WW1 Breakthrough Ostaufmarsch - Questions

[OneRing]

So, after I fiddled quite a long time with the Strategic Command Demo, I abandoned it, because I thought something like the Ostaufmarsch would not be possible.

After Breakthrough came out, I seized the opportunity and bought the bundle.

Now I am on my second playthrough (still beginners, to practice) and I have questions and a little bit of criticism:

1. Why does the US protest the sinking of its merchant mans, although I have never sent a U-boat to those places marked with a USA-flag and NM on the map? I even avoided to hunt on the USA-UK convoy lane altogether. I just hunted on the Canada-UK and the Empire-UK lanes and far off from those aforementioned marks. So why get I these protests?

2. In the peace of Brest-Litovsk, Romania received Bessarabia, although they never participated in the war on the side of the Central Powers. Maybe one can argue that there could be such a gain on the diplomatic table, but why the hell is Romania's belligerence even increasing towards the entente after they have received such a massive gain due to the Central Powers victory over Russia?

[CSS]

The british blockaded Germany and starved near a Million Germans, The Germans sank merchant shipping which caused ships and men to die.Blockading was stopping ships from reaching Germany relativly clean looking VS seeing a ship sunk and the crew in cold north Altlantic waters freezing to death.

That is why the US get angy at the sub war.

Bessarabia went to romania after the treaty of versialle. How ever it cane after Germanys defeat.

[OneRing]

The british blockaded Germany and starved near a Million Germans, The Germans sank merchant shipping which caused ships and men to die.Blockading was stopping ships from reaching Germany relativly clean looking VS seeing a ship sunk and the crew in cold north Altlantic waters freezing to death.

That is why the US get angy at the sub war.

Bessarabia went to romania after the treaty of versialle. How ever it cane after Germanys defeat.

First of all, thank you for your answer!

But that was not my question.

1. I have studied the history of ww1 pretty intensively, including the years leading up to the war, so in know what happened in real life. I was talking about certain game events which makes no or only very limited sense in an alternative timeline where thing develop differently.

2. In my campaign I am playing right now I explicitly refrained from attacking US ships and the USA-UK ship lane. I just concentrated on the UK lanes connecting it with its dominions and the empire. Maybe the game calculates the risk that any submarine activity in the atlantic can cause an accidental attack on a US merchant man. If so, than I understand the game message. But the original advice of the strategy guide suggests that only subs placed at the specific merchant man icons conduct unrestricted submarine warfare and thus could bring the US into the war. So my question still stands, a bug or a feature? If the latter it should be incorporated into the

3. I know what happened historically with Bessarabia. But the campaign should include alternative developments, for example if Russia is defeated before Romania enters the war at all, it is highly unlikely that it will ever enter the war. And it is also unlikely that it will gain Bessarabia, if it was not in the war against Russia together wit the Central Powers. So this is really difficult to explain as a game event.

[xwormwood]

1. Why does the US protest the sinking of its merchant mans, although I have never sent a U-boat to those places marked with a USA-flag and NM on the map? I even avoided to hunt on the USA-UK convoy lane altogether. I just hunted on the Canada-UK and the Empire-UK lanes and far off from those aforementioned marks. So why get I these protests?

Hi OneRing, and welcome to the Forum!

The american flag marks only those tiles which trigger the unrestricted sub-warfare. And the unrestricted sub-warfare endanger trade profits big time, therefor the USA gets pretty upset about it.

BUT this is as well true if you "only" attack the standard convoy lines.

If you attack the UK convoy lines, than there is a chance that the USA gets upset about it. NOT AS MUCH AS IF YOU START THE UNRESTRICTED SUB WARFARE, of course. The american flag is more or less a warning sign for the CP player, remembering him about the fact that these tiles are those where the CP player can (don't has to, there is a decision event asking you what you wanna do) start the unrestricted sub warfare.

Long story short: every attack on a convoy line can upset the USA. But unrestricted sub warfare WILL upset the USA.

[xwormwood]

So, after I fiddled quite a long time with the Strategic Command Demo, I abandoned it, because I thought something like the Ostaufmarsch would not be possible.

After Breakthrough came out, I seized the opportunity and bought the bundle.

Now I am on my second playthrough (still beginners, to practice) and I have questions and a little bit of criticism:

2. In the peace of Brest-Litovsk, Romania received Bessarabia, although they never participated in the war on the side of the Central Powers. Maybe one can argue that there could be such a gain on the diplomatic table, but why the hell is Romania's belligerence even increasing towards the entente after they have received such a massive gain due to the Central Powers victory over Russia?

Here a link to wikipedia.

Even if the Romanians would have surrendered, during the Chaos of the Russian Revolution they would have gotten their bite from the plunder. I don't think that this is an unrealistic scenario.

[OneRing]

Here a link to wikipedia.

Even if the Romanians would have surrendered, during the Chaos of the Russian Revolution they would have gotten their bite from the plunder. I don't think that this is an unrealistic scenario.

Thanks for explaining the sub-warfare part. Maybe the warning in the strategy section should be expanded to include this detail.

As to Bessarabia: Sure, that is a possibility, but through their own initiative and not as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Event chain should then go: Bessarabia declares independence, and after a few months you get an event which unites Bessarabia with Romania.

The way it is now, it makes only sense if they were in the war together with the CP. And if you give them these gains as part of the treaty, then at least lower their belligerence accordingly. After all it is a gift of the CP.

And it is still not an explanation why Romania would go to war with the CPs, when Russia is already out of the war - thoroughly beaten (and Serbia, too, btw). They are surrounded by A-H, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. And tey have all troops in the east No longer bound by Russian troops. There is no chance that the Allies, especially the Russians, could alleviate their situation. Instead they would have to face the brunt of the returning forces from the eastern front. Call it suicide.

This gives the CP also an unfair advantage in MPPs and NM events.

[Bill101]

Hi OneRing

Romania annexed Bessarabia in the wake of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, less than a week later in fact, and took it even though they had been fighting on the side of the Entente.

At the time of taking Bessarabia the Romanians were effectively neutral, having signed an armistice in December 1917. But I see no reason why they wouldn't have taken it if they had still been at war with the Central Powers at the time.

I've checked the scripts regarding Romanian mobilization, and all require Russia to be in the war, or for the Entente to be doing well in the Balkans or at Gallipoli.

Has something happened in your game that doesn't follow any of these situations, i.e. Romania is mobilizing and joining the Entente in circumstances where Russia has been knocked out and the Central Powers are standing strong in the Balkans?

Though if not there is always the possibility of your opponent using diplomacy to activate Romania, as it is a good country to bring into the war on the Entente's side. The use of diplomacy isn't defined by the military and political situation so perhaps this might explain things?

You can check the reports screen and look at the Graphs to see if your opponent is investing in diplomacy.

I'll see about adding something in to the Guide about any German naval activity in the Atlantic risking some minor upsets to the USA. It is historical as US merchantmen sailed all over the place, and is counterbalanced by the US getting upset at the Entente's blockade of Germany.

Bill

[OneRing]

Hi OneRing

Romania annexed Bessarabia in the wake of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, less than a week later in fact, and took it even though they had been fighting on the side of the Entente.

At the time of taking Bessarabia the Romanians were effectively neutral, having signed an armistice in December 1917. But I see no reason why they wouldn't have taken it if they had still been at war with the Central Powers at the time.

I've checked the scripts regarding Romanian mobilization, and all require Russia to be in the war, or for the Entente to be doing well in the Balkans or at Gallipoli.

Has something happened in your game that doesn't follow any of these situations, i.e. Romania is mobilizing and joining the Entente in circumstances where Russia has been knocked out and the Central Powers are standing strong in the Balkans?

Though if not there is always the possibility of your opponent using diplomacy to activate Romania, as it is a good country to bring into the war on the Entente's side. The use of diplomacy isn't defined by the military and political situation so perhaps this might explain things?

You can check the reports screen and look at the Graphs to see if your opponent is investing in diplomacy.

I'll see about adding something in to the Guide about any German naval activity in the Atlantic risking some minor upsets to the USA. It is historical as US merchantmen sailed all over the place, and is counterbalanced by the US getting upset at the Entente's blockade of Germany.

Bill

Thank you for the indepth reply.

I still think that the message regarding Bessarabia is confusing, because it mentions the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which led me to the wrong conclusion that Romania was awarded the territory by said treaty. I understand your reasoning behind Romania annexing it on their own in the wake of the Russian revolution, but I think that an event message chain like this would make things more clear:

Chaos in Russia/Russian revolution

Bessarabia declares independence

Followed by or right away:

Chaos in Russia/Russian revolution/Opportunistic Move

Romania unites with Bessarabia/Romania annexes Bessarabia

As I said, Russia went out of the war through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in August 1916. Their morale was in free fall right from the beginning of the war and the losses they incurred were the highest of the whole entente, 100 land units alone. They never occupied the relevant NM objectives in A-H and Serbia was confined to the deep south. Gallipoli never happened, Salonika is under siege. Only Montenegro and Albania still stand unscathed by CP troops so far.

It could be a diplomacy chit used by the AI, which indeed would explain the strange behaviour. I thought because of the big leaps Romania made in belligerence that it might have been a trigger by the game. It looked just rather stupid because Romania is surrounded by 12 corps with attached HQs who just returned from the no longer existing Russian front and were crushed in no time.

I understand the reasoning for the US being upset. I was just astonished that there was no warning included in the strategic advice and I thought I have done something wrong. Will the US also get upset by raiding the Mediterranean convoys?

Thanks again for the reply.

[Bill101]

Naval activities in the Med will not upset the US, so you can use your U-Boats and even surface vessels to their utmost there.

I'll take a look at updating the Bessarabia text, and also the guide regarding the US being disturbed by German naval activity in the Atlantic.

[OneRing]

Naval activities in the Med will not upset the US, so you can use your U-Boats and even surface vessels to their utmost there.

I'll take a look at updating the Bessarabia text, and also the guide regarding the US being disturbed by German naval activity in the Atlantic.

Thank you again for your nice reply! Great to see, how you uys care for the community!