British Strategies

[SMK-at-work]

It's only on the verge of surrender if something ELSE happens....ie something more is needed to push them over the edge...if the food problem has been solved then they won't surrender because of it any more....it's effect is there....but it has not been enough.

several months of starvation are not a short period of time - 2 months (1 strat turn) will see people die.......if it had happened "deliberately" instead of you simply screwing up ([;)]) for several months then it would ahve involved thousands of people dying from starvation.  That would ahve been a massive blow to the British public in an era where they ruled the seas and non-combatants were not normally subjected to the privations of war....indeed possibly one that would have removed them from the war.

IMO your problem is not with the effect at all....but it is with the system that lets you forget to put transports in hte Nth Atlantic to feed the Brits....it's not something that the Brits would have forgotten to do, so IMO it should not be somethign a player can forget to do - for the most part the transport requirements for all nations should be done automatically....only requiring human input when there's a problem, or if the player wishes to deliberately use the resources somewhere else for some reason.

[Skeleton]

You are right on just about all counts. It is just my opinion and it is not one that should be construed as anything other then an opinion. Mind you, I am not an expert on starvation (as you are[:D]) and this is not a knock on what I think is one of the most original, brilliant games I have played in some time, rather, it is simply my opinion that when so many aspects of the naval game within GoA are abstracted, why shipping wouldn't be one of them is beyond my grasp. Scold me if I load and un-load my transports in the same harbour in WiTP, or worse, send an invasion task force out without supply, that I can take. This I find a little different...

[SMK-at-work]

I'm not an expert on starvation, but I find it useful to give a little thought to mass psychology in warfare - to see what sort of things did work, what people's fears really were, how people react to challenge from various quarters, and to delve a little deeper than many would care to.

[Skeleton]

I am just yanking your chain SMK as a result of my own stupidity! I think your automated shipping idea is an excellent one and would like to see something along those lines included in a future patch.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Marcus the leper

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?

What bothers me is that you can NEVER regain morale lost due to a food shortage. You can gain morale when you recapture a city of yours, even if the occupier burned it to the ground, but not reagin even one turns worh of food shortage morale after 4 years of surplus!
I can see it being a penalty but I also think that if you have food shortages and then you go X number of years without any shortages you should begin to regain some of the lost morale.

[Joel Rauber]

I think that if you want a "design for effect", then sometimes certain procedures for the game must be judged on the overall effect in the game.

Here it is perhaps a bit unrealistic that the morale can make no recovery what-so-ever due to starvation.

However, the effect may be to simulate the strategic decision making and choices that the British had to make. They really had no choice but try to feed the people, so play that results in not feeding the people needs to be severely penalized. The game as is does this quite well. The morale is that the TE player must feed the Brits.

The only possible improvement, IMO of course, is SMK's suggestion for transports to automatically go out on shipping missions; this is really only serving to help players memories of course. I suppose a nag pop-up reminding you that you don't have transports assigned to shipping could also be done.

[SMK-at-work]

How long did German morale take to recover from starvation when the blockade was finally lifted in 1919?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

How long did German morale take to recover from starvation when the blockade was finally lifted in 1919?

Food shortages don't necessarily mean starvation in this game.
Britain could lose 5 morale points per turn (5% of their total morale) and be at "1/2 rations". No one would automatically starve in that situation.

[justaguy93]

the effect may be to simulate the strategic decision making and choices that the British had to make.

See I agree with this, even if it's not 100% realistic I can see it helping with gamey strategies.  If I'm playing TE it'd be too easy to run my country into the ground to put the smack down on the CP and then count on a bounce back later.  Since things like America's entry into the war were far from certain at the time there's no way you sell a strategy that involves sacrificing food and material imports for a country like Britain in real life.  I don't mind the system now where you can pursue that option if you really want to, but at a high price and with a lot of risk.  If nothing else rules like that help to simulate politics that all military leaders are subjected to.

[SMK-at-work]

James half rations doesn't mean everyone gets enough.....1/2 rations in Germany meant maybe 300,000 people died who would not have died in that timeframe otherwise.....the old, the weak, the sick are the first ones to go of course - those who barely get enough food even in times of plenty....and there were lots of those in that era.  At 1/2 rations the soldiers at the front will get priority....as they did in Germany...which means considerably LESS than 1/2 rations for everyone else.

[Disintegration]

Keep in mind that a "surrender" in game terms means something different for the UK than any other belligerant state - it would mean abandoning allies and letting Germany establish continental hegemony, but not scuttling the fleet and being occupied, much less destruction of the Empire or revolution. The German government was more than willing to let GB leave the war unmolested.
 
Under those circumstances I can easily imagine people who'd already been through one starving winter saying "Crikey, it's just not worth it!" when faced with another.

[SMK-at-work]

Well put Disint.....yeah - they'd go for an armistice and pull out of the war - not actually get invaded or anything......that's what I mean to...honest!![&o][8D]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

James half rations doesn't mean everyone gets enough.....1/2 rations in Germany meant maybe 300,000 people died who would not have died in that timeframe otherwise.....the old, the weak, the sick are the first ones to go of course - those who barely get enough food even in times of plenty....and there were lots of those in that era.  At 1/2 rations the soldiers at the front will get priority....as they did in Germany...which means considerably LESS than 1/2 rations for everyone else.

I agree though it doesn't mean mass starvation either especially for a single 2 month period.
As a game mechinism it works because there are few other ways to break the British morale. On the other hand it's not required that Britain be defeated to win the game.

[SMK-at-work]

you don't get a surrender-inducing morale drop for a single 2 month period ....unless you're already at low morale, in which case it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[James Ward]

You won't surrender from any single turn unless you are close but say as the Brits you received an average of 7 points per turn of food from trade. You would lose almost 1/2 your morale over the course of the game even if you didn't lose a single soldier.

[justaguy93]

Given the state of Britain in the actual war I don't know if that's unrealistic.  From what I've read about the time of the German 1918 offensive Britian was on the verge of the breaking point due to the u-boat campaign.

Here are some quotes from Wikipedia to back that up.

In the last months of 1916, the U-boats sank 154 merchant vessels with a total displacement of 443,000 tonnes. The British were desperate. Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, in command of the Grand Fleet, said that if things continued to get worse Britain would have to sue for peace by the summer of 1917.

Admiral William Sims, in command of US Navy forces in Europe, felt that the British were facing imminent disaster at the hands of the U-boats and begged for antisubmarine resources. The US ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, reported the same fears back to Washington. Sinkings rose again in May, and the Admiralty predicted the country would not be able to hold out past November 1917.

and from another source

The German U-boats were having a major impact- in January 1917 the British lost 386,000 tons at sea and rose to 881,000 tons in April.  It was predicted that Britain would starve in 6 weeks

It sounds to me like throughout late 1917 the country was on the brink of withdrawing from the war.  Only convoys and imporved ASW seemed to prevent this.  Now if things had gone considerably worse from a military losses standpoint who can say they wouldn't have thrown in the towel.  Britain in WWI was not Churchill's Britain of WWII, and Germany was not the Nazi Germany of WWII that needed to be wiped out at all costs.  The British didn't like France enough and dislike Germany enough to run their country into the ground to win that war.

[James Ward]

I'm not saying that Britain should not be forced to surrender due to food shortages.
I do find it odd that the Brits could lose 100 points of morale by the end of 1917 due to food shortages, not lose a single ship or soldier, see Austria, Turkey and Romania be conquered, see Germany on the verge of being conquered, see Russia, France and Italy steamrollering and they would just surrender.

[justaguy93]

It was my understanding that captured territory and surrendering enemy nations boosted morale, so in that case I would think the gains would boost morale enough to keep them in the war.  Well unless the losses taken to get to that point were far above historic levels.  

This almost makes me want to start a game and play both sides to replicate the historic situation as close as possible and see how British participation in the war fares.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: justaguy93

It was my understanding that captured territory and surrendering enemy nations boosted morale, so in that case I would think the gains would boost morale enough to keep them in the war.  Well unless the losses taken to get to that point were far above historic levels.  

This almost makes me want to start a game and play both sides to replicate the historic situation as close as possible and see how British participation in the war fares.

My understanding is that morale lost due to food shortages is permenant. So if you lose 1 point on game turn 1 the highest your morale can get is 99% even if you conquer every city on the board.
As I've said it is hard to get British morlae to drop without causing food shortages. I don't think losing all of their cities would cause a 100% drop in morale so it is necessary that something like it be in the game. I just hate being the TE and absolutely crushing the CP and see Britain wavering and their morale in the teens because there were food shortages 4 years ago. It just doesn't look right [:)]

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
I do find it odd that the Brits could lose 100 points of morale by the end of 1917 due to food shortages, not lose a single ship or soldier, see Austria, Turkey and Romania be conquered, see Germany on the verge of being conquered, see Russia, France and Italy steamrollering and they would just surrender.

2/3rds of the UK's food was imported in 1913 - starving civilians are likely to want to end the war regardless of military success - conquering the enemy while you're starving to death still leaves you starving to death - and with 2/3rds of the food missing therewould have been a LOT of starving to death!