Grand Strategy

[Dirtdog20]

Reading one of the early threads on the board they will have a free set up 1914 scenario. One of the biggest what -ifs of history, to me,has always been what if Motlke the younger had said yes to King Wilhelm the II and turned everything on its head and shipped everything to Poland to fight the Russians. My question to you is three fold; 1) Would France breach Belgums nutrality? 2) Would the logistical nightmare of the Mob schedules being turned upside down enable the Germans to take advantage of Tannenberg or a victory of anykind before the winter in Poland shut down most everything? 3) With no Germany in Belgum whither the English and the Grand Fleet?

My Answers
1) Yes, the French expected the Germans to do so. King Wilhelm the II said as much the King of Belgum. The French had plans to pass through Belgum much like the Germans to keep the war off French soil and take it to the Germans; Attack was the standard to measure the worth of an officer in French doctorine in 1914.

2) Yes again. Beans, Bullets, Bandages, and Bad guys are the "4 B's" of battle. Things would have been cobbled together but remember this is 1914 not 1944, the 19th century battlefield was what they were expecting.

3) Sitting on the sidelines watching. The English Goverment was very close to falling apart over the entry to war and only the German violation of Belgums nutrality provided them with enough Cassus Belli (sp) to make it politicaly palatable. Now would have Britian allowed France to be defeated or the German Grand Fleet to control the channel is another horse of a different color.

My oppinions, what are yours?

[SirRodneyOfGout]

Off the top of my head, as I have no references at hand:

1. No. The French offensive was planned for their right flank. The French, unlike the Germans, would probably have NOT wanted to upset the Brits by using Belgium as a waypoint. Belgium was strongly comitted to independent neutrality (until the first troops crossed its soil, when it wanted support in a hurry). And a smaller front would to some extent offset the manpower advantage of the Germans.

2. Depends on if the Germans had contingency plans for this, or had tunnel-vision with the Schlieffen Plan as the only light. Still a controversial issue to this day... could they have changed their elaborate plans, or not? Temper tantrums and crying fits aside, my guess is that they could have. But the German plan was to knock France out first, and then deal with the Russians. No one in 1914 seriously considered that they would be able to land an early knockout blow to Russia, so it is only in hindsight that this is imaginable.

3. The question is what would the British do in this situation? Well, on one hand there is the longtime strategic policy Britain had followed of not allowing any single European power become dominant on the continent. On the other hand Britain had managed to stay out of the late 19thC European squabbles. But it is unlikely, given the agreements with the French, that they would have let the German fleet sail towards the Channel, or bombard French soil, without sending the Royal Navy in. That would have been very "perfidious" indeed, and would have ruined Britain diplomatically. Now if the Germans, in this situation, showed some restraint and didn't put to sea... but the Germans (in 1914) weren't known for their restraint. They no longer had the sure hand of Bismarck to guide them through diplomatic minefields.

The what-ifs of 1914 make for great speculation. The implications are enormous. Hopefully the game will be able to convey some of this, through play, alternative scenarios or editing (there is going to be an editor, right?)

Cheers,

[*Lava*]

Hi!

As for the pre-beta edition of the game.. yes you get a free set-up in the "The Great War (campaign)" which allows you to attack Russia first if you want. (I've tested that in fact, and it was quite kewl.) This is why I think for PBEM, with full FOW, this game is going to ROCK.

As for history, indeed Belgium was neutral. That neutrality was guaranteed by the British. When the war started, the Germans asked Belgium for free passage through their country to attack France. Belgium refused, and so it was necessary for Germany to declare war on Belgium. This was very convienent for the British, btw, because there was no treaty between the French and UK which would have brought the Brits into the war automatically if France was attacked. The Brits, it must be said, were keen to stop the Germans, but there was a bit of worry there about how they would get into the fight.

On the French side of things, their strategy was known as Plan 17, I believe. This was the capture of Alasace Loreinne (spelling ?)which the French had lost in the Franco-Prussian war. At the beginning of hostilities, Plan 17 was put into effect, and the French launched an offensive into German soil. They made some progress, but when it was finally confirmed that the Germans were pushing through Belgium to attack from the NE, it kinda changed the plans a bit.

As far as Belgium goes in the game, either side can declare war against Belgium.

Ray (alias Lava)

[sol_invictus]

I agree; these early choices are what makes the start of the war so interesting. I think England would have stayed neutral if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium; they had no great desire to fight on the Continent so long as their command of the Channel wasn't threatened. I don't think France would have invaded Belgium as their entire pre-war plan was to launch an invasion into Lorraine. The Kaiser actually only wanted to attack Russia and stay on the defense in the West, but Molke insisted that this would completely destroy the pre-war plan and leave Germany at a huge disadvantage after having lost the initiative. Previously, in the days of Molke the Elder, a Russia first plan was in place, but that had been abandoned after it was felt that the war in France could be concluded before the slow Russian mobilization was complete.

So many incorrect assumptions and what almost seemed like an unconcious and unstoppable slide into war made all these pre-war plans a real tradgedy. I think it is clear, with 20/20 hindsight, that going for Russia first would have been the way to go. Let France bleed herself white in futile offensives. Little chance of British involvement, therefore no unrestricted U-Boat campaign and no American involvement. Russia caves early and France is left alone and very bloodied. The government would almost certainy fall and a peace offer would soon be sent to Berlin or England would have offered mediation. Under that scenario, I really like Germany's odds.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

ORIGINAL: Lava

This was very convienent for the British, btw, because there was no treaty between the French and UK which would have brought the Brits into the war automatically if France was attacked. The Brits, it must be said, were keen to stop the Germans, but there was a bit of worry there about how they would get into the fight...

As far as Belgium goes in the game, either side can declare war against Belgium.

True, there was no official agreement between the British and the French. But the naval realignments of 1912 were widely perceived as declaring intent, with the Royal Navy concentrated at home and the French in the Med. Militarily it made sense, but only if France and Britain were united against a common enemy. Churchill at the time noted that the moves put Britain in an awkward diplomatic position if France was attacked. The British wanted to keep their options open and not be tied to an alliance; France wanted a commitment to mutual support but could not get the Brits to make it. To have looked on while the German fleet serenely floated by and lobbed shells at the French seems unlikely; formal alliance or not it would have been viewed by other nations as an abandonment of a friend if not an official ally. The fence the British tried to sit on became a razor in 1914.

Re: "either side" - what does this mean? Can the French invade Belgium and still rely on British involvement? Hmmm, I would hope that there would be some possibility that French troops on Belgian soil would keep the Brits out of the war (one also has to consider the remote possibility of Britain declaring war on France in order to uphold its treaty obligations - now there's an alt- history for you!).

One of the difficulties with strategic wargames is simulating the particulars, and implications, of the diplomatic/political context in which wars are fought. Most games ignore them completely. But any WWI grand strategy game has to take them into account. I trust Frank on this because ACW is played within a political context (i.e. the 1864 election, possible English/French intervention, emancipation, etc.).

Players should always be given some leeway as to options, because a game is a game, not a strict simulation, but for the obvious alt moves there should be some obvious repercussions.

Cheers,

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: SirRodneyOfGout

Re: "either side" - what does this mean? Can the French invade Belgium and still rely on British involvement? Hmmm, I would hope that there would be some possibility that French troops on Belgian soil would keep the Brits out of the war (one also has to consider the remote possibility of Britain declaring war on France in order to uphold its treaty obligations - now there's an alt- history for you!).

Hi!

In "The Great War (campaign)," the game begins with the Triple Entente consisting of France, Britain and Russia all allied. The entrance of Britain into the war, at this point, has not been modeled into the game as far as I know. The Central Powers start with Germany and Austria. As the war progresses, some countries will commit to one side or another (based on historical events) and others will remain neutral. Turkey, for example, fairly quickly joins the Central Powers.

A player may declare war against any country not currently allied with him (i.e., that is neutral). Although, having said that, their might be some historic restrictions (such as Germany declaring war on Turkey). Belgium is one of those countries which is considered a "neutral." Thus either side may declare war against it. In playing the game, I do not remember Belgium ever allying itself with the Triple Entente without the Central Powers first declaring war on it. Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to spend your diplomatic points on Belgium to get them to ally with you.

Hope I cleared some things up there. Remember though, this is a historical based game, so don't expect it to be completely open-ended as far as diplomacy goes.

Having said all that, Frank has been working on the first true beta now for quite some time, so it's possible things will change significantly. So nothing I say is in concrete. It's all based on the pre-beta which I had the opportunity to test.

Ray (alias Lava)

[SirRodneyOfGout]

ORIGINAL: Lava


Hope I cleared some things up there. Remember though, this is a historical based game, so don't expect it to be completely open-ended as far as diplomacy goes.

Historical or "Historical"? You say potato, I say pomme frites. The argument could be made that an invasion of Belgium by the French wouldn't be historical if it didn't result in British outrage. Britain's only official commitment to the continent was to Belgium, and was made originally to deter the French, not the Germans. The Anglo-French understanding was relatively new (really only started with the new century and King Eddy), and didn't exist in ink, much less in blood, before Aug 1914.

However, youre quite right, this isnt Diplomacy, and so lines have to be drawn somewhere. Modeling everything isn't possible. Back to humming Blue Skies (see The Riddle of the Sands post)

Cheers,

[Dirtdog20]

You will have to forgive me as I havent found it yet but I have a book that discusses French planning prior to WWI and moving through Belgum to attack Germany was one of the options. Yes, the operational plan in place in Aug of 14 was to try and punch into the lost providences and retake them. IIRC an option was to outflank through Belgum especially if the main offensive was to bog down. I will also look through a book on the 17 mutanies and give some figures as to what the SOP of the War College said should happen when the Polius went on the attack before the war.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

re: French plan to move through Belgium. I find this really interesting; I wonder when the French changed their plans, and if the 'understanding' with Britain had anything to do with it? Also wonder if the French plans took a British reaction into account (probably not, as few military srtaffs of the period bothered with incidentals like politics) ?

Belgium really shouldn't be treated simply as just another neutral in the game, as it was in the unique position of having a British guaruntee of its sovereignty. One could, I suppose, rationalise that French AND British troops would move into Belgium to protect it, and that would cover "The Great War" campaign scenario.

If you find the name of the book, please post it. Always on the lookout for books on WW1.

Cheers,

[*Lava*]

Hi!

I can see the link there between Belgium's neutrality and UK intervention, which would argue that the UK should start as neutral. But would it be really realistic to have Belgium as the only trigger for UK involvement?

Ray (alias Lava)

[Dirtdog20]

IMO and only IMO re: Belgum and English Activation/Decloration of War.

There were several factors affecting the British decision to go to War. Belgum was the one that saved the goverment from collapsing. Remember that several members of the Cabinet resigned anyway, even with the invasion of Belgum and the resulting British Decloration. When the fact was revealed to the Cabinet that "staff talks" had been occouring since 1907 - 1908(???) it was almost a scandal that broke the goverment right there. And this was during the early stages of the crisis in mid July 1914. As an aside remember that most of the Royalty held German titles and lands and the politicians fathers and definately grandfathers had been alive or participated in the fights against the "Little Corsican". France was not a long trusted friend and that for most of the time of Belgums existance the promise ( of English protection) had been directed toward the French, not the Germans.
With the transfer of the French fleet almost exclusively to the Med and the British taking responsablity for the Defence of the North Sea/Channel coast; a German Grand Fleet move would have been met with the Channel and probably the Grand Fleet. That would have resulted in a war with Germany with no doubt. Short of that however I dont think the political will was there to enter "a contential war", especially when a future King had been assainated.

[Dirtdog20]

Sir Rodney,
Allow me to spend the weekend going through my WWI shelves to see if I can find the book. I have a hunch that it is in "Dreadnought" but I could be wrong.

[SirRodneyOfGout]

Dirtdog & Lava,

Funny, I was just scanning through Massie's "Dreadnought" to find out about the Belgian issue. Maybe I should READ it again [8|]

Dd, I agree with your opinion - Britain, or at least most British statesmen, politicians and royalty, was NOT eager to get into a war with Germany. Outside of an invasion of Belgium, only the sight of the German navy in the Channel could have triggered quick intervention.

The Brits seemed to be content to sit on the sidelines in 1870-71. But what would they have done if the Germans defeated the French again, and took the war (successfully) into Russia (or vice versa)? Would the pressure of maintaining equilibrium on the continent have forced them into the war at a later date?

The international politics of the era were freewheeling, and the implications enormous. The irony of a strictly military model of the situation, without taking these implications into account, is that it recreates the thinking of the German general staff ("we'll just walk through Belgium, nobody will mind" & "we'll just conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, it will win the war for us"). In the end the political price for these purely military decisions cost the Germans the war.

So how the heck does one model any of this in an operational level game set at a strategic size (i.e. all of the major fronts are covered)? Beats me. I guess we'll just have to accept the given context of any scenario (and hope an editor allows us to create some of the more intriguing alternatives). I also hope that the AI isn't so hardcoded that it wouldn't be able to deal with at least a neutral Britain ( but I can see where the idea of Britain allied with Germany against France could be a huge AI problem from a game design perspective).

Cheers,

[Dirtdog20]

I spent most of the weekend looking and havent found what I was looking for yet. However I did come across a very interestng statement being made in a why we are fighting book written just after Americas entry into WWI. "America and the Great War for Humanity and Freedom" by Willis Fletcher Johnson, A.M., L.H.D. Printed 1917 On page 31 he discusses the base causes of the war, (which stretch on for five chapters), and makes a point of pointing out that the German claims of being bombed by Fench Aviators in early Aug 14 were false. He then states that "...Germany had discovered a plot of the other powers to attack and oppress her..." placing that statement as another example of German duplicity and why they should not be trusted.

[FrankHunter]

As regards Britain and Belgium. My decision here was that no German player would invade Belgium if it meant Britain would stay out of the war. May as well go for a repeat of 1870. Also, I find it hard to believe that Britain would have stayed out of the war altogether if Belgian neutrality wasn't violated.

So, what I did was, if Germany invades Belgium, Britain is triggered. Otherwise Britain sends only the "old army" BEF and deploys the fleet. It is restricted in its builds too. On turn 3, assuming France is still being invaded, Britain moves from its limited position to full participation.

[Telsor1]

The British did have a number of assurances given to the French under the entente cordiale.

More importantly, they were very wary of the growing power of the Germans ( particularly their fleet ), and it would be very unlikely they would have stood by and watched a German victory.

The only question would be in the timing of the British declaration of war, not the fact of it, or the side.

[Telsor1]

ORIGINAL: Dirtdog20

Reading one of the early threads on the board they will have a free set up 1914 scenario. One of the biggest what -ifs of history, to me,has always been what if Motlke the younger had said yes to King Wilhelm the II and turned everything on its head and shipped everything to Poland to fight the Russians. My question to you is three fold;
1) Would France breach Belgums nutrality?

Plan XVII called for a full scale french attack into Alsace-Lorraine, so it would seem not.

2) Would the logistical nightmare of the Mob schedules being turned upside down enable the Germans to take advantage of Tannenberg or a victory of anykind before the winter in Poland shut down most everything?

It would have been a nightmare, but german troops would certainly have gotten east in sufficient quantities to do some damage, although a lot (more?)would have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs for months.

More importantly, this didn't fit THE PLAN.
There were 2 important factors this 'what if' doesn't consider.
1) Since the war of 1870, when Prussia destroyed France due in large part to superior plannning, all of Europe was obsessed with THE PLAN. Not following it was a *huge* deal, there was no 'Plan B'.

Joffre convinced the French cabinet to declare mobilisation by the argument that every day they delayed meant another 25 miles of French soil would be lost...That's how they thought...it was an exercise in mathematics.

2) Except in Britain, there was zero co-ordination between diplomats and the branches of the military and for the politicians, it was either/or..once the diplomats had 'failed', and war looked likely they did what the military chiefs said, and the military chiefs said go with THE PLAN.

There was no scope for a different strategy, especially one developed 'on the fly'.
The nearest anyone got to this was probably A-H, which had a force facing the Russians, another facing the Serbs, and a third as a 'strategic reserve' to go to whichever front they decided on, but this was still THE PLAN and wasn't going to change without a great deal of thought and planning.

3) With no Germany in Belgum whither the English and the Grand Fleet?

The Brits were very nervous about the growing German industrial/naval might, which led them to their rapproachment with France and wouldn't have allowed them to stay out unless things looked like German was going to lose anyway.

[sol_invictus]

I think it might be time to revisit this monumental question. Frank, have you changed the entry trigger for Britain? Specificly; since this is the greatest alternative strategy; what if Germany goes all-out in the east and sets not one German boot on either French or Belgium territory or unleashes the Fleet? Is there even a 20% chance that Britain will stay neutral? A 70% chance if France invades Belgium? It would be great to throw the hard choice back on the player if the AI goes after Russia first.

[Nordiska]

These are good points, but one other item that needs to be a possibility(modeled) in this game is a chance that Italy will honor it's Triple Alliance and side with Germany and Austria/Hungary. The game designers can figure out the % chance/conditions for Italy to join the Central Powers.[:'(].

[sol_invictus]

I completely agree; even though the "Belgium question" is the most momentous, there are a few other alternative situations that need to be factored in, such as Italy. In the "Guns of August" boardgame from Avalon Hill, there was a simple matrix that dealt with diplomacy that would take player actions into consideration when determining neutral activation. It usually didn't greatly change the historical outcome on where the neutrals ended up, but it did introduce some possible and important changes from the historical outcome that kept the player in some uncertainty. If such a simple and logical system could be incorporated into this "Guns of August", I think it would be a great addition. Last time Frank commented on this, there was some indication that something along these lines was on his mind. I would like to hear how his thinking has progressed over the last several months, since the game seems to be in the home stretch.

Another point; with some chance that Britain, Italy, Bulgaria, and Romania remaining neutral or even switching sides, this would greatly increase replayability in the single player mode and greatly increase the fun factor in both single and pbem, while adding realism. I see absolutely no downside.