Blockade +Jutland?

[SMK-at-work]

He's got Germany with 1, and Austria with 1 - so presumably each has a 1/3rd chance?
 
I didn't realise it aggregates and only applies the random factor to any fractional remainder - (actually I thin you did say but I forgot) so some of my stuff above is obviously incorrect.

[FrankHunter]

He's got Germany with 1, and Austria with 1 - so presumably each has a 1/3rd chance?

Yes, that would be right

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Sardonic your analysis is simplistic and basically wrong......Germany was already starving before 1918 - have a look at the 2nd link I gave above (its a pdf & takes a while to load tho).  German troops were perhaps slowed as much by eating the good food they found in the trenches as by allied actions in the 1918 offensives!!

The NY times archive has a numbe of articles from early 1918 too about the expectations of the Central Powers in regard to Russia, with rushing food to their civilians being one of the foremost concerns.

the allies had also conscripted from farms - but British cereal and crop production went UP in WW1 as they moved away from meat - they imported that from the USA and the Empire.

It is a hallmark of my posts, to be simplistic. This is an electronic forum, not a thesis defense.
Germany had enough potatoes and cabbage to prevent widespread famine prior to 1918.
Not the greatest diet to be sure.
Ludendorf overestimated the ability of Germany to loot the occupied territories. Essencially, the foodstuffs didnt
make it there in time.
The NY Times is hardly a good source of information BTW. Consider that the USA was at war with Germany at the time?
However, the critical failing was that he removed far too many men from the AG sector. You wont get prodution
if there is no planting.

Yes the blockade WAS making itself felt, and who said otherwise?

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work




IMO the current 1/3rd system should be fine.

I think I agree. Frank, I'd suggest that if you are thinking of changing how food works; that it be discussed a bit more prior to implementation. Perhaps starting a thread with the details of how you might change it. Then put on the "thick skin" while it gets hashed over.

Incidentally, it is quite nice the you way participate in the threads and give some thought to what the users here are saying.

[FrankHunter]

Joel, not to worry, I'm just putting it out there, it can certainly be modified or dropped.

Anyway, as to a further explanation.  The original rules for things like food are pretty simple.  But the discussion here would suggest that the rules in this area can be made better because some problems with the current system do indeed exist.

What those problems are seems to be that Germany's gains in the east and Balkans can completely solve her food problems when historically we know that wasn't the case.  However, we know that that area did produce enough food in peacetime to keep Germans from starving and that food was certainly shipped back home, but not enough.  The area did not produce as much of a surplus as it could have under peacetime conditions.  Thus the 1/3 rule for captured food hexes. 

So the idea in beta4 is that the conquest of food hexes will actually produce more initial food than it does now (1:1), to represent the fact the existing food can be looted but that once the hex is "exhausted" that food hex is out of the war.

Food hexes that are taken not by conquest but due to border changes after a nation's surrender would be different, they would continue to produce but at 1/2 instead of 1/3.

What this would do is allow for a food shortage to be solved through conquest in the short term but not fix the long term problem.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Joel, not to worry, I'm just putting it out there, it can certainly be modified or dropped.

Anyway, as to a further explanation.  The original rules for things like food are pretty simple.  But the discussion here would suggest that the rules in this area can be made better because some problems with the current system do indeed exist.

What those problems are seems to be that Germany's gains in the east and Balkans can completely solve her food problems when historically we know that wasn't the case.  However, we know that that area did produce enough food in peacetime to keep Germans from starving and that food was certainly shipped back home, but not enough.  The area did not produce as much of a surplus as it could have under peacetime conditions.  Thus the 1/3 rule for captured food hexes. 

So the idea in beta4 is that the conquest of food hexes will actually produce more initial food than it does now (1:1), to represent the fact the existing food can be looted but that once the hex is "exhausted" that food hex is out of the war.

Food hexes that are taken not by conquest but due to border changes after a nation's surrender would be different, they would continue to produce but at 1/2 instead of 1/3.

What this would do is allow for a food shortage to be solved through conquest in the short term but not fix the long term problem.

Would it be possible to make the North Sea a food trade zone for Germany, perhaps with only 1 transport giving the food, instead of the North Atlantic?
I've never had any success at getting my German transports to the NA and I'm not sure if anyone else has had any success either. Unless the effect of the blockade is already built in to the game this change would force the TE to keep a reasonable presence in the North Sea throughout the game which they historically did. Right now the only time the TE is really forced to take the North Sea is if they want to amphib through it.

[FrankHunter]

But who would Germany be getting food from with transports in the North Sea?  Norway is the only possible trading partner there.

[SteveD64]

I think in this case it would be strictly design for effect-  the effect wanted would be to force (or have a reason for) a North Sea showdown or least compel the RN to patrol in force that area.
 
Question:  where was the blockade enforced?  In the North Atlantic or the North Sea? Both? Neither?
 
I really don't have an opinion either way changing the game.
 
 
 
 

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

But who would Germany be getting food from with transports in the North Sea?  Norway is the only possible trading partner there.

Heck whale blubber and fish gotta beat rotten turnips
Who do they trade with if they get to the North Atlantic? Certainly not Canada or the US (after they enter the war).

In the game it is almost impossible to get to the NA as the Germans so you might as well not even try. If the establishing your transports in the North Sea was looked at as continuing into the NA then it makes sense.

[FrankHunter]

Well once you're into the Atlantic there's lots of possible countries to trade with.

As for the blockade it was enforced in the North Sea.  As the Brit, I put the main fleet in the North Sea, that's where the DNs go for example.  If I think there's a chance of any surface raiders getting through I keep a BC and 2 cruisers in the Atlantic (need speed).

I think the German player should find it extremely hazardous to place his transports outside of the Baltic if the Entente player is paying attention.  However, opportunities may possibly occur.  If the Brits are forced to reinforce the Eastern Med and the German DNs get a bit lucky there is a chance to release transports and raiders into the Atlantic.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Well once you're into the Atlantic there's lots of possible countries to trade with.

As for the blockade it was enforced in the North Sea.  As the Brit, I put the main fleet in the North Sea, that's where the DNs go for example.  If I think there's a chance of any surface raiders getting through I keep a BC and 2 cruisers in the Atlantic (need speed).

I think the German player should find it extremely hazardous to place his transports outside of the Baltic if the Entente player is paying attention.  However, opportunities may possibly occur.  If the Brits are forced to reinforce the Eastern Med and the German DNs get a bit lucky there is a chance to release transports and raiders into the Atlantic.

Is the blockade already abstracted in the game?

[FrankHunter]

You mean without the British doing anything is the German economy already considered to be blockaded?  No

[James Ward]

I though it might be already included and that was why the Germans start with a drain on their food.

Perhaps I'm wishing for something I really don't want. I stink at the naval part of the game anyway so if I had to run the blockade properly I'd probably bugger it all up [:)]

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Well once you're into the Atlantic there's lots of possible countries to trade with.

As for the blockade it was enforced in the North Sea. As the Brit, I put the main fleet in the North Sea, that's where the DNs go for example. If I think there's a chance of any surface raiders getting through I keep a BC and 2 cruisers in the Atlantic (need speed).

I think the German player should find it extremely hazardous to place his transports outside of the Baltic if the Entente player is paying attention. However, opportunities may possibly occur. If the Brits are forced to reinforce the Eastern Med and the German DNs get a bit lucky there is a chance to release transports and raiders into the Atlantic.

If the Germans manage to get transports into the North Atlantic, but the TE still controls the North Sea, would the Germans still get resources via those transports in the North Atlantic even though the North Sea was still under TE control?

[FrankHunter]

If the Germans manage to get transports into the North Atlantic, but the TE still controls the North Sea, would the Germans still get resources via those transports in the North Atlantic even though the North Sea was still under TE control?

Yes, the food would still get through although the transports might not be able to return.  I know its a simplistic abstraction.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

If the Germans manage to get transports into the North Atlantic, but the TE still controls the North Sea, would the Germans still get resources via those transports in the North Atlantic even though the North Sea was still under TE control?

Yes, the food would still get through although the transports might not be able to return. I know its a simplistic abstraction.

Thanks for the clarification.

One other question: if the TE orders a patrol mission in the North Sea and the CP orders a patrol mission to the North Atlantic, does TE fleet automatically intercept the CP ships or is there a chance they will pass through to the North Atlantic unmolested.

[FrankHunter]

There is a chance of ships getting through.  However, both sides would in this case enter the North Sea simultaneously.  Since they're both on patrol missions they will both search for the other and probably find each other.

If on the other hand the CP squadrons were on Raider there would be a better chance of their BCs and CAs getting through if the patrolling Entente ships were slower.  And if it was winter there would be a better chance of avoiding detection.

[SMK-at-work]

Sardonic I didn't say read the NY times for information - I said to read it for attitudes and thoughts of the people at the time.  The articles are often written by correspondants in Berlin and Vienna despite the USA beign at war1
 
In of those links I gave said that the Brits were inspecting 160+ ships/week heading for Germany...I suspect they mean neutral ships heading for neutrals and ensuringthey were not carrying cargos for Germany.
 
however German shipping did persist for quite some time and was never really stopped unitl hte USA joined the war.
 
the blockade was not "all or nothing" - it got stronger as the war progressed - initially the TE had agreements with European neutrals, but in 1916 they started taking measures outside those agreements to strengthen it.  So in 1915 German exports to the USA were about $90 miillion vs about $180 million in 1914 - halved...but not stopped.  Trade with the Argentine was barely affected in 1915, but that to other Sth American countries, Japan, china and Spain was reduced by 90%.
 
Perhaps a solution is to give Germany more incentive to try blockade busting - give them more food per transport, and give transports a tolerable chance of not being caught - perhaps 50/50 - and lower the amount of food Germany actually produces?  at 50/50 maintaining 1 transport in the NA would cost them 1 transport per turn.........or 2 production points...that's quite a lot of effort really.....but allows them to continue perhaps sporadically until they feel it's not worth it any more.
 
Perhaps also there should be a specialist "blockade" naval mission for Cruisers?  DN's were not the instruments of blockade - cruisers were.  Capital ships were there to ensure the German fleet could not interfere with the work of the cruisers.  Only Cruisers on "Blocakde" would affect transports - along with anything on "raider" and subs on anti-shipping - all other warship missions would have no effect on commercial shipping.
 
The effects of crop failures were also important - in 1916 the German potato crop failed - producing only half of its normal 50 million ton harvest and turnips became the staple.  As a result turnips became scarce for animal feed.  In 1914 the Hungarian harvest failed, so AH was unable to export food to Germany for a year. 
 
On top of this Germany imported 5 million tons of animal fodder per year prior to the war and this was cut off - 1917 imports were only 1% of those in 1912-13 - so milk and meat production fell.  In AH virtually all the pigs had been slaughtered by 1917.
 
IMO the current system does work.......Germany only avoids stavation by rapid conquest of agricultural areas.  The only reason conquest of the Ukraine failed to feed Germany in 1918 was that it happened too late for the harvest to be delivered in a timely fashion.  If it is too easy for the CP to do this in the game then it is a problem with game balance - not with the food system.
 
However.... if increased "accuracy" is required then IMO more presure can be put on the CP by simply increasing hte morale penalty for food shortfalls.
 
Or if you want to go the whole hog [sic] something like the following:
 
1/ drop German and austrian food resources by 1 each.
 
2/ Increase their food stockpile - Germany had enough wheat stockpiled to last 2 years
 
3/ Introduce production seasons for most food - 2/3rds is made in Summer and autumn
 
4/ Introduce crop failures - either historically or as 1 event in a random year - cut production by 1/3rd for Summer and Autumn of 1 year
 
5/ Make the blockade explicit by introducing a blockade mission and removing the effect of warships on transports uless they are on blocakde, raider or anti-shipping.  Blockade missions would only work properly in controlled sea zones, and would have reduced effect in contested sea zones.
 
6/ Allow stages of blockade....eg initial then tightened, perhaps like unrestricted sub warfare.  Some criteria would be required to allow tightened...
 
7/ Increase the chances of a CP transport surviving to return food to the CP so that there is some reasonable expectation
 
Peraonally I'd favour leaving it as is, or increasing the penalty.

[Joel Rauber]

A lot of postings since I last looked!

Frank, Thanks for the explanation; I now understand what you are driving at. I'm not as concerned with the proposal as I was, particularly that I now see that surrendered nations food will be treated differently.

How long were planning on allowing a conquered food resource to contribute to the conquering nation?

Jame:

Regarding reasons for the Brits to stay in the NS. If they don't, Germany can invade Britain. How credible a threat this is in game terms I don't know; but I suspect that it may not be as credible as it should be, but maybe it is.

Historically I think the Brits were in the NS for several reasons

#1 to blockade the Germans
#2 to prevent sorties of the high seas fleet; in particular coastal bombardments
#3 and probably only incidental to #2, prevent invasion.

Any others?

Next question would be: Are these replicated somehow in game terms??

[SMK-at-work]

I don't think there was any credible threat of invasion of the UK by Germany in WW1.  and there were only a few coastal bombardments too.
 
Much RN activity was in support of the mine war - sweeping and laying mine barrages and channels - mainly done by smaller craft, with close support from Cruisers, and often the capital ships "ready to steam" or just over the horizon.
 
Why was the RN in the North Sea?  Because het North Sea was their back yard!!