Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Aug 28, 2019 20:47:08 GMT -6
Why wasn't anybody invading France, or a least their colonies? The colonies are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Aug 29, 2019 16:23:24 GMT -6
Why wasn't anybody invading France, or a least their colonies? I thought you couldn't invade home regions? And I didn't want to have foreign stations outside the Mediterranean. I took everything in it so there was nothing else to invade.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Aug 30, 2019 22:30:54 GMT -6
Why wasn't anybody invading France, or a least their colonies? I thought you couldn't invade home regions? And I didn't want to have foreign stations outside the Mediterranean. I took everything in it so there was nothing else to invade. You're probably right about the home regions, that is why I hedged my bets with the colony conquest question.
I think you might have found that the cost of the ships on foreign station was less than the income from the colony, but I'm not going to guarantee it.
A fix to the issue would be the historical ones: 1) Have Army Offensives actually able to win wars (maybe only after one side has vast superiority, like 4 times the VPs and only after 2 years of war) 2) Nukes (minimum year 1944, maybe requires a tech)
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Aug 31, 2019 3:34:44 GMT -6
I disagree with autowins if someone's navy falls beneath a certain threshold. As others have said, we are but one small part of a nation at war. The current system is fine as is in my book - even if you get outliers, that's hardly outside the realms of real life as others have mentioned.
The strength of RtW2 is that, even if we feel we're important with our battleships and carriers, in the grand scheme things we simply aren't that important.
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Sept 1, 2019 19:51:59 GMT -6
I thought you couldn't invade home regions? And I didn't want to have foreign stations outside the Mediterranean. I took everything in it so there was nothing else to invade. You're probably right about the home regions, that is why I hedged my bets with the colony conquest question.
I think you might have found that the cost of the ships on foreign station was less than the income from the colony, but I'm not going to guarantee it.
A fix to the issue would be the historical ones: 1) Have Army Offensives actually able to win wars (maybe only after one side has vast superiority, like 4 times the VPs and only after 2 years of war) 2) Nukes (minimum year 1944, maybe requires a tech)
It's not even that, it's just that I don't want to expose myself to the strategic risk of expanding beyond the Mediterranean as Austria Hungary. You should really try a game as them if you haven't, being able to make all ships short range is incredible.
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Sept 1, 2019 19:53:11 GMT -6
I disagree with autowins if someone's navy falls beneath a certain threshold. As others have said, we are but one small part of a nation at war. The current system is fine as is in my book - even if you get outliers, that's hardly outside the realms of real life as others have mentioned. The strength of RtW2 is that, even if we feel we're important with our battleships and carriers, in the grand scheme things we simply aren't that important.
Sure, but surely blockading someone for a decade should not happen? Neither World War lasted that long (even if you count the start of WWII from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident).
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 1, 2019 21:01:30 GMT -6
Sure, but surely blockading someone for a decade should not happen? Neither World War lasted that long (even if you count the start of WWII from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident). Of all the standard powers only Britain and Japan can be wholly cut off from potential trading powers by a purely-naval blockade. I would also note that the blockades and submarine campaigns of the two World Wars are at a level that I would not expect to see outside of a war in which bringing another power into the war probably wouldn't greatly affect the balance of power (either the situation can't really get any worse or pretty much every power of consequence is already in the war on one side or the other) - and even in the First World War both Britain and Germany were, for a time, fairly sensitive to how the neutral powers and especially the US responded to what they were doing. It's rarely the case within the game that pretty much every power of consequence is directly involved in a war.
Also, there are a number of historical blockades that have lasted a decade or more. Britain blockaded France for the better part of the 23 years of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, for example.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 1, 2019 21:21:08 GMT -6
A world war is a special situation. Very few wars I have fought in this game involved more than two belligerents, it is a different story trying to enforce a blockade when all the enemy's trading partners are neutrals. A blockade is a three way street. You cut your own throat, the enemy's, and the neutrals. Those neutrals will find a way to make the money flow. Commercial entities in your own nation will get in on the action as well, you just won't collect duties on the trade. A blockade requires cooperation.
Trying to blockade a major economic nation for 10 years in a two party war would be a joke, regardless of the naval power equation. It would probably end up dragging those neutrals into the war on the other side, if it somehow happened to be effective.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 1, 2019 21:30:45 GMT -6
Britain blockaded France for the better part of the 23 years of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, for example. And the French blockaded them back with the Continental System without a navy, with similar effect.
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Sept 2, 2019 19:52:01 GMT -6
So you all think that wars lasting more than 10 years where my VPs outnumber theirs by a 6:1 margin from the first year on and the blockade is causing riots from year 2 on are OK?
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 2, 2019 21:52:56 GMT -6
The Vietnam War lasted for almost 20. How big of an impact did having the most dominant navy in the world have in the duration or outcome?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2019 22:03:34 GMT -6
The Vietnam War lasted for almost 20. How big of an impact did having the most dominant navy in the world have in the duration or outcome? The US became in involved in the Vietnam war in 1950 when we sent advisors to help the French in the first Indochina War. Our direct involvement began in about 1961. It ended in about 1973 for the US. So without any actual declarations, its complex.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2019 22:12:28 GMT -6
The Vietnam War lasted for almost 20. How big of an impact did having the most dominant navy in the world have in the duration or outcome? Well, it depends on which document you read, as to how big an impact it had. The air forces, both the Navy and USAF did learn about using aircraft in combat operations in what was called jungle or Brush wars. How applicable is debatable. We realized that our air operations were not always just about bombing cities, so strategic bombing began to lose its emphasis. The services learned that we had to adapt to small wars like Vietnam, the Middle East etc. We learned a lot, and Saddam Hussein is the poor gent who paid the price.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Sept 3, 2019 1:48:27 GMT -6
The Vietnam War lasted for almost 20. How big of an impact did having the most dominant navy in the world have in the duration or outcome? Navy wasn't really relevant, as N Vietnam wasn't self sufficient economically, but was supported with everything by China and Russia, and both of those were off limits for US forces.
And US learned there is no way to force a surrender with airpower alone, without occupations of opponent lands (and that was politically impossible).
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Sept 3, 2019 16:16:55 GMT -6
1. Vietnam is outside this timeframe from the US perspective 2. Vietnam was not the type of war that you fight in this game 3. Even if neither of the above are true, picking an outlier isn't helpful
|
|