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

[Person of Interest]

Even with an initial German victory in the North Sea the UK could recover relatively quickly and wear down the Germans over time unless the Germans achieved a decisive victory akin to a Trafalgar and that would have been very unlikely. An initial German attack can be justified but a full throw of the dice would be very risky. Better to maintain a powerful surface fleet as a threat and to pursue a raiding strategy imo. Of course making an enemy of Britain in the first place was inexcusable but that is another discussion.

[Ironclad61]

Well, better than use a defensive strategy... VS UK that use same strategy, UK has the numbers but more to block, i refer to win fast war to prevent the final situation that face central powers... use teh navy first year all they can is necesary to try win ASAP.

I never think UK even with no german navy mantein neutral, in the end they have in mind a lot Napoleonic wars and after them they try dont have a superpower in the continent, they prefer a divided continent with more powers, if germans have no navy and center in land in the end they suffer to a naval blockage with UK as enemy... remember the Napoleon try to block a naval nation with no a great navy

UK maybe enter later in war with no german navy but in the end sure they join entente think that germans were and need be aggresors to have iniciative and exploit initial numeric advantage in west.

[Person of Interest]

I have always thought that a Russia first strategy is the better option but that assumes that Germany waits for France declare war against Germany first and no German invasion of Belgium of course. There was no great public desire in Britain to get involved on the Continent unless there was an indication that Germany desired domination. By simply assuming the role of defending their Austrian ally against a Russian declaration of war the Germans could have avoided the onus of being labeled as the aggressor and Italy would have been bound by treaty to join as well; definitely open to debate whether they would have found some excuse to stay neutral in any event of course.

Even if Britain still decided to intervene it would have probably been delayed for months and public opinion would not have been fully behind the decision and the government would possibly have fallen. I am not sure how flexible the Germans can be in the game except that they don't start at war with Belgium and France would be extremely hesitant to attack Belgium so Germany should be free to concentrate against Russia along with Austria and the Ottomans in order to knock Russia out of the war some time in 1915. At that time assuming Britain has entered the war I would pursue an economic strategy against British shipping which is certainly not defensive. I just think the risks of a head on fight against the Royal Navy are not worth any likely benefits.

[Templer]

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

U-Boot hunting? Also very exciting! This could be a game inside the game.
I know the U-Boot war will be abstracted, but please no naval boxes for the U-Boot war/hunting.
I like the way the "Strategic Command" series model the sub war.

[H Gilmer3]

Well, Templer you said sub something and I said I hope the Naval War is more detailed or something. I blame myself.

[Person of Interest]

Since they have included Naval Mines and lesser naval craft it would appear that the naval warfare gameplay will be fairly detailed.

[Shri]

The naval strength of the powers in 1914 Country Personnel Large

Naval Vessels (Dreadnoughts)
Tonnage
Russia 54,000 4 328,000
France 68,000 10 731,000
Britain 209,000 29 2,205,000
TOTAL 331,000 43 3,264,000
Germany 79,000 17 1,019,000
Austria-Hungary 16,000 3* 249,000
TOTAL 95,000 20 1,268,000
GRAND TOTAL 426,000 63 4,532,000
*4th not commissioned yet. (Source: Ferguson, Niall. The pity of war. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1999. 85.)

This is from Nial Fergusson's Book and same can be seen in Paul Kennedy's Book Too.
Tonnage wise, allies had 150% more tonnage in Big Ships- Dreadnoughts + Superdreadnoughts compared to CP
and Number wise the allies had 73% more numbers, i.e for every 2 CP Big ships, Allies had 5.
Infact RN alone had more ships than - Germany + Austria + Italy!

So it is not 50:50 but more like 75:25 or 70:30 like i had suggested in my earlier posts.

What you are doing is adding the entire HCF and other German Fleets, but adding only Grand Fleet on UK side and getting 50:50 or near 50:50 chance.
UK had- Grand Fleet, Home Fleet, Channel Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, West Indies Fleet, Gibraltar Fleet, India Fleet and Far East Fleet.
Of-course several fleets were short on Dreadnoughts and equivalents but still theoretically if threatened in a war of attrition the UK could club 2 or more fleets and form a monster DEATH STAR fleet to obliterate the HCF.
even taking losses at the rate of 3:2 i.e. Losing 3 big ships for every 2 of HCF which is more than enough for compensating the minor advantages held by the Germans, The Germans would lose their 17- Dreadnought and Super Dreadnoughts and UK would lose 25 still leaving UK with 4 Dreadnoughts/Super Dreadnoughts and Germany with none. Also UK could build 8 ships in pre-war period when Germany in same time period built just 4-5.
In War definitely UK could maintain or increase this speed of construction and Germany's production will go down as the Army needs steel for Guns etc.

[Shri]

British German
Dreadnought Battleships 28 16
Pre-Dreadnoughts 0 6
Battlecruisers 9 5
Armoured Cruisers 8 0
Light Cruisers 26 11
Destroyers 79 61
Seaplane Carrier 1 0

Comparison of Forces engaged in 1916- Jutland.
UK's losses were in Armored cruisers (outdated ships and affordable) and in Battlecruisers (Not so affordable) but
HCF lost 4/11 Cruisers (Not affordable) and Lost Battle cruisers and Pr-Dreadnoughts (not affordable ) and also several Dreadnoughts were damaged.
Hence HCF did lose to the GF of the RN despite sinking more in terms of tonnage as the RN could afford these losses easily.

Further Adm. Jellicoe had 4 Dreadnought/Super Dreadnoughts in reserve at Scapa Flow and also several smaller ships like- Cruisers and Destroyers patrolling between the North Sea and Norway, which were not part of this battle. The RN was a legendary monster of the high seas and had a very high and aggressive reputation and deservedly so, the RN was in the Seas what the Prussian Army was on Land.

[Ironclad61]

But in 1914-1915 RN needs cover a lot of seas... think that they ask to japan for help in Mediterranean... and send here DDs and the AH navy was on the bottle from the first day.

The question is that in the North sea in the early part of war RN was not very superior to germany, an agresive use of navy searching battles by german navy sure force RN to fight... and the RN tactic was wait until they have more superiority over germans.

The question with subs is the resupply system... maybe they cant be on hunt areas a lot time and when allies research new tactics and material... deal with combat losses.

PD: this is something i am curious about game, how it cover the tactical loses, you know, static fronts are allways suffering loses even when both sides are on defensive.

[Shri]

Even with an initial German victory in the North Sea the UK could recover relatively quickly and wear down the Germans over time unless the Germans achieved a decisive victory akin to a Trafalgar and that would have been very unlikely. An initial German attack can be justified but a full throw of the dice would be very risky. Better to maintain a powerful surface fleet as a threat and to pursue a raiding strategy imo. Of course making an enemy of Britain in the first place was inexcusable but that is another discussion.

+1

German Diplomacy post Bismarck was as awful as possible in total contrast to Bismarckian period from 1852 to 1890.
Not only UK but Japan was a natural ally for Imp. Germany and both were squandered and made into eventual enemies.

[Ironclad61]

Well, germans fight with the weapons and in the situation they have... we know now that a defensive strategy was wrong, in the end they surrender with not a full use of his navy.

Diplomacy was horrible for germans, they fight in 2 land fronts and in the end they need fight to control a gate in north sea and dont be isolated i never see the german navy as a problem, if they dont had a navy this with a lot of luck only delay UK declaration of war... even if germans avoid eat terrain in west sure eat it on east and they can create some pupet nations under their control... after control Europe... with all resources they can control and with no land enemy what you think they do???

UK strategy was allways cut a single power in Europe to prevent a new Napoleon, he fail in naval area but you cant allways expect enemies fail in the only area you are superior, even worst to defeat UK you dont need be very superior, you need be enough strong to or block them or invade the island, after invasion is done...

[Person of Interest]

We also know that an offensive strategy didn't succeed. Either strategy has the potential to succeed but neither is strongly in Germany's favor. She simply can't take on the rest of Europe with only weak allies for support. I just feel that the risks of a major naval confrontation against Britain is not worth the risk and by avoiding said naval battle and attack on Belgium, the possibility to delay British entry could supply the needed time to deal Russia a decisive defeat. The Eastern Front is the only area that the Central Powers can concentrate against a single enemy. If Germany can deal Russia a decisive blow then she should be able to deal with France and Britain on a single front. I guess it depends on the victory conditions but I assume that if Russia is defeated then the Entente will be required to attack and defeat Germany. Germany can use Belgium as a shield or choose to quickly attack her after Russia is defeated but without an invasion of Belgium and unrestricted submarine warfare The United States will likely remain neutral. Again depending on how the game system functions.

[Ironclad61]

Well, i am to a pro-east strategy, central powers wining east in 1916 (not imposible if they are defensive in west something that made unusefull attack Belgium that maybe delay UK enter in war a few months) sure prevent Romania and Italy go to entente (I never understand why central powers dont try "buy" Italy with the french colonial empire in north Africa), in the worst situation they could be neutral and in the best situation can join central powers... but the point is AH navy can do something in Mediterranean and UK-France sure need send some naval units to Mediterranean, not only for offensive job... this retreat even more units from north sea and maybe made UK win total advantage in this area later.

But with navy i allways see the german defensive role a little stupid... you invest A LOT of resources in a navy to at least fight in sea and you mantein it hide, not a great use of resources, sure you are going to lose ships but in the end lose game made you lose the complete fleet and you dont play with "lady luck dices"... better have 1% chance to win than 100% to lose.

[Shri]

We also know that an offensive strategy didn't succeed. Either strategy has the potential to succeed but neither is strongly in Germany's favor. She simply can't take on the rest of Europe with only weak allies for support. I just feel that the risks of a major naval confrontation against Britain is not worth the risk and by avoiding said naval battle and attack on Belgium, the possibility to delay British entry could supply the needed time to deal Russia a decisive defeat. The Eastern Front is the only area that the Central Powers can concentrate against a single enemy. If Germany can deal Russia a decisive blow then she should be able to deal with France and Britain on a single front. I guess it depends on the victory conditions but I assume that if Russia is defeated then the Entente will be required to attack and defeat Germany. Germany can use Belgium as a shield or choose to quickly attack her after Russia is defeated but without an invasion of Belgium and unrestricted submarine warfare The United States will likely remain neutral. Again depending on how the game system functions.

I agree with you to a great extent. Still i feel German Strength was on Land not Water. So- Leave Belgium, fight like Von Moltke Sr. had told them with 2-3 armies (mostly from Southern Germany- Bavarians, Wurtemberg, Baden and AL forces) defensive battles on both sides of the Rhine.
Use 4-5 armies for a decisive attack from East Prussia and outwards.. there was a manoeuvrings prepared by Conrad Von Hotzendorff of Austria, called SIEDLITZ Manoeuvre which will outflank all troops in Russian Poland and trap 2-3 Russian Armies in one go, highly lucrative but highly risky, the Austrian forces were too weak to pull it off but 4-5 German Armies operating in tandem in East Prussia could have and resulted in a massive loss for Russians in 1914 itself.

In WW1 Gold- there is a Plan Moltke where you get 5 armies on the east and the russians have been badly mauled by me in 1914. You suffer initial morale losses due to change of Schlieffen plan but those enormous victories compensate with high morale.

[Tamas]

I would tend to agree with you guys, but let's not forget (both in real life and in games) that "knocking out Russia will be easy" is the famous last word of a few mighty armies of the past. In hindsight of course Russia seems an easier target, but in 1914 and before it when the plans were made, France wasn't this juggernaut holding fast (even if crumbling by the end) for 4 years amidst a living nightmare, but a country that collapsed quickly against Prussian might in 1870.

Also, in both WW1 Gold and End All Wars (and real life too I guess if hindsight is available), I would be asking the question: will I have the means to truly crush France past 1916, if I have not made advances against it in the movement phase? Could I hope to break through the French-German border when trenches are already quite advanced and the Entente has had two years of constant buildup? And because of that buildup, would not it be equal suicide to invade Belgium then?

Russia First might still be the better strategy, but I don't think it is such a clear-cut choice.

[wosung]

Plus, Germany going East all out and staying on the defensive in the West could trigger more Entente coastal adventures. Now imagine a successful Gallipoli.

[Shri]

I would tend to agree with you guys, but let's not forget (both in real life and in games) that "knocking out Russia will be easy" is the famous last word of a few mighty armies of the past. In hindsight of course Russia seems an easier target, but in 1914 and before it when the plans were made, France wasn't this juggernaut holding fast (even if crumbling by the end) for 4 years amidst a living nightmare, but a country that collapsed quickly against Prussian might in 1870.

Also, in both WW1 Gold and End All Wars (and real life too I guess if hindsight is available), I would be asking the question: will I have the means to truly crush France past 1916, if I have not made advances against it in the movement phase? Could I hope to break through the French-German border when trenches are already quite advanced and the Entente has had two years of constant buildup? And because of that buildup, would not it be equal suicide to invade Belgium then?

Russia First might still be the better strategy, but I don't think it is such a clear-cut choice.

Aren't you forgetting one part of the calculation of Russia First?
Italy would be scared to stab in the back as Russia declared war first and Germany struck Russia and not Belgium and UK.
Also UK will not directly be involved as public opinion will be against it, CP wouldn't have to worry about Blockade.
Hence, no SUB WAR and no USA involvement and also one more factor-
Japan if induced with Pacific colonies may end up attacking Vladivostok!

Edit Reason: TOO many Geo-Political possibilities open up for CP.

Secondly, i am loath to believe that France is powerful enough to strike out the Western German Army. So it will have frontal assaults and lose lot of men early on and also in early counter-attacks.

[Ironclad61]

Well, Rusia in 1914 was stronger than many think BUT only for a short fight, after 2 years facing full CP it can breaks easy, is like a tank, secure until something pen it... you dont need destroy Rusia, you need simple break it and they cant recover.... apart this AH sure suffer a lot less casualties and problems if CP center first in Rusia, and even Ottomans can save resources to do a better job in middle east.

Something we dont need forgive is that in west France plan was attack... if germany waits the first wave, eliminate it (say bye bye to the french regular army) a counter attack could secure maybe the same terrain as they secure in real life... even more, they can simple move forward to have a "guard post" in french terrain something that force France attack attack attack, no search a 2nd front... a good way to force enemy fight where you want and until... 1917 defensive was a lot stronger than offensive, even more, with less troops in west germans can hold the same like they do in real life but suffering lower losses (more MGs and heavy arty in west and leave soldiers, cavalry for east).

Japan is other interesting thing... they fear more Rusia than Germany and apart this they even in this years have one eye over the European colonies in south and China... i dont see strange Japan attacking russians IF UK stay neutral.

This is the interesting point in WWI compared with WWII there are more political what ifs, many of them small but very important.

[Person of Interest]

I think a critical question that will probably determine whether an Eastern strategy is viable will be the Victory Conditions. If the CP can win by knocking Russia out of the war and essentially holding their own elsewhere then I think Russia first is the way to go but that may be too easy and Germany may be required to also knock out France. Tamas also brings up a good point with which I agree and that is that if Germany foregoes attacking France immediately their chances for ever knocking France out decrease rapidly. If Germany does go east first I think they will have to count on Italian entry on the side of the CP or France will be almost untouchable after 1915. Even with Italian entry on the side of the CP it will be a bloody slog against the French and British but I think Germany can certainly hold their own. Wosung also brings up a good point that without Britain being tied to the defense of France after Germany is committed to the east, the Ottomans will most likely come under serious pressure in the Middle East. I thinks the Diplomatic maneuvering will be crucial whichever strategy is followed but really opens up with a Russia first gambit.

[Kensai]

In real life the German Generals were facing the opposite dilemma. They were certain they will knock out France quickly as in 1870 and then face Russia alone in a difficult war of attrition. They had in mind the previous victory against the French (40+ years earlier!) and the problems Napoleon had invading Russia in 1812.

In the end they faced the opposite situation. Who could have guessed?

[Ace]

Who knows how the war would unfold if Germany had gone East. Russian warplans called for scorched land and retreat tactics if the Germany attacked eastwards. And in 1914, Russian morale was far greater than in '15 and '16. So, I am not convinced quick victory in the East would be achieved. Germany's greatest error was to bring in UK to the war. When the RN placed the blockade in effect, they were finished. The Germans knew it in Nov,1914, they just did not want to admit it...

[Kronolog]

If the Germans were content to stay on the defensive in the West, could not France then perhaps attack through Belgium in an attempt to outflank the German troops on the Franco-German border? A quick thrust might bring the French dangerously close to the Ruhr.

[Person of Interest]

If the Germans were content to stay on the defensive in the West, could not France then perhaps attack through Belgium in an attempt to outflank the German troops on the Franco-German border? A quick thrust might bring the French dangerously close to the Ruhr.

That was considered by the French before the war but was laid aside because Britain would have certainly not entered the war and France would have had to face the fortresses of Liege and Namur and they didn't have the large caliber howitzers that were needed to reduce them. Both Germany and France were treaty bound to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium and the German's paid a huge price for violating that treaty and France was extremely loathe to accept the diplomatic hit.

[Person of Interest]

Who knows how the war would unfold if Germany had gone East. Russian warplans called for scorched land and retreat tactics if the Germany attacked eastwards. And in 1914, Russian morale was far greater than in '15 and '16. So, I am not convinced quick victory in the East would be achieved. Germany's greatest error was to bring in UK to the war. When the RN placed the blockade in effect, they were finished. The Germans knew it in Nov,1914, they just did not want to admit it...

That is certainly true and Fortune can be very fickle in war. There are many different scenarios that could have played out.

[Uawcat]

That is certainly true and Fortune can be very fickle in war. There are many different scenarios that could have played out.

The reason I am really looking forward to the scenario where you can place your units freely. Would be interesting to know which, if existant, restrictions apply.

[Person of Interest]

The reason I am really looking forward to the scenario where you can place your units freely. Would be interesting to know which, if existant, restrictions apply.

Agreed! I can't wait to play with the possibilities. I think TEAW will rank right up there with AJE as my favorite AGEOD games.

[elxaime]

A Sitzkrieg in the west would also have allowed France and Britain (assuming British entry eventually, even absent Belgian invasion) to be much more expansive in the Balkans, perhaps landing a real host at Salonika that would have saved the Serbs and overawed the Bulgarians. Probably would have meant real successes against the Turks earlier. The latter would have opened the Dardanelles to allow not just supplies, but Anglo-French armies, to aid the Russians.

[Shri]

To all people quoting western sitzkrieg, please read the French Papers of 1913-1914 of Plan XVII
It called for an- Attack a La Outrance (sorry, my french is not too good; something like that is written- calling for all out attack and push to Rhine), also french placed faith on 'ELAN' compared to machine guns and heavy artillery and digging in, french had those blue-red uniforms too in 1914.
A Defensive Western Germany Army Group (3 Armies say), will have the following-

Belgium Neutral, hence more supplies for Germany
UK antagonistic but neutral, without that Belgium clause UK cannot go to war, already in 1914, Asquith Govt faced lot of problems and a few cabinet members resigned. Result- No Blockade and hence more supplies.
Italy is Neutral, still more supplies.
Are we getting the drift? Germany lost due to Home Front Starvation and Blockade more than Battlefield losses, the 1918 gambled offensive was due to Home Front problems, on the Defensive with a lot more supplies war would have continued defensively for 2 more years and who knows what?
USA will be neutral, helping France but neutral.

French Army attacking the well-fortified Elsass-Lothringen lines in 1914 incurred over 0.25 Million casualties in 1914 alone, a repeat of the same is not ruled out in Look-East scenario, actually more casualties expected as Russia will force France to attack more to help them.
In 1914, French high command was loathe to use reserves and thus did not have the numbers to outflank via Belgium + no heavy artillery meant those massive fortresses will take a lot of time to overpower. Also Britain may have declared war on France if Belgium was attacked first by France.

Japan will definitely attack Russia or at least threaten, which means Russia needs to send troops east.
Austrian armies will not be badly mauled and r**** in 1914, resultant- a much better ally for Germany.
Rumania will be scared to side with Russia.
Greece also scared to support Russia.
Greece and Rumania had Hohenzollern Kings (Kaiser's Family, actually the whole of Europe had some German Princely house or other ruling, if these relations had been used, would have helped Germany).
Serbia will be knocked out early as Austria can concentrate armies on that front.
Ottomans will be safer without the British entry.

Who knows how the war would unfold if Germany had gone East. Russian warplans called for scorched land and retreat tactics if the Germany attacked eastwards. And in 1914, Russian morale was far greater than in '15 and '16. So, I am not convinced quick victory in the East would be achieved. Germany's greatest error was to bring in UK to the war. When the RN placed the blockade in effect, they were finished. The Germans knew it in Nov,1914, they just did not want to admit it...

As one of the persons rightly pointed out, Russia may have adopted the old- Kuropatkin plan and commenced a grand retreat from Poland, Baltics and Bylorussia and Ukraine into Russia proper, scorched earth along the way, this will help Austria to concentrate on Serbia strongly and knock them out early.
Also this will result in a Stalemate on eastern front. But not a DEFEAT for CP by any chance.


Fortunes of war are dicey of course,
Old FieldMarshall Graf Moltke in the late 1880's thought a lot about Germany's next war and said it will take 3-7 years for victory and advised defensive victories on east and west.
Alexander III of Russia was a Francophile and reversed Alexander II's policies and in 1880's itself Russia started tilting the French side.

[Uawcat]

I don´t see Japan going to war with the whole TE, but otherwise I think the analysis is accurate.

In the game operations on the flanks might not be sufficient. The Cps have the inner line and can mass quickly in any threatened sector. After getting Britain into the war (which must happen eventually - otherwise the TE is finished), I would try to attack Belgium if only to force the CPs to lenghten their line. Might cause some problems with US entry though

[Ironclad61]

Interesting points... specially the Rusia scorched earth point... i dont think this could be critical for CP, think that they only want Rusia doesnt take their rear, if they defeat Rusia in initial battles with a lot of casualties and i doubt rusians retreat soon because oposite to 1812 they need complete their alliance objetives attacking in east and fixing CP troops, if they retreat maybe they do it in late 1914 or early 1915 but really CP need pursuit them??? i read how germans prefer dont push a lot Rusia, they dont want more problematic people on their empires .... maybe create new states as defense VS Rusia... not a bad idea, they only need leave some troops to support new nations and they can win the most important area for them, and Rusia with a revolution near... maybe is not strange think in Rusia leaving entente and they can center in far east against an agresive Japanese empire and think if in entente had a bad time facing CP coordinated attacks in west... why not Rusia searching take control over west posesions in China??? easy prestige and morale for the nation.

What if... something that in WWI is more interesting than in WWII because is based more in politic and less in battles, WWI was a fight a lot less "evil VS good" and national interests were over ideology