Guns of August 1.22 Public Beta 2 Uploaded!

[FrankHunter]

I'd be happy to look at 1.20 or 1.21 saved games. Just let me know what the problem was and I'll check myself if the problem repeats under 1.22

[Sabre21]

Is there a date at which time the game ends if morale is not a factor? I do recall that the allies expected the war to continue on into 1919, but then they were unaware of how bad the home front was in Germany. If morale was not a factor..then an end date most certainly would be or the capture of all their cities.
 
In the case of the British Empire, in WWII the British government had plans to re-locate to Canada in the event England was overrun, so the Brits would be pretty difficult to defeat.
 
As for WWI, even after the Somme the Brits still had some pretty massive casualties but I don't ever recall reading anywhere's the possibility of them ever thinking of quitting. Even after Wilson's 14 points were thrown on the table, Germany jumped on them thinking that they might be able to get some sort of reasonable peace terms, but both the Brits and French were pretty irate at Wilson for unilaterally doing that and were in no mood for giving Germany any quarter despite all their losses. I don't think that had the Russians capitulated in 1916 along with Paris getting captured would have caused either France nor England to quit. Both in 1914 and March of 1918 the French government was evacuated in part to Bordeaux with the belief that Paris was on the verge of capture..so I don't think surrender was ever seriously considered. The Germans would have had to overrun pretty much the entire country and drive the BEF out before that would have happened..as they did in WWII. But that's my take on history[:)]
 
Regardless..I really do enjoy this game Frank even though I have a wishlist..lol.
 
 
 

[SMK-at-work]

the game ends at the end of 1919 if not before.

Making plans to evacuate the Govt is not an indication that there's goign to be no surrender - the French did it in 1940 too!!

However in 1914 they were not exhausted....and in 1918 if might have been another story but the US was there to help too.

the British could certainly have been KO'ed out of the war by morale - via the U-boat war - assuming the Germans could make enough U-boats of course plus all hte otehr required caveats - morale in this game is moer about civilian population than miltary, which is why lack of food counts!

[fthein]

Hi Frank

i noticed with the latest beta patches that the ai seldom moved his unit strategically. In Brest the british ai have stacked 4 units and never moved them out. The same in Petrograd. The russian ai leaves 4 units in the city and 4 units in the northern hex for several months. This has the consequence that the ai has fewer units on the front and therefore can´t attack
so often as in earlier versions. I can send you a saved game if you need it.

Bye
Frank

[FrankHunter]

fthein, the AI is certainly not as good as a human at managing its strategic movement assets. This is most noticeable in Russia where the AI takes much longer to deploy for offensive operations than a human does. It does things like use a rail point to move the last hex or two to the front instead of "knowing" that it could save that rail point and march the rest of the way. So there's a higher amount of wasted rail moves. Also, it will move units already closer to the front in preference to units further back. This is why the St Petersburg issue occurs.

In the case of Brest, I'm not sure why that would occur and would like to look at your saved game, thanks! fhunter@telus.net

[FrankHunter]

Sabre21,

Is there a date at which time the game ends if morale is not a factor? I do recall that the allies expected the war to continue on into 1919, but then they were unaware of how bad the home front was in Germany. If morale was not a factor..then an end date most certainly would be or the capture of all their cities.

As SMK has said, the cut-off date is the end of 1919. So in the case of Russia for example you'd prefer the ability to reject their surrender when their morale collapses and instead declare a war of conquest and keep going till all their cities are captured?

In the case of the British Empire, in WWII the British government had plans to re-locate to Canada in the event England was overrun, so the Brits would be pretty difficult to defeat.

A different situation, surrender in WW2 meant the Nazis ruling Britain, whereas in WW1 the German and British war aims did not include the actual conquest and subjugation of the other. If let's say the U-boat campaign had been a roaring success and Britain had thrown in the towel after the surrender of Russia and the losses on the Somme there would still have been no German soldiers in the streets of London. Reparations? Sure. Loss of colonies in Africa? Yes. But not a case of conquest and occupation.

As for WWI, even after the Somme the Brits still had some pretty massive casualties but I don't ever recall reading anywhere's the possibility of them ever thinking of quitting. Even after Wilson's 14 points were thrown on the table, Germany jumped on them thinking that they might be able to get some sort of reasonable peace terms, but both the Brits and French were pretty irate at Wilson for unilaterally doing that and were in no mood for giving Germany any quarter despite all their losses.

Because the British and French were still doing fine. The overall strategic situation was still in their favour and their people were eating better than the Austrians and Germans were. To turn it around, why was Germany eager to discuss the Fourteen Points when no foreign soldier stood on their soil? I think it was because of the home situation and recognizing the overall strategic situation, both being in favour of the Entente.

I don't think that had the Russians capitulated in 1916 along with Paris getting captured would have caused either France nor England to quit. Both in 1914 and March of 1918 the French government was evacuated in part to Bordeaux with the belief that Paris was on the verge of capture..so I don't think surrender was ever seriously considered. The Germans would have had to overrun pretty much the entire country and drive the BEF out before that would have happened..as they did in WWII. But that's my take on history

I disagree, the French surrendered in both 1870 (the Imperial gov't anyway, the Republican gov't didn't throw in the towel until 1871) and 1940, and they had to deal with a mutiny within their army during the war. It was, I believe, possible that if the strategic situation had been less favourable (no US intervention to replace the Russians) and their population had been on the brink of starvation for a few years like the German population that they might have been happy to reach an agreement to end the war.

Regardless..I really do enjoy this game Frank even though I have a wishlist..lol.

Thank you [:)]

[wargamer123]

Frank is right about something, every nation in WW1 especially France was weary. As I mentioned in a previous post, watch a French movie, "A Very Long Engagement," the very name of the movie gives you a taste of French Morale. I think Morale overall was dropping.  In think in other words, a Very Long Bloody War

in 1917 peace should've been sought at any cost. Stubborn unwillingness headstrong politicians is why millions more would die, what difference was there for 10 million dead? Aprox...

Alasce Lorraine, Poland, few freebies in Eastern Europe soon to be swallowed....... and War Debt? Oh and some inhospitable puny colonies... Either way there was no winning WW1 was a losers war...for all sides IMO. EXCEPT USA, she won big and even more by WW2 

[Sabre21]

hey Frank

Yea..a war of conquest option would be cool.

I also agree with ya on somethings about WWI. The mindset was definitly different from what is was just 20 years later when it came to the final outcome of a conflict..it seems reparations and exchanges of territory was the way things normally went up until WWII. I know France surrendered in 1870 but as I recall wasn't Napoleon III the emperor at the time? Since he got himself captured he was the one able to conclude the conflict.

But as you said, if the rolls were reversed and the French were starving and there was no American intervention..then I would probably agree they could have surrendered.

Both England and France I know were pretty war weary by the time the US joined in and it was a needed shot in the arm for them that we did but again I don't recall any mention of surrender up to or after that time. My point with bringing up Wilson's plan was that there was an opportunity to end the war early and only the Germans were eager to do so from what it seems. Despite war weariness and massive losses, neither England nor France were ready to call it quits.

Anyways, I had a new interesting game over the last couple days playing as the CP. I ended up going east first and holding the line in the west. I conquered Serbia, Holland (I know holland isn't east but there's an extra food there thats easy to get) then Romania followed by Russia's surrender in late 1916. My mid 1917 I had my forces rearrayed on the western front and overran Belgium/Lux. I finally sent out my fleet along with a huge hoard of subs into the north sea to contest it and the turn after that the darn Brits just up and quit again. I hadn't destroyed a single british corps that I know of..hard to say what all my bombardments were doing along that front though. But the funny thing is..the French kept fighting. They quickly filled in the gaps where the Brits once were and put up a pretty stubborn defense. It's fall 1917 and the US still hasn't come in but the fight goes on. Petain must have taken over[:)]

Oh one thing to add about this last game..I made it all the way and took Petrograd, Smolensk, got to the outskirts of Kharkov and took all but one Russian food source before they finally captitulated in late 1916. That's the furthest I ever got. I was happy to see them stay in as long as they did.

[davekinva]

Two related questions to comments in this thread.

1.  Does American entry into the war affect TE morale at all?  Historically, American entry was a "shot in the arm" for the TE.  Just wondering if that's reflected in the game at all.

2.  Can the TE open a resource route to Russia?  One of the strategic goals of the Gallipoli landings was to either take Turkey out of the war, or at the very least open up the straits to allow for arms to go to Russia/food to come west.  Now, all the opinions I've seen are a little iffy about whether such a supply route would have made any major impact on the health of the Russian effort, but it's definitely an intriguing "what if?" in a war filled with them.

So, any advantage in game terms of taking OE out of the war, other than the obvious ones?

Thanks,
Dave

[FrankHunter]

after that the darn Brits just up and quit again.

Do you have a save of that available? Preferably a turn or two before the British surrender?

[wargamer123]

Historically as I recall, Major Powers did not annex one another. Even Napoleon was careful on exactly how he dealt with other Majors a century Prior. Even during WW2 Hitler made Puppets of France and likely would have of Britian, though despised the USSR, regardless... there were many puppets even in the Reich.

As historically it was seen bad to outright annex nations, plus occuppation and such was horrendous. Outside of this most of the time conquored nations did indeed trade in gold and some land. As an unpopular Warmongering Empire would get a lot of Enemies, sort of why AH was so loathed by Russia trying to annex Serbia, though they both had shared in annexing Poland a century before! [:-] Hypocritical

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

after that the darn Brits just up and quit again.

Do you have a save of that available? Preferably a turn or two before the British surrender?

The only save I have is the current ongoing game. The only other saves I have are a couple setups. You are welcome to any of them.