British Strategies

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: 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 (http://tinyurl.com/37493v) - 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!

[Franck]

[:D]With that much starving, surely you still don't depens that much on external food [8|]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 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!

Why would there have been a lot of starving? In the game you would lose 100 morale points by the end of 1917 be being short ~5 food per month, or 1/2 the required amount. If you bungle the naval deployment or even if the Germans managed to just raid and send your transports home with minor damage this is certainly feasible.
Assuming you didn't have an army to feed and the Navy was intact (but inept at finding the raiders) and Germany was no threat at all to you other than chasing your transports out of the North Atlantic on occasion, why would you surrender?

[SMK-at-work]

People would starve because that's what happens when they run out of food!! 
 
I'm not sure where your scenario about not having an army to feed, etc comes from.
 
I suggest you read what happened in Germany where it only lost about 1/5th of its food supply due to the blockade, because your comments show that you really have no idea what it was like in the real world.
 
sorry if that seems harsh, but IMO you really don't know what is involved.
 
In the game in fact the UK has such a massive surplus of imported food that it can afford the occasional player blunder and not lose any morale at all because of its stockpile - to lose morale as the UK you really have to screw thigns up badly for a long period of time.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 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!

So why is 90% required to be imported in the game?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
In the game in fact the UK has such a massive surplus of imported food that it can afford the occasional player blunder and not lose any morale at all because of its stockpile - to lose morale as the UK you really have to screw thigns up badly for a long period of time.

I'm talking about the game not making light of people starving.

As far as morale loss and starvation goes if both France and Britain both have 0 food available, why does Britain lose 10 points (10% of starting morle) while France loses 7 points (7% of starting morale). Are you saying the French stave more stoically than the Brits?

[SMK-at-work]

I'm not saying anything - you'd have to ask Frank why he made decisions as to how many food everyone gets, etc.

I could hazard a guess that it's for "effect", but that would just be my guess.

[edit]On a smidgen of further thought, it sems to me that France has an additional source of food that is not represented in the game - neutral Spain, and both it's produce and imports through it. so when France is reduced to "0" food it is not actually the same level as when the UK is reduced to "0" food.[/edit]

the game is supposed to be a simulation of what (might have) happened - so anything related to the game should (IMO) be able to be related to something "in real life" - the nature of a natinoal response to blockade and potential or actual starvation is, again IMO, highly relevant to how the game performs.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I'm not saying anything - you'd have to ask Frank why he made decisions as to how many food everyone gets, etc.

I could hazard a guess that it's for "effect", but that would just be my guess.

[edit]On a smidgen of further thought, it sems to me that France has an additional source of food that is not represented in the game - neutral Spain, and both it's produce and imports through it. so when France is reduced to "0" food it is not actually the same level as when the UK is reduced to "0" food.[/edit]

the game is supposed to be a simulation of what (might have) happened - so anything related to the game should (IMO) be able to be related to something "in real life" - the nature of a natinoal response to blockade and potential or actual starvation is, again IMO, highly relevant to how the game performs.

Well you are saying starving people would 'remember' it even when the shortage was removed so the French must be more immune to it than the Brits if they only lose 7% of their total each turn the cupboards are totally bare.[:)]

Isn't the food from Spain the ones France gets from the western med? I don't think North Africa can suppy 20% of French food requirements.

[SMK-at-work]

my point is that with all "in game" food production interdicted or captured the French still have at least some possiblity of importing food overland through Spain - the British have no possible alternatives at all.  Hence it makes sense that the French should have a lesser penalty for "0" food than the Brits do....because "0" food for France can represent a higher residual ammount than it does for the British.
 
I have no idea how much food might have come from Nth Africa - it had certainly been extremely productive in centuries past - especially Tunis - but if French naval transport was interdicted then it would be irrelevant - the difference could only be represented by imports overland from spain, since it is the only possible source.
 
I do not undestand why you think this has anything to do with some supposed French stoicism - it's "merely" the availability of a source of food imports as an alternative to shipping.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I do not undestand why you think this has anything to do with some supposed French stoicism - it's "merely" the availability of a source of food imports as an alternative to shipping.

I'm just pointing out that each nation loses different amount of morale points if they have 0 food.
It would seem to me that if you have no food and I have no food we'd both be demoralized the same amount eh? Unless of course one of us was a bit 'tougher' about being hungry [8D]

[Franck]

OR as SMK keep trying to point out to you, you have (3) free food that is shipping in land from spain...

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Franck

OR as SMK keep trying to point out to you, you have (3) free food that is shipping in land from spain...

That is an assumption he is making.
Do Italy, Austria and Turkey also get extra food from from an un-named country?

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I'm just pointing out that each nation loses different amount of morale points if they have 0 food.
It would seem to me that if you have no food and I have no food we'd both be demoralized the same amount eh? Unless of course one of us was a bit 'tougher' about being hungry [8D]

[/quote]

Well, the French do have all their wine[;)]
More seriously, national characteristics could legitimately come into play here. E.g. I think most people would argue that Russians might more immune to hardships than the Brits or the French. Some of this could also be related to democratic traditions in countries as well. Though personally I think SMK is more on the money by pointing out that zero food for the French isn't the same as for the Brits. As to your question regarding other countries, I don't know. The only examples you brought up were France and Britain. I haven't personally checked the numbers on other countries.