WWI Expansion?

[shri]

Indeed. This is one of the main attractions of a WW1 DLC. Add to this the fact that battleships can be modelled historically and yet still be the most powerful thing on the map, and that there are arguably more potential "what-ifs" in WW1 since some countries could have joined the war on the other side.

At the countries joining the other side-
Are you hinting at the Italians?
Or was it Romania? Or even the Swedes perhaps?

On, the other hand, i do entirely agree a WW1 DLC will be a great boost to HOI4 with several possible sub-scenarios like - BALKAN WARS etc.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, in an alternative timeline, Imperial Germany doesn't declare "Unrestricted Sub Warfare" which makes the entry of an Isolationist USA even more difficult in the years 1917-1918.
(USA was not ready for entry and the Irish-Americans as well as German-American groups openly opposed war in favour of the hated English).

If this happens, UK will need to send more troops to the French front and reduce its commitments in the Sinai and in Greece and also the aid to Italy. This could have triggered near-permanent stalemates in the Sinai, Mesopotamia and the Bulgar-Greece front-lines.
With the collapse of Russia more or less certain, the Germans may have actually hit the Italians again in 1918 instead of France and could have triggered an Italian armistice (after Caporetto Italy was quite shaky and a second Caporetto would have finished them off). Also with the USA not entering the war and a peace treaty in Russia, this would have left the Germans with numerical superiority on the Western Front for the first time since August 1914.
Who knows? a better planned offensive and the French would have collapsed (they had a partial collapse in 1917).

WW1 more than WW2 was not entirely sure of a result till late 1917/early 1918, in contrast from 1942 it was more or less sure that the Allies will win.

The entry of the US into the war or not is pretty unimportant. Their main contribution to the war was military supplies, and without unrestricted submarine war that would have been worse thus germany would have crumbled faster. Unless you think there was a moral component in the Kiel mutiny?

 

[FOARP]

The entry of the US into the war or not is pretty unimportant. Their main contribution to the war was military supplies, and without unrestricted submarine war that would have been worse thus germany would have crumbled faster. Unless you think there was a moral component in the Kiel mutiny?

The US entry into the war shaped the entire final year of the conflict: Germany had to win then or she wouldn't win at all because US reinforcements would alter the balance irrevocably in favour of the Entente. Hence the Kaiserschlacht, the failure of which spelt the end of the Austro-German chance of winning the war. Their attempt to fight defensively afterwards was merely in the hope of achieving better terms.

Sure, US troops were a minor factor in and of themselves until almost the end of the war - this is not to disparage the efforts of the US Marines at Belleau Wood and the US army at the second battle of the Marne - but the prospect of their arrival in large numbers in and of itself was sufficient to force the German command to attempt a desperate gambit.

 

[TheDungen]

The US entry into the war shaped the entire final year of the conflict: Germany had to win then or she wouldn't win at all because US reinforcements would alter the balance irrevocably in favour of the Entente. Hence the Kaiserschlacht, the failure of which spelt the end of the Austro-German chance of winning the war. Their attempt to fight defensively afterwards was merely in the hope of achieving better terms.

Sure, US troops were a minor factor in and of themselves until almost the end of the war - this is not to disparage the efforts of the US Marines at Belleau Wood and the US army at the second battle of the Marne - but the prospect of their arrival in large numbers in and of itself was sufficient to force the German command to attempt a desperate gambit.

Eh Germany like Russia fell to an internal revolution. Which kind of highlights how meaningless the war was, the only people who really lost were those who's people rose up against their leaders.

Sorry to crush your vision of a mighty military victory but that was simply not the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

 

[FOARP]

Eh Germany like Russia fell to an internal revolution. Which kind of highlights how meaningless the war was, the only people who really lost were those who's people rose up against their leaders.

Sorry to crush your vision of a mighty military victory but that was simply not the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

Sorry to crush your vision of an internal revolution that just happened by itself for no reason (or for a reason that played into the post-war conspiracy theories of fascists), but that was not the case. Please consider the situation confronting the German high command by November 1918:

• The German army on the Western Front was in full retreat, and had been for 100 days after the failure of their final grand offensive. I guess they were just on the retreat because they felt in a retreating kind of mood? I suppose the fact that they could no longer replace the losses they had suffered was neither hear nor there?
• Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria had collapsed and their capital cities occupied. An allied army was collecting at Vienna ready for an offensive towards Munich which Germany had precisely zero troops ready to meet.
• The navy had mutinied after being ordered out to attack the Home Fleet in what was clearly a suicide mission. I guess the German command took this desperate step for absolutely no reason, right? Not because they were clearly losing and a naval victory was their one remaining hope?

Are you really saying that Germany wasn't militarily defeated? Because whilst there's revisionist scholars who might claim that, and certainly the legend-making of the Nazi party tried to claim this, a reasonable review of the facts shows that whilst economic collapse was in progress, military defeat also occurred. The consensus amongst military historians is that continued fighting would simply have resulted in the invasion and occupation of Germany in 1919.

Certain people, normally for ideological reasons (the far-left because they embrace the self-serving analysis of Lenin, the far-right because they believe in the Dolchstosslegende) may make a business out of claiming that WW1 was a pointless conflict, but Belgium's independence and neutrality was just as much worth fighting for as Poland's.

 

[3ishop]

Well, in an alternative timeline, Imperial Germany doesn't declare "Unrestricted Sub Warfare" which makes the entry of an Isolationist USA even more difficult in the years 1917-1918.
(USA was not ready for entry and the Irish-Americans as well as German-American groups openly opposed war in favour of the hated English).

If this happens, UK will need to send more troops to the French front and reduce its commitments in the Sinai and in Greece and also the aid to Italy. This could have triggered near-permanent stalemates in the Sinai, Mesopotamia and the Bulgar-Greece front-lines.
With the collapse of Russia more or less certain, the Germans may have actually hit the Italians again in 1918 instead of France and could have triggered an Italian armistice (after Caporetto Italy was quite shaky and a second Caporetto would have finished them off). Also with the USA not entering the war and a peace treaty in Russia, this would have left the Germans with numerical superiority on the Western Front for the first time since August 1914.
Who knows? a better planned offensive and the French would have collapsed (they had a partial collapse in 1917).

WW1 more than WW2 was not entirely sure of a result till late 1917/early 1918, in contrast from 1942 it was more or less sure that the Allies will win.

If the US doesn't enter the war and the Entente lose they would lose their arms industry and their economy due to the debt Britain and France had built up with them. When Russia fell it caused issues for a number of companies that had been making weapons for them. Germany couldn't afford to pay just war reperations never mind debts as well...

There's also the issue that a player wont make as many foolish attacks and will raise forces from their empires much quicker. I don't think the East Africa campaign will be such a drain if we can knock them out like we currently can. We wont even attempt a naval or infantry attack in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli

 

[TheDungen]

Sorry to crush your vision of an internal revolution that just happened by itself for no reason (or for a reason that played into the post-war conspiracy theories of fascists), but that was not the case. Please consider the situation confronting the German high command by November 1918:

• The German army on the Western Front was in full retreat, and had been for 100 days after the failure of their final grand offensive. I guess they were just on the retreat because they felt in a retreating kind of mood? I suppose the fact that they could no longer replace the losses they had suffered was neither hear nor there?
• Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria had collapsed and their capital cities occupied. An allied army was collecting at Vienna ready for an offensive towards Munich which Germany had precisely zero troops ready to meet.
• The navy had mutinied after being ordered out to attack the Home Fleet in what was clearly a suicide mission. I guess the German command took this desperate step for absolutely no reason, right? Not because they were clearly losing and a naval victory was their one remaining hope?

Are you really saying that Germany wasn't militarily defeated? Because whilst there's revisionist scholars who might claim that, and certainly the legend-making of the Nazi party tried to claim this, a reasonable review of the facts shows that whilst economic collapse was in progress, military defeat also occurred. The consensus amongst military historians is that continued fighting would simply have resulted in the invasion and occupation of Germany in 1919.

Certain people, normally for ideological reasons (the far-left because they embrace the self-serving analysis of Lenin, the far-right because they believe in the Dolchstosslegende) may make a business out of claiming that WW1 was a pointless conflict, but Belgium's independence and neutrality was just as much worth fighting for as Poland's.

I'm saying Germany was depleted over the long course of war not by the sudden admission of the US into the war. At the time the US entered Germany was basically already beaten. Which is in fact why the US entered the war when they did, when they knew for certain that the entant would win. It may have expidated the german defeat but their neutral support with war materials for the entant is what really defeated germany.

 

[3ishop]

Another question, current tech tree doesnt really fit the WW1 tanks. Quite a big difference between the French Renault FT, British mk5-6 M/F and the German A7V. Varriant system would cover the male/Female versions ok but companies wouldn't really cover the differences well. So they'd need to make individual tank stats.

Infantry equipment as well, it's just production improvements for most and the swapping of HMGs for LMGs. Only France was close to changing their weapons on a "large" scale, pre-war they were set up to switch to semi-automatic rifles and they did bring the RSC1917 in to play in a good number...

I'm saying Germany was depleted over the long course of war not by the sudden admission of the US into the war. At the time the US entered Germany was basically already beaten. Which is in fact why the US entered the war when they did, when they knew for certain that the entant would win. It may have expidated the german defeat but their neutral support with war materials for the entant is what really defeated germany.

They didn't. They entered when it was the end time of the war but it could have fallen either way. Germany had just got a lot of supplies from Russia and was going to have more men on the Western Front than the remaining Entente.

But the war was won pretty much just as the Americans were landing, the spring offensive was just pettering out by the time the US forces reached the front which was the last hope for the Central powers. Spring offensive in a players hands could lead to the a breakthrough and a win I guess.

 

[FOARP]

I'm saying Germany was depleted over the long course of war not by the sudden admission of the US into the war.

I think you're ignoring the morale factor here: US entry into the war was a massive morale boost to the Entente cause, it meant that all they had to do was hold on until US troops came into the war in sufficient numbers to tip the military balance irrevocably in their favour. By contrast the Austro-Germans knew that they had no further reserves of man-power, and no new country could join the war that would offset the impact of the US.

At the time the US entered Germany was basically already beaten.

At the time the US entered the war (April, 1917), the Austro-Germans were:

• Occupying almost all of Romania. Romania would surrender within a year.
• Occupying Serbia, having driven the Serbs over the mountains of Albania.
• Occupying Montenegro.
• Occupying almost all of Belgium.
• Within six months of landing a blow against the Italians that would shatter their front line and which might have reach Venice had the British and French not rushed to stabilise the line.
• Within a year of occupying the entire Baltics, and the Ukraine with the Crimea, following what effectively was a Russian surrender.
• Within seven months of fighting the British to a bloody stalemate in Flanders.
• In the act of utterly shattering the French offensive, an act that would (unknown to them) spark a series of mutinies that effectively rendered the French army incapable of serious offensive action for a year.

The only place where the Germans and their allies would suffer any kind of serious reverse that year was in distant Palestine.

Now, imagine what the situation would have been had all of this occurred without the promise of large numbers of Americans eventually arriving to turn the tide. Can you really say that the result would have been a certain victory for the Entente? Or might they have suffered the kind of collapse in morale that the Germans eventually suffered as their defeat became certain even in the view of the lowest foot-soldier?

Conversely, the Germans would not even nearly have been under the pressure to launch the hasty, one-shot, desperate offensive in the west that they ended up launching.

Perhaps an Entente victory might still have occurred, but it would have been after a longer, bloodier war.

Which is in fact why the US entered the war when they did, when they knew for certain that the entant would win. It may have expidated the german defeat but their neutral support with war materials for the entant is what really defeated germany.

The material support of the USA for the Entente is undeniable, but the morale impact their entry had is also, whilst harder to quantify, undeniable.

 

[shri]

The entry of the US into the war or not is pretty unimportant. Their main contribution to the war was military supplies, and without unrestricted submarine war that would have been worse thus germany would have crumbled faster. Unless you think there was a moral component in the Kiel mutiny?

The entry of the USA is what created the panic situation in the German General Staff specifically Ludendorff that they had to do an all out attack NOW and not later nor should they wait for the Allies to attack and let them lose more men.
The food situation in Germany was worst in the winter of 1916, it is infamously called as TURNIP WINTER for a very specific reason. By 1917/1918, Romanian and later Ukranian wheat was coming in as was Romanian fuel supplies.

If the US doesn't enter the war and the Entente lose they would lose their arms industry and their economy due to the debt Britain and France had built up with them. When Russia fell it caused issues for a number of companies that had been making weapons for them. Germany couldn't afford to pay just war reperations never mind debts as well...

There's also the issue that a player wont make as many foolish attacks and will raise forces from their empires much quicker. I don't think the East Africa campaign will be such a drain if we can knock them out like we currently can. We wont even attempt a naval or infantry attack in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli

Why will Germany pay reparations if it wins or if there is a favourable or even neutral peace treaty in the WEST. They had already won BIG on the Eastern front and practically they were in a position to install puppet governments from Finland to Baltics to the Ukraine.

The scenarios can make East Africa a "low infra/low supply place" which means all those extra forces will be useless. In-fact the British lost some 100000+ African Porters when trying to send a large South African Force to attack in East Africa and thus had to abandon their offensive.

Also, TRUST me- the Entente did not have it easy to raise man-power, if they had tried to raise more men in India, they would have lost it to revolution and the rest of the Empire was lacking manpower. Also, Conscription was greatly opposed in the UK and several campaigns were run even in wartime against it.


Edit:
Adding to what FOARP said, the - Railway lines to Baghdad were open and if required the Germans could have sent a powerful corps to the Palestine Front to stabilise the Ottomans and boost their morale, due to American arrival they needed to send each man available to the Western Front and so could not strengthen their allies at a "VERY CRITICAL JUNCTURE".
If the USA had not arrived, the Caporetto Offensive could have been followed up with an even more devastating offensive against the Weak Italians or another Mackensen-Seeckt Offensive into Greece (contrary to Popular History, the best "pair" of German Generals were - Mackensen-Seeckt).

 

[3ishop]

Why will Germany pay reparations if it wins or if there is a favourable or even neutral peace treaty in the WEST. They had already won BIG on the Eastern front and practically they were in a position to install puppet governments from Finland to Baltics to the Ukraine.

The scenarios can make East Africa a "low infra/low supply place" which means all those extra forces will be useless. In-fact the British lost some 100000+ African Porters when trying to send a large South African Force to attack in East Africa and thus had to abandon their offensive.

Also, TRUST me- the Entente did not have it easy to raise man-power, if they had tried to raise more men in India, they would have lost it to revolution and the rest of the Empire was lacking manpower. Also, Conscription was greatly opposed in the UK and several campaigns were run even in wartime against it.

I didn't mean they would, I was pointing out historically Germany stuggled to pay back just the war rep and not including the loans and bonds it had with other nations which the French/British would have if they lost.

The Germans had very few men in East Africa, I wont need lots of men just enough to encircle. They historically didn't have direct supply and lived off the land and salvaged supplies which would need to be added to the game (not sure equipment works that way) so I will lose less men/units and have freed them up sooner.

historically maybe although they did implement but never saw the results of conscription in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Gamewise how will this be represented? Plays can still easily save a lot of men and munitions and focus on the easier targets.

Plus again, how will submarine warfare be balanced? :/

 

[Rudolf Hessbart]

If there is a ww1 mod I want to have this typical "ww1 army feel". They should be slower, huge and should feel like a mix of guns, men and rifles. In Darkest Hour they did a great job.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Never played Darkest Hour. Did it have a tech tree that ran into the WW2 one? That's what I'd like to see, basically WW1/WW2 merged as one game with the tech tree starting in 1914, going until the National Focuses end in 1948.

 

[Oriflamme]

The ability to play WWI is the sole reason why I bought Darkest Hour instead of Hearts of Iron III. If a WWI expansion was made for HoI IV, I would definitely buy it.

 

[FOARP]

The ability to play WWI is the sole reason why I bought Darkest Hour instead of Hearts of Iron III. If a WWI expansion was made for HoI IV, I would definitely buy it.

Yup. And you're not the only one: at the time of DH's release more than half of the comments I remember reading that approved of the game over AoD and IC focused on the WW1 scenario.

Worth noting also is the fact that even though a WW1 mod existed for HOI2, people were still willing to pay for DH because it had a semi-professionally-made WW1 scenario.

 

[3ishop]

The ability to play WWI is the sole reason why I bought Darkest Hour instead of Hearts of Iron III. If a WWI expansion was made for HoI IV, I would definitely buy it.

Hey, how did Darkest Hour balance the U-boats?

 

[srd5090]

Hey, how did Darkest Hour balance the U-boats?

What sort of answer are you looking for?

In my WWI playthrough of DH as Germany, I was too busy focusing on my land warfare to care too too much about naval engagements. I went non-historical and avoided bringing Britain and America into the war, so there wasn't as much need.

That said, in DH there are techs. In WWi scenario, Germany starts with 'SUB 1912' tech, so one would need to be researching better submarine tech in order to have better U-boats. Production spent on U-boats and sub tech is production not spent on reinforcements, etc. and other relevant techs.

 

[3ishop]

Was thinking how they balanced them that it's not just a build them pre-war and it's just maintaining them due to terrible counters to them.

 

[srd5090]

Was thinking how they balanced them that it's not just a build them pre-war and it's just maintaining them due to terrible counters to them.

Well, the WWI scenario in DH starts just a few days (or maybe weeks I usually have speed on pretty high) before Archduke Ferdinand eats it, so there really isn't much time to do pre-war build up. You start with a handful of submarines and they are okay with convoy raiding, but Britain and the other allies are capable of building destroyers to offset submarines. Submarines are not this super unit that can't be countered.

Even if there was extra time and you focused production on subs, you are giving up production spent on land. The Allies can build destroyers in response and the drop in land production may mean France and Russia give Germany and Austria-Hungary the ol' squeeze.

 

[FOARP]

Well, the WWI scenario in DH starts just a few days (or maybe weeks I usually have speed on pretty high) before Archduke Ferdinand eats it, so there really isn't much time to do pre-war build up. You start with a handful of submarines and they are okay with convoy raiding, but Britain and the other allies are capable of building destroyers to offset submarines. Submarines are not this super unit that can't be countered.

Even if there was extra time and you focused production on subs, you are giving up production spent on land. The Allies can build destroyers in response and the drop in land production may mean France and Russia give Germany and Austria-Hungary the ol' squeeze.

There is a strong argument that a WW1 Scenario should begin either on the day of the assassination or not long before it: the Germany of 1914 was not engaged in the kind of high-speed rearmament that the Germany of 1936-39 carried out. Germany already had a large army and navy in 1914 and probably could not have gotten much stronger with reasonable peacetime expenditure. Having the player start earlier than 1914 simply allows them to build up an a-historically massive war-machine.

Of course, on the other hand there is an equally attractive argument saying that it should start before the Balkan Wars so that these may also be played through.

Probably the best solution is to have the game start in 1912, but arrange things so that Germany (and the other major powers) cannot build much larger armed forces, and that the numerous crises of that time occur as events each of which has the potential of resulting in war.