lol you know Victoria's going to be great when:
the forum members are arguing the points of strategy of the various nations...
the forum members are arguing the points of strategy of the various nations...
-
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.
ouch, a ctd!
those kill especially when your in a brutal war and a lot happens between saves. i love your aar too
those kill especially when your in a brutal war and a lot happens between saves. i love your aar too
From Geoffrey Wawro's "Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792-1914":
About the partial mobilization in 1912 to deter Serbia, which at that time was overrunning Albania and Macedonia:
"Once underway, Austria's partial mobilization went no better than the premobilization measures. Many recruits reported to their regiments singing Serbian anthems. In Slovenia and Dalmatia, angry crowds smashed the windows of German shops and declared their support for Belgrade in the crisis. In Austria's Czech provinces, the parents and friends of army recruits and reservists turned out in mass demonstrations to prevent the young man entraining for the front. While the Serbs overran Macedonia and Albania with 200,000 troops, the Austro-Hungarians deployed fewer than 12,000 men to Bosnia, hardly a credible deterrent."
Also, Wawro speaks of Austro-Hungarian POWs "joyfully" running into captivity on the Eastern Front in the first days of WWI.
Now, how can it be argued that such a nation wouldn't implode in case of a huge Russian (self proclaimed protector of Slavs!) offensive in which essentially the whole nation was overrun? Slavs would see them as liberators. What would stop Slav soldiers from throwing away their rifles and head home, a home now under benevolent Russian rule? I doubt very much, that their German overlords would have been able to stop this mass desertion, thus dooming the Habsburg Empire.
And I have a question about the diplomatic possibilities of the game: Can Russia offer Rumanian parts of A-H to Romania and Italian ones to Italy in order to get them involved (strange that they didn't get involved automatically with A-H on the ropes)?
About the partial mobilization in 1912 to deter Serbia, which at that time was overrunning Albania and Macedonia:
"Once underway, Austria's partial mobilization went no better than the premobilization measures. Many recruits reported to their regiments singing Serbian anthems. In Slovenia and Dalmatia, angry crowds smashed the windows of German shops and declared their support for Belgrade in the crisis. In Austria's Czech provinces, the parents and friends of army recruits and reservists turned out in mass demonstrations to prevent the young man entraining for the front. While the Serbs overran Macedonia and Albania with 200,000 troops, the Austro-Hungarians deployed fewer than 12,000 men to Bosnia, hardly a credible deterrent."
Also, Wawro speaks of Austro-Hungarian POWs "joyfully" running into captivity on the Eastern Front in the first days of WWI.
Now, how can it be argued that such a nation wouldn't implode in case of a huge Russian (self proclaimed protector of Slavs!) offensive in which essentially the whole nation was overrun? Slavs would see them as liberators. What would stop Slav soldiers from throwing away their rifles and head home, a home now under benevolent Russian rule? I doubt very much, that their German overlords would have been able to stop this mass desertion, thus dooming the Habsburg Empire.
And I have a question about the diplomatic possibilities of the game: Can Russia offer Rumanian parts of A-H to Romania and Italian ones to Italy in order to get them involved (strange that they didn't get involved automatically with A-H on the ropes)?
Suvorov, John Keegan states that the effect of defectors from the Austrian-Hungarian military (especially the Hungarian parts of it) are usually vastly exaggerated, and that their defections/willful capturing was not a decisive factor in the battles.
This is what the Germans did historically and a large part of the reason why West Front was so still (All Quiet on..., Remarque) whereas the East Front held 1/3+ of German Army IIRC, even after Brest-Litovsk.
But what would this effect have been had the homelands of the various Slav minorities and even possibly the Magyars been under Russian control? Why fight for A-H anymore? The Czar comes in, offers you his benevolent protection, gives some vague guarantees for national indepedence and voila: no more A-H army (apart from the 25% or so Germans).
IRL, the Russian steamroller was stopped much sooner than in your AAR. In your scenario, if there is a nation that should disintegrate, it's A-H.
Thank you for your AAR, Sytass!
These beta-AARs are really Paradox´s most cunning marketing ploy - I know I have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Cheers,
Vandelay
These beta-AARs are really Paradox´s most cunning marketing ploy - I know I have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Cheers,
Vandelay
If there was one thing to make the Magyars of the 1910-ish years to fight until the end is to see Russians coming and helping other Slavs get territories which had been under the Magyar crown.
One big factor in containing the Russian advance was the battle of Tannenberg in Southern East Prussia. During the last days of August 1914 the Germans under Hindenburg and Ludendorff encircled and defeated the Russian 2nd army under Samsonov with 200,000 men (the Russian commander took his own life when realizing the hopelessness of the situation).
That this battle has become a legend with even schools named after it shows its great psychological impact on both the Central Powers and the Russians. The Czar's army thereafter never entered German soil with the strategic deployment of their forces in turmoil and the Germans could draw on the confidence that they could be victorious even when vastly outnumbered.
In the Sytass' AAR no such decisive battle was fought, so I figure the Russians only got to explore their potential a lot further than was historically the case.
That this battle has become a legend with even schools named after it shows its great psychological impact on both the Central Powers and the Russians. The Czar's army thereafter never entered German soil with the strategic deployment of their forces in turmoil and the Germans could draw on the confidence that they could be victorious even when vastly outnumbered.
In the Sytass' AAR no such decisive battle was fought, so I figure the Russians only got to explore their potential a lot further than was historically the case.
AARs are what got me started with EU1. They still generate great anticipation and desire.
There is one more point about the potential of the A-H empite surrending: what would have a human player done? If I was playing A-H I would have never surrender under the conditions, and I doubt many human players would. Your closest ally, germany, is still strong (and a human player). May be historically it might be an arguable decision to sue for peace, but I hope the AI is designed to play the game, not only to relive history.
It seems to me that from a gameplay point of view, everything when ok.
It seems to me that from a gameplay point of view, everything when ok.
Am I imagining things or is there an chemical mask icon on the windows that give the details (strength, elan, organization, etc.) of the units? Are you (or are the allies?) using chemical weapons to break the stalemate?
Hopefully you are well stocked in chlorine and mustard gas...
Hopefully you are well stocked in chlorine and mustard gas...
Originally posted by Ladislav
im not so sure that chemical weapons will be included.
Why not? HOI had nukes and the use of chemical weapons wasn't forbidden back then
(1835 -1920). As far as the player is concerned they are just another tool for `continuing diplomacy by other means'.
we shall see. but i wouldnt be surprised if they were ommitted. it is simply the fact that gas warfare has not resulted in any corps level alteration of trench warfare.
True. A much more effective way to use chemical weapons was to employ them against 'uncivilized' nations (to use a game tem), who could not afford to protect their troops..
Quoting W. Churchill:
*I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.*
Guess Il have to keep an eye on the Mexican AAR to see if one has an option to use them in colonial wars.
daedalus wrote:
I agree. The AI should play the game with as much intelligence as possible. If a nation appears too strong for a scenario, the AI should not be dumbed down. Instead, weaken the nation's stats so that the AI has less to work with.
EnPeaSea
I agree. The AI should play the game with as much intelligence as possible. If a nation appears too strong for a scenario, the AI should not be dumbed down. Instead, weaken the nation's stats so that the AI has less to work with.
EnPeaSea