Crimean War

[marcusjm]

If I understand this correctly then this battle was left out?

I would really like to see this battle scenario as DLC unless some ambitious scenario creator does it for the community. It was certainly one of the more interesting battles in the 19th century.

Maybe the scale is wrong though?

[Generalisimo]

There were a lot of discussions around this scenario...
Some claim that the size of the map is "not the best" for such a scenario...
Other claim that the scenario will be fun anyway because of all the posibilities...

Who knows... maybe you see it as another DLC in the future...

[marcusjm]

The actual battle might not fit. Are there any events for it?

[Generalisimo]

The actual battle might not fit. Are there any events for it?

You mean during the Grand Campaign?... I am not sure I can comment on the Crimean Crisis events right now...

[marcusjm]

This could be relevant though. Does these crisises allow all players to join? Could we see Samuari charges instead of Light Brigade .

[PhilThib]

The Crimean War is possibly started by a chain of events starting around 1853 about the Holy Land crisis or also, alternatively, a crisis in the Danubian principalities... in all cases, only European powers are involved (including Turkey of course)

But it does not use the crisis generator engine, this is separate...

[Baris]

Actually the main reasons were taking control/influence ortodox population in Ottoman Empire.And if the opportunity arise: to take control of Constantinople/some partial part of Ottomans controlled balkans,armenia(They attacked with force to caucasus region) and advance to warm waters if more oppurtunities arise. Ottomans were involuntarily have to declare war to Russia(there wasnt another choice) when they move the troops to Balkans. Support from GB and France and Austria- Hungary were mainly to stop Russian influence areas so they also declared the war.
I think the theatre of war troops fight mainly in Crimea(against FR,GB;OE etc...) In the early phase of the war in balkans against Ottomans. So it needs more detailed map of balkans.crimea and caucasus. I also think it should be seperate game to be done in much detailed way.

[marcusjm]

Thanks for the background information Baris, I guess you will recieve one of two requests to aid with improvements of the OE .

I think this system sounds wonderful from the description. It always annoyed with games like Imperialism and Victoria how they didn't trust real history to be good enough, instead they have to invent some fantasy land.

Reality surpassed fiction in this case, many times over .

[Baris]

Thanks for the background information Baris, I guess you will recieve one of two requests to aid with improvements of the OE .

I think this system sounds wonderful from the description. It always annoyed with games like Imperialism and Victoria how they didn't trust real history to be good enough, instead they have to invent some fantasy land.

Reality surpassed fiction in this case, many times over .

Details were indeed given just to make Ottomans playable in some official way But you are right about how should games influenced from real history into some extent. That I also like the system in PON.(Doesnt matter if Ottomans or others unplayable) Maybe in future and hope there will be operational games including specificly Swedish and Ottoman empires in earlier time frames.

[Krot]

I should add that Crimean war plus to the regions already mentioned in the previous posts was fought also on the Baltic Sea theatre and in such distant places like White Sea shore and Kamtchatka peninsula.

We should not forget that Russian main military forces during the war were tied by Austria who threatened to join anti-Russian alliance. There was also very probable perspective of Prussian involvement in the conflict (well described in Bismark's memoirs). So the war which was limited in its goals and results could evolve into real WW. I think it gives enough food for some what-if scenario.

[Baris]

I really think it should be a seperate game regions concentrated on black sea zone and baltics(maybe off-map boxes). There is also white sea shore in east mediterian Turkey south. I think that white sea you mentioned could be another sea-region in north.

As for what if scenario:
France: in a disagreement about holy places control or/influence againstRussia. Delaying the situation in the "east".

GB: Russian advance/influence/control to the south(Ottomans) can create problems for colonies etc..

Sardinia: not yet formed the union,. In a position where she will need good relations with great powers and can send troops where necessery. Like Greeks did in RCW.

Austria-Hungary: From the beginning supported territorial integrity of Ottomans. Send troops with GB to intimidate Egypt, where Ottomans were defeated by Egypt just few years before Crimean war.(That's why Russia decleared war) Austria also would like a weaker neighbour in balkans than a stronger one. Also heavily against panslavism.

Prussia: Does not want GB,France to influence/control or expand anymore. Good relations with Russia for that reason. Interesting thing is Prussia were in a very warm relations with Ottomans with the same reason after a while.

From those facts I think Prussia froming the base of the "what if scenario". But what was preventing Prussia not to pick direct sides? And where would the main front will be if Prussia joined the war.

[Krot]

Excuse me for late reply. I was asked to increase Russian CP in Siberia.

I really think it should be a seperate game regions concentrated on black sea zone and baltics(maybe off-map boxes). There is also white sea shore in east mediterian Turkey south. I think that white sea you mentioned could be another sea-region in north.

Yes, I meant White Sea to the North of Arkhangelsk.

As for what if scenario:
France: in a disagreement about holy places control or/influence againstRussia. Delaying the situation in the "east".

GB: Russian advance/influence/control to the south(Ottomans) can create problems for colonies etc..

Sardinia: not yet formed the union,. In a position where she will need good relations with great powers and can send troops where necessery. Like Greeks did in RCW.

Austria-Hungary: From the beginning supported territorial integrity of Ottomans. Send troops with GB to intimidate Egypt, where Ottomans were defeated by Egypt just few years before Crimean war.(That's why Russia decleared war) Austria also would like a weaker neighbour in balkans than a stronger one. Also heavily against panslavism.

Prussia: Does not want GB,France to influence/control or expand anymore. Good relations with Russia for that reason. Interesting thing is Prussia were in a very warm relations with Ottomans with the same reason after a while.

From those facts I think Prussia froming the base of the "what if scenario". But what was preventing Prussia not to pick direct sides? And where would the main front will be if Prussia joined the war.

Speaking about possible what-if scenario I mostly had Prussia in my mind. Her position was wavering and depended strongly from the war progress. Prussia concluded anti-Russian alliance with Austria only when it was absolutely clear that Russian cause had been lost. Before that she could choose another side in order to overthrow Austrian dominance in the German union. Prussian king Wilhelm had great sympathy and awe to Nicolas, the gendarme of Europe.

Austria "betrayed" Nicolas, who saved her in 1849, and paid for it in 1859 and 1866. In case of her direct siding with anti-Russian Allies she risked not only Prussian intervention but possible internal conflict. Hungarians could approve the war against Russia though Hungarian question was not solved yet and Austria-Hungarian relations were tense. On the other hand Slavic (Croats, Serbs, Slovaks and Carpatian Ruthenians) and Romanian minorities who supported Russians supressing of new-born Hungurian nationalism could pose some serious problems for Austrian monarchy in case of war.

As far as I remember there were also some Swedish threats to Russia though I can't say it for certain.

[Baris]

Excuse me for late reply. I was asked to increase Russian CP in Siberia.



Speaking about possible what-if scenario I mostly had Prussia in my mind. Her position was wavering and depended strongly from the war progress. Prussia concluded anti-Russian alliance with Austria only when it was absolutely clear that Russian cause had been lost. Before that she could choose another side in order to overthrow Austrian dominance in the German union. Prussian king Wilhelm had great sympathy and awe to Nicolas, the gendarme of Europe.

Austria "betrayed" Nicolas, who saved her in 1849, and paid for it in 1859 and 1866. In case of her direct siding with anti-Russian Allies she risked not only Prussian intervention but possible internal conflict. Hungarians could approve the war against Russia though Hungarian question was not solved yet and Austria-Hungarian relations were tense. On the other hand Slavic (Croats, Serbs, Slovaks and Carpatian Ruthenians) and Romanian minorities who supported Russians supressing of new-born Hungurian nationalism could pose some serious problems for Austrian monarchy in case of war.

As far as I remember there were also some Swedish threats to Russia though I can't say it for certain.

Glad to hear Especially from the fact CP and colonialism take many in-game time I heard from the forums.

From your points Im more convinced that Crimean war can be seperate game with the mechanics of the older ageod titles. Such as triggering foreign intervention for Prussia or maybe Sweden joining the war if Russia were more succesfull in the conflict.

Historically It is also from my understanding Prussia though it is not the time yet to take the risk.
The term "JAndarme of Europe" were indeed given for Russia solving conflicts inside europe especially Hungarian one. But I think Russia seen as "belligerant" then jandarme whan decided to increase influence/area control without the some kind of agreement and consensus from other great powers especially from GB. It is also a fact that GB and Russia were starting/ongoing a "Great game" in central asia,persia etc.. at the time.

From the Austrian perspective I think Austria did the right thing for not allowing Russia to gain more influence from slavs and some-non slavs(Greeks included) in the balkans by supporting anti-Russian alliances during the war. Ottomans would have collapsed earlier if she had to wage war by herself . The Collapse of Ottoman would benefit Russia in every terms. From your writings I also get the same impression. Southern slavs with hope to be freed from Ausrian monarchy with the help of Russia that even they support surpressing Hungarian uprising(very interesting). That is also the part of the what if scenario(But much smaller impact). Result of the Crimean war could also encourage serbs, croats etc to be independendent or/and their loyalty can be lowered.
But as a whole I think crimean war was a little bit "lost war" from the beginning for Russia.

[Amadeus_66]

Hello Gentlemen,

I should say, from my totally-newbie perspective, that all those reasons and intercrossed interests you are talking about would make for a nice chain of events which could lead or not to a sort of earlier Great War in Europe.

All in all it could become the seed-idea for modding an Alternative GC or at least Battlescenario.


Best regards