brings in is going to siphon German troops away as stiffener. We just lost a battle in Metz, and the Russians aren't hurt substantially yet. Bulgaria doesn't hurt us at all though, will probably help bring a faster end to Serbia. Possibly the opposite, actually: recognizing Bulgaria's wargoals means losing Romania, who we will then have to fight through to get to Serbia. Of course, if we haven't been sending diplomats to Romania at all, then they might already be a lost cause, and they aren't that difficult to beat...but it still slows us down. Delaying Ottoman and Bulgarian entry into the war so we can snag Romania and keep a few countries neutral can definitely be worth it if it's a realistic possibility. Italy is...more difficult: those concessions will hurt bad if Italy ends up joining the entente (which is always a crap shoot, unless the entente is being curb-stomped), but keeping them neutral for a long time means more bodies to throw at our current enemies. I'll need to think on it 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Romania will not join the war on our side, for the simple reason that Austria controls vast portions of land that they consider to be there. Trying to entice Romania will at best delay their entry into the war. It's possible for any of the Balkan nations to enter either side, and Romania specifically begins moving towards the CP if their Alignment is > 70%. Losing 30% support by backing Bulgaria crushes that, and the further 10% move towards the Entente caused by Bulgaria joining the CP results in a declaration of war, which is why it's a haphazard option. Bear in mind, Romania also gives agricultural aid if their CP alignment is at >20% (as does Italy and Belgium, but good luck with that), which can slightly reduce the chances of rebellion in Germany.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Gas Metz, take Egypt. There probably won't be a better chance to use the gas, and the Ottomans simply don't have the logistical ability to fight a multi-front war.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
The game tries to follow history, so the CP always have the hardest time winning: while attacking France would have made the start easier, we would still have ended up with the same "Germany can't realistically fight a war on two fronts" problem once Russia got it's poo poo together. Of course, it might have been better to play Germany's defensive plan and attack with the Austrians, since the Germans don't need *that* many armies to beat the Russians with good planning; but good planning only comes with experience, so .
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Yeah, AH seems to believe that Pyrrhic victory is the only victory worth having I don't think they had much choice: they would have to expand the region to make it historically correct, or maybe name it after one of the cities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:59
|
|
how are they so bad?
|
HannibalBarca posted:The German people demand revenge against Perfidious Albion! SORTIE THE HIGH SEAS FLEET! Tempting as that is, losing big ships does horrific things to national moral; as such, it's almost never worth the risk.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Italy joined the war pretty quickly, considering the Entente haven't even used political cards to recruit them. Have you been using diplomats, Grey?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:35
|
|