AGEOD Forums

So I started a game as the EE and discovered that I can't participate in diplomacy. (It's been explained to me that the Russians, being nothing but vodka-swilling brutes, couldn't be trusted to conduct their own diplomacy. Or something like that....I'm paraphrasing. )

In any event, as I was pondering this fascinating element of the game design, I noticed Lemelem's thread about his epic march on Paris.

Which raised this question: What happens if the CP defeats the AI-controlled WE in my game? Is it game-over for me too? If so, why? If not, do I still have to ask a now-defeated WE to conduct my diplomacy for me?

(And, yes, I read pages 13 and 14 of the manual. But I'm still confused.)

Thanks.

You can still win, but I expect a minor victory. Remember that the total victory points for the Entente are the sum of WE and EE. With WE knocked out, you should only expect to keep what you have and win by a small margin (by surviving). Last, please remember that Lemelem's victory should not be the norm, especially in harder difficulty settings and/or against humans. Thus, do not freak out if you are not that successful.

Kensai wrote:You can still win, but I expect a minor victory. Remember that the total victory points for the Entente are the sum of WE and EE. With WE knocked out, you should only expect to keep what you have and win by a small margin (by surviving). Last, please remember that Lemelem's victory should not be the norm, especially in harder difficulty settings and/or against humans. Thus, do not freak out if you are not that successful.

Thanks. I assume that means I get to keep playing even if WE loses, right? In that event, how is diplomacy handled?

Do you really think Russia could stand a month fighting Germany and AH on its own? If the Schliefen plan succeed, we would probably have a peace conference where all sides excepted peace, with Russia getting a status quo.

Ace wrote:Do you really think Russia could stand a month fighting Germany and AH on its own? If the Schliefen plan succeed, we would probably have a peace conference where all sides excepted peace, with Russia getting a status quo.

That wasn't my question. My questions are: (1) can I keep playing as EE if the WE loses, and (2) how do I conduct diplomacy in that event?

I just want to know how the game works as it impacts the campaign I'm playing at the moment.

Thanks.

Can you keep playing? Yes. Conduct diplomacy? No.

Not very player friendly for a nation that conducted diplomacy is it.

And as an aside, kind of hard to have a peace conference if you have no ambassadors to hold one.

Lenin wasn't are Brest-Litovsk after all.

You can keep playing, but once the might of Germany and some 7 armies set their sights on Russia, you wouldn't last long. As a matter of fact, though, I am not entirely sure how will the AI CP will behave if/once it defeats WE. Will it keep the invading forces in France, albeit defeated, or will they send reinforcements to the Eastern Front fast?

To return to the diplomacy, if France was defeated, would Russia be able to convince anybody to join their cause?
I don't think so. If the solution is to transfer diplomacy to the Russians and have all neutrals set to +99% alignment to the CP.

If we are taling about what ifs, there may have been a chance for Britain and Russia to continue the conflict, but if Britain excepted peace, Russia would follow no matter what.

Aurelin wrote:Can you keep playing? Yes. Conduct diplomacy? No.

Not very player friendly for a nation that conducted diplomacy is it.

And as an aside, kind of hard to have a peace conference if you have no ambassadors to hold one.

Lenin wasn't are Brest-Litovsk after all.

Thanks for the direct answer.

The design is what it is. I won't debate it.

Ace wrote:To return to the diplomacy, if France was defeated, would Russia be able to convince anybody to join their cause?
I don't think so. If the solution is to transfer diplomacy to the Russians and have all neutrals set to +99% alignment to the CP.

If we are taling about what ifs, there may have been a chance for Britain and Russia to continue the conflict, but if Britain excepted peace, Russia would follow no matter what.

Actually, the "what if" isn't that far-fetched.

Germans split BEF and French forces before they can link up (BEF is a little slower, Germans a little faster, Belgians a little less resolute or French a little weaker - any one of which easily could've happened). Germans march into Paris with BEF pinned against the channel ports protected by the guns of the Royal Navy. BEF is evacuated and Britain fights on, unwilling to accede to German hegemony in Europe. The USA, shocked out of its complaisant neutrality by the same fear, joins the war in support of the British and Russians.

The Russians, meanwhile, fight poorly in the early days of "the Czar's War." But once isolated and invaded, the outrage of an enemy army desecrating the sacred soil of the Motherland sparks the deep well of national pride that resides in the heart of every Russian and unleashes the one great Russian asset - the Russian people - to heights of patriotic heroism and sacrifice previously thought impossible in such a backward and fractured society. Trading space for time, the Russians lure the overconfident Germans deeper into the Russian wastes, until lack of supply and General Winter begin to turn the tide. Etc, etc.

It happened barely 25 years later.

25 years later it was the Nazis, not exactly what the germans of 1914 were.

Ace wrote:To return to the diplomacy, if France was defeated, would Russia be able to convince anybody to join their cause?
I don't think so. If the solution is to transfer diplomacy to the Russians and have all neutrals set to +99% alignment to the CP.

If we are taling about what ifs, there may have been a chance for Britain and Russia to continue the conflict, but if Britain excepted peace, Russia would follow no matter what.

And you're basing all that on what?

Florent wrote:25 years later it was the Nazis, not exactly what the germans of 1914 were.

True. And the Russians had a higher pain threshold by then. But all things considered, they did rather well until the home front collapsed.

fred zeppelin wrote:Thanks for the direct answer.

The design is what it is. I won't debate it.

That may be, but it could always change I prefer playing the Russians myself If I could mod in the army groups that are missing, I would

Florent wrote:25 years later it was the Nazis, not exactly what the germans of 1914 were.

Correct. The Germans of 1914 had nothing like the mobility or logistical capability of the Germans in 1940. The traditional Russian practice of trading space for time would have been an even more formidable obstacle to a post-Victorian army. That the Nazis couldn't do it suggests it's highly unlikely that the Imperial Army could have either.

Aurelin wrote:That may be, but it could always change I prefer playing the Russians myself If I could mod in the army groups that are missing, I would

I certainly hope they do change it. It would be nice to see the game model the strategic layer as thoroughly as its does the military one.

Ace wrote:Do you really think Russia could stand a month fighting Germany and AH on its own? If the Schliefen plan succeed, we would probably have a peace conference where all sides excepted peace, with Russia getting a status quo.

True, the russians would have no chance at all (they didn't even when Germany was facing other fronts...), and this would be probably the most likely result if not worse for the russians... I'd think some people here just like need to study more history before making stupid comments here (but perhaps they make stupid comments just to get the attention "they" want or even need, but in any way I'm just a teacher and not a psychologist...).

HerrDan wrote:I'd think some people here just like need to study more history before making stupid comments here (but perhaps they make stupid comments just to get the attention "they" want or even need, but in any way I'm just a teacher and not a psychologist...).

I just wanted to know how the game works. The defensiveness of the beta team suggests that my question falls into the category of "Gee, we never thought about that."

I've been a beta tester, too. It happens.

fred zeppelin wrote:I just wanted to know how the game works. The defensiveness of the beta team suggests that my question falls into the category of "Gee, we never thought about that."

I've been a beta tester, too. It happens.

Indeed it was tested, I was actually the first of the beta team to win against the WE and the E.E surrendered all together and we discussed it a lot (even I suggested that perhaps the russians could fight a little longer after the fall of the Entente, but in the end I agreed that they probably wouldn't) but we reached a consensus that the russians wouldn't keep fighting alone and this is IMO a very realistic aproach.

Cheers.

HerrDan wrote:Indeed it was tested, I was actually the first of the beta team to win against the WE and the E.E surrendered all together and we discussed it a lot (even I suggested that perhaps the russians could fight a little longer after the fall of the Entente, but in the end I agreed that they probably wouldn't) but we reached a consensus that the russians wouldn't keep fighting alone and this is IMO a very realistic aproach.

Cheers.

Sorry but I'm now confused again. (Not arguing - I promise - just trying to understand the game.)

I understood from what was said earlier that if the AI-controlled WE surrenders, the human EE player can keep playing. Your statement - "(even I suggested that perhaps the russians could fight a little longer after the fall of the Entente, but in the end I agreed that they probably wouldn't) but we reached a consensus that the russians wouldn't keep fighting alone" - suggests that's not the case.

I understand the diplomacy part - that's WE-controlled regardless - but what's the answer on whether I can keep playing the campaign if the WE surrenders? (I realize that's unlikely, but I'd like to know how the game works.)

Thanks.

fred zeppelin wrote:Sorry but I'm now confused again. (Not arguing - I promise - just trying to understand the game.)

I understood from what was said earlier that if the AI-controlled WE surrenders, the human EE player can keep playing. Your statement - "(even I suggested that perhaps the russians could fight a little longer after the fall of the Entente, but in the end I agreed that they probably wouldn't) but we reached a consensus that the russians wouldn't keep fighting alone" - suggests that's not the case.

I understand the diplomacy part - that's WE-controlled regardless - but what's the answer on whether I can keep playing the campaign if the WE surrenders? (I realize that's unlikely, but I'd like to know how the game works.)

Thanks.

My perspective was from playing as the CP against the AI, so I'm not sure if it's the case if the player is the E.E, but others could probably tell you, I'm sorry, but I can't confirm it for you.

HerrDan wrote:My perspective was from playing as the CP against the AI, so I'm not sure if it's the case if the player is the E.E, but others could probably tell you, I'm sorry, but I can't confirm it for you.

OK Thanks.

fred zeppelin wrote:Correct. The Germans of 1914 had nothing like the mobility or logistical capability of the Germans in 1940. The traditional Russian practice of trading space for time would have been an even more formidable obstacle to a post-Victorian army. That the Nazis couldn't do it suggests it's highly unlikely that the Imperial Army could have either.

WRONG.
The IMPERIAL GERMAN ARMY was the Best Trained, Best Led, Best Equipped army with the Best Staff ever in the History of War to enter a Battle field.
When NAZIS entered war in 1939-... 40/100 divisions were 'glorified militia' (Cannon Fodder) + 35 others were 'hastily trained reservists' (Third Class Divisions) + 10 'ELITE' Mobile Divisions + 15 Good 'Divisions' (First class and Second Class).
In 1914 almost all the 100 divisions mobilised in 1914 were First Class or Second Class.

Now, someone will say- BEF, let me correct them- BEF field less than 10 divisions in 1914, including Canadians, Anzacs and other Regiments posted around the world- 13-14 in 1914; Imperial Germany fielded a 100.

Now- Mobility. This is not 1812; the Russian Army did not have leaders of the class of 'Kutuzov' etc nor a Tyrant the class of 'Uncle Joe'. The Tzar was quite an imbecile and had very low mental level. The German Armies against the Russians alone, 1-1 would have crushed Russia and by early-mid 1916 BREST-LITOVSK treaty would be signed.

And yet, they could not beat France, and Russia fell apart more from internal causes. Your best trained/led/equipped army couldn't even get to within sight of Petrograd, let alone Moscow. Or Paris for that matter.

As far as mobility, be it 1812, 1914, 1941, the infantry walked.

Shri wrote:WRONG.
The IMPERIAL GERMAN ARMY was the Best Trained, Best Led, Best Equipped army with the Best Staff ever in the History of War to enter a Battle field.

Yeah, that's why they won the war.
Oh... Wait...

They lost the war because Britain had the Navy. Navy gets the bread to the people. Simple as that. The Brits have won every war in the last 200 years because they had the Navy.

They lost because they were beaten. Their marvelous warplan failed, their so-called best army in the world screw up its advance. They were beaten at La Marne (twice), at Verdun, at Amiens.
German army was no superhuman. A good army, of course. As almost all great powers.

Well... perspective plays an important role, here. Britain (and, to a lesser extent, the United States) is absolutely reliant upon the navy in order to keep shipping lanes open so that overseas supply can be received. Germany, France, and Russia, along with other continental nations, aren't so reliant upon overseas trade. They do have strategic concerns, such as rubber, sugar, and (later on) oil, but they could at least feed their people with domestic agriculture (...for the most part).

Germany certainly did have a fantastic army going into the Great War. Consensus seems to be that it just wasn't good enough to take on both the French and the British. My sense is that this was a closer issue that is seems though, based on the Russian exit from the war and French war weariness. No US entry into the war, A delayed Russian civil war, and/or a successful Central Powers offensive or two could have easily turned the tide. More importantly, the war in 1918 was distinctly different from the war in 1914, and the reality of war was most certainly different than the perception of what war would be like in the spring and early summer of 1914.

Quote Originally Posted by Florent View Post
25 years later it was the Nazis, not exactly what the germans of 1914 were.
Correct. The Germans of 1914 had nothing like the mobility or logistical capability of the Germans in 1940. The traditional Russian practice of trading space for time would have been an even more formidable obstacle to a post-Victorian army. That the Nazis couldn't do it suggests it's highly unlikely that the Imperial Army could have either.

My post was about the resolve of the British, the Nazis being Nihilist and prone to exterminate the populations considered as inferior. You have the same resolve by the Obama speach indicating that the Djihadist doesn't have their place in our century.

The German army of 1914 is better than the army of 1939 for sure. The french did a good fighting retreat but this is the aviation reco who save france when Klück army presented his flank and Gallieni which understood the error and benefited from this german mistake.

Aurelin wrote:And yet, they could not beat France, and Russia fell apart more from internal causes. Your best trained/led/equipped army couldn't even get to within sight of Petrograd, let alone Moscow. Or Paris for that matter.

Germans could even be beaten by eastern ukrainian peasants.