What's the AI Advantage? And other setup questions . . .

[Kriegsspieler]

I checked back through several pages of posts to see if anyone else had asked what I would have thought is an obvious question, but couldn't find anything, so here goes:

In the game setup, what does "AI Advantage" actually do?  I read in one thread that it gives AI countries +10% to their budgets, which seems reasonable.  Is there anything else?

And while we're asking questions related to the setup, let me try this one:

I've given almost all the countries a spin, and I find them nicely different in how one approaches their particular geopolitical situations.  The one consistent disappointment -- to me, anyway -- has been France, which seems to be overwhelmed by its widely dispersed global commitments, the fact that its need to prepare to face nearby rivals on two different "home fronts," and a naval budget that doesn't see to grow very fast.  But maybe I've just been trying to play with the wrong setup.  Does France become more fun to play if one starts with a large fleet, instead of a medium one?  Or do its drawbacks just become magnified as well?

[dorn]

Aug 10, 2019 15:26:39 GMT -6 Kriegsspieler said:

I checked back through several pages of posts to see if anyone else had asked what I would have thought is an obvious question, but couldn't find anything, so here goes:

In the game setup, what does "AI Advantage" actually do?  I read in one thread that it gives AI countries +10% to their budgets, which seems reasonable.  Is there anything else?

And while we're asking questions related to the setup, let me try this one:

I've given almost all the countries a spin, and I find them nicely different in how one approaches their particular geopolitical situations.  The one consistent disappointment -- to me, anyway -- has been France, which seems to be overwhelmed by its widely dispersed global commitments, the fact that its need to prepare to face nearby rivals on two different "home fronts," and a naval budget that doesn't see to grow very fast.  But maybe I've just been trying to play with the wrong setup.  Does France become more fun to play if one starts with a large fleet, instead of a medium one?  Or do its drawbacks just become magnified as well?

Welcome in this forum.

AI advantage is exactly what you describe, there is no other advantage for AI.

Frankly speaking I cannot tell if playing France with larger fleet give you easier way as I do not try it but so far as game is still patched, there are bug fixing, improvements etc. AI is less capable with small fleet size so I expect playing larger fleet size can be handled AI probably better than medium fleet size.

France is certainly interesting nation to play as not having funds large enough early with vast colonial empire. But with careful play France can become leading power with USA and with this colonial empire France can operate anywhere around the globe.

[mycophobia]

I’ve enjoyed a French playthrough a lot, but I do think large should help by giving you enough to work with in two home fronts. Generally I don’t think I’m overwhelmed by it(uk’s commitment feels more of a trouble)

You do need to adopt your gameplay a little by as France tho, such as avoiding multi pronged war and designing ship with colonial service/warfare in mind

[dohboy]

France gets kicked around a lot. In this game, and even more so historically in this time period. You can't invade France in this game. Which is lucky for them.

One of the reasons WW2 happened was that the Germans were so bitter about the conditions of the treaty of Versailles, since for the entire first world war on the western front they were fighting on French soil, right up to the armistice. The army that was supposed to be the best in Europe got clown stomped and needed the whole western world to bail it out. Twice.

[AiryW]

Aug 10, 2019 15:26:39 GMT -6 Kriegsspieler said:

The one consistent disappointment -- to me, anyway -- has been France, which seems to be overwhelmed by its widely dispersed global commitments, the fact that its need to prepare to face nearby rivals on two different "home fronts," and a naval budget that doesn't see to grow very fast.

This is reflective of a famously significant demographic trend. Here is a neat graph showing it, just hit the play button.  In 1900, France is getting hit hard by a demographic bust which means it can no longer check German power.  This leads to the balance of power system.  Germany is outgrowing France but their birth rate starts falling meaning the advantage will stop increasing.  Then around 1912/1913, France starts closing the economic gap.  Germany starts WWI.  Then in the interwar period, this effect goes away and if anything France outpaces Germany.  As a result the Nazis take a strong policy of encouraging birth and start WWII.  So playing as France puts you right at the crossroads of history, which is pretty cool.

Aug 10, 2019 21:53:07 GMT -6 dohboy said:

One of the reasons WW2 happened was that the Germans were so bitter about the conditions of the treaty of Versailles,

Periodic reminder that Germany didn't actually pay the Versailles reparations and that the hyperinflation was caused by budget deficits and intentional government efforts.  The myth of Versailles causing hyperinflation or Nazism is something that is repeated as "folk history" despite being false like "people thought the earth was flat before Columbus".  The nationalist politicians of Germany used France as a scapegoat even before the Nazis.  Blaming France had as much truth as the idea that Mexico is currently paying for the US to build a border wall.

[dohboy]

True enough, the Nazis still played the card for all it was worth.

The Columbus thing cracks me up. The Portuguese didn't tell him no because they thought the world was flat, they knew it was round like all the other thinking people did and do. They told him no because they did the math better than Columbus did, he was making very flawed and optimistic calculations. They declined because he blew smoke up their asses.

[blur]

Aug 11, 2019 10:22:24 GMT -6 AiryW said:

Periodic reminder that Germany didn't actually pay the Versailles reparations and that the hyperinflation was caused by budget deficits and intentional government efforts. The myth of Versailles causing hyperinflation or Nazism is something that is repeated as "folk history" despite being false like "people thought the earth was flat before Columbus". The nationalist politicians of Germany used France as a scapegoat even before the Nazis.

Periodic reminder to the contrary. There were many reasons why Germans despised the Treaty of Versailles, and the reparations were only one of them. The territorial losses were significant and included important regions with an overwhelming German majority. In the west Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen-Malmedy were annexed, and from former Austria-Hungary Bohemia, the Sudetenland, German Tyrol and half of Upper Austria. Danzig, Austria and the Saar area were separated and forced into independence despite popular will. Not to mention the areas which went to Poland, Czechoslovakia or Denmark, or even the colonies.

As for the reparations: Firstly, they were considered absurdly high not only by outside observers, as this american caricature shows, but even by the representative of the British Treasury at the conference:

[John Maynard] Keynes was temporarily attached to the British Treasury during the war and was their official representative at the peace conference. He later resigned "when it became evident that hope could no longer be entertained of substantial modifications in the draft Terms of Peace" due to the "policy of the Conference towards the economic problems of Europe". In 1919, he wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace based on his objections. He wrote that he believed "that the campaign for securing out of Germany the general costs of the war was one of the most serious acts of political unwisdom for which our statesmen have ever been responsible", and called the treaty a "Carthaginian peace" that would economically affect all of Europe. Keynes said that the treaty's reparation figures "generally exceed Germany's capacity" to pay.

Secondly, most of the reparations was paid. Of the 50 billion marks, Germany paid 21 billion between 1919 and 1932. After the second world war, the remaining sum was halved to 14 billion and the Federal Republic of Germany resumed payments. The final payment was made on 3 October 2010.
Thirdly, while the hyperinflation had multiple causes, the reparations certainly didn't help. The German Empire financed the war almost exclusively through loans banking on victory. The total debt at the end of the war was 150 billion, plus 50 billion in reparations. That roughly equaled 140% of the GDP and severely overburdened the German economy. But while other debt repayments could be delayed, France and Belgium tried to enforce the reparation payments by occupying the Ruhr valley. The population resisted through a general strike and was supported by the government printing money. Together with the industrial heart of Germany stopping overnight, this gave the final push for the hyperinflation.

Even without its economic effects the Treaty of Versailles was one of the main reasons for the Nazis being elected. Their self-professed primary goals in foreign politics were to fully reverse the Treaty of Versailles, unite all German regions into a single nation state, and to end the threat of communist expansion. This is also the reason why they offered peace in 1940 when it seemed that two of these goals are secured and they wanted to concentrate on the third.

[dohboy]

The big problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it moved the goal post. Germany had surrendered on the basis of the Fourteen Points. The French decided to say "vae victus" and turn the knife after the Germans demobilized, the Germans took offense.

[AiryW]

Aug 13, 2019 17:16:54 GMT -6 blur said:

Keynes

You are quoting him from **before** the events. Here is a quote by the man:
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

Aug 13, 2019 17:16:54 GMT -6 blur said:

Secondly, most of the reparations was paid. Of the 50 billion marks, Germany paid 21 billion between 1919 and 1932.

The US government paid 21 billion (more actually) between 1919 and 1932. Germany paid IIRC about 500 million. Most of that was payment in kind, primarily coal that partially offset the deliberate flooding of French coal mines. With the Versailles treaty, Germany agreed to pay France and Belgium equal to the economic damage inflicted. This was later negotiated down to Germany paying a fraction of that amount however security was provided because the payments were done through long terms loans managed in the US. German access to capital markets, and thus the ability to maintain a stable currency and trade, was in effect the collateral. However Germany subsequently was allowed to default on their obligations to the US. Meanwhile the American money went straight to France and Britain where it was about enough to cover the war bond sales to Americans made during WWI.

So, when the dust settled a small amount of German money went to Belgium, a small amount of German money went to France, a small amount of American/British money went to Germany and an amount of American money about 100 times larger then all of the proceeding combined went from US taxpayers to Americans who had bought war bonds. Germany effectively paid nothing.

Aug 14, 2019 6:26:34 GMT -6 dohboy said:

The big problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it moved the goal post. Germany had surrendered on the basis of the Fourteen Points. The French decided to say "vae victus" and turn the knife after the Germans demobilized, the Germans took offense.

The French in this period faced a persistent capital shortage and practiced financial austerity, a strange condition for a plundering people collection rapacious spoils. The Americans in this period had a severe inflation problem due to the fact that they were trying to extract as much tribute as they possibly could from every corner of the globe.

I'm generally a person who rolls her eyes when people talk about American financial imperialism. So I find it deeply ironic that in what I think is probably the single most fiscally extractive period of American economic policy, people blame the freaking French. Not even the British or the Germans. It's such a fantastically random direction for things to go.

[oldpop2000]

This discussion reminds me of what Senator Marcy said " To the victor goes the spoils" and that is the absolute truth. You lose a war and the victor gets as much as he wants... most of the time. The post-WW1 political and economic scene was just that expression.

There is a term titled "Causal Reductionism" in historical analysis and in philosophy. It means assuming a single cause or reason when there actually multiple causes or reasons. This is very applicable to the issues of post -WW1 period. The French were at fault, the Germans, the British and the United States. Especially the US for bailing out and leaving it the way it was. All paid the price on September 1st, 1939 and December 7th, 1941. Lesson's were learned and not repeated after WW2.

All of you seem to have done your homework and as such, are not completely wrong about your points. I have been through this discussion numerous times and as I said above, there is enough blame to go around for all the countries. Nice discussion. 

Just some of my thoughts

[dohboy]

The U.S. kind of went blundering about wacking things with a big stick while softly saying soothing words in this era. Everyone did. It has always been the way it was done. It has only been tamed by the insane cost, no major power wants to fight the next major war, and all the dirty details of your small adventure in Crimea is on the internet for all to see, live.

How many Americans even know about our little Haiti adventure in 1915, when we showed up, seized their gold reserve (which we put on the first boat home) and the national bank (which American and French investors already controlled) and then stayed for 20 years to make sure the loans got paid?

If it wasn't for the political and economic cost, and the fact that it's getting very difficult to get the population to believe anything these days (even on the rare occasion it happens to be the whole unvarnished truth), we could all be marching out to die for someone's ambitions tomorrow.

They were all to blame for both wars, but Germany definitely deserves the lion's share. They just couldn't seem to find an atrocity they wouldn't commit either, which doesn't help. It is interesting to think about what would have happened if things had been different. Like if the kid Kaiser hadn't sacked Bismarck and the person pulling the levers actually knew what they did, or Germany hadn't invaded Belgium, or if they hadn't let the U-boats off their leash a few months before Russia collapsed.

[oldpop2000]

Aug 14, 2019 22:10:45 GMT -6 dohboy said:

The U.S. kind of went blundering about wacking things with a big stick while softly saying soothing words in this era. Everyone did. It has always been the way it was done. It has only been tamed by the insane cost, no major power wants to fight the next major war, and all the dirty details of your small adventure in Crimea is on the internet for all to see, live.

How many Americans even know about our little Haiti adventure in 1915, when we showed up, seized their gold reserve (which we put on the first boat home) and the national bank (which American and French investors already controlled) and then stayed for 20 years to make sure the loans got paid?

If it wasn't for the political and economic cost, and the fact that it's getting very difficult to get the population to believe anything these days (even on the rare occasion it happens to be the whole unvarnished truth), we could all be marching out to die for someone's ambitions tomorrow.

They were all to blame for both wars, but Germany definitely deserves the lion's share. They just couldn't seem to find an atrocity they wouldn't commit either, which doesn't help. It is interesting to think about what would have happened if things had been different. Like if the kid Kaiser hadn't sacked Bismarck and the person pulling the levers actually knew what they did, or Germany hadn't invaded Belgium, or if they hadn't let the U-boats off their leash a few months before Russia collapsed.

Here is what the State Department Archives say about the 1915 Haitian Operation. Keep in mind that a nation must protect its trade routes and the Caribbean Sea is a vital part of our trade route through the Panama Canal. There are numerous examples throughout history of this geopolitical emphasis. Our maintenance of the Guantanamo Bay base is one example, Gibraltar is another and the list goes on. An illustration of the importance of this area is that the first seven Fleet Problems commencing in 1923, were conducted in the Caribbean Sea to train the fleet for protection of the Panama Canal and the Caribbean area. The training included submarines, the use of aircraft carriers and combine operations with the Marine Expeditionary Forces.

U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34


Under interventionist policies of the early 20th century, President Woodrow Wilson sent the United States Marines into Haiti to restore order and maintain political and economic stability in the Caribbean after the assassination of the Haitian President in July of 1915. This occupation continued until 1934.


The United States Government had been interested in Haiti for decades prior to its occupation. As a potential naval base for the United States and other imperialist powers, Haiti's stability was of great interest to U.S. diplomatic and defense officials who feared instability might result in foreign rule of Haiti. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson suggested the annexation of the island of Hispaniola, made up of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, to secure a U.S. defensive and economic stake in the West Indies. From 1889 to 1891, Secretary of State James Blaine unsuccessfully sought a lease of Mole-Saint Nicolas, a city on Haiti's northern coast strategically located for a naval base. In 1910 President William Howard Taft granted Haiti a large loan in hopes that Haiti could pay off its international debt, thus lessening foreign influence. The attempt proved futile due to the enormity of the debt and the internal instability of the country.


France, as the former colonizer of Haiti, retained strong economic and diplomatic ties with the government there. In the 1824 Franco-Haitian agreement, France agreed to recognize Haitian independence if Haiti paid a large indemnity. This kept Haiti in a constant state of debt and put France in a position of power over Haiti's trade and finances.


Although unhappy about Haiti's close connection to France, policymakers in the United States were more concerned about increased German activity and influence in the country. In the beginning of the 20th century German presence in Haiti increased as German merchants began establishing trading branches in Haiti, quickly dominating commercial business in the area. German men married Haitian women to get around laws denying foreigners land ownership and established roots in the Haitian community. The United States considered Germany its chief rival in the Caribbean, and feared German control of Haiti would give them a powerful advantage in the area.


Increased instability in Haiti in the years before 1915 led to heightened action by the United States to deter foreign influence. Between 1911 and 1915, seven presidents were assassinated or overthrown in Haiti, increasing U.S. policymakers' fear of foreign intervention. In 1914, the Wilson Administration sent marines into Haiti who removed $500,000 from the Haitian National Bank in December of 1914 for safe-keeping in New York, thus giving the U.S. control of the bank. In 1915, Haitian president Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam was assassinated and the situation in Haiti quickly became unstable. In response, President Wilson sent the U.S. Marines to Haiti, claiming the invasion was an attempt to prevent anarchy. In reality the Wilson administration was protecting U.S. assets in the area and preventing a possible German invasion.


The invasion ended with the Haitian-American Treaty of 1915. The articles of this agreement created a Haitian gendarmerie, essentially a military force made up of Americans and Haitians and controlled by the U.S. marines. The United States gained complete control over Haitian finances, and the right to intervene in Haiti whenever the U.S. Government deemed necessary. The U.S. Government also forced the election of a new pro-American President, Philippe Sudr� Dartiguenave, by the Haitian legislature in August of 1915. The selection of a President that did not represent the choice of the Haitian populace increased unrest in Haiti.

Following the successful manipulation of the 1915 elections, the Wilson Administration attempted to strong-arm the Haitian legislature into adopting a new constitution in 1917. This constitution allowed foreign land ownership, which had been outlawed since the Haitian Revolution as a way to prevent foreign control of the country. The legislature was extremely reluctant to change the long-standing law and rejected the new constitution. Law-makers began drafting a new anti-American constitution, but the United States forced President D"artiguenave dissolve the legislature, which did not meet again until 1929.

Some of the Gendarmerie's more unpopular policies �including racial segregation, press censorship and forced labor �led to a peasant rebellion from 1919 to 1920. The U.S. Senate sent an investigative committee into Haiti in 1921 to examine claims of abuse, and subsequently the U.S. Senate reorganized and centralized power in Haiti. After the reorganization, Haiti remained fairly stable and a select group achieved economic prosperity, though most Haitians remained in poverty.


In 1929, a series of strikes and uprisings led the United States to begin withdrawal from Haiti. In 1930, U.S. officials began training Haitian officials to take control of the government. In 1934, the United States, in concert with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, officially withdrew from Haiti while retaining economic connections.

[dohboy]

The state department version is bad enough, and it leaves out the worst details. Like our revival of the Corvee to force the Haitians to provide free labor under armed guard for projects, Haitians that were primarily the descendants of slaves who wouldn't even allow foreigners to own property because they were so paranoid about being put back in chains in one form or another(they had enough trouble with that from other Haitians).

[oldpop2000]

Aug 15, 2019 8:43:22 GMT -6 dohboy said:

The state department version is bad enough, and it leaves out the worst details. Like our revival of the Corvee to force the Haitians to provide free labor under armed guard for projects, Haitians that were primarily the descendants of slaves who wouldn't even allow foreigners to own property because they were so paranoid about being put back in chains in one form or another(they had enough trouble with that from other Haitians).

Well, I will leave it at that, because I've been in these discussions before and they go nowhere. Suffice it to say, we were not there. The US and other naval powers had to protect trade routes as globalization began to develop at the turn of the century. It wasn't always done as nicely as we would have liked but both countries along with France were trying to be civil and help the areas that we occupied.  

[blur]

The gunboat diplomacy of the time at least was more honest than what we have today. "That area is important for our sphere of influence, so we'll invade and occupy it, and take everything of value while we're at it" feels less perfidious than the way casus belli for the same goals are engineered nowadays. It's a morbid inversion of the just war theory to first demonize the victims of geopolitcal ambitions to create a righteous cause providing a carte blanche for all misdeeds, no matter how logically it follows.