Should WW1 be avoidable?

[unmerged(4396)]

I think alot depends on how 'WWI' per se is modelled. Will it be an 'event'.. I doubt it. Don't forget that nobody expected the Great War to start, it evolved, and was firmly rooted in tensions that had been building in Europe throughout the 19th century. I would be suprised and disappointed if, sometime in 1914, an event pops up saying "OK, the Great War has started. You are now at war with X, Y and Z countries". Talk about derailing a game. WWI should be a danger to occuer at ANY time during this game. If you, as a major Euopean power, declare war on another in 1884, who happens to be allied with two others, and they in turn declare war on you... voila! WWI in 1884. This would be ideal. With this the case, you will spend the entire game trying to judge if it is 'safe' to go to war or not, just like they did historically. Pick your fights carefully. Naturally, after a full game of Victoria, seeing WWI develop along historic lines will be unlikely, but it will probably happen.

 

[Mettermrck]

WWI as we know it historically will probably be avoidable, particularly if you're starting your game in 1836 and there's a greater variety of changes in 1914.

Will you be able to avoid a massive worldwide industrial war featuring interlocking alliances? Good luck. Especially in MP, where it's tendency of human players to start the 'big war' very quickly.

 

[unmerged(14338)]

Im going to allie Brittain and Germany.

Then we will se who rule's the waves

 

[unmerged(1949)]

Maybe no assassination at all

I have read alot about the murder of the Archduke and his wife, and the Serbian national holiday. Still one thing that needs to be considered is A-H may not have Bosnia at all. Remeber this game starts in 1835, long before the A-H ever got that forsaken land. Even if they did, the real break between A-H and Russia took place around 1908 when A-H annexed Bosnia and out manuvered the Russians diplomatically. There is also the point that maybe the murder of the pro-Austrian royal family of Serbia need not take place and install the pro-Russian dynasty. There are so many possible changes that I don't believe the assassination spark need be the cause for any war.
The future should be what you make of it in the game, not tied to following a predetermined timeline of events. If you really want WWI, I am sure there are enough ways to come by it, without relying on Austria-Hungary. (A-H might join the anti German team, instead of with Germany.)

 

[unmerged(19712)]

Originally posted by Napoleon_VI
On the other hand, you might want to look at this from the perspective of the Austrians.

If Austria goes to war with Serbia and provokes war, even without the vote of support, Germany still must act. She has very little room to maneuver since if Austria is committed to the war alone, Germany loses her closest ally. Nonintervention is an all-out loss.

Would A-H have risked war with three major powers? especially when they could have gotten almost everything they wanted from Serbia, I think that if Germany had told A-H to shut up and sit down they would have because to risk war against three powers alone is folly.

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by Darkling
Would A-H have risked war with three major powers? especially when they could have gotten almost everything they wanted from Serbia, I think that if Germany had told A-H to shut up and sit down they would have because to risk war against three powers alone is folly.

A-H was afraid to go to war with a Serbia which was maybe aided by Russia without backing from Germany in 1914, so three major powers seems completely out of question.

 

[kristoff]

Originally posted by Napoleon_VI
It would be the First World War, though.

What would WWI look like with a still-Balkanized Germany? Something very much like the Seven Years' War I think.

You're right, I was just reffering to WWI as we know it - trench onslaught in the West, mobile warfare in the East (pure horse power ), with majors like UK, France, AH, Germany and Russia involved, ect.

In VIC's timespan there gonna be probably even several different wars on average, each that could be called "world war". Let's say, Sioux enraged by Wilson winning elections declare independence from US, form alliance with Siam and Buthan and launch devastating invasion in Hamburg to punish Germany, which earned big "bad boy" for annexing Portugal. Terrified UK and Russia come to help Kaiser, while AH - taking advantage of the whole mess - sends famous Danube flotilla and hired Bulgarian marines and attacks Bombai, getting foot in India. Which leads to... O well, maybe I've played too much EU

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Sytass
A-H was afraid to go to war with a Serbia which was maybe aided by Russia without backing from Germany in 1914, so three major powers seems completely out of question.

Well if A-H was a good responsible government in 1914, which was willing to be weigh the possibilities and make a decision for the good of Austria that would seem out of the question. However, Austria-Hungary was being led by people like Berchtold and Conrad and they were eager to jump into that cauldron as a radical solution to Austria-Hungary's continually frustrating problems.

Conrad was determined to have war and viewed it as the salvation of Austria-Hungary and since nobody else in Austria had any other plans besides maintaining the status quo or strong opinions about anything for that matter (except for hating the other ethnic groups that is, Berchtold's entire foreign policy was hatred of Serbia for example) he got his way.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by kristoff
You're right, I was just reffering to WWI as we know it - trench onslaught in the West, mobile warfare in the East (pure horse power ), with majors like UK, France, AH, Germany and Russia involved, ect.

In VIC's timespan there gonna be probably even several different wars on average, each that could be called "world war". Let's say, Sioux enraged by Wilson winning elections declare independence from US, form alliance with Siam and Buthan and launch devastating invasion in Hamburg to punish Germany, which earned big "bad boy" for annexing Portugal. Terrified UK and Russia come to help Kaiser, while AH - taking advantage of the whole mess - sends famous Danube flotilla and hired Bulgarian marines and attacks Bombai, getting foot in India. Which leads to... O well, maybe I've played too much EU

I was betting on that Inca-China-Holstein-Crimea Entente throwing their might against the Triple Alliance of Vijayanagara-Columbia-Benin in a war to end all wars

 

[unmerged(3168)]

I’m sure a historical WWI will be easily avoidable in the GC, but I doubt that the game will be able to avoid a WWI scaled conflict somewhere along the timeline.

What will be interesting to seeing is how the game handles large scale wars between two sides (like Sino-Japanese, Franco-Prussian, ect) without them becoming WW’s.

 

[Archaalen]

What about shifting sides in WWI? If the Kaiser had kept to Bismarck's policy of keeping Britian friendly (or at least neutral), they might not have entered the conflict. Also, one of the main reasons that the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers was because of the two German dreadnoghts in port at Constantiople. Had they been blocked from getting there, the Turks might have stayed out of the whole thing. Also, whatever the alliances of the time looked like, some sort of major conflict was bound to occur, it's just a matter of when and how it started.

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by John Poole
Well if A-H was a good responsible government in 1914, which was willing to be weigh the possibilities and make a decision for the good of Austria that would seem out of the question. However, Austria-Hungary was being led by people like Berchtold and Conrad and they were eager to jump into that cauldron as a radical solution to Austria-Hungary's continually frustrating problems.

Conrad was determined to have war and viewed it as the salvation of Austria-Hungary and since nobody else in Austria had any other plans besides maintaining the status quo or strong opinions about anything for that matter (except for hating the other ethnic groups that is, Berchtold's entire foreign policy was hatred of Serbia for example) he got his way.

Well, Conrad got his way only after over a month, when matters had left the Serb-Austrian circle and had involved Russia, Germany, France, and the UK. How likely would it have been for the whole event to turn into WW1 if Austrians had immediately carried out military action and not waited for weeks to deliver an ultimatum?

 

[unmerged(17167)]

Here's a sequence I can envision:

If Austria has a balkan province, assassination happens. If ultimatum is issued to Serbia (or if it doesn't exist another balkan country). If Serbia rejects, Austria gets a CB (and maybe is given an event that will make the AI actually declare war), otherwise Austria asks the 1st Great Power that's their ally for support (with this priority: Germany-Russia-Ottomans-Italy-France-Britain). If they reject Serbia becomes an Austrian vassal, if they accept Austria can either accept Serbia as a vassal or declare war. After this, Russia, if not allied with Austria (if they are the Ottomans get it as long as they're not allied with Austria), gets an event in which they can declare war, gain a CB, or let it fall but face stability/prestige.

If Austria doesn't have a balkan province, a similar event will trigger for the Ottomans if they have one and if not it will be for the Russians if they have one.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Originally posted by Archaalen
Also, one of the main reasons that the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers was because of the two German dreadnoghts in port at Constantiople. Had they been blocked from getting there, the Turks might have stayed out of the whole thing.

Well, not quite. Had the Brits not impounded two ships being built for the Ottomans, then the Germans, fleeing the British fleet, might have had a harder time swapping their German caps for Turkish fezzes before a jaunt up the Black Sea to bombard a few Russian ports.

On the other hand imagine the stink if the Brits had released the ships and then those very ships had been used against them at Gallipoli. Bad bad press, Belgrano-style.

In any event though, the Turks were pushed into the war by a cabal within the ruling party. Honest. No desire for territorial expansion. Whatever.

 

[Dinsdale]

This might appear silly, with a game starting in 1835 and which will probably contain several wars; why should WW1 be treated as a specific event?

Shouldn't the game engine be simulating 80+ years of history rather than replaying a very tight set of circumstances which required mutiple alliances?

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Originally posted by Darkling
Would A-H have risked war with three major powers? especially when they could have gotten almost everything they wanted from Serbia, I think that if Germany had told A-H to shut up and sit down they would have because to risk war against three powers alone is folly.

Well, there was another subtlety. If Austria goes to war, Germany has to go with it unless it wants to lose Austria as an ally. Austria, thus, is guaranteed an ally even in the stupidest war.

I think that the Austrians would have listened, but I think that even if Austria had completely refused to listen to Germany, Berlin's hand would be forced in the Archduke's favor.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by civman2000
If Austria has a balkan province, assassination happens. If ultimatum is issued to Serbia (or if it doesn't exist another balkan country). If Serbia rejects, Austria gets a CB (and maybe is given an event that will make the AI actually declare war), otherwise Austria asks the 1st Great Power that's their ally for support (with this priority: Germany-Russia-Ottomans-Italy-France-Britain). If they reject Serbia becomes an Austrian vassal, if they accept Austria can either accept Serbia as a vassal or declare war. After this, Russia, if not allied with Austria (if they are the Ottomans get it as long as they're not allied with Austria), gets an event in which they can declare war, gain a CB, or let it fall but face stability/prestige.

Errrm, this is quite eerily similar to what I wrote near the top of the thread

 

[unmerged(4396)]

I think Dinsdale is right on, y'all are thinking VERY narrowly. Was the 'Great War' solely a result of an assassination in the Balkans? No, it was a build up of of tension over years, exploding on to the world with the slightest spark. All you need is a network of major power alliances to go to war with another network of major power alliances, and voila! The Great War, be it in 1850, 1863, 1873, 1900 and so on. There are too many variables that a human will introduce into the game that will make it impossible to recreate the exact situation before our historical World War I. Even the countries involved are not guaranteed.

 

[Hakkapeliitta]

I agree 100% with Dinsdale and crusin. No events to force WW1 are needed, a great power war will follow naturally from the rising tensions and I'm quite sure that the game engine is up to the task.

Indeed the lack of any major great power alliance wars in the 19th century is remarkable and mostly due to the shock and devastation caused by the last 'Great War' of 1793-1815 which caused almost all people to regard peace as important. Major European coalitions flexing muscles on the battlefield was nothing new under the sun, the only difference was that by the early 20th century most of the world was part of the european playground...

Fortunately WW1 was quite short for a great power war.

 

[Archaalen]

What I was trying to say was, Europe had been involved in a vicious cycle of bloody warfare followed by a peace that didn't really resolve the problems that caused the war, nor remove the resentment between the sides involved that would make another war inevitable eventually. Also, the highly nationalist character of the countries in the late 1800s and early 1900s made a general war involving one or all of the Great Powers all but unavoidable. This is not to say that the end of WWII solved all of Europe's problems, but it did make them realize it was pointless to continue warring with each other