Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #18 - Rank & Prestige

[Antediluvian Monster]

The northern military ranks had more incompetence and infighting in general. The south generals and northern ones incompetence is one reason the CSA did not honestly lose faster. The north outclassed them in almost every possible one and yet it still took them years to win and going total war to do so. Also the US is in "recovery" period after civil war and trying to repair half the country that was just ravaged by war and its after shock. Military and external expansion/desires usually will take back burner for time after such events

I wouldn't agree to such sweeping statement (a general problem with your argumentation, particularly when the fundamentals behind them seem superficial), though on the Eastern theatre Union had less luck with commanders than Confederacy early on. In the West the Confederacy seems to have drawn the short stick instead. But I don't think either Sherman and Hancock were really any more incompetent than anyone on the Southern side. Even the mythologized Lee and Jackson had hiccups in their competence. In general US Civil War commanders seem amateurish to me for for both sides, which was probably mainly for the reason below.

Europeans sometimes had technology but not always most merited or knowledgeable people in charge to utilized it properly as seen with one. The British and Germans adept the best but army in both Italy, Russia, and even France is filled with bunch of "old guard/blood" nobles in background instead of more merited people. The northern military sometimes had similar issues with snot nose brat industrialist kids being officers in Union army instead of merited and respected grunt even from lower class background. France is republic but still have those "old blood/money" people entrenched in military ranks.

Most people went to West Point for the education it offered, not for military career. True on both sides. Not sure how snot nosed planter kid is really supposed to be different from industrialist one.

aufftragstaktik or mission-type tactics (AKA giving objectives and letting the officers on the ground decide how to take them) had been the staple of the prussian and later german armies since the reforms after napoleon and was certainly present during WW1

Ditto for war of movement.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

Europeans sometimes had technology but not always most merited or knowledgeable people in charge to utilized it properly as seen with one. The British and Germans adept the best but army in both Italy, Russia, and even France is filled with bunch of "old guard/blood" nobles in background instead of more merited people. The northern military sometimes had similar issues with snot nose brat industrialist kids being officers in Union army instead of merited and respected grunt even from lower class background. France is republic but still have those "old blood/money" people entrenched in military ranks.

You do realize that it's very easy to find on the internet a list of the french generals during WW1 and look if their ranks were more filled with "old guard" or "nobles" than say the UK or the German Empire right ? And that it's therefore not hard to check that what you say is clearly incorrect and sound like the words of an extremely prejudiced person.
Not to mention that if the Allies had so little faith in the french military leadership during WW1, why would they have chosen a french general as supreme commander of the allied forces ?

 

[demanvanwezel]

yeah, the war of movement didn't stop in 1914 because they didn't know any better or because the generals weren't good enough, it stopped because there wasn't any place to move anymore, from the swiss mountains to the northsea it was all one trenchline
also the trenches weren't dug with the idea "hehe, they're not getting past here", it was just "oh damn, the enemy's there, quick build a trench so we can group up for the attack safe from artillery and gunfire" and it snowballed from there

 

[demanvanwezel]

You do realize that it's very easy to find on the internet a list of the french generals during WW1 and look if their ranks were more filled with "old guard" or "nobles" than say the UK or the German Empire right ? And that it's therefore not hard to check that what you say is clearly incorrect and sound like the words of an extremely prejudiced person.
Not to mention that if the Allies had so little faith in the french military leadership during WW1, why would they have chosen a french general as supreme commander of the allied forces ?

to be fair that was mainly because the french had by far the biggest fighting force on the western front, same reason why eisenhower was supreme commander for WW2

 

[killaghost12]

Europeans sometimes had technology but not always most merited or knowledgeable people in charge to utilized it properly as seen with one. The British and Germans adept the best but army in both Italy, Russia, and even France is filled with bunch of "old guard/blood" nobles in background instead of more merited people. The northern military sometimes had similar issues with snot nose brat industrialist kids being officers in Union army instead of merited and respected grunt even from lower class background. France is republic but still have those "old blood/money" people entrenched in military ranks.

Germany for example would have done better in ww1 if they just allowed officers and younger non Junkers actually have say in command system and some independence. Many of these vets would later make massive innovations in ww2 but Junkers in ww1 did not always give them chance to "shine" and sent many to die needlessly in trenches or no man's land on charges.

The thing is, it isn't so simple as 'just getting more non-aristocratic officers in the upper ranks', people of more humble backgrounds from Germany, France etc could and did become leading figures... the issue is procuring enough people capable of getting there in the first place. You find many old guard officers during this century because more often than not it is these, highly educated people that had the ability to peruse a military career. Education is crucial for any officer, and huge swathes of people in Europe and America simply did not have access to education beyond primary.

Because education was simply inaccessible until the last thirty of so years of the 19th century you really only found new blood cropping up shortly before, during or after the first world war. France for example had many new blood officers - Ferdinand Foch (who was the son of a civil servant) for example would become a general in 1907. Seeing as how WW1 would start while a fresh batch of budding officers were beginning their careers you never really saw a great overhaul in doctrine. And this goes for the USA as well, who even during the war had largely fell behind that of their European counterparts which meant many US commanders repeated initial Entente mistakes that cost many lives.

However, like I said, by the time of WW1 there were new faces appearing, colonels, brigadier generals etc. So while many nations fell foul of poor decision making for the first years of the war, you found a consistent slew of new tactics, developments and innovations appearing. France had a rough time of the war and yet magically by the 100 days offensive the French army was one of - if not the most modern army around, leading the way in motorisation and mechanisation of the army. And finally, being old guard, nobility or wealthy in general should not detract from one's merits. Because someone comes from working (often uneducated) backgrounds does not mean they can be presumed to be better in command than their more educated superiors.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

to be fair that was mainly because the french had by far the biggest fighting force on the western front, same reason why eisenhower was supreme commander for WW2

They could have also choose to not put into place a unified command structure, if the french military leadership was so abysmal surely it would have been preferable.

 

[demanvanwezel]

They could have also choose to not put into place a unified command structure, if the french military leadership was so abysmal surely it would have been preferable.

sure, the french military leadership was certainly not any worse then the british one, especially since field marshall "most succesfull scottish general ever" haig was in charge there
it's just that the overall command wasn't automaticly a symbol of quality
now if the italians somehow had the biggest army then I'd think the british and the french would've refused to form a unified command structure

 

[IlDoge]

You must have missed the thread in the eu4 forum from quite a few years back where a Portuguese nationalist was complaining that Portugal could form spain and that portugese was in the spanish culture group.

Well, in Vic 2 Portugal could not even colonize Africa, which is extremely historically inaccurate, as Portugal, despite its lower industrialization and GDP level, was one of the major colonizers in Africa in the 19th century. I hope the new system corrects this anomaly.

 

[Nibbes]

Most people went to West Point for the education it offered, not for military career. True on both sides. Not sure how snot nosed planter kid is really supposed to be different from industrialist one.

True but this is where culture comes into play. Like the Junker kids they often are focusing a lot of their earlier education to such studies at some level. It is same reason a German Junker might be more well verse in warfare then some of lingering French noble blood. Many just put more time in it.

For example, the yankee industrialist or capitalist kids often go on to become lawyers, businessmen, bankers, and similar professions while your kid of southern plantation owner goes into military as officer, law enforcement, hired guns/bounty hunter(also slavers and catchers), and running large estates. Even if they get more into banking and investments they are often investing in more raw resource and agrarian mechanization/industrialization like funding mines, railroads, logging, or similar stuff. For example, if a southern plantation owner funds industrialization he likely builds mills and textile factories down river close to plantations or nearby with local poor white/wage labor.

The south is taking dangerous path towards a proto police state and Sparta like society at times due to need of poor whites often having to be used as "raw muscle" and hired guns to put down any risk of slave rebellion. Overseer is sometimes best job open up to poor white man in south wage wise

 

[Nibbes]

You do realize that it's very easy to find on the internet a list of the french generals during WW1 and look if their ranks were more filled with "old guard" or "nobles" than say the UK or the German Empire right ? And that it's therefore not hard to check that what you say is clearly incorrect and sound like the words of an extremely prejudiced person.
Not to mention that if the Allies had so little faith in the french military leadership during WW1, why would they have chosen a french general as supreme commander of the allied forces ?

I just looked. There is a lot of old blood in French military upper ranks or people claiming it. Also Americans did try to take more of lead and open up western front by being more noble but British and French trusted their own input more especially with US being new to war and has not shown them much yet to give them confidence in otherwise.

The UK had very professional but small army compared to mainland Europe so much of its short comings does relate to haste of war and rapid changing circumstance for them. Germany had a lot of "vons" in their ranks which alone tells you Junkers and nobility often dominated higher up military ranks and had favoritism at times.

 

[Nibbes]

The thing is, it isn't so simple as 'just getting more non-aristocratic officers in the upper ranks', people of more humble backgrounds from Germany, France etc could and did become leading figures... the issue is procuring enough people capable of getting there in the first place. You find many old guard officers during this century because more often than not it is these, highly educated people that had the ability to peruse a military career. Education is crucial for any officer, and huge swathes of people in Europe and America simply did not have access to education beyond primary.

Because education was simply inaccessible until the last thirty of so years of the 19th century you really only found new blood cropping up shortly before, during or after the first world war. France for example had many new blood officers - Ferdinand Foch (who was the son of a civil servant) for example would become a general in 1907. Seeing as how WW1 would start while a fresh batch of budding officers were beginning their careers you never really saw a great overhaul in doctrine. And this goes for the USA as well, who even during the war had largely fell behind that of their European counterparts which meant many US commanders repeated initial Entente mistakes that cost many lives.

However, like I said, by the time of WW1 there were new faces appearing, colonels, brigadier generals etc. So while many nations fell foul of poor decision making for the first years of the war, you found a consistent slew of new tactics, developments and innovations appearing. France had a rough time of the war and yet magically by the 100 days offensive the French army was one of - if not the most modern army around, leading the way in motorisation and mechanisation of the army. And finally, being old guard, nobility or wealthy in general should not detract from one's merits. Because someone comes from working (often uneducated) backgrounds does not mean they can be presumed to be better in command than their more educated superiors.

Very true. WW2 mobilization saw the literacy shoot up in south because military industrial complex help modernized south rapidly and draft made it obvious many could not read(follow orders) so looney toons had to make educational videos for them about dos and and don'ts of war. After war GI bill gave many of them basic and even trade skill and college educations.

 

[Nibbes]

aufftragstaktik or mission-type tactics (AKA giving objectives and letting the officers on the ground decide how to take them) had been the staple of the prussian and later german armies since the reforms after napoleon and was certainly present during WW1

Yes but relationship between ranks must be considered. Patton should for example could be overly bold at times but fact that he would intermingle and go front lines like any soldier help commanded a high level of mutual respect between ranks and strong bonds. It is more "brotherly" especially once on battlefield vs Junker or European generals just shouting orders from safety of bunker or behind lines.

The European command system is still more dependent on more rigid military hierarchy at times.

 

[Nibbes]

to be fair that was mainly because the french had by far the biggest fighting force on the western front, same reason why eisenhower was supreme commander for WW2

A foreign army near your capital often makes nation more pragmatic and open to new ideas

 

[dragonluke]

So, I hope Vic3 does not throw up this scenario.

As in?
It would be rather boring if you were forced to remain as a puppet to Britain whilst playing as the EIC

 

[Nibbes]

And that it's therefore not hard to check that what you say is clearly incorrect and sound like the words of an extremely prejudiced person.

Just so people do not think I am bias, The US military wise has good track record but where we perform poorest is occupation or actually policing/maintaining places even within the game era. We failed at our own reconstruction and the "redeemers" took back power for local elements undoing bunch of stuff war and its aftermath achieved. It was basically the first example of US trends that would later be seen in Vietnam(fall of Saigon) and Afghanistan. It would be cool if the elections and democratic system in US at times hinder it from starting overly imperialistic or expansionist wars randomly because the US does often have less of "will" for it unless given reason like Spain even if it involves a bit of "yellow journalism".

 

[Jamaican Castle]

the only thing that was going to stop it was another battleship force.

On paper, yes, but there were very few battleship-on-battleship engagements and they didn't tend to really make much of a difference in the wars featuring them, certainly not in comparison to the efforts of cruisers and submarines hunting merchant vessels, and the poor nth-rate destroyers trying to stop them. Even in the war in the Pacific in WW2, the vagaries of trying to coordinate and maneuver on such large scales meant three of the greatest battleship fleets in the world spent most of their time not engaging in large-scale battles. The thirty- or forty-mile circle around a battleship squadron is an insanely dangerous place to be, but compared to the whole ocean it's just not big enough, and the battleships themselves not numerous enough, to be what carries you to victory. Conversely, it's hard to come up with a naval vessel less glamorous than a WW1 submarine, but they were absolutely crucial to contesting British supply lines.

Which is good for us, because it sets up a tension and a tradeoff (and this is a game, we need mechanical tradeoffs) between forces that are prestigious and forces that can actually win large-scale wars.

I very much agree about the infrastructure to build them - the armour plant, machinery and armament were all huge tasks, as was the hull itself.

This is the key factor I hope doesn't get forgotten. The Washington Naval Treaty was signed in the closing years of the core century because all of the great powers had absolutely insane naval expansion plans that would've crippled their economies if they'd been realized. Maintaining a first-rate blue water navy is absurdly expensive, and it would not be irrational for, say, Italy to decide it has better things to do with its precious tax revenue.

Again, it's all about trade-offs. Having a huge navy has its perks, but it should also come with drawbacks that make it more of a considered playstyle rather than "push button, get dreadnoughts".

 

[Zymes]

Please don't add teleporting armies like in CK3.

 

[ISitOnGnomes]

Historically, the possibility of EIC breaking away from Great Britain was precisely zero. Absolutely zero. It was just not possible due to the way EIC was structured and the way it was run and due to its ownership structure.

There was a historic possibility of the government of EIC being overthrown and a new country being established in the lands formerly governed by EIC (and that was kind of the aim of the 1857 revolt against EIC), but EIC's leadership itself somehow deciding to revolt against Great Britain? No.

We have to remember here, that EIC got its legitimacy from an act of British parliament and eventually it was an act of British parliament that dissolved it. It was governed by board of directors who were appointed by its shareholders - almost all of whom were British and many were even members of the British parliament itself.

So, I hope Vic3 does not throw up this scenario.

This feels like an "it didn't happen in history, so it shouldn't happen in game" argument. That's odd for an alternate history game. If you're trying to say there should be a lot of requirements for this to happen, then I can fully agree, but if its just a flat "no this can't happen" then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Nibbes]

On paper, yes, but there were very few battleship-on-battleship engagements and they didn't tend to really make much of a difference in the wars featuring them, certainly not in comparison to the efforts of cruisers and submarines hunting merchant vessels, and the poor nth-rate destroyers trying to stop them. Even in the war in the Pacific in WW2, the vagaries of trying to coordinate and maneuver on such large scales meant three of the greatest battleship fleets in the world spent most of their time not engaging in large-scale battles. The thirty- or forty-mile circle around a battleship squadron is an insanely dangerous place to be, but compared to the whole ocean it's just not big enough, and the battleships themselves not numerous enough, to be what carries you to victory. Conversely, it's hard to come up with a naval vessel less glamorous than a WW1 submarine, but they were absolutely crucial to contesting British supply lines.

Which is good for us, because it sets up a tension and a tradeoff (and this is a game, we need mechanical tradeoffs) between forces that are prestigious and forces that can actually win large-scale wars.


This is the key factor I hope doesn't get forgotten. The Washington Naval Treaty was signed in the closing years of the core century because all of the great powers had absolutely insane naval expansion plans that would've crippled their economies if they'd been realized. Maintaining a first-rate blue water navy is absurdly expensive, and it would not be irrational for, say, Italy to decide it has better things to do with its precious tax revenue.

Again, it's all about trade-offs. Having a huge navy has its perks, but it should also come with drawbacks that make it more of a considered playstyle rather than "push button, get dreadnoughts".

Well put! Battleships are often massive drain on national revenue to maintain plus are often overrated in grand scheme of things especially closer you get to current era. You rather just have air carriers in large number over battleships. Air craft Carriers should get prestige boost of battleships late game.

Air craft Carriers might not always carry same firepower or even distance/range at times but often not far off and more multi purpose. Some of more modern ones are not far off from battleships plus having more pluses and adaptability to it. For example, the lack of firepower and range some have is usually made up by fact of air craft it carries with it along with smaller support vessels. Even the pre jet engine plains are better at countering smaller faster vessels and submarine attacks or reporting where they are at. If I build a bunch of submarines, air craft(fighters and bombers), and more shallow water or defensive navy to support it I could catch the British battleships in bad position near coast or shallow water making it perfect target to pick off/isolate. Destroying that ship is at least big moral lost for navy and public at home. Plus air craft carriers can bombed ports and coastlines too.

I hope we get some or few alternative or ahistorical routes on technology like never ditching the zeppelin airships that only lost favor after ww1 due to Germany having to use cheaper and less safe fuel options for it. I want a grand air force of zeppelin bombers and ways to integrate it into air craft carriers and civilian use/transportation. A grand zeppelin fleet of bombers supported by fighters, air craft carriers, and more mobile/support aspects of navy. make Zeppelins the battleships of the air especially prestige wise and before jet engines(jet engines would be after game ends right?)

 

[demanvanwezel]

This feels like an "it didn't happen in history, so it shouldn't happen in game" argument. That's odd for an alternate history game. If you're trying to say there should be a lot of requirements for this to happen, then I can fully agree, but if its just a flat "no this can't happen" then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.

the problem with the east-india company breaking away is that everyone who had a stake in it was in london, so the only way this could happen was if multiple "rival" local officials banded together to take over, it's essentially like if the local foremen took over the factory and then tried to keep the factory running as before
it should be possible yes, but it's going to be short-lived (at least in that form), unstable and massively less profitable then before

Well put! Battleships are often massive drain on national revenue to maintain plus are often overrated in grand scheme of things especially closer you get to current era. You rather just have air carriers in large number over battleships. Air craft Carriers should get prestige boost of battleships late game.

Air craft Carriers might not always carry same firepower or even distance/range at times but often not far off and more multi purpose. Some of more modern ones are not far off from battleships plus having more pluses and adaptability to it. For example, the lack of firepower and range some have is usually made up by fact of air craft it carries with it along with smaller support vessels. Even the pre jet engine plains are better at countering smaller faster vessels and submarine attacks or reporting where they are at. If I build a bunch of submarines, air craft(fighters and bombers), and more shallow water or defensive navy to support it I could catch the British battleships in bad position near coast or shallow water making it perfect target to pick off/isolate. Destroying that ship is at least big moral lost for navy and public at home. Plus air craft carriers can bombed ports and coastlines too.

I hope we get some or few alternative or ahistorical routes on technology like never ditching the zeppelin airships that only lost favor after ww1 due to Germany having to use cheaper and less safe fuel options for it. I want a grand air force of zeppelin bombers and ways to integrate it into air craft carriers and civilian use/transportation. A grand zeppelin fleet of bombers supported by fighters, air craft carriers, and more mobile/support aspects of navy. make Zeppelins the battleships of the air especially prestige wise and before jet engines(jet engines would be after game ends right?)

I think in the grand scheme of things it turned out that battleships were not worth it as they were just too vulnerable and expensive but that wouldn't be found out untill the 1940's, even the US considered carriers as support for battleships untill pearl harbour kind of forced them to rely on carriers alone which turned out quite well
+ carriers create huge conflicts of interest with the airforce, that spat of the airforce trying to rip itself appart from the army I mentioned before is nothing compared to the fight the navy and the airforce had over who controlled the carrier planes (and the carriers themselves)

but all of that is moot as aircraft cariers fall largely outside the scope of the game, HOI is the game for that

also I agree that zepellin bombers need to be represented somehow but I've no idea how you'd do that