|
Post by fredsanford on Oct 13, 2017 19:30:46 GMT -6
To grow and sustain a fleet of 60 BB/BC's by 1925 is mighty ambitious, especially taking into account the 'balanced fleet' approach (which I subscribe to as well). I think you will find that you will have to be much more aggressive than your previous runs with smaller nations- the game mechanics favor wartime budget increases, and colonial expansion to increase your funding base. Try not to fight Britain early, but eventually you'll need to take them down. If you can get into war with Russia early, try to blockade* them into collapse, and take either Finland or the Baltic States. Then build up their port capacity to 600-700 (expand EVERY year) so that you have a European base for taking on the rest of the Euro's. The Japanese are a distraction that hopefully you won't have to bother with.
*Long distance blockades are difficult. You will have to keep some ships in reserve in the US so that when the long range * shows up on ships you can swap them out and thus keep up a deployment rotation. You may not have enough ships to actually keep the Russians blockaded initially, but you'll need to fight and win one or more fleet battles to wear them down. Careful, because if your ships are damaged, they will be interred in neutral ports for the duration of the war. The ideal situation is to form an alliance with another European power for your war against Russia, then all of these long-range problems go away as you'll have basing privileges, and the assistance of their navy in forming and holding a blockade. I know Russia isn't really that susceptible to naval blockade, but game =/= reality.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Oct 13, 2017 19:36:12 GMT -6
One more thing- prestige matters a lot for budgetary reasons. Shoot for 100 by game end. Never take the lower prestige option in events. 'Murica!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 13, 2017 23:57:48 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that you're better off taking reparations if funding is what you want. If I'm not mistaken, you get a bigger immediate boost to your national resources per point of reparations taken than per point of colonial possessions taken, and reparations go into your base resources, which grow exponentially over the course of the game, whereas colonial resources per point of possession value remains constant all game long.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 14, 2017 7:44:46 GMT -6
Gentlemen:
I really appreciate all the good advice, it helps. I have a problem with trying to fight a war every two years, which is what has happened. Wars wreck economies, at least in real history, which is why I avoid them. I've found playing as the US or Britain, puts a target on your back. I will keep at it, but I am not having real fun.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2017 22:23:17 GMT -6
Well, I played Japan and only had one war against the French. It was nice, and ended with a good feeling that I hadn't killed anyone unnecessarily. I then played Italy and of course, had two wars against the Austro-Hungarians. Yea think. Beat them twice, but no gain in ground. Then I got adventuresome and played Spain. Yea I know, "What was he thinking". So, right off the bat, had to fight Italy, my ancestral home but that's ok. My first battle I thought, did not go well, until it was over. I lost one armored cruiser and an aux. However, he lost an armored cruiser and a destroyer. Unbeknownst to me, I won. I'd rather be lucky than good. I felt kind of bad beating my ancestral home, but "war is hell".
In my game as the Italians, I actually ended up with two battleships with 15 in. guns, plus one on the ways.
My game as Spain is still a work in progress, news at 11:00.
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Nov 23, 2017 11:56:44 GMT -6
Spain is the painful path of the vanilla nations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2017 12:20:09 GMT -6
Spain is the painful path of the vanilla nations. Yes it is and I have already within the first four years fought a war with Italy. Two nations that should stay out of wars. Anyway, it came to nothing. so, prestige is low but who knows. I am at May 1908 and now building my first BC.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2017 19:25:26 GMT -6
Well, my Game as Spain was ended successfully, at least in my eyes. I won two wars; one against Italy and another against Austria-Hungary. They had a revolution due to my submarine blockade and say goodbye to the Hohenzollerns. I hope the Serbian's didn't assassinate the Emperor. Some things I did learn. If you get into a war with AH, don't fight battles in the Adriatic, just accept the battle and turn and head for the Straits of Otranto. It works the best. I deployed most of my heaviest ships to the Med, which is where I suspected most of my troubles would come from and for heaven sake, stay in the good graces of France and Germany. I also decided to be sweet to the Americans, because I did not want have to move a big fleet to the Caribbean and risk the Med. Two front wars are not good for a small economy and military like the Spanish have. Anyway, good strategy and lots of luck. I'd rather be lucky than good.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 24, 2017 10:00:57 GMT -6
Well, my next round is Sweden. It is really hard for me to get my arms around playing Sweden. Now, if I had some longships, it might be easier. Already I am in a war with Germany. Why Germany would try to get into a war with the country that provides their iron ore, is amazing. They wouldn't. During WWII, they attacked and occupied Norway, so they could transport iron ore from Sweden over the mountains to Narvik and then by ship send it to Germany. It doesn't make sense. Don't bite the hands that feed you.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 24, 2017 11:45:19 GMT -6
Sweden was the source of German ore because they couldn't trade with France and faced limits to their trade with Russia. If they could buy French and Russian ore, they wouldn't need Sweden. Swedish ore was still high quality but not indispensable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 24, 2017 12:01:59 GMT -6
Sweden was the source of German ore because they couldn't trade with France and faced limits to their trade with Russia. If they could buy French and Russian ore, they wouldn't need Sweden. Swedish ore was still high quality but not indispensable. That is true, but the advantage of Sweden was the quantity, and partially the quality. Swedish iron ore is very pure so it is easier and cheaper to smelt and get good quality steel. Now, new smelting processes have eliminated that issue. The Swedes had far more available iron ore than either nation because they did not use much of it and it was easier to get at. My point is simply that your geostrategy is based on many factors; economics is one of them. It makes more sense not to go to war with your long term iron ore supplier than an enemy that you have already fought many times in your history. My whole point is that, in the game, it would seem to me, that that information about economics should be taken into account. I am not disagreeing with your point, you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 24, 2017 14:14:06 GMT -6
Sweden was the source of German ore because they couldn't trade with France and faced limits to their trade with Russia. If they could buy French and Russian ore, they wouldn't need Sweden. Swedish ore was still high quality but not indispensable. That is true, but the advantage of Sweden was the quantity, and partially the quality. Swedish iron ore is very pure so it is easier and cheaper to smelt and get good quality steel. Now, new smelting processes have eliminated that issue. The Swedes had far more available iron ore than either nation because they did not use much of it and it was easier to get at. My point is simply that your geostrategy is based on many factors; economics is one of them. It makes more sense not to go to war with your long term iron ore supplier than an enemy that you have already fought many times in your history. My whole point is that, in the game, it would seem to me, that that information about economics should be taken into account. I am not disagreeing with your point, you are correct. You are completely right. But it would restrict this game as your enemies would be more determinated by "rules" of strategy, political and economics consequencies. Its more realistic but decrease posibilities the game can envolve in time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 24, 2017 14:18:41 GMT -6
That is true, but the advantage of Sweden was the quantity, and partially the quality. Swedish iron ore is very pure so it is easier and cheaper to smelt and get good quality steel. Now, new smelting processes have eliminated that issue. The Swedes had far more available iron ore than either nation because they did not use much of it and it was easier to get at. My point is simply that your geostrategy is based on many factors; economics is one of them. It makes more sense not to go to war with your long term iron ore supplier than an enemy that you have already fought many times in your history. My whole point is that, in the game, it would seem to me, that that information about economics should be taken into account. I am not disagreeing with your point, you are correct. You are completely right. But it would restrict this game as your enemies would be more determinated by "rules" of strategy, political and economics consequencies. Its more realistic but decrease posibilities the game can envolve in time. It's possible that that option: unrestricted policy versus historical policy should be included in the game. This would allow for some interesting counterfactual historical scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 24, 2017 16:01:32 GMT -6
I don't like the way the game allows me to play Sweden and I just resigned. I will try another strategy that might work but I have doubts. I wasn't loosing, just could not execute my strategy in my way.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 24, 2017 16:55:57 GMT -6
You are completely right. But it would restrict this game as your enemies would be more determinated by "rules" of strategy, political and economics consequencies. Its more realistic but decrease posibilities the game can envolve in time. It's also pretty easy to avoid the unrealistic fights if you just try to keep tensions down. When I play democracies I usually play with the intent of avoiding war with other democracies. It's only a very rare event that I am unexpectedly plunged into such a war. And I think that seems about right, Britain and France were very unlikely to go to war in 1900 but there was a small chance that could have happened. So if I play a hundred games and in one of them I end up in war with another democracy, that seems fine to me.
|
|