Cerberus1775

I can see that. But go back to the point that the Germans were sending their overseas cables through British owned cables. I will argue that the preparedness movement entry is tied to debt owned by US banks and industrialists. The US was moving toward joining the war, it was just what cause would look the best and give the best excuse.

Only if the Russians poke their noses into the area of southern Sweden - East Prussia line. The German Navy is a NM egg with a hammer. To small to fight the Anglo-French and when the Russians do eventually show up dogpile them with everything you have at hand. As their navy is that egg with a hammer even more so than the Imperial Navy. Subs are bought as MPP allow. Subs are first choices to new purchase until limit reached, then invest in research. A level 3 or better sub is a shark in a fish tank if the Anglo-French havent invested in ASW. Even then I am happy to do two or three points damage to a cruiser or capital ship if it means that I have to turn around and retreat back to port to fix damage. It costs much more to fix a capital ship than a sub, ( and NM cost), until you get to extremes on the scale. The Austro Hungarians and Turks can also help if they have MMP to spare. A sub or two lose in the Med can cause all sorts of headaches. Also remember that I am playing a very limited game and maximizing my chances before every offensive in the east. While at the same time only attacking in the west when I have to. Even then I am taking Falkenhiem to his extreme and being happy to kill soldiers in open ground with firepower than expend my soldiers lives to retake it until the Anglo-French have exhausted themselves. This leaves me with a bit more MMP than most players I believe. (I could be wrong, being married I am used to it.) Like I said I am applying maximum violence, not maximum speed. Edited to clarify thoughts

I have followed a somewhat historical strategy when I have played the CP. Grab as much as I can in France/Belgium and then dig, dig, dig. Attacks are local backed up by lots and lots of artillery and air support. Send enough help to the Turks to keep them wheezing along, and set reachable offensive goals for two sets of offensives a year in Russia. The Austrians defend the frontier vs the Russians and Italians with German help. Then the Austrians dogpile the Serbs. The fleets never sail (But do defend the North German plain). Build submarines like rabbits breed. A few things I do that the AI dosent. If it cant be reached in one turn of normal movement I dont garrison it except for the Med ports. Even then I am using single divisions and not Corps. I take a long view with the CP. I am on the defensive in the West with the ability to slam any Anglo - French offensives. In Russia I am the turtle that turns into the two ton steamroller. Once Serbia falls its Italy's turn. Once Northern Italy is cleared the soft underbelly of France is exposed and thats endgame for the Anglo- French. I myself have never had a problem with the NM of the CP but I also dont try to play like I am commanding Panzer armies either.

Considering the British intercepted and held the original Zimmmerman in their back pocket, a second should have a very low and circuitous route to get to Mexico. From what I can remember the Germans never realized that all their overseas cable traffic was going through British owned cables.

Bill I think that you might be able to get two birds with one stone here and treat it in a very historical way. Tie unrestricted warfare into Anglo - Franco aid. If the German chooses to not use it then the Anglo-French gain a boost, (small but useful; 10 - 25 variable points a piece per turn???) to represent the growing influx of filled contracts and foodstuff imports. Not to mention horses; flesh and iron. As well as American volunteers crossing over and joining the Anglo-French forces. Empey; Authur Guy, Lafayette Escadrille, ect, ect.. Not only do the Germans then face a morale penalty for failing to use unrestricted warfare, but they also indirectly aid the Anglo-French. However the Americans dont get unhappy as unemployment drops and the economy booms. By using unrestricted warfare they reduce the MPP per turn, increase their moral, but irritate the American public/government by sinking American flagged/pasengered ships. A very historical outcome IMO. Make Unrestricted/Restricted Warfare a diplomatic button maybe to make its start/stop a bit easier too. Dont forget that the 16 election was a very near run thing and it cost most of the Ultra liberal progressives their places in the government. One more PR disaster by the Germans, (dont forget they had been tied to several successful espionage attacks on American factories in 15), right before election day and America elects a much different government. Neel

Bill, I apologize for not being able to answer as quickly as I wanted. Life and a wife who wants a project completed take precedence. My source for the numbers comes from the "Dictionary of the First World War" by Pen and Sword; UK Publishing. Steven Pope and Elizabeth Anne-Wheal are the Authors from Cambridge and Oxford respectively. In 1915 the Anglo-French took out guaranteed loans from a consortium of US banks and Industrialists, (Vanderbilt, Getty, ect., ect.). The value of these loans at the time was 500 Million US Dollars. In todays money, a 11.62 Billion dollar loan. By April of 1917 the US banks had extended a further 2.6 Billion in credits. In todays money a further 47.61 Billion. These loans by my calculation in todays dollars comes to 59.23 Billion USD or 39.39 Billion English Pounds. (This conversion number may move somewhat as we are dealing with "today" monies which move up and down in rates of exchange.) While the monies were being returned to US firms to pay for contracts at the time of the loans, this still left the banks and Industrialists holding quite a hefty debt. Adding this to the 10.3 billion in imports of food stuffs and other sundries, (239.3 billion in todays USD), you can see why America was heavily invested financially in the Allies winning the war. Not only had trade suffered and then was suspended with Germany and later its allies compared to the Entente, but retaliation in the form of tariffs and exclusive trade contracts were to be expected from Germany if they won. As it was a standard practice before the war by all the colonial powers why would any reasonable person expect differently post war by a victorious Germany? Especially with one who felt they had an axe to grind. In game terms a more successful Germany threatening to defeat and render repayment of loans by the Anglo-French, and Russians to a small degree, either haltingly or defaulted all together would drive America to come to their aid quicker. One can make the case that the Zimmerman Telegram was in part sent to try and reduce the monetary and material support that the US was sending to the Anglo French by this time by forcing America to deal with a war on the Southern Frontier. If you want I would be happy to do a more correct research thesis on the subject as I find the interplay of internal politics in the US at this time quite interesting. If you want to do the calculations yourself, I used the program at this page for all the conversions. http://www.wolframalpha.com/ Neel

One of the driving forces in the US entry into the war was to ensure payment of contracts and loans. By the beginning of 16 England, France, and to a lesser extent Russia was heavily in debt to America. The American forces were able to get most of their Artillery, Tanks, and Aircraft from the British and French by exchanging debt for product. I can see very easily a more successful Germany and allies causing an earlier entry to the War for the US. The submarine warfare and Zimmerman were useful tools, but the conversation at the time was the impact on the US economy if Britain and France fell. IMO Roosevelt was inspired to Lend Lease in part to avoid the situation where teh loss of the war wouldn't result in massive financial losses like would have happened in WW1.