USA entry

[steel32]

Playing a game right now as Central and opponent has been investing heavily, along with Russia out of the war; Italy/France on the ropes. I would think if this was the case there would be a more rapid acceleration of the US towards the war. As it is right now it does not seem that the US really plays a role, especially if the Germans do not go for unconditional sub warfare. Smart person will not do it if things are going there way. It seems the only time the US will enter if things are going bad for the Central Powers and they do use this.

Regardless some other sort of mechanism seems needed to bring the US in quicker when the situation arises, which being from the US myself I believe we would of to keep a balance in Europe.

[Panama Red]

The US was very isolationest at this time. Remember Wilson got re-elected with the motto of "He kept us out of the war".

[steel32]

50+ games never seen them enter. They were not this is isolationist.

And again per my point if things went different US would of reacted different. I am very aware of how they were at the time under those conditions when a stalemate was very clear for years.

[xwormwood]

It took several years of propaganda (Entente toward the USA) AND the german resumption of unrestricted sub warfare AND the Zimmerman telegram to finally drag the USA into the war. Without the unrestricted sub warfare and without the Zimmerman telegram the USA might have never gone to war at all, or at least several month or years later, probably too late to play any noteworthy role in the conflict.

But once the USA decided to go to war, it tooks endless month before there was finally an army ready to be shipped to France, and even longer before this army was fully trained and in the trenches.

[steel32]

Completely understand as history is one of majors. However we are not looking at apples to apples.

In this game who in their right mind would send the telegram. Also if the results changed in a game would not their be a higher possibility that things would change in the US? If history changes on one side, usually history would change on another. So the game does not accurately reflect other possibilities but only sticks to what happened historically despite if Paris is destroyed, Moscow taken, Suez controlled in this game and not what happened historically.

[steel32]

For example the butterfly effect. One thing changes no matter how small history in itself would go down a different path, this is very clear to me. If we are looking for just a historical game then results for the entire war should reflect this with the war ending each and every time with Entente victory towards the end of 18' no matter how you play the game.

[Bill101]

In the first version of this game, we did have the USA joining the game regularly but it wasn't generally well received, so the factors leading to US mobilization were modified to rely more on the Germans using unrestricted naval warfare.

Because it didn't happen, it is hard to imagine different set ups that could have led to a US war entry without this that wouldn't also feel unrealistic. For instance, if Russia collapses and Paris is captured, I feel that the US would have been more likely to have stepped in to broker a peace deal, than to have entered the war, particularly as it had no army to speak of (at least not in continental European terms).

As to the Zimmerman Telegram, sending it is not necessarily a bad thing to do because now players will only be presented with the option to do so when the USA is already fairly close to entering the war. It isn't date specific as such, and can help avoid war with the USA.

But perhaps the real issue is that Central Powers players aren't using their U-Boats and surface fleets to full effect against the UK?

[steel32]

I bring this up again as playing my opponent and does not seem to be getting anywhere with diplomacy with Russia out and France on the ropes.

Probably right that this would not be the case historically as previous comments and yours are true they could not do much because size of army at least within 12 months and seen as just another European war at the time. Still things could of changed depending on events and that is the tricky slope in planning a game.

Now from a non-historical side it could be a life saver or a at least keep it a game if this would be the case. No need for it though as I know most want the historical version.

Sub warfare seems rarely used in this game perhaps out of misunderstanding or the fear involved of losing the navy and hence morale. Never seen the use in it for most of my games as Central if the Russia 1st, France 2nd strategy seems to usually work at least before the latest changes (have not played the Central since change to infantry tech which seems to have thrown the balance back to the Entente or at least help even out more). Usually gets thrown in at the end to further speed up France's demise rather than a game changer.

I guess need the right game.

[GetSome]

reading this thread, I can't see the advantage of getting us into the war, as they are a day late and dollar sort. the investment v return, return is to late and to little.

It would be far more advantage to get Romania, Italy and Greece into the war earlier to knock Bulgaria out before it can strike at Serbia.

[Bill101]

I've been thinking further about this and one thing that can be done is to reward Russian National Morale with successes against important Austro-Hungarian and German objectives, such as the taking of Lemberg and Przemysl, as it is usually possible with some effort for one of these to fall.

Such a move will already boost Romanian mobilization, as does the handing over of Trento-Trieste to Italy by Austria-Hungary, and a Romanian entrance into the war boosts Russian morale by 2,500 points.

With regards to the USA, I am going to go through the maths regarding unrestricted naval warfare so that we'll all be able to see the pros and cons of it laid out in black and white before us.

My own use of unrestricted naval warfare is to hit the UK hard when you don't want them getting too strong in France or elsewhere, then to pull back and refit, hopefully without having bothered the USA too much.

It's normally possible to do this a few times with the USA remaining neutral - just like in real life. The only downside being the increased MPPs the UK will receive from the USA once their convoys are back up and running again, but then they will have missed out on lots of income from more sources than just the USA while you were conducting your attacks.

[xwormwood]

Good idea, Bill!

In addition, maybe we need could need a bit of a "luck" component in the diplomacy and research part?

General idea (probably not possible in the current game):

Imagin that a country is allowed to buy 5 diplo chits.

But there is a possibility to purchase a 6th one, which represents a high risk manoveur. It could work out, it could be a a blank, or it could even backfire. THis chit would need its own success / failure / blank calculation.

But once your opponent used this chit, you will see it in the diplo menu, or you will receive an ingame message. And if you don't counter it with your own high risk chit, your opponent will lose the "backfire" danger, making his chit will either a blank or successfull.

And if there would be an optional decision event catagory which could offer the same - chance for success, chance for desaster, chance for nothing, well, this category would be perfect to change war entry dates, to remove successfull HQs, push up National Morale, stall movement allowances, cripple income, build fortress lines, repair sunken ships, and provide very often nothing at all.

[Bill101]

As promised, I've just added a whole section on this to the guide for new players:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1424547#post1424547

[Cerberus1775]

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.

[GetSome]

in the latest patch 1.07, I see the war can be extended to 1924, so with that in mind USA entry is now well worth the cost. Does it require both parties to agree to extend?

and if france surrenders the war is over?

[Bill101]

Yes, both parties need to agree to extend gameplay, and the AI will always agree, so that it's a player's decision.

If both Russia and France are out of the war then it is over, so if either are in then it might be worthwhile fighting on.

[Bill101]

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.

Hi Cerberus1775

This is an interesting concept which I first became aware of many years ago watching John Reed at the start of the film Reds, when he's explaining to Louise Bryant why the US entered the war.

But I've found it hard to find direct and strong evidence showing that the need to have their debts repaid could have, on its own, led to the US entering the war.

I'd be interested to read anything that might cover it, as most of what I've read about the US entrance into WWI focuses almost solely on the naval campaigns and Zimmermann Telegram.

That said, we do also include in the main campaign a 1-2% per-turn mobilization towards the Entente once Russia has left the war, so as to represent this growing concern at the Entente situation in Europe.

From the 1st June 1917, the USA also has a 50% chance of moving towards the Entente by 1-2% per turn.

Together, these would take a long time to bring the US into the war, but coupled with other triggers it would certainly speed up the process.

I'll add this information, along with the details of the decision about the Preparedness Movement into the New Player thread.

Bill

[OneRing]

I do not think that the US woud have entered the war because of the debt issue. Until 1917 all British and french debt was backed up with collateral. If Britain and france had lost the war up until then the US could have liquidated those assets and would have lost nothing. Only after they entered the war they gave credit without collateral. Before entering the war the decision-makers seemed to be inclined not to give Britain credit without any collateral of which the UK was running out. So there is some evidence that the US entry really saved the UK from bankruptcy, too. One could also argue, the the US might have thought about entering the war to keep their economy rolling, because their trade and economic boom was closely related to the entente war effort. Nonetheless I think that the Us not entering the war is more likely.

I think Hew Strachan discuss some of these points in To Arms. This part was also published seperately under the title Financing the First World War.

[Cerberus1775]

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

[Bill101]

Hi Neel

Thanks very much for taking the time to find and type up this information.

Where I think we have to be careful is that if the automatic pressures within the game for the USA to enter the war are too strong, i.e. to protect their financial interests in the Entente, then it renders the German decision on whether or not to use unrestricted naval warfare less important.

Generally, in my experience those playing the Central Powers tend to feel that they should be pretty much in control in determining whether or not the USA will enter the war.

This is based on what is generally accepted to have happened, as the US authorities didn't give their financial interests in an Entente victory anything like as much publicity as they did to the Zimmermann Telegram and German U-Boat attacks.

The question is then, is there a way to incorporate protection of US financial interests into the game more, without causing any friction to those playing the Central Powers?

Given that there are already scripts in place to move the USA towards the Entente when Russia withdraws from the war, one idea that has come to mind is to add in something similar for when France or the UK's National Morale have fallen below 25%.

If both France and the UK are below 25% then it would have a cumulative effect, and coupled with the Russian pull out would swing the USA towards the Entente at 3-6% a turn. But usually only France's will fall this low, so in all likelihood we're looking at 2-4% a turn.

Given that this would occur in what would almost certainly be the later stages of the game, the USA would still be very likely to enter the war too late to affect the result considerably. That is, providing her mobilization is due to financial concerns alone.

But by doing this, would we still be taking too much control out of the Central Powers' player's hands?

Or, should the above, if introduced, replace the below that is currently in the game?

US Concern at the situation in Europe

From the 1st June 1917, the USA has a 50% chance of moving towards the Entente by 1-2% per turn, representing her concern at the situation in Europe and her interest in an Entente victory.

Bill

[Cerberus1775]

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

[TheDeadeye]

Interesting info contained within this thread but on another note here, does the AI as CP effectively use subs and especially does the AI actually initiate and maintain unrestricted warfare against a Entente human player?

I am asking because I am a bit concerned that the AI uses its subs primarily to damage Entente ships, which is fine overall BUT when there are no Entente ships out in the open seas to hunt down, does it refocus on the sub wafare?

I don´t think I have seen the AI effectively use its subs in a convoy raiding pattern instead of trying to hunt down Capital and other combat ships.

Can anyone, or perhaps Bill, give their insights into this?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi TheDeadeye,

The AI should be using its subs to conduct convoy raiding as this is automatically handled by the game engine but it may have a hard time getting its subs through the Channel and out and around Scapa Flow depending on how the British and French navies have set themeselves up. Even air cover over the channel will have the German subs behaving more cautiously and in the end its most likely target would be that in the North Sea between the UK and Russia.

In terms of hunting down Capital ships it may be the case that the subs bumped into a capital ship or that they were in the area and joined a naval fleet engagement but they don't specifically go after Capital ships in terms of game engine behaviour.

I hope this helps,

Hubert