• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
USA looks like Germany in WW1, but with bigger fronts.

This is the gist of how the scenario was envisaged, but it doesn't make that much sense, does it? I mean, the US is much better suited for a Materialschlacht than Germany was...

Interesting interpretation of the Turtledove canon. Assassination of Queen Victoria? That explains some of the British bellicosity...

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply the U.S. assassinated her, but Britain is looking... not pleasant right now. British politics diverged in the 1880s, with Randolph Churchill becoming PM. Meanwhile, a stronger Fenian movement was able to pull off the assassination of Queen Victoria through the judicious use of high explosives (they planned it OTL), so Britain became a bit... not totalitarian, but it is a bit less nice than OTL's Britain, though you wouldn't notice immediately.

Anyways are you going to roleplay the major nations' strategies as portrayed in the books? Or will you play to win? I think if you put some effort into it you should be able to crush the Confederates and Canadians much sooner than 1917.

The latter. I think you have to ignore the way the scenario is set up, because Turtledove envisions Western Front style warfare stretching form the Atlantic to Memphis. Expect the battles of this AAR to look a lot more like the Eastern Front.

Do you also have Great Lakes battleships? :)

I couldn't think of how to get those ingame, alas.
 
This is the gist of how the scenario was envisaged, but it doesn't make that much sense, does it? I mean, the US is much better suited for a Materialschlacht than Germany was...
Not that much better equipped... is it? I think Germany was quite well prepared for a war of attrition, at least in terms of organizational strength (being able to feed hundrewds of thousands into the meat grinders without having its whole army fall apart), and material (cannon, ammunition etc). Manpower, not so much, the US definitely has an edge here. Anyways I'm really curious to see what will happen during your first months, before the US has succeeded in massively expanding its army.


Sorry, I didn't intend to imply the U.S. assassinated her, but Britain is looking... not pleasant right now. British politics diverged in the 1880s, with Randolph Churchill becoming PM. Meanwhile, a stronger Fenian movement was able to pull off the assassination of Queen Victoria through the judicious use of high explosives (they planned it OTL), so Britain became a bit... not totalitarian, but it is a bit less nice than OTL's Britain, though you wouldn't notice immediately.
Interesting. I thought as much actually (that it was a domestic thing). Without the "glue" of having a benevolent mother of the empire watching over her, Britain would be... less well balanced? More into venting her anger on domestic minorities? Less inclusive, and harsher in its class conflicts? Kind of like when you have low legitimacy in EU3 :)

Too bad about the great lakes battleships though :) But the advance into Canada should be fun enough even so. I'm quite eager to see how it happens here. The Ontario front in Turtledove's books was interesting to read, but IMHO quite unrealistic in its portrayal of WW1 like warfare. IIRC Turtledove basically had the Canadians contain the Americans for years by withdrawing from one fortified line to the next, causing much heavier casualties than they were taking. This does not match at all how the battles in the west front happened, though, where Germany tried something like it at the Hindenburg line... their casualties were just as heavy as those of the Entente powers, due to being just as exposed to shellfire as the entente troops and due to the need to counterattack in order to contain breaches in the front lines. The Canadians would probably have cracked within one year in a realistic setting...

Eager to see how long they last in yours :D
 
Blood and Iron Along the Ohio


ussymbol.png



To the surprise of the Union, the Confederate advance across the Ohio did not begin near Cincinnati, but rather some fifty miles to the east, near the town of Aberdeen. The Confederacy as able to bring up heavy artillery to cover the river, and by the end of August 11th a significant bridgehead was formed in Ohio. Under General Beauregard, the Confederates planned a race to the Lakes.

It didn't happen, for a variety of reasons. First, the United States simply had a better developed transportation network, and had far more of its population located near Ohio than the Confederacy did. Thus, it took less time for the United States to mobilize reserves and dispatch them to Ohio than it did the Confederates. Yet the real problem was simply that Confederate forces were spread too thin.[1]

confederatesinohio.jpg

Emboldened by their initial success, the Confederate Army of Kentucky split into two forces, a left wing, menaced Indianapolis, and a wing, which was designed to menace Toledo, led by General Porter. This front, covering some 170 miles, left the army exposed to any offensive out of southeastern Ohio. Given the concern of a Union buildup in West Virginia, Beauregard dispatched three divisions from Cincinnati to the eastern theater on August 9th, but their transfer was slowed by the chaotic nature of the rail network in occupied Ohio. Still, the Army of Kentucky advanced northward. Unfortunately for the Confederates, it ran into General Custer.

Custer remains one of the most divisive generals of the American Theater of the Great War, with good reason. Historians debate to this day whether his frontal assault on Nasvhille was necessary, and his unwillingness to relations with the War Department were the stuff of legend. Yet when it came to slugging it out with the Confederates, he could handle it. By August 17th General Porter was conivinced that he could envelope Custer's army in central Ohio, and that Union reinforcements were still several days away. Poor reconaissance and a lack of information on Union troop movements meant that Porter was unaware that Custer's 8th Army had been reinforced, and that the 7th Army was moving from the Southeast to engage. What followed was a disaster.

Three days of heavy fighting near the woods of Circleville, Ohio, ended in disaster for the Confederate Army, as Union 8th Army attacked Porter's flank and rear. Porter's army had already been bloodied by the march north, losing approximately a quarter of his force as casualties. When it was hit by the 8th army, the Army of Kentucky broke. And then it ran. A similar fate awaited the Army of Arkansas, was annihilated in an envelopment outside Saint Louis.

The Ohio debacle had consequences for the rest of the war. True, the Confederacy would not break because of the disaster, and the Army of Kentucky would remain in the field well after Kentucky itself was lost. But by the end of September the Union would be preparing its own offensive into Ohio, and the failure to defeat the Union army in Ohio meant that the war would turn into a grinding war of attrition, where Union industry and manpower would tell. A similar fate would await the Confederate offensive into Missouri, which would see the Confederate army cut off outside Saint Louis. And the Confederacy's daring gamble in the West would doom their army where it really mattered. By the end of the year, the Stars and Stripes would fly over Richmond for the first time since 1861.

thefallofrichmond.jpg

The Union-Confederate border in Virginia was believed to be one of the world's most fortified, second only to Alsace-Lorraine in Europe. Unfortunately for both sides, most of the fortifications were out of date. The Confederacy spent millions of dollars to construct fortifications in the 1880s and 1890s, but the forts became outdated almost as soon as the cement dried thanks to improvements in artillery. [2] Thus, when the war broke out, the Union's heavy artillery was able to penetrate through the fortifications guarding Manassas, Petersburg, and towns in Northern Virginia. In addition, because much of the Confederate Army was fighting in Ohio and Missouri, what troops that were in Virginia were of lower quality and consisted mainly of reserves. These troops would have been adequate had the forts held; but under bombardment from 400 mm cannons, they fell as swiftly as Liege did in Belgium.

fortlee.jpg

Richmond's fortifications did not stand up to Union bombardment during the war's outbreak.

Union casualties in the offensive were heavy, and it between August and December of 1914 the Union suffered over one hundred thousand casualties in all theaters. [3] Yet Confederate casualties were, if anything, worse; and President Wilson's decision to temporarily move the Confederate capital to Raleigh, North Carolina only worsened morale and encouraged the city's elite to flee, which encouraged a general exodus, tying up railways, telegraph lines, and hindering defense of the city. More than a few generals placed blame for the disaster on the feet of President Wilson. Who else, after all, were they to blame?

And yet the war continued. The Confederacy's industrial heartland lay in Tennessee and Alabama; the loss of Richmond, although damaging, was not fatal. Had not the Confederacy triumphed in the War of Secession even though the North had occupied much of the South? In addition, the United Kingdom promised to send an expeditionary force to aid the Confederacy, although it already had troops fighting along the Saint Lawrence and in Nova Scotia. Any effort to send a relief force to aid the CSA relied, however, upon seizing control of the seas. And it is to that subject that we will next turn.

[1] I'm curious if people can guess which battle was the inspiration for the Confederate disaster.

[2] Among the major developments during this period was the development of a high-explosive shell with a delayed action fuse, which could penetrate through a fort's concrete walls before detonating.

[3] I only started reading about World War I recently, and the casualties on the Western Front made me quail. Three hundred thousand men dead between Belgium and Paris in a few months? Christ.
 
[1] I'm curious if people can guess which battle was the inspiration for the Confederate disaster.

It reminds me a bit of Lanzerac's mess at Charleroi.

[3] I only started reading about World War I recently, and the casualties on the Western Front made me quail. Three hundred thousand men dead between Belgium and Paris in a few months? Christ.

Well, better don't look at the Isonzo front or the Somme or Passchendaele...
 
Interesting. I thought as much actually (that it was a domestic thing). Without the "glue" of having a benevolent mother of the empire watching over her, Britain would be... less well balanced? More into venting her anger on domestic minorities? Less inclusive, and harsher in its class conflicts? Kind of like when you have low legitimacy in EU3 :)

I would actually envision Britain being, on the surface, stronger, if anything. A stronger army, more emphasis on national community, etc.

(if you want an idea of how this looks, Check out Unionist Britain in Fight and Be Right, which served as the inspiration for it). But it's got a lot of internal tensions, and some real Irish troubles.

This does not match at all how the battles in the west front happened, though, where Germany tried something like it at the Hindenburg line... their casualties were just as heavy as those of the Entente powers, due to being just as exposed to shellfire as the entente troops and due to the need to counterattack in order to contain breaches in the front lines. The Canadians would probably have cracked within one year in a realistic setting...

The other issue is space. It's almost 600 km from Quebec to Kingston. And as for Winnipeg? Um. The idea of there being enough Canadians to occupy the territory is... far fetched.
 
It reminds me a bit of Lanzerac's mess at Charleroi.

I actually based it off the Galician Campaign of 1914.

I'm still having trouble with balance issues, but IMO unless you buy the idea of Confederates as elite wunderwaffen this is probably closer to how things would play out than anything else....

Well, better don't look at the Isonzo front or the Somme or Passchendaele...

Oh, I know. I know.
 
If the Confederates stayed on the defensive throughout the west, and managed to seize the initiative in the east with an offensive into Maryland, like in the books, would things be any harder for the US?

Striking north into Ohio sounds like an idiotic war plan for the Confederates, though. It doesn't deliver any kind of knockout blow, and does nothing to the Union's industrial and recruiting centers in the east, which are still going to field huge well-equipped Union armies even if they are cut off from the Midwest and the west coast...

Not to mention that it forsakes the natural defences of the Ohio river in favor of the open grasslands of Ohio. Way to go, damnrebels, way to go.
 
If the Confederates stayed on the defensive throughout the west, and managed to seize the initiative in the east with an offensive into Maryland, like in the books, would things be any harder for the US?

Maybe. I think this is a reflection of the same problem the German AI has in the 1914 scenario. It can't pull off anything like the series blitz.And once that fails, you're left with a nation that outnumbers its enemies 2 to 1.
Striking north into Ohio sounds like an idiotic war plan for the Confederates, though. It doesn't deliver any kind of knockout blow, and does nothing to the Union's industrial and recruiting centers in the east, which are still going to field huge well-equipped Union armies even if they are cut off from the Midwest and the west coast...

Well, those eastern industrial centers need to be fed, no?
 
Maybe. I think this is a reflection of the same problem the German AI has in the 1914 scenario. It can't pull off anything like the series blitz.And once that fails, you're left with a nation that outnumbers its enemies 2 to 1.


Well, those eastern industrial centers need to be fed, no?

Yes thes do, but then again, there's ample farmland in the northeast even so. Stern rationing will bring them through the winter and by 1915 the Confederates will be out of Ohio again.
 
This is intersting. Consider me subscribed.

If you don't mind me asking, where can I find this mod?

Thanks. It will be in the scenario forum. I'm releasing a copy of it this weekend, hopefully, although it's still in alpha.

What's weird is that the AI v. AI game is much more balanced than when a player leads the USA or CSA. Here's a shot from a game I'm playing as Germany ATM:

screensave61.png


This isn't too far off of how the series played out, except for the British AI's tendency to send expeditionary forces to aid the CSA and not Canada. (I presume I can rejigger this in the AI files.)
 
Making Jello Out of Jellicoe
ussymbol.png


"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace."-Teddy Roosevelt​

While the newspapers of America were focused on the American fronts, it was in the Atlantic Ocean that the World War was decided. Confederate and Canadian relief was dependent on keeping sea lanes to Britain open. The British, for their part, were dpeendent on America for over half of their food supply and numerous other raw materials. If the United States could cut the supply lines between North America and Britain, or keep the United Kingdom from ferrying troops to America, Britain would be forced to capitulate. On paper, the odds were tilted against Britain; combined, the Germans and Union had enough dreadnoughts where they could predominate in any naval battle. But the two powers were separated by the Royal Navy. Thus, throughout the War Britain did not need to worry about a junction of the Union-German fleets. It did, however, have to worry about losing regional superiority in either theater. A loss in one would assure defeat in the War.

Into this strategic dilemma was thrust John Fisher, who became Sea Lord in 1904 and presided over a reorganization of the Royal Navy. Faced with the demands of the Committee of Imperial Defense to provide handle the threat from America and Germany, he split the royal Navy into two fleets, the Channel Fleet and the Atlantic Fleet, based out of Halifax. In response to the threat from the Union, he pursued construction of the Dreadnought-class battleship, which would give the United Kingdom technological dominance. Proponents of history would be shocked, just shocked, to learn that the US and Germany soon followed suit, so that by August 1914 Britain could deploy twenty Dreadnoughts (with three Confederate) against thirteen Germany dreadnoughts and eleven Union dreadnoughts. A close match, which made the battle of Hampton Roads so important for the war's outcome.

The Union navy had come a long way form the dark days of the Second Mexican War, when California was raided by British marines and the nation's harbors were blockaded at will. Under Admiral Mahan and his successors, the Union readied for war. Mahan's plan for naval combat called for the concentration of the United States Navy in New York, with its two widely separated exits. This concentration would force the British to tie down their navy. Meanwhile, the Union should deploy a force of cruisers to harass the British merchant marine, and if the British were weak enough, they should seize the opportunity to capture British naval bases in Nova Scotia and Bermuda. Mahan's Plan also called for an initial raid on the Confederate Navy, based in Norfolk, before the British could respond. And this is indeed what happened. While the capture of Hawaii would have implications for the rise of America as a global superpower, the battle of Hampton Bay assured that the Confederacy would never be one.

The Battle of Hampton Bay began on the dawn of August 18, 1914, when the light cruisers Pocahontas, Arkansas [1] and the John Paul Jones engaged the CSS Maury and Maffit off the cost. Admiral Gillmore, commander of the British fleet, ordered the navy to steam out of Norfolk to engage, and the US Task Force withdrew, with the Pocahontas Arkansas trailing smoke. Indeed, the Pocahontas had her wireless shut off, and so was cut off from the rest of the fleet save through traditional signalling. Confident of victory, he ordered a significant fraction of the Confederate fleet into pursuit. And was oblivious to the Union Task Force steaming from south of Norfolk.

bluechersinkend.jpg

The Virginia fell almost as quickly as her namesake did.

Future historians would find much to criticize about the Union navy, and its revelations about the nation's lack of naval tactics. When a Union submarine attacked the Virginia, the Confederate flagship, the latter responded by trying to ram the submarine [2]. But the Confederate navy, poorly coordinated and scattered across the sea in zealous pursuit, ran into the Union dreadnoughts. Admiral Lynch would telegraph to his squadron "Know very little. Hope to learn more as we go." [3] At the end of the day, he telegraphed "Know how to sink Rebel ships. Hope to find more as we go."
This was the first decisive battle of August. The Second, the Battle of the Three Navies, would assure Union naval supremacy off the North American Shore.

The Confederate debacle (and the loss of two of the CSA's dreadnoughts) threatened the British balance of power, and the Admiralty had no choice but to strip the Home Fleet to reinforce its Atlantic Squadron. In addition, France was persuaded to send several of its warships to reinforce the Confederate navy, notably its pre-dreadnought Battleship The Massena and several other warships. Rallying at Halifax, the plan was to establish a joint fleet under Admiral Jellicoe. Once they arrived, it soon became clear that nobody knew what to do with them.

Jellicoe was no Drake or Nelson. A supporter might call him intelligent and analytical; a critic might call him a worry-wart hypochondriac. He was unwilling to risk the Royal Navy's North American presence without a certainty of victory. But under pressure from Churchill, whose Confederate origins may have influenced him, he dispatched part of the Royal navy Task force, along with the Massena, to rendevous with the Confederacy off of Delaware Bay. Spotted off New England by a fishing trawler [4], they met the Union fleet off of Delaware in the Battle of the Three Navies.

You can imagine the difficulty in having three navies with different codes try to coordinate, which led to one British officer, Sir David Beatty, temporarily broadcast in the clear in order to find out just where the Confederates were.

The Battle of the Three Navies was not a Union tactical victory; indeed, the dreadnought New Jersey required months to repair it, and the US lost the light cruise the New Orleans. But the Massena was sunk, as was the Hood and the Belle. More importantly, the Franco-British fleet was forced to retreat to Halifax, while Union raiders continued to menace the sea. The British lost a troop transport off the coast of Bermuda in September, which led to a temporary suspension of aid to the Confederacy. For now, the war at sea was in the Union's favor. And in Britain, the curtailment in grain shipments led to the beginning of rationing which would bring an end to the war.

And the Entente in North America were alone.

januarynavy.jpg


[1] Named after one of the few Union victories during the Second Mexican War.
[2] This happened at Heligoland. I don't know why either.
[3] This is also stolen from Heligoland.
[4] Yes, that fishing trawler.
 
Last edited:
Is it me or the notes are missing?
 
Darn. For once a British ship going through the area doesn't met an iceberg and has to find hell in any case :D