Well, I finally gave in and bought my copy of GoA last night and was able to put in a few hours with it. Really need to read the manual thought. [:)]
However, one thing that surprised me was that there seems no way to avoid having Britian a combatant. In the real world Britian entered as a result of the German invasion of Belgium enroute to Paris. I was wanting to experiment with the option of not triggering British entry and having to deal with the problems of not invading Belgium, but Germany and Belgium seem to start the game already at war, even though there is not a single German unit in Belgium.
My thinking is that it would be interesting to see if the Central Powers could actually win if they did not trigger British, and later US, entry.
Is this something that could be fixed? Please!?
British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
Moderator: SeanD
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
Although the Belgian invasion did trigger the entry of Britain in August, Frank feels she would have enyered soon anyway, If the CP doesn;t invade, British troops are delayed.
I concur with this. The Brrits would have never let the High Seas fleet go on a war footing without intervention and any German land success in France would have brought the BEF over. A German-dominated Europe would have contradicted Britain's "balance of power" policy, practiced since Cardunal Wolsey.
As the Russians failed with British and American aid and France bareky hung on with help, I think your scenario is obvuousl Germans home before Christmas.
I concur with this. The Brrits would have never let the High Seas fleet go on a war footing without intervention and any German land success in France would have brought the BEF over. A German-dominated Europe would have contradicted Britain's "balance of power" policy, practiced since Cardunal Wolsey.
As the Russians failed with British and American aid and France bareky hung on with help, I think your scenario is obvuousl Germans home before Christmas.
Jim Cobb
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
In the time from Waterloo to enter the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904 and extended with the inclusion of Russia in 1907, Britain was in no alliance in the "Pax Britannica" Era - basically Britain was the superpower of these days.
To secure the British Empire Britain had a naval doctrine, that they must be able to beat the two next largest fleets in the world combined - with a doubled force ratio on both ! With Germans foolish naval arms race Britain was forced to enter an alliance with either Germany of France because the cost to built the new Dreadnoughts to match both countries would have been prohibitive.
The Triple Entente was not strictly a military alliance which is why, together with British habit of operating on own hands outside the alliance system, that Britain was hesitating to enter the war right from start.
As Bismarck mentioned the Royal Navy was already mobilized and as that arm by far constituted the practical and moral instrument of British will to fight, it would have been political impossible to back down.
To secure the British Empire Britain had a naval doctrine, that they must be able to beat the two next largest fleets in the world combined - with a doubled force ratio on both ! With Germans foolish naval arms race Britain was forced to enter an alliance with either Germany of France because the cost to built the new Dreadnoughts to match both countries would have been prohibitive.
The Triple Entente was not strictly a military alliance which is why, together with British habit of operating on own hands outside the alliance system, that Britain was hesitating to enter the war right from start.
As Bismarck mentioned the Royal Navy was already mobilized and as that arm by far constituted the practical and moral instrument of British will to fight, it would have been political impossible to back down.
Hit them where they aren't
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
While the naval arms race initiated by Wilhem certainly created massive problems with his relations with Britian, I have to contend that British entry into the war without the invasion of Belgium was quite problematic. In fact, Britian had by 1914 clearly won the race and Germany was being forced to accept their inability to compete with British shipyards and the British treasury. Lacking the German invasion, British entry would have been questionable, at least until a much later date - by which time the war might be over.
However, far more importantly, I really feel that making British entry contingent upon the violation of Belgium's neutrality, or some other trigger, would add a very great deal to the game in terms of greatly complicating the war planning process. At the time the French deployed their forces assuming Belgium's neutrality would be respected. Now, knowing the Germans are going to suffer the negitive consequences of that violation anyway and ,hence, have no reason not to run their right wing through Belgium, the French deployment will be totally different - making it 'gamey', not in any way a reflection of the real choices available to the French command. With this artificial situation, no sane French commander would ever set up his forces as was done historically.
While this is, of course, a game; it would be nice to have it set up so that the historical situation is presented to the player with at least quasi-historic perameters; rather then being forced outside anything resembling the historical situation.
Which raises a question. Will the Americans come in at some particular date reqardless of German u-boat activity because it was felt 'they would have entered anyway? It would make about as much sense in terms of forcing the game to follow a particular path regardless of the German actions that historically caused the now hard coded 'reaction'.
Having no idea about how hard it would be to code, I would suggest:
1) No German invasion of Belgium = no British entry, unless
2) Some percentage of French cities (Industrial Points) are captured, i.e. that British entry be based on a percentage roll based on the number of occupied industrial points. I think the Germans should be allowed to conquer every thing up to and including Paris, but after that as they get more greedy the chance of Britian coming in increases dramatically
3) Or if there is not Belgium invasion, run a dice roll for each turn after August 1914, forcing the German player into a situation of uncertainty.
However, far more importantly, I really feel that making British entry contingent upon the violation of Belgium's neutrality, or some other trigger, would add a very great deal to the game in terms of greatly complicating the war planning process. At the time the French deployed their forces assuming Belgium's neutrality would be respected. Now, knowing the Germans are going to suffer the negitive consequences of that violation anyway and ,hence, have no reason not to run their right wing through Belgium, the French deployment will be totally different - making it 'gamey', not in any way a reflection of the real choices available to the French command. With this artificial situation, no sane French commander would ever set up his forces as was done historically.
While this is, of course, a game; it would be nice to have it set up so that the historical situation is presented to the player with at least quasi-historic perameters; rather then being forced outside anything resembling the historical situation.
Which raises a question. Will the Americans come in at some particular date reqardless of German u-boat activity because it was felt 'they would have entered anyway? It would make about as much sense in terms of forcing the game to follow a particular path regardless of the German actions that historically caused the now hard coded 'reaction'.
Having no idea about how hard it would be to code, I would suggest:
1) No German invasion of Belgium = no British entry, unless
2) Some percentage of French cities (Industrial Points) are captured, i.e. that British entry be based on a percentage roll based on the number of occupied industrial points. I think the Germans should be allowed to conquer every thing up to and including Paris, but after that as they get more greedy the chance of Britian coming in increases dramatically
3) Or if there is not Belgium invasion, run a dice roll for each turn after August 1914, forcing the German player into a situation of uncertainty.
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
Interesting thoughts.
Why so many players think that Germany necessarily must attack through Belgium in a France first is beyond me ? First you have to take the coin flip in Liege - does your siege artillery destroy that fortification or will you be delayed ? Then you also add the Belgian and British armies to your opponents forces. Furthermore you give up the use of artillery while marching.
Don't be mistaken - i don't advocate not going through Belgium, i am just stating that both strategies has advantages as well as disadvantages.
With regards to the suggestions about alternative British entry i grant you a point - i would also have liked to link violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany with British entry. The simplest and best solution would be to treat Britain as a neutral so that German declaration of war on Belgium would possibly trigger immediate British Entry.
Unfortunately letting Britain being neutral will prevent them from entering France on turn one because being neutral in the first strategy phase will prevent them in setting transports on amphibious mode in order to send troops to France. So that won't work and i guess essentially why the present solution was chosen.
About your no. 2 suggestion - if France loses Paris they will sooner or later be conquered unless they very fast get Paris back.
What kind of Kaiser worries about Britain or America in that situation ?
I have no clue about how to handle US entry.
Why so many players think that Germany necessarily must attack through Belgium in a France first is beyond me ? First you have to take the coin flip in Liege - does your siege artillery destroy that fortification or will you be delayed ? Then you also add the Belgian and British armies to your opponents forces. Furthermore you give up the use of artillery while marching.
Don't be mistaken - i don't advocate not going through Belgium, i am just stating that both strategies has advantages as well as disadvantages.
With regards to the suggestions about alternative British entry i grant you a point - i would also have liked to link violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany with British entry. The simplest and best solution would be to treat Britain as a neutral so that German declaration of war on Belgium would possibly trigger immediate British Entry.
Unfortunately letting Britain being neutral will prevent them from entering France on turn one because being neutral in the first strategy phase will prevent them in setting transports on amphibious mode in order to send troops to France. So that won't work and i guess essentially why the present solution was chosen.
About your no. 2 suggestion - if France loses Paris they will sooner or later be conquered unless they very fast get Paris back.
What kind of Kaiser worries about Britain or America in that situation ?
I have no clue about how to handle US entry.
Hit them where they aren't
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
The reason you can not attack through Belgium is that, IMO, the French border fortifications are not particularly strong. If hte Germans thought htey could go through themas easily as you can in GoA they would have done so!
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
And furthermore you don't piss off neutrals that much with leaving Belgium neutral strategy. Nobody cares about German taking Luxembourg anyway [;)]
Hit them where they aren't
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
The general consensus among historians seems to be that Britain was going to war. The question was when and whether it would enter united. Belgium pretty much solved both problems.
Ideally, if Germany holds off on Belgium then perhaps Britain's entry could become a per turn chance. But historically, there was never the slightest doubt the Germans were going through Belgium the minute the war began so either way works for me.
Ideally, if Germany holds off on Belgium then perhaps Britain's entry could become a per turn chance. But historically, there was never the slightest doubt the Germans were going through Belgium the minute the war began so either way works for me.
-
FrankHunter
- Posts: 2111
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
No German player would ever invade Belgium if not doing so would mean they could refight the Franco-Prussian war instead of World War 1. There is simply no reason to believe that Britain would have stood aside and let Germany conquer France as long as they avoided Belgium. Britain and France were planning the defence of France together before the war ever began, even von Schliffen thought the British army would show up and he planned on it being swept aside. Giving the German player the ability to decide whether Britain should be involved by simply avoiding Belgium just didn't feel like an option.
Besides not having to fight the BEF, avoiding Belgium would also allow Germany to avoid the British navy and skirt around any French defence by amphibiously moving German corps behind the French army. Which of course ignores the fact that French planning assumed the Royal Navy would control the Channel and that the BEF would arrive on the flank.
The rules on British entry are "historical" in my opinion simply because I don't believe Britain would have stayed out regardless of what Germany did to Belgium.
Besides not having to fight the BEF, avoiding Belgium would also allow Germany to avoid the British navy and skirt around any French defence by amphibiously moving German corps behind the French army. Which of course ignores the fact that French planning assumed the Royal Navy would control the Channel and that the BEF would arrive on the flank.
The rules on British entry are "historical" in my opinion simply because I don't believe Britain would have stayed out regardless of what Germany did to Belgium.
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
ORIGINAL: FrankHunter
The rules on British entry are "historical" in my opinion simply because I don't believe Britain would have stayed out regardless of what Germany did to Belgium.
Absolutely agree with this point, and I believe the way the current system is modeled works very well.
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
Ok I just bought this game today, but I also think it's inaccurate that I have to declare war on Belgium, while I am already at war with Britain in the first scenario. Whether or not there is an option to have Britain stay out of the war or not it shouldn't be at war with Germany before Germany declares war on Belgium
RE: British Auto Entry and Belgium Neutrality
If you don't attack Belgium the British mobilisation is a bit delayed, so it does have an impact on the British if you don't hit Belgium, it just doesn't keep them out of the war entirely.
