Key to Victory!

[NickWJM]

of course navies are incredibly important, equal to if not more important than armies. There is a reason why one of the largest contributers to the WW1 was the arms race, not of armies or nukes but of the Dreadnaughts. Also the comparison with Nazi Germany and Rome is inappropriate as they are both in ages where Naval power was not as important (WW2 technologies existed to allow a degree of self sustaining society for some nations eg synthetics for Germany). Vicky is the golden age of the Warship.

Napolian tried to impose a european trade policy not allowing any continental europe countries to trade with the outside world by sea (didnt have much choice the RN kept them at bay and dealt a devastating blow at Trafalger), and look where it got him!. This is the age where imports are the basis for the worlds economy. Spices for instance. Take Austria, not renowned for their fleet admitadly. But where do you think they got their imports from?, They would get it from a sea power and if that sea power is blockaded by a superior navy it has knock on affects across europe.

I hope this is modelled correctly in vicky. Gunboat was the diplomacy of this Naval Age.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by 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.

1) Schlieffen plan would have never worked, but that is a different discussion (he added troops but never mentioned from where). If France fell US would have joined quickly after that (they would have just madeup a reason..sorta like manifest destiny).

2) Ok ill use your definition (though I dont use it, it is very open depending on what you consider a natinality, like there could be 5 in the US ect...)

Ok, largest state in the world, that is true. But how much of that is Siberia? (Of course China/Canada also have lots of uninhabitable area). It ruled under many different ethnic groups, ok, but again what do you consider an ethnic group, what percentage of the populatin do they make up ect... (using a pre-WWI america there is: New England/Dixie/Midwest/Texas/west coast. (and post WWIII there is Alaskan and Hawaiin).

Oh and about US never having any land threats. American Civil War, pretty big land battle no? A rather large part of the North success was based off a bloackade of the south.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

i have played HoI alot. you can build an unlimited number of warships if you have the resources. can you do this in vicky, and if so just think if you gain naval superiority over britian. i was hoping that naval construction could be limited as it was in real life by the number of drydocks available to the host country.

 

[unmerged(9295)]

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

False. The Empire of Japan before XIXth century ruled only Japaneses. So Empires are not always multicultural.

The Byzantine Empire during XVth century. "Big kingdom" is not a suitable definition of an Empire.

The only definition is "State ruled by an Emperor".

 

[unmerged(7197)]

Originally posted by Fermor
False. The Empire of Japan before XIXth century ruled only Japaneses. So Empires are not always multicultural.

The Byzantine Empire during XVth century. "Big kingdom" is not a suitable definition of an Empire.

The only definition is "State ruled by an Emperor".

And I supposed an Emperor is someone who rules an Empire?

Right?

 

[BiggN]

CzarAleks pg2

"just how the Brits used the Channel to hide from everybody and their mother."

Just how Russia hid behind the winter when it fought against Nappy...
Just how the VC hide in the jungle against the Americans and French...
Just how the United States hide behind air power against the yugoslavians...

You do what it takes the win, its war man... how on earth you can call it hiding when the had the largest empire the world has ever seen is beyond me, but whatever makes you happy.

"but as a millitary power, England has never been the strongest nation in the world."

I'd have to question that, I am English sure and thats part of hte reasons (stops waving flag for a min)
lets just say 1900 and go from there, name one nation that could of declared war on GB and actually stood a chance on taking her over?

You start a war between the UK and Russia in 1900 or even 1850 and tell me this.
Which countries citizens would be more fearful of the other?
Do you think thepeople in southampton would be in fear of a russian invasion about to happen?

Hell lets even relive WW1 as only Germany Vs UK and you tell me in reality what chance on earth Germany would stand to have the the UK surrender.
While agreed the UK might not of had the largest Army in the world, it wasn't a slouch either... it was a well trained well armed and very experianced army.

"notice that I said in my post who did britain beat on the continent and alone,"

So what does that have to do with anything?
What nations have the USA ddefeated on their own?
Don't really get your point here....

AlexanderG pg2

"Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, and the World Wars Englanded depended on others to win the war for them."

USA depended on French aid in their independance
USA depended on French and British equipment in ww1
USSR needed British and French naval fleets to help them fight the otamans pre-ww1
USSR depended on USA supplies and armaments in ww2

So whats your point?
That countries don't fight alone anymore or are you trying to use it as an arguement to prove that the UK wasn't a world power?
The UK was the ONLY world power for 90% of vicky, the ONLY world power.

 

[ptan54]

1) Schlieffen plan would have never worked, but that is a different discussion (he added troops but never mentioned from where). If France fell US would have joined quickly after that (they would have just madeup a reason..sorta like manifest destiny).

Moltke did not ADD troops to the right wing, he REMOVED corps from the right wing.

Between 1905 and 1914 nine corps became available, Moltke put eight into the left only one into the right. Manpower wasnt the main issue.

What was the main problem was roads. With too many people clogging up the roads, it would be pretty impossible to get to Paris in sufficient strength after six weeks.

And this isnt just me talking, quite a few historians agree with me also. In 1914, without unrestricted submarine warfare, without a strong enough hostile attitude to Germany, its unlikely that the USA would have got involved. Furthermore, after a French defeat, Asquith woulld have pressed for peace as per status quo ante, which Germany would have accepted as they were in no position to send the army on its way to London. So with Britain and France out of the war, its rather unlikely the US will get involved. Even if it did the US in 1914 was far from ready for war. They declared war in April 1917 but first undertook significant operations in mid 1918. In 1914 the lag would be even longer. A quick French defeat would essentially be a replay of the Franco Prussian war, except this time Britain is briefly involved. There is no geopolitical reason for the USA to get involved in 1914, it did not see itself as a world power needing to indulge in European affairs.

So in summary, to say that it could NEVER have worked is going too far. It was a close run thing in real life, and if there were more men on the right, who knows? When you have a close run affair the victory of one side isn't "inevitable".

Of course it would be brilliant to have naval backup, no one is discounting the importance of that, but in the end the breaking of armies wins a war, and the most direct way to do that is with armies.

As for the Civil War, except for those four years, the USA never has a hostile neighbour on land after that. This is pretty much agreed upon by many historians (there's a book called American Foreign Policy in the 20th Century, read the first chapter) and doesnt require a significant leap in logic to spot.

Empire - true about that, just being ruled by Emperor, but Tokyo never considered itself a "great empire" until it was done setting up its own East Asian Co prosperity zone....

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Technically, to be an Empire you also can not be anyone's vassal.

USSR needed British and French naval fleets to help them fight the otamans pre-ww1

When was the USSR fighting the Ottmans with British and French help? For starters the USSR and the Ottomans only co-existed for a few years, and this was during and immediately after WW1, not before it. Also, Britain and France certainly did not help the USSR fight the Ottomans, since the USSR was helping the Turks in their war against Greece.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Crimean War, where France and Britain helped the Ottomans fight Russia?

As long as you can march to where you are trying to go, you can do without having a powerful navy. As soon as you need to sail somewhere, having a navy becomes important.

 

[unmerged(9295)]

Originally posted by Redstars
And I supposed an Emperor is someone who rules an Empire?

Right?

Yes this is what you will probably find in your dictionnary. They are just Emperors because they decided to, inherit the title or were crowned by some authority. For example Napoleon I was crowned by the senate, French people and the Pope and Peter I by the Douma. There is lots of words we use for which we have no exact definition.

 

[unmerged(21338)]

You all still miss my whole point. Europe of this time period was the center of the world. Being number one in Europe (being able to fight and win wars in Europe) was still a whole lot more important that fighting in Africa or Asia. America had become more important, but not as a battle field for Europe thanks to the Monroe Doctrine. You talk about beating up your neighbor like it was some easy thing, but it wasn't! Your neighbors more times than not consisted of one or more of the 6 most powerful nations on earth. One top of this you more than likely had another one of the three minor powers on your borders which could certainly do a hell of a lot if working along side of the super powers. Britain had none of these fears to worry about because she was surrounded by water, but at the same time although her army was small she could still threaten any of the major or minor powers with a connection to the sea (which was all of them). She was the least threat to Russia because if Russia really wanted to beat her all they had to do was retreat and wait for winter. Also Russia still posed a threat to India, and that was something British policy was based around through out most of this period. If the game is any way realistic you will NEVER be able to out do British Sea Power. So to keep on about how much sea power mattered is useless because we all know who will be number one the entire length of this game. Building a decent fleet which can guard your own ports to a certain extent is just common sense, but to enter a naval race with Britain will just make her your enemy and eventually she will win. The other side is trying to expand the world around Britain, and that would be getting the United States and Japan to help. This would still not assure you control of the ocean's of the world, but would help the odds and spread the British Army over four continents. Other than trying to get those two nations into an alliance with you I do not see any way possible to ever pose a threat to Britain so why antagonize the situation? Does a navy matter? Yes, but who will have that navy is pretty much all ready of forgone conclusion.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

I guess it depends on where you are. Navies were important to most European powers because, in order to create an empire, they had to expand abroad - to Africa and Asia, for instance. This made them vulnerable to navies, which could cut off their trade with their colonies. On the other hand, a nation like Russia could expand overland, and was vulnerable to navies only because she had coasts. Even at that, she wasn't particularly vulnerable - although she lost the Crimean War, the British and French were in no position to launch a sustained campaign into the Ukraine, and could not inflict a truly decisive defeat.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

The real keys to victory aren´t army and navy. They are economy, technological development and diplomacy in Victoria.

England managed well because they industrilized their nation early and they used the largest free market area available for the British merchants.(British Empire) Effective economy means high production, ability to invest in new technologies and build a large army and navy if necessary.

Excellent diplomacy means to avoid unnecessary wars, loans for other countries(could be very useful if you have a powerful economy), build defensive and normal alliances, isolate your enemies and start a war when you see fit. Make other nations your friends quickly and your enemies very slowly.

Of course you need some kind of army or navy but the best choice is a cost efficient army and navy. A large navy of man-of-wars will be useless when monitors will become available. Then you need shipyards to build better ships and you should sell or scrap old ships.

I believe small and modern military is much better than large and obsolete military. Small and modern military needs less money for maintenance than large and obsolete military and the latter military definately needs upgrades sooner or later. Powerful economy is the life blood of any kind of military and on the other hand you should make investment for the future as well.

 

[unmerged(16099)]

Powerful army? Large navy? Don't make me pick one or the other. Both will be needed for WC.


--
EnPeaSea

 

[Sol Invictus]

How's this for a British nightmare; a reconsideration of relations between France and the new and powerful German State around the turn of the century. Both nations have grown tired of Britain watching the affairs of Europe safely from her island; all the while grabbing choice pieces of realestate throughout the world. Together, these two world powers can present a major naval threat to the Mistress of the Seas. Sure, it's very unlikely, but these kind of scenarios keep Whitehall burning the midnight oil. Maybe if Alsace/Lorraine were in play and Bizmark were retained it could happen. No need for France and Germany to constantly be at each others throats. Perfidious Albion will be leashed!

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
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).

o
How could I forget about 1973 War!
I was refering to the Lebanesse Civil War of 1976 in which Israel "participated'.

US theater death:
WWI- 53,402
Vietnam- 58, 199
(http://lycos.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004615.html)

Should than this mean that NVAF and the Vietcong were more powerful than the Central Powers, while the US was weaker in the 60s and 70s than in the 10s?

Geuirella warfare is more deadly for great powers than conventional warfare. Let alone when it is dealing with the rejects of an army. The Grand Army was in Russia, not in Iberia.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Vendere Sacerdo
If the game is any way realistic you will NEVER be able to out do British Sea Power. So to keep on about how much sea power mattered is useless because we all know who will be number one the entire length of this game. Building a decent fleet which can guard your own ports to a certain extent is just common sense, but to enter a naval race with Britain will just make her your enemy and eventually she will win. The other side is trying to expand the world around Britain, and that would be getting the United States and Japan to help. This would still not assure you control of the ocean's of the world, but would help the odds and spread the British Army over four continents. Other than trying to get those two nations into an alliance with you I do not see any way possible to ever pose a threat to Britain so why antagonize the situation? Does a navy matter? Yes, but who will have that navy is pretty much all ready of forgone conclusion.

Tell that to the US Navy.:rofl:

 

[unmerged(21338)]

US navy was not even the second largest in this time period:rofl: Sol Invictus, Bismarck actually didn't even want to take Alsace/Lorraine in the first place. He knew what it would do, but the Kaiser wanted more land for the Second Rich. Economy and diplomacy is definitely a better investment than either army or navy truthfully, I agree with Finnish Dragon.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Depends on when in this time period you are talking about.

In 1835, the US Navy was probably one of the weakest of the 'industrial' nations.

By 1920, the USN was certainly the second largest in the world.

Steele

 

[Icecold]

Didn't Germany win the only major naval engagement of World War I at Jutland

I think at best Germany can claim this as a draw looking at the result....they basically never put to sea again....many points to consider here of course but Germany basically did not again contest control of the sea.

Cheers, Ice

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Only because they dismantled the second largest, but yea I forgot it ended in 1920 again. 2-3 years, that's is a real long time, and they still never out did Britain in this time period or even came close to it