Key to Victory!

[ptan54]

Germany was not beaten by seapower alone.

The blockade did its damage, but a swift victory could have been achieved had the Schlieffen Plan worked - the unaltered original stood a chance, and if it had, a swift victory would have meant the blockade would have been useless.

Empire by definition is a state consisting of many Kingdoms and many nationalities, ruled by an Emperor over its many constituents.

Russia ruled over many ethnic groups and was (and is) the largest state in the world.

To say they are not an empire is a lie.

Once again only a few people here have bothered to analyse this in terms of geopolitics. A maritime empire is not the only form of empire.

 

[Buke]

Originally posted by Suvorov
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.

This is what I hope wont happen. Sea power was especially in this time important not just for transporting men. With seapower you could cut off supplies and trade that these industrialized nations needed, you could starve a nations economy into capitulation. Nations only became recognized as real powers when they had a navy because of this. Like Germany, Japan and the US when you have a fleet you can control your destiny.

In Victoria I hope a fleet can do some real gunboat diplomacy and really do some blockading that is damaging not like in HOI.

One example, I hear people saying Napoleon was not beaten at Trafalgar but he was. With British rule of the sea Napoleon could not bring Britain to its knees. All of Europe's great powers fell to Napoleon at one time or another but with Britain controlling world trade behind its wooden walls Napoleon would never be free of British instigated revolts. And yes Napoleon himself realized this and accepted this as fact.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

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).

The Russian Empire was larger than the USSR. Also, the Second German Reich (1871-1918) managed to make a decent empire that had an economy that could compete with Britain's, despite the fact that the Kaiser never ruled the waves.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

...maybe it would help to confine the argument a little.

Navies have been of great importance to many empires across history, and many empires have also chosen not to have large navies as well. This is particularly true if you start to look beyond Europe toward Persia and India where the importance of navies is diminished.

Navies are important for two reasons:

1. Trade.
2. Coastal control and support.

An empire can exist without a huge navy. Will it exist for long? It certainly can - the Russian and Austrian empires lagged navally, and prospered. Does it help in war? All things considered, I would rather have the navy than not.

The maxim that "He who controls the sea controls the land" certainly comes with great qualification when the matter of Russia comes into play. The Ottoman Empire also vastly outlived its period of naval supremacy.

The question can be put another way. An empire will choose to have a navy only if it is useful - i.e., if it has trade or coastal interests to protect, or seeks to intrude upon another nation's trade or coastal interests. Certainly not all empires have coastal or maritime interests, or have very little maritime interest. Similarly, not all nations have opponents who would be vulnerable in these ways.

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Didn't Germany win the only major naval engagement of World War I at Jutland Also Russia had quite a few nice port cities in the 19th century: Riga, Petrograd, and Vladivostok just to name the best known. To say that ignoring land power while living on the continent is just plain old stupid. The reason is while you are building that big pretty navy all your neighbors would beat your ass, and then what does that leave you with? Just a big nice navy with no where to set port! Britain is totally different case as is the United States. Britain could afford to ignore it's army at any point it wished because no one could invade them! Their army was only good in the Napoleonic Wars because they had so damn long to build it up. The United States crushed (Mexico) or pacified (Canada) the only real threats to her power in North America so she was able to focus on her naval abilities. Bismarck made all the right calls in his foreign and military build up policy because good old Friedrich Wilhelm tried to use your idea of "a grand navy wins the day" and what did he get? A Britain that had been drawn to her natural enemy of over the last 400 years (France), and a navy that while the second largest on earth still wasn't enough to beat Britain on the high seas. You totally destroy your own argument for naval build up by constantly looking to Imperial Germany (if Hitler was the 3rd, and the Holy Roman Empire was the 1st, 19th century Germany had to be the 2nd) as a display of what doesn't work. They had a huge navy and it didn't and couldn't have had any impact on the war except to piss England off even more. Simply put if you are Britain or the United States you will definitely need huge naval projection, but if you have to live with hostile neighbors on your borders then it is best to ignore the navy and try to keep Britain or the United States as friends! Any other way will just lead to the second or third largest navy on earth that would not stand a chance against the wooden walls. If the game has an AI half worth anything you will NEVER be able to pass Britain so why risk pissing her off?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Vendere Sacerdo
Didn't Germany win the only major naval engagement of World War I at Jutland

No. Britain suffered more deaths and greater permanent loss of ships, but the result of the battle was a German withdrawal to port and a reduced ability for the German navy to challenge the British as a result of greater proportional losses (taking both permanent and temporary into account).

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
No i am not dening that Britain provided enormous subsidies that helped Russia, but so did the US provide the money and weapons for Israel to defeat the Arabs. So shlould the US or Israel get credit for 1948, 1956, 1967, 1976?

No, the United States didn't supply significant aid to Israel until after the 1967 war. So US aid only had an impact on the outcome of the fourth Arab-Israeli war, which you inaccurately dated (it occurred in 1973).

As regards Britain in the Napoleonic wars, you're ignoring the entire Iberian campaign in which Britain prevented the French from conquering Portugal and in alliance with the Portuguese and Spanish tied down an enormous French army for the duration and caused an amount of French casualties greater those lost in the Russian campaign (260000 to 210000).

 

[Buke]

Yes but every one of the land powers that have been mentioned longed for naval power. Hundreds of thousands of Russians died to gain those Baltic ports and why because control of the sea can alone decide a war.

The Turk fortress of Azov held for decades against Russian attacks and in doing so kept the Russians from access to the black sea and unrestricted trade. The army failed because the Turks could always supply themselves by sea, it was only when the Russians built a fleet that Azov fell. Russia lost the Russo Japanese war when its fleet was destroyed by the Japanese because the Japs could, with naval superiority, dictate events on land.

Even the great land powers when they can try to invest in a powerful fleet because nations throughout history tend to get more decisive value out of fleets.

The value of a fleet is it can win or lose you the war in one afternoon.

 

[gotwins]

The real question of whether you need land power or sea power is based on one thing. Is surface of the battlefeild liquid or solid? Solve this riddle and you have solved the grand riddle. A wise man once said, "Boat not go on land, man not swim as well as USS Nimitz." And just to make sure the above statement was true, i just said it to myself.

 

[unmerged(21338)]

My whole point was you will never pass Britain in naval power, and trying to do so will only draw her closer to your enemy if he is ignoring his fleet (to a point). Dark Knight even further demonstrated the point you will never be able to pass Britain in sea power by pointing out that while Germany did win the Battle of Jutland they lost the war at sea in the process. Odds are against you being able to out do Britain on the high seas, and I think it would be better use of resources and manpower to just accept that and try to be her friend. Bismarck understood this and while he never tried to be to close to Britain he certainly did not alienate her half as bad as Friedrich Wilhelm II who in fact was trying to make an alliance with them! Making that grand fleet alienates the most powerful naval nation on earth, and could leave your army behind on the continent. So like I said before if you are not Britain or a post Mexican War United States focus on your army and power on the continent while putting your dreams of mistress of the high seas on the back burner. Besides who other than Britain (India) made any real money off their colonies in respect to how much they wasted obtaining them? Not saying do not colonize or make a fleet, but trying to be number one will just show you who really is number one in that area. Of course trying to form a good alliance with the United States and Japan (Japan would just make it better, but US would have to come first) against Britain is a whole different story. That leave the Royal Navy stretched over two-three oceans and having to protect Canada, Australia, India, and the homeland from immediate danger of invasion at which time your prospects become much better. Of course that is just using a balance of power against a nation who always trys to use a balance of power

 

[Buke]

Yep colonies rarely made money.
I'm pointing out that the EU based games have done a fine job of representing the power of armies but when it comes to navies they leave much to be desired. In EU2 if you lost a fleet it was rebuilt in 6 months better than before. In HOI while it was harder to rebuild lost fleets but I think we all have seen how little they could influence the game by themselves, EX: we've all blockaded Britain with fleets of Uboats in HOI only to see Britain war production increase.

Now in a time when fleets meant great power will Britain’s great fleet have any power other than its ability to transport troops in Vicky?

 

[unmerged(21338)]

I sure hope so, because that fleet is what made the British and was missing from both games. HoI made it worse by taking away Russia's "winter war" advantage so I hope they fixed that too. I will be highly disappointed if you can pass the British in naval power while trying to keep any form of power on the continent or if it does not matter if you have a navy.

 

[unmerged(12885)]

hm...

I know this is sort of drifting, but how DO you model the importance of naval power in Viccy?

Do you use a HoI like convoy system, where 1/3 (or more) of your world market trades can be intercepted? What about moving goods by land? Obviously some nations were far more dependant on moving their goods by sea, and others by land. Railroads should have great effect on this too, yes? But since there is just the abstract world market, where would these convoys be linked to? Maybe they could just divide x/3 of your world market trades by each of your port cities. So if someone had a fleet parked outside of each of your ports you x/3 of your trades would fail.

I think it would have been interesting if they kept the Center of Trade idea, where your trades on the "world market" are instead distributed to the center of trade which offered the best relationship of distance and price. Then you could map land or sea routes for specific goods, and allow quite detailed blockades.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Classic example of a Land Power fighting a Land/Sea power would be Alexander vs Persian Empire. If the Land Power can come to grips with Land/Sea Power, then Land Power can possibly defeat Land/Sea Power. If Land/Sea Power can keep a safe distance; like say Britain or USA; then in the long run, the Land/Sea Power has a distinct advantage. So it all depends.

An exclusively Sea Power, without a significant Land Power element, is only safe defensively if there is some water barrier between it and said Land Power. Sea Power must also have some land power in order to project that power. So I think it is pointless to debate whether Land Power or Sea Power is dominate. It all depends. Remember, Napoleon caused Britain some real problems because he almost controlled the entire continent, not to mention Alexander capturing the Persian bases. Controll of the sea is pointless if certain vital land areas are taken out of play. Also, Britain was still forced to fight Napoleon and Germany on the continent to finally prevail. I guess it all comes down to the fact that all things being equal, and they never are, it's better to have a strong navy than not.

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Actually the biggest problem is the size of the sea provinces, and I know this cannot be helped. In real life Nazi Germany for example could have loaded their men on to some transports (maybe) but it was still a pretty long ways until you made it to the shores of England. In HoI on the other hand you could put your transports in an ocean province, load your troops, and then just unload them on the other side. Causes more problems, but I am to lazy to go into them all.

 

[unmerged(12885)]

ok, I put a little more thought into this. Modeling blockades requires nothing additional.

Trading goods on the world market requires that you either are close enough (distance modified by infrastructure to allow for roads and rails to have correct effect) to a nations capital to move goods via land across friendly regions, or you move those goods by sea.

Should a nation be able to block all your ports, you cannot make a world market trade with any nation whos capital is further then x, or does not share a direct land route through friendly ground. There, now a naval blockade can be devestating, especially so for an island nation (with or without colonies).

Further, going to war could cut off land routes for trade.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

would you model a blockade as a close blockade or a distant blockage like britian used in WWI and WWII? maybe both options are available?

 

[Inostra]

Originally posted by Vendere Sacerdo
Didn't Germany win the only major naval engagement of World War I at Jutland Also Russia had quite a few nice port cities in the 19th century: Riga, Petrograd, and Vladivostok just to name the best known. To say that ignoring land power while living on the continent is just plain old stupid. The reason is while you are building that big pretty navy all your neighbors would beat your ass, and then what does that leave you with? Just a big nice navy with no where to set port! Britain is totally different case as is the United States. Britain could afford to ignore it's army at any point it wished because no one could invade them! Their army was only good in the Napoleonic Wars because they had so damn long to build it up. The United States crushed (Mexico) or pacified (Canada) the only real threats to her power in North America so she was able to focus on her naval abilities. Bismarck made all the right calls in his foreign and military build up policy because good old Friedrich Wilhelm tried to use your idea of "a grand navy wins the day" and what did he get? A Britain that had been drawn to her natural enemy of over the last 400 years (France), and a navy that while the second largest on earth still wasn't enough to beat Britain on the high seas. You totally destroy your own argument for naval build up by constantly looking to Imperial Germany (if Hitler was the 3rd, and the Holy Roman Empire was the 1st, 19th century Germany had to be the 2nd) as a display of what doesn't work. They had a huge navy and it didn't and couldn't have had any impact on the war except to piss England off even more. Simply put if you are Britain or the United States you will definitely need huge naval projection, but if you have to live with hostile neighbors on your borders then it is best to ignore the navy and try to keep Britain or the United States as friends! Any other way will just lead to the second or third largest navy on earth that would not stand a chance against the wooden walls. If the game has an AI half worth anything you will NEVER be able to pass Britain so why risk pissing her off?

Well the German fleet did have an impact. It kept a significant amount of the British fleet bound to watch duty by just being there, lurking in the Baltic see. And furthermore it kept the British fleet from coming to close to German harbours. Fleets may have a in impact even if the are not used because they limit the enemy in the use of his fleet.

 

[Tunch Khan]

This whole thread is so pointless, if you are Meinz and your only goal is to defend against Saxony or Hessen etc, you won't need a navy. The original poster was saying that those who dominate the seas will dominate the world. And he's damn right about it. Ok, try to domiante the world (not your small world) without a navy and then post back here.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

This whole thread is so pointless, if you are Meinz and your only goal is to defend against Saxony or Hessen etc, you won't need a navy. The original poster was saying that those who dominate the seas will dominate the world. And he's damn right about it. Ok, try to domiante the world (not your small world) without a navy and then post back here.

Indeed.The again it doesn't take a brainer to realize that one needs a navy to get from Europe to America ,or even easily to Africa ,asia ,... .

Another reason's why navy will be impoerttant is because at WWI time defenders probably will have an advantage over attacker's ,and in mp human players tend to build lotsa lotsa fortification's ,so because any land warfare from 1900 onward will probably bog down immidiatly in trench warfare ,the only way to negate this is by landing troops all along youre enemy's coast behind the treanch lines.The one that will be able to do that will win the war.