Key to Victory!

[unmerged(20324)]

"Sire, he who is master of the sea will very shortly become master on the land"
Barbarossa (Red Beard) uttered this prophetic words to Soliman "the Magnificent" ca.1538

words of wisdom from the past, for we are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we do not learn from the past.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

naval power will dictate who wins the game. armys can not swim very far while navys can land an army on your coast!

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by myces2000
"Sire, he who is master of the sea will very shortly become master on the land"
Barbarossa (Red Beard) uttered this prophetic words to Soliman "the Magnificent" ca.1538

words of wisdom from the past, for we are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we do not learn from the past.

Uhm. Do I interpret your post correctly, that you'd like to discuss the importance of navies in the Victoria timeframe?

 

[unmerged(20324)]

yes, navies could make or break a nation. just look at germany during both wars, byzantium, spain, the list is endless. if they had kept up there naval tech and power they would have fared much better.

 

[Buke]

I do hope the economic system makes blockades devastating to a nations economy. If so the a navy could be a real war winning option not just something to transport troops as in other games.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

commerce raiders were a strong weapon for the confederacy and other small nations when they competed with larger nations. just think how much more another nation will want peace when its merchant marine is swept from the seas.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by myces2000
naval power will dictate who wins the game. armys can not swim very far while navys can land an army on your coast!

But a navy isn't vital for Prussia to crush Austria, or for many other inland nations who focus on their army.

It's useful if you're the UK though

 

[HJ Tulp]

I think that in the beginning you don't have to be THE naval power of the game but as the game advances in time you need to get yourselve a navy

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by Darkrenown
But a navy isn't vital for Prussia to crush Austria, or for many other inland nations who focus on their army.

It's useful if you're the UK though

No a navy is inferior to the army

signed,

WWI Germany and Napolean France

 

[unmerged(9895)]

Originally posted by Darkrenown
But a navy isn't vital for Prussia to crush Austria, or for many other inland nations who focus on their army.

your actually proving the point that a strong navy is (or atleast should be if the game is done right) infact the single most important part to winning the game.

there isnt really much benefit prussia can gain from austria if it takes it over. this isnt EU we are taking about, where its an every day thing for nations to disapear and be annexed by one another. those austrians will do everything in their power to keep their independence seperate from their hated rivals, hurting prussia in the long run.

now, with a strong navy, prussia (or austria) could sail their soldiers to a resource rich uncivilized area. while these people will also try to keep their independence, they have relatively little chance of gaining it, and absolutely no chance of hurting prussia in any other way than a slow down of resource gathering.

while a strong land army is important and can assure you to be the greatest regional power, a powerful navy is the only way to take the title of greatest world power. and besides, its always more resonable to fear a nation with the largest army, but only global powers will be concerned with nations with strong navies. my point is that a big land military build up is likely to win you few friends.

 

[Culise]

No a navy is inferior to the army

Ah, yes, the old NATO joke about two Soviet tank officers meeting in Paris, where one asks the other, "So, who won the air war?"

Similarily to air superiority, naval superiority can help your army take land, but in and of itself will not take or hold land. Seize the ports, and the navy has no place to resupply. Seize the land, and holding the sea is worthless.

Claiming naval superiority may or may not be helpful, but it is not critical at the expense of the army (Unless you're an island nation, such as the UK, or otherwise isolated from the Great Powers, such as the US and Brazil). It does your home no good to own flotillas of CA's and DN's when said home is occupied by tens of thousands of infantrymen with state-of-the-art rifles while you only have Napoleonic-era muskets.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

while having a good navy is good, it is not neccessary. Look at the Romans, Nappy, Hitler, etc.
The Romans hated sea warfare, yet they managed to get a decent empire
Nappy managed to conquer all of Western and Central Europe when his navy was non-existent after Heratio got done with it, and it took the Russian Army to finally kick his ass.
Same with Hitler, was it the British Navy that defeated Hitler, or the Red Army. Obviously the HMN hurt German industry, by blockading the Germans, but if you look at German millitary production it actually increased during the war years.
And the most evident reason why navy is much less important than army: The British had a much larger Navy than the Soviet Union in 1945, can someone in their right mind say Britain was more of a "global" power than the Soviet Union?

 

[Chaingun]

Even though the Romans hated sea warfare, they had to build a fleet in order to defeat Carthage (spelled like that in English?), during both Punic wars. I can't remember any specific details though, but you can look it up.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

I think that in end its the question of where you are building your empire.
Britain and France and to a much lesser extend the States needed a navy. Germany and Russia did not.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
while having a good navy is good, it is not neccessary. Look at the Romans, Nappy, Hitler, etc.
The Romans hated sea warfare, yet they managed to get a decent empire

They hated it, but they were still good at it

Nappy managed to conquer all of Western and Central Europe when his navy was non-existent after Heratio got done with it, and it took the Russian Army to finally kick his ass.

The russian army did jack **** the Russian winter beat him, then Austria/Prussia/England on land. If the French navy hadn't been killed then an invasion of England would have came and the French would have beat them and there would have been no opposition. Also english boycotts tend to hurt ones economy.

Same with Hitler, was it the British Navy that defeated Hitler, or the Red Army. Obviously the HMN hurt German industry, by blockading the Germans, but if you look at German millitary production it actually increased during the war years.
And the most evident reason why navy is much less important than army: The British had a much larger Navy than the Soviet Union in 1945, can someone in their right mind say Britain was more of a "global" power than the Soviet Union?

If hitlers navy could have beaten the brits and american, Normandy would have never happened, if Italy had a navy that invasion would have never happened and the Axis would have been able to WIN the war.


so yea, you can build a quick empire without a navy but you cant hold one (unless your the Mongolians).

What are the 3 greatest empires since 1850. England (vicky), Japan (pre-WWII), USA (now). What did they all have in common, they dominated the seas.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

The russian army did jack ****

Okey. Borodino anyone ?

What are the 3 greatest empires since 1850. England (vicky), Japan (pre-WWII), USA (now). What did they all have in common, they dominated the seas.

Thats stupid. Yes, Island empires need navies. Duh.

Discounts Germany and Russia.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Okey. Borodino anyone ?

and how many troops died before that due to the winter?

Thats stupid. Yes, Island empires need navies. Duh.

The USA is an island, damn, when did that happen.

Discounts Germany and Russia.

How long did Germany last as an "empire".... 12 years? Modern germany is no empire.

Russia had a damn good navy last time I checked (modern) which stops any modern day assault. Plus these things called Nuclear Weapons..and planes. And before that they had no enemies that could do an amphibious assault (except Sweden), due to

A) only had 1 coastal city that was there capital and under very high defence.

B) No enemies to attack the rear of Siberia, except Japan in 1905 in which the land power was overwhelming for Russia, notice though they never actually invaded Tokyo.

C) Russia (non USSR with its Nukes and awesome navy/planes) is hardly an empire. They control RUSSIAN land that is mostly Siberia, mostly uninhabitable.Under that you'd have to consider Canada an empire too wouldn't you.

Where is it Russia exerted there influence before they became the USSR that made them an empire?

 

[unmerged(18269)]

and how many troops died before that due to the winter?

Seeing as before the battle it was not winter, not that many ?

The USA is an island, damn, when did that happen.

Its a continent. surrounded on both sides by ocean. Same difference.

How long did Germany last as an "empire".... 12 years? Modern germany is no empire.

1871-1945.

Russia had a damn good navy last time I checked (modern) which stops any modern day assault. Plus these things called Nuclear Weapons..and planes. And before that they had no enemies that could do an amphibious assault (except Sweden), due to

A) only had 1 coastal city that was there capital and under very high defence.

B) No enemies to attack the rear of Siberia, except Japan in 1905 in which the land power was overwhelming for Russia, notice though they never actually invaded Tokyo.

C) Russia (non USSR with its Nukes and awesome navy/planes) is hardly an empire. They control RUSSIAN land that is mostly Siberia, mostly uninhabitable.Under that you'd have to consider Canada an empire too wouldn't you.

Where is it Russia exerted there influence before they became the USSR that made them an empire?

Thats preaty...stupid.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Seeing as before the battle it was not winter, not that many ?

ok,though t you were talking about the battle as france was on retreat (brain fart or something). Obviously it wasn't a crippling defeat of France or they wouldn't have taken Moscow would they?

Its a continent. surrounded on both sides by ocean. Same difference.

So is Eurasia..is it not? Hell Europe is surrouned by water on 3 sides...

1871-1945.

No that would be the nation of Germany, not the German empire. The German empire, aka Hitlers Germany, lasted roughly 12 years no? Also if you take that as the German Empire, they lost 2 big wars then.... what a power..

Thats preaty...stupid.

Nice resonse, When you can come up wiht a counter arguement ill be glad to talk about it.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Given that the whole "Russia is cool, No it isn't" discussion is kinda off topic here...

The key to victory is obviously, as in HoI, MINISUBS!!! You can rule the waves with phantom things that don't exist.

A navy should be important, but it depends on which nation you are. For example, the UK of course needs her 'wooden wall,' but it is debatable whether or not Prussia really needs a navy. Sure they would stand to gain form it, but starting from nothing is ure to be difficult.

Steele