British Strategies

[Skeleton]

In a current game I have going, as the ET powers, I am rolling through Southern Germany and through the heart of Austria, but Britian is wavering. What does one need to do to keep England healthy, i.e., what are the most important aspects/strategies to keep the population from starving? Conversely, what should the CP concentrate on to starve Britian out of the war? I have total dominace over the North Sea, the Atlantic, and have ample sea supply through both, what am I missing? Just a note, I did not concentrate on sea supply until I noticed England waning. Any tips would be most appreciated. Post script; this game is absolutely brilliant. I have read some posts nit-picking about things like mouse driven scrolling and I could not disagree more. How lazy have we become when scrolling via arrows is a major complaint? If you are looking for a intuitive/deep, slow paced, planning based, grand strategy game, I could not recommand this game more. One of the best to have come out within the last few years. Just my two cents.

[EUBanana]

When you lose morale due to starvation, you never get it back .  That is a permanent penalty that stays with you the full course of the game. 

This means that any food loss to Britain is very serious.  It means that diverting transports from food to other duties is not really an option unless you're suicidal or the situation is dire, indeed.

As for the CPs, so far raiding with the entire High Seas Fleet seems to knock Britain out of the war in short order.  I think this might be addressed as an upcoming patch tweak though.

[Skeleton]

Damn, just what I did not want to hear. Well, live and learn. I was incorrectly under the assumption that I could stave off England's ruin by getting troops to the mainland and then focus on supply. Bad call. Thank you for the information, it will be very helpful in future games.

[James Ward]

Yep those Brits are hungry creatures.
FEED ME [:D][;)]

[Skeleton]

This might be my one complaint; why do later actions in this regard, not stabilise the situation? If you are now getting sea supply to the U.K., why wouldn't the level of exhaustion slowly go back down? This does not seem very plausible or accurate. Is there an explanation for this that I am not seeing?

[SMK-at-work]

People remember the hard times.....tose of us who's parent's lived through the great depression of the 30's will remember them being avid hoarders in a way that will be strange to younger folk for whom a shortage means they have to drive to another supermarket to get whatever it is
 
Once you've been starved the fear of starvation remains very strong - if say the UK had been reduced to stavation once, then broken the blockade, another effective blockade would have had much more chance to bring about negotiations IMO, even if there was heaps of food stockpiled.

[EUBanana]

Its not really as bad as you might think because its pretty much the only major way that Britain loses morale, as the British cities are all secure.

[Skeleton]

I really wouldn't have that big of a problem with this other then the fact that my opponent has informed me that the Royal Navy has decimated the Imperial German Navy! He is doing nothing to hinder my actions in either the North Sea or the North Atlantic?!?!?! Also, hungry people do eat, starving people, once feed, do regain strength. Weak nations, can and do regain strength. Does it sound a bit like I am bitching??? This is my one complaint with this excellent game.

[SMK-at-work]

It's not a matter of strength - it is a matter of morale - you can be well fed and still ready to surrender.
 
If england is starving and there's no CP naval presence then it can only be happening because you are not putting transports on shipping in the Atlantic.

[Skeleton]

You are right SMK, and that is what is driving me nuts! In my mad rush to protect France and secure both the Atlantic and North Sea, I forgot to feed England! It would be understandable if it wasn't right there on the Naval deployment screen! Well, yet another thing to ponder for this brilliant game. Regarding Germany blockading England, what is a good technique regarding Taskforce composition and stances for both England's defense and for Germany's success?

[SMK-at-work]

If the Brits spread their DN's around then the germans can pick them off, but if the concentrated Brit fleet encounteres the concentrated German fleet then it's a bit of a massacre.....except the Germans get the worst of it.

Concentrating all your ships is the only way to go.......except that CA's and BC's can be used for raiding and for protectoin against raiders. 

For Germany U-boats are probably hte best investment until the TE gets ASW...after which forget them

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

People remember the hard times.....tose of us who's parent's lived through the great depression of the 30's will remember them being avid hoarders in a way that will be strange to younger folk for whom a shortage means they have to drive to another supermarket to get whatever it is

Once you've been starved the fear of starvation remains very strong - if say the UK had been reduced to stavation once, then broken the blockade, another effective blockade would have had much more chance to bring about negotiations IMO, even if there was heaps of food stockpiled.

You may remember it but it doesn't necessarily affect how you feeel 3 or 4 years after you had a slight period of low food. I always thought the effect of food loss should be temporary. So if you lost your food supply for say 6 months in 1914 and then restablihsed it for 3 years then you begin to regain some of that earlier loss by 1918.
To have the loss of food 3 years ago contribute to your surrender when you are on the brink of conquering the enemy AND you have not had any morale loss due food shortages since seems crazy.

[justaguy93]

I tend to agree but then again it does force people to try and stick to realistic strategies instead of running their nation into the ground for a year or two and then waiting for it to bounce back.  Keeping people happy during a war is usually a huge part of waging the war itself and wartime strategies have often been modified around keeping people's support of the war high.  It's easy for us to say let the people starve for a few turns while we invade the Balkans because it will end the war early, but in an actual war I don't see many generals selling that plan to the government.

[James Ward]

When you look at the game morale loss from food is really the only way to knock Britain out so I guess it makes sense. I mean if you had to knock them out by taking their cities you'd have no chance!

[SMK-at-work]

To have the loss of food 3 years ago contribute to your surrender when you are on the brink of conquering the enemy AND you have not had any morale loss due food shortages since seems crazy.

 
It seems eminently sensible to me - not so much to surrender, but certainly to seek a ceasefire.
 
3 years ago means you remember it well....and being threatened with it again it is likely to be something you seek to avoid - hence be looking to end to war rather than suffer it.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

To have the loss of food 3 years ago contribute to your surrender when you are on the brink of conquering the enemy AND you have not had any morale loss due food shortages since seems crazy.

It seems eminently sensible to me - not so much to surrender, but certainly to seek a ceasefire.

3 years ago means you remember it well....and being threatened with it again it is likely to be something you seek to avoid - hence be looking to end to war rather than suffer it.

I could see if you were still being threatened but to say it would permenantly effect you when everything else was going your way seems a little off. In the game Britain can lose 1/2 of their total national morale in less than a year.
For example if there is a good u-boat campaign through the summer of 1915 that totally blocks food shipment into the UK for 6 turns and they lose 50+ morale points. Then the TE begins to be successful and EVERY U-boat in destroyed and there is NEVER another food shortage and by 1918 the TE is being overwhelmingly successful in the war. Do you think the Britsih people wouldn't be able to see that the threat to their food supply has been eliminated permantly? That they wouldn't understand it was a temporary thing and they would still be half-way to surrendering (assuming no other morale losing events had occurred)?

[SMK-at-work]

No they wouldn't - you'er thinking they get to know everything whereas in WW1 no-one knew much of anything - if something like that happened the threat of the U-boats woul hang over them like the sword of damocles - much as the Zeppelin and daylight bombing raids of W! weer in the back of their minds for the next 20 years.
 
you're ascribing rational thinking based upon complete knowledge.....neither of which is appropriate IMO![:)]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

No they wouldn't - you'er thinking they get to know everything whereas in WW1 no-one knew much of anything - if something like that happened the threat of the U-boats woul hang over them like the sword of damocles - much as the Zeppelin and daylight bombing raids of W! weer in the back of their minds for the next 20 years.

you're ascribing rational thinking based upon complete knowledge.....neither of which is appropriate IMO![:)]

Well they certainly would know if things were going great. To say people can't tell the differance between a temporary thing and a 'more likely to continue' thing seems a bit odd. I mean the US was worried about an invasion of the west coast in 1941 but to say that was taken seriously in 1945 would only happen in the movies!

The British people may have remembered the daylight bombing raids for 20 years but it didn't demoralize them when they actually re-occurred 31 years later

[SMK-at-work]

The US was never actually invaded so had not experienced anythign bad from it - however they did continue to worry about surprise attacks on military installations for a few decades.
 
The failure of bombing to demoralise civilians surprised everyone - the Germans and het British both in 1940....and then again from 1943....however the threat of another atomic bomb (which didn't aactually exist) and possibly the threat of invasion by the Soviet union (which did) forced an otherwise unwilling Japan to surrender in 1945.
 
IMO a threat carries considerably more weight if it has been previously experienced.

[Skeleton]

My whole point was this; a year and some change into the war and Britian is on the verge of surrender? It was 1915 when I began to focus on sea supply, and at this time, the Russians have penetrated deep into the heart of Austria and the French and Italians are sweeping through Munich and toward the heart of Germany, and they are both "strong" and Britain is "wavering"? I have no problem with a deep loss of morale, that can slowly be reveresed, but such a steep penalty for such a short period of time, with no hope of recovery seems a wee bit harsh. Countered by the loss of major population centers that has little or no effect? This appears to be inconsistent. I would rather lose a couple of pounds and keep a sense of hope then to grow fat as my enemies sit in cities that are vital to the national psyche. Am I making any sense?