Key to Victory!

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by Steele
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

The discussin is you cant create a huge empire without naval power.

oh yea, POWER TO THE MINI SUB, winners of Pearl Harbor

 

[Bryaxis]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, at the begining of the first punic war Rome had no ships. She asked the southern greeks cities for some. Then a stupid carthaginian commander got his ship on some rocks near Sicile so the roman studied the ship and build a fleet which sunk due to a storm ( having a ship make you no sailor ). A second batch was build and dowered with a bridging system allowing the roman to fight at sea like they did on land. That did it.

In PW II, there were not that many naval fighting, the main operations being about cutting the grain supplies of ennemy towns and armies and putting troops ashore.

After that, the roman always had fleets because of the pirates threat. They used their own ships and those they asked to their allies ( like the rhodians, master sailors of the time ). The last big naval fight of the roman period was the Actium battle between Marcus Antoninus allied with Cleopatra and Augustus ( still called Octavius at the time ). After that, the fleet was kept but had not much use anymore.

 

[nalivayko]

For once I will not enter the discussion about Russia Keep arguing though, lads, but keep it clean.

Back to the topic: in Imperialism navy played a very important role - your link with colonies depended heavily on amount of merchant navy and once you blockaded the enemy's capital port he would be, in lack of a better word, screwed. I would like to see this implemented in the game, but again, not all the countries should be effected.

It was always crucial for England to have a good navy, no arguiment here. In fact, it was more crucial to keep the supplies coming in than defending the shores. The enemy might land in England and still lose. If the enemy blockades England effectively, the war is as good as lost.

If you want to see navy play an important role in Victoria, naval blockades should be better implemented. Period. End of discussion

 

[unmerged(20324)]

you all talk about germany in world war II or russia in the same period. lets talk about vicky, naval power dominated the world. you show up on some beach in africa, asia, hell anywhere with a dreadnought and you get your point across. you get trade rights, colonies, i'm talking about money!!!!!! with this you build up you navy and make damn sure no one can match you! if they try sweep them from the seas, take there colonies, land your army when and where you want. use the army just like the british. as a weapon to be fired by the navy!!!!!!

what is the great rule of war?
rape, pillage, and burn! burn *only after the first two are finished.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

I was just arguing the point that empires based on land do not need navies ..which is obviously wrong.. there hasn't been *1* empire last over 20 years wihout an effective navy... (Russia is a country, not an empire, the USSR could be considered an empire, but they had a nice navy, planes, nukes).

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by skkrrt
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?

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

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..



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

skkrrt,
first off all, retreating past Moscow was the plan of Kutuzov before Borodino ever happened. He used the Russian winter as an advantage, just how the Brits used the Channel to hide from everybody and their mother.
As for Austria/Prussia/GB defeating nappy...:rofl:
Prussia and Austria got conquered by Nappy in case you forgot, and were part of his "empire" before he retreated from Russia.
As for the UK, it did what it always does, hide behind the Channel until the enemy is as good as destroyed, and then join the fight on land. As I remember it was the Russians who entered Paris to force Nappy to Elba
All the talk about the British being the dominant millitary power in Europe, ever, is funny. When is the last time the Brits defeated anybody on land, outside of your average african tribe, and they didn't always beat those anyways. The Brits were the most dominant naval and economic power in the world from the time of Spanish decline to start of American domination, but as a millitary power, England has never been the strongest nation in the world.

the difference between the US and European nations in regards to being islands is that, US doesn't have to defend itself on land, that is unless the great powers of Canada and Mexico invade us. Even then we wouldn't need the army, the Texas rangers could take care of the south, while...we wouldn't have to do anything up north anyway. Where as all european countries except GB and Ireland, have to fear actual land neigbors, thus they need huge armies to defend themselves.

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

Gee, I don't know: Scandanavia, Eastern Europe, Balkans, Transcacasiania(?, Azerbajan, Armenia, Georgia, etc), Kazahstan, Persia, China, Korea, North America.

"A) only had 1 coastal city that was there capital and under very high defence."
If it is okay with AlexandrG, I will use his quote to answer this, "Thats...pretty stupid" Look at a map of Russia pre-1914, I am guessing you will find atleast two coastal cities.

And, how to put this without hurting anyone's feelings...the least smartest thing you have said is in response to AlexandrG's comment of "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..

The Roman empire lost more than two wars, what a power...:rofl:

PS, after reading my this post over, I realize that it sounds a bit offensive, and that is not the way it should, I in no way want to insult skkrrt, so please take it with a grain of salt.

 

[ptan54]

Geopolitics.

Islands => destined to become maritime powers.

Powers isolated from other powers, like USA, with a friendly northern neighbour, a not overly threatening southern neighbour, two massive oceans to the east and west => maritime power.

Landlocked countries, or countries with minimal coastline => land power.

19th century, maritime powers ruled the world.

Beginning of 20th century however debatable - Germany, a landpower (which wasted a lot of money on the rather useless Tirpitz plan to piss off Britain), could have become the new power of the world.

Sir Halford John Mackinder started the whole subject of "Geopolitics", and he contended the following:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island
Who rules the World-Island commands the world"

World Island is Eurasia.

And to a point, this is true. With a large enough landmass, a nation could probably be self sufficient enough in raw materials and food that a naval blockade won't hurt.

Mackinder wrote this in 1904 before air power was relevant, and air power today is rather like sea power of the 19th century.

To assert that sea power is the only route towards becoming a great power is flawed, its just that in the 19th century it was easier to be a naval power and establish colonies over less advanced areas, rather than to try to subjugate an entire continent on land where your neighbours arent exactly African tribes or Aboriginals.

EDIT:

In game terms, this corresponds to -

1 - Naval domination and lots of colonies.

OR

2 - Continental Europe will be united under one flag!

Everyone can agree option 1 is easier than option 2.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

"I was just arguing the point that empires based on land do not need navies ..which is obviously wrong.. there hasn't been *1* empire last over 20 years wihout an effective navy... (Russia is a country, not an empire, the USSR could be considered an empire, but they had a nice navy, planes, nukes)."

Tell that Russia was not an empire to all these people:
Abaza
Agul (Aguly, Koshan)
Andi (Qwannab)
Avar (Dagestani)
Azerbaijani
Balkar
Bashkir (Bashkort)
Caucasian Mountain Jew
Chechen, Shishan
Chukchi (Chukot)
Chulym (Melets Tatar)
Circassian, East
Circassian, West
Crimean Tatar
Darghinian (Dargwa)
Evenk (Tungus)
Ingush (Galgai, Ingush)
Jewish; speaking Russian
Jewish; speaking Hebrew
Kalmyk
Karachay (Alan)
Kazakh
Khakas, Sagai
Khanti (Ostyak, Ostiak)
Korean
Kumyk (Kumuk, Khasav)
Kyrgyz
Lak (Laki, Kumux)
Lezgian (Lezghi)
Nogay (Nogai)
Rutul (Rutal, Mukhad)
Tabasaran (Ghumghum)
Tajik
Tatar (Kazan Tatar)
Turk
Turkmen (Turkoman)
Tuvinian (Tuva, Tuwa, Uriankhai)
Udmurt (Votyak)
Uzbek
Yakut
Yurak Samoyed (Nenets)

these are the ones that live in Russia today, not counting the Poles, Ukraininas, belorussians, eastonians, etc, etc, etc, that lived in Russia before 1914.)

PS, didn't the Mongols and the Carloginian empires last more than twenty years?

 

[unmerged(11486)]

CzarAleks:

England vs. France, War of the Austrian Succession: Draw.
England vs. France, Seven Years War: England wins
England vs. France, Napoleonic Wars: England wins, Napoleon exiled twice.
England vs. Russia, Crimean War, England (kindof) wins.
England vs. Germany, First World War, England wins.
England vs. Germany, Second World War, England wins.

Of course, in many of these wars, England had allies, but not all of them, and some times, even when the English were not alone, they did rather well.

Steele

 

[unmerged(18269)]

England vs. France, War of the Austrian Succession: Draw.
England vs. France, Seven Years War: England wins
England vs. France, Napoleonic Wars: England wins, Napoleon exiled twice.
England vs. Russia, Crimean War, England (kindof) wins.
England vs. Germany, First World War, England wins.
England vs. Germany, Second World War, England wins.

Uhm.
Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, and the World Wars Englanded depended on others to win the war for them.
They could not have won without their allies, and their allies=ALOT of ground troops. Alot.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Steele, notice that I said in my post who did britain beat on the continent and alone, thus...
War of Austrian Succesition: Prussia was doing all of Britain's fighting on the continent, and if not for Petr III, Prussia would have not existed after this war.
As for the colonial wars with Netherlans, Spain, France, Germany, anybody else, Britain is dominant, no one can deny this, but colonial is very different from Europe.

Napoleonic wars, England had as much to do with this victory as with WWII, lets wait till someone beats Nappy up, while we use our navy and small army to harrass the sides of the enemy, and then we will come in to finish them off.

Crimian war was Engalnd, France, Ottomans, and future Italy against Russia, and they didn't manage to take any Russian territory. Even today, if 4 of the top 10 world powers jump on the US, US will not be able to win(not counting nuclear war, no one is the winner in one of those)

First and Second WW, England was on the winning side, but in neither conflict did they play the biggest part of their alliance...France in WWI and Soviet Union in WWII.

Britain has had a tremendous diplomatic histry but not a great millitary history on the continent.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Navies were not important in HoI (more of a nuisance, I hated building those transports to ship my troops to Europe) and I have a feeling they also won't be important in Vicky.

Besides, if you look at the time frame at hand, colonies were more about prestige than anything else. I don't think Germany or France economically speaking gained anything from their colonies. I'd focus on industrializing and diplomacy. Play Germany, get Russia on board (and vice versa) and give the high seas to the British. You'll be untouchable in Europe! France can be humiliated, A-H carved up and no one's gonna stop you.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Uhm.
Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, and the World Wars Englanded depended on others to win the war for them.
They could not have won without their allies, and their allies=ALOT of ground troops. Alot.

Well, the napoleonic wars is certainly wrong, because as we all know, not only was Britain's army excellent, but it provided massive subsidies to the rest of europe.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Napoleon was beaten in Russia, not at Trafalgar.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Napoleon was beaten in Russia, not at Trafalgar.

But he was forced to invade russia because of trafalgar, and russia had the ability to invade europe because of britain's money.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Fair enough. British subsidies were important. But the British navy had very little impact on Continental Europe.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by Faeelin
But he was forced to invade russia because of trafalgar, and russia had the ability to invade europe because of britain's money.

So Britain didn't do the main fighting, not with the army, not with the navy... Wasn't that the whole point?

 

[Faeelin]

Sure it did. It let britain strangle the continental Empire of bonaparte.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Faeelin
But he was forced to invade russia because of trafalgar, and russia had the ability to invade europe because of britain's money.

Israel has not defeated the Arabs in a single war then, it was America all along, going by your logic.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Originally posted by skkrrt
I was just arguing the point that empires based on land do not need navies ..which is obviously wrong.. there hasn't been *1* empire last over 20 years wihout an effective navy... (Russia is a country, not an empire, the USSR could be considered an empire, but they had a nice navy, planes, nukes).

If you say that Russia wasn't an empire, I'd say you have essentially a nice little circular argument: a state without a navy can't possibly be an empire. As others have mentioned, I think a lot of people throughout the last 200 years would like to disagree with that.

By the way, Russia did in fact have a decent navy from the middle of the 18th century onwards, mostly to counter the threat from the Swedish navy.

More generally, I'd say that whether or not a state needs a navy depends on whether its interests require it to be able to project power on or across the ocean - if they don't, spending the massive amounts of money a naval construction programme would be downright counterproductive.

As for your "No empire without a navy" theory... what about the Habsburg Austrian Empire? Lasted a bit more than 20 years, as I recall.