USA

[Cfant]

One more question. I played several games of the original on both sides, but the USA never came even near to an entry. Anyone else with this problem?
Will US war entry be the same here as in the original?

I really never have seen US war entry level near to 40% even, no matter if I played CP oder Allies.

[BillRunacre]

It mainly depends on what the Central Powers do, if they don't use Unrestricted Naval Warfare and they don't try to entice Mexico into an alliance against the USA then US mobilization will remain low.

US intervention in the war was far from guaranteed, but not provoking the US has a downside in that the UK's economy is not hit so much, and nor would Germany benefit from the National Morale boosts of using Unrestricted Naval Warfare, so the decision is in the players' hands. There are pros and cons either way.

[Cfant]

Definitly true. I just think the way it went in RL should be much more likely then the other way in the game [:)]
I just need to let my Uboats at home (which I do as sunk german Uboats help Russians, Brits and French alike) and never have to mind with the US and A. Which is strange. The Allies should have better chances to bring them in with their actions in my opinion.

I mean, in 10-15 matches (2 of them Pbem) never ever any chance to see an american soldier. Have other players made other experiences?

[BillRunacre]

I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?

The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!

Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.

Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?

The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!

Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.

Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.

On a side note there would be a clear incentive to join the war even without German provocation.
If the Entente is losing the war it endangers the payment of US loans.
It is highly questionable if the US financial sector would have accepted this loss.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?

The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!

Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.

Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.

On a side note there would be a clear incentive to join the war even without German provocation.
If the Entente is losing the war it endangers the payment of US loans.
It is highly questionable if the US financial sector would have accepted this loss.

For that the USA would have to give those loans first (in Game terms!), and every time this happens, the Entente should drift more and more aways from a decisive victory toward a marginal victory or even a draw.

For this it would great if the victory conditions wouldn't be simply looking on the "who won", but on the peace terms and the next years follwing that peace treaty as well.

And why I'm already suggesting: it would be fantastic if one could play on: Through the following years, right into and through WW2. A WW2 based on the results of ones WW1 victory would be great. Maybe with a game engine offering a connection for a WW3 campaign as well.

[Cfant]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?

The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!

Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.

Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.

On a side note there would be a clear incentive to join the war even without German provocation.
If the Entente is losing the war it endangers the payment of US loans.
It is highly questionable if the US financial sector would have accepted this loss.

great idea. Reducing the US war entry on U-Boat warfare alone is not correct historically (although absolutly ok in a game).

[Akmatov]

ORIGINAL: xwormwood

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?

The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!

Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.

Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.

On a side note there would be a clear incentive to join the war even without German provocation.
If the Entente is losing the war it endangers the payment of US loans.
It is highly questionable if the US financial sector would have accepted this loss.

For that the USA would have to give those loans first (in Game terms!), and every time this happens, the Entente should drift more and more aways from a decisive victory toward a marginal victory or even a draw.

For this it would great if the victory conditions wouldn't be simply looking on the "who won", but on the peace terms and the next years follwing that peace treaty as well.

And why I'm already suggesting: it would be fantastic if one could play on: Through the following years, right into and through WW2. A WW2 based on the results of ones WW1 victory would be great. Maybe with a game engine offering a connection for a WW3 campaign as well.

Agree with the above. In my opinion US entry was very problematic and should be avoidable - let those effete Europeans fight their own wars. Would really like to see the game extend to include the Soviet attack on Poland and possible attack into Western Europe should Poland be defeated. Maybe an addon scenario, would be awesome.

[1775Cerberus]

If you go to the battlefront forums and find the topic "USA entry" under the SC WW1 board you can see the thread where this was discussed before. My question is how much of that discussion has changed in game terms so far? Sorry for not being able to post a link to the thread. I have changed emails and couldnt recover my old password for these forums and had to create a new account.

[Xsillione]

Maybe allow a near guaranteed entry, esp when CP winning, but without much annoyance (unrestricted naval actions) it should be limited in scope. Most US citizens would not support a war when it helps some European empires and bankars mostly, but would happily join after a few liners sunk. Similar would be nice in the WWII, with PH, the USA come into the war full steam ahead, but if the US had to declare on Germany to save the UK, they would be less enthusiastic.

[The Land]

I would suggest events for the US to gain mobilization if the Central Powers seem to be beating the French and British later in the war - including possibly one for if the Germans have sunk enough of the Royal Navy? It's unlikely the US would have been...

The thing I wouldn't worry too much about is the Zimmerman Telegram and Mexican diplomatic influences, the whole idea of Mexico entering the war against the USA was sufficiently nuts that no rational player would attempt it

[shri]

///For that the USA would have to give those loans first (in Game terms!), and every time this happens, the Entente should drift more and more away from a decisive victory toward a marginal victory or even a draw.///

+1

US help shouldn't be automatic or free. Zimmerman Telegram obviously no player will do.
So, despite it being a-historical US entry shouldn't happen in every game unless Germany goes all out SUB Warfare and sinks too many convoys or the entire Royal navy or the bulk of it.

One Condition- If a single German corps ever lands on British Isles then War should be automatic. Though the US mobilisation should be slow (considering lack of popular support).