|
Eastern Entente, especially if this includes Serbia. Russia in WW1 is a pretty interesting beast, really, and not just for the Revolution which receives by far the lion's share of recognition. The thing about Russia in this time was potential, or rather unfulfilled potential, for the past decade Russia, partly fuelled by generous French loans, had been the most rapidly growing economy on Earth, industry had begun to be seriously developed and output multiplied year by year, more and more railroad was laid down (for the purpose of strengthening the system of strategic reserves) and illiteracy was halved during the 10 year period. However none of these developments had really been completed or run their course by the time the war cam, a fact known by others, such as Germany's military leadership, much of their fatalism when it came to accepting (or embracing) war in 1914 came from a conviction that it would be better to have a war with Russia now than 3 or 4 years down the line when her industrial output had further multiplied and her strategic railways were complete. Then in the war Russia would suffer from the strategic, logistical and economic shortcomings it had because of this incomplete transformation. Significant loss of equipment, hard to replace, early in the war also did much to hamper Russian ability to conduct offensives and train troops, this led to some desperate strategies at the time (the whole "the man with the rifle shoots, the one without follows"-thing was actually something that happened from time to time in WW1). Still Russian formations routinely manhandled the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks throughout the war (alot of that probably came from early victories where the Turks suffered tens of thousands of casualties from not being properly equipped and trained for winter mountain warfare), and they had some competent enough commanders to pull of impressive offensive actions throughout the war, Brusilov offensive comes to mind. Also hope this game manages to capture Serbia completely humiliating the Austro-Hungarians in their first unaided attempts to invade and punish the country.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
frankenfreak posted:2C An undue Austro-Hungarian focus on Serbia (though not as great as this would represent) was a thing that drove a lot of German military planners up the walls, it frustrated their plans for dealing with Russia in the east with minimal forces and it became even more of a liability when the Austro-Hungarians did what they do best and were humiliated on the battlefield. I say let's just go with the Schlieffen plan, fatalism and just accepting a two front war from the outset is a very era-appropriate thing to do for Germany. 1C (Also full focus on Serbia, let's see the imperial army gently caress this up)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
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. e: What does faction alignment mean? Austria-Hungary already is a member of the Central Powers, so if they lose a whole bunch of Central Powers alignment, what does this do? Does it make their troops less effective fighting alongside Germans, does it give a chance that they will drop out and seek separate terms or something? Randarkman fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:If Germany doesn't attack Belgium, will Britain even get involved? Realistically, the answer is probably. The violation of Belgian neutrality gave Britain a mighty fine justification to get involved that they could sell to their people, but Britain likely would have entered the war against Germany either way as she had no desire to see Germany dominate Europe (staving off European hegemony was always a cornerstone of British diplomacy) and in the case of an Entente victory Britain would want to stay on the good side of Russia and France since the security of the Empire depended on atleast cordial relations with the two. There's a lot more going into it than just that, Britain had a whole host of reasons to ally with France and Russia against Germany that did not include Germany violating Belgium's neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Jesus, so that corps is basically history. That's close to 50% casualties in men and about 25%-30% of guns lost. e: How are the Turks in regards to troop quality and commanders? Historically the Turkish army only really managed to put up a good fight in defensive operations in its own territory, they seem to have simply lacked the infrastructure necessary to carry through and support large scale offensives. Basically, are the Turks capable of carrying out offensives and moving large numbers of troops? Or can they only contribute as a distraction for the British Empire as they have to defend themselves against attacks in the Middle East and against a possible amphibious assault? Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:it took violating Belgium's sovereignty to get britain in the war in reality, what the gently caress brought them in this time? Germany and Austria-Hungary starting off a major war might have helped... Britain becoming involved was pretty much guaranteed, most German military planners gambled on this which is a large part of the reason why they thought little of violating Belgium's neutrality. Britain had a lot of reason to become involved that didn't involve Belgium. There were existing, though secret and not completely binding, treaties with France and Russia (separate from each other and the British were not privy to the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance. Then there was the British foreign policy approach of generally wanting to prevent any one power from attaining hegemony in Europe, from the late 19th century onwards Germany looked to fit the bill in this regard and the naval arms race that began at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th didn't do much to ease relations. Then there's the fact that the British were very aware of the vulnerabiity of their Empire, its security was in many ways dependent on relatively good relations with France and Russia and their good will. What happens if they win and Britain had stood aside? What does a German victory and the fall of France and Russia mean for this (nobody can really say)? Britain waged war against Germany because it was understood among its leadership that it was in the interest of the country's policy, the violation of Belgium's neutrality rallied popular opinion and may have brought Britain in sooner than otherwise (though in reality Britain declared war on the 4 August, 3 days after Germany had declared war on Russia and France and a couple of days before German and French armies even came into serious contact with each other).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Bad luck? Maybe it's because we're not putting enough pressure on the French, should have kicked in the door through Belgium.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Pershing posted:Yeah im not particularly worried about Italy entering. The cost to placate them is too high anyway. I think there was this kind of joke around WWII in Germany about the worth of Italy as an ally. Hitler is told that Italy has entered the war. He responds that there is no reason to worry and that 2 divisions should be enough to settle the matter. He is then informed that "no, you misunderstand, Italy entered the war on our side!". Hitler responds that this changes things, send 10 divisions instead. At least I think it was WWII. Might just as well have been about WWI where it was much more unclear which side Italy was going to end up on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:hot take: we're losing The war might be unwinnable, but we need a great victory so we can negotiate an end from a position of strength.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
I can't really tell as I don't know these games too well, but what's the entrenchment level looking like at the moment? Have any of the fronts really seen any significant diggin in yet? I mean progress has been kind of light in the east and the French and British are basically doing their own guns of august in the west. Those casualties are pretty insane though, are we currently looking at a half-year long battle of the frontiers?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Aren't the Bulgarians like way better than the Austrians?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
So in the battles of May 1915 on the main fronts of the war (eastern and western) the following casualties have been sustained (guess you could look at difference between this month and last month to then find out the number of casualties from attrition if it tracks that): German: 231,753 British and French: 291,581 Russian: 158,691 Austro-Hungarian: 87,143 That has to be the bloodiest month yet. Those casualties are pretty crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Red Army, huh. Guess the revolution's come early.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Don't feel bad, I was too. I dont think anyone voting realized how much stronger France gets withoutthe Schliffen Plan and related territorial losses. My next game I'm going to try the same thing. That's pretty much totally historically accurate though. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:...and the back, sides, and probably from above as well. Especially when you don't strike a decisive blow against at least one of your enemies before they can gather their strength. Things shouldn't really go all that well when you go against the one single plan that your country has in case of a war*. The one they had spent countless hours exercizing and planning, down to precise time tables for troop trains. You can't abandon the Schlieffen plan! Keep the right wing strong! * Really the only plan for German mobilization, it was really quite unthinkable maybe impossible for the German army to not carry out the Schlieffen plan if it was mobilized, virtually everything was built up around doing it. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:23 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Should Kitchener even be available as a British general in the game? I'm pretty sure he didn't take direct military command during the war as he was war minister (though he retained his title as field marshal). He did at one point threaten Sir John French that he would relinquish him of his command and take it himself, but that was more of a threat possibly than something that actually might have gone through (and I believe most of the government did not believe it proper for him to command troops as he held a civilian office). Then again it seems perfectly in character for Kitchener to be this all conquering brutal warlord at the head of 1 and a half million men.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Is the death of Kitchener scripted in this game?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
That's a pretty heroic last stand from the defenders of Saarbourg. They died almost to a man while inflicting 4:1 casualties on the British. Remember Saarbourg.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 16:32
|
|
