Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Victory conditions Options · View
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:22:59 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I was thinking about how to somewhat alter the way vcitory points are calculated. I'm yet to figure formulla which calculates total score from prestiege, industry score and military score (it may be simple, don't know), but if we alter is to for example weight prestiege more, character of the game would change, which could be good. If prestiege is more important, people would be more willing to fight wars for prestiege rather than splitting pops all the time. Wink
Virtokaii
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:12:31 PM
 Legionarius
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/6/2007
Posts: 21
Location: Germany
Well, it's kinda hard to make a net gain in prestige when fighting a great war, so I doubt that'll change much. Besides, I'd assume many people play to make their nation more powerful or the most powerful, which is a little different than playing for points, albeit only a little in that the only thing that is not appropriately represented is export income. Other than that, the current point system fairly accurately describes a nation's power.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:35:34 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I've refreshed my memory how to figure out variables from equations with multiple variables and found ot staggering truth:

Victory Points = (Prestiege / 2) + (Industrial Score) + (Military Score)

When you have negative prestiege, it's completely omitted from final score.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:41:25 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Virtokaii wrote:
Well, it's kinda hard to make a net gain in prestige when fighting a great war, so I doubt that'll change much. Besides, I'd assume many people play to make their nation more powerful or the most powerful, which is a little different than playing for points, albeit only a little in that the only thing that is not appropriately represented is export income. Other than that, the current point system fairly accurately describes a nation's power.

If people aimed for peace conditions demanding humiliation of defeated, I guess prestiege gain can be interesting even in great wars. Sure that people play to make their nation more powerful, but apart from Germany or UK, there is no other candidate for win. Current system might represent nations power, but might not reflect nation's achievement. Maybe we'll have to make final VP calculation far more complicated or make it per capita/province/or something like that. To Give smaller coutnries like Austria or OE chance for honourable win. It's not that hard to win with UK using current system, but if we alter it and make it relatiove to country population/size, it might be different. It'll be just another incentive people might take into account.
Virtokaii
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:51:58 PM
 Legionarius
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/6/2007
Posts: 21
Location: Germany
Agreed, but you forgot to include Russia as contender for the number one spot. ;-)
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:07:22 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Virtokaii wrote:
Agreed, but you forgot to include Russia as contender for the number one spot. ;-)

Ah sorry, that's just because I had Russia indentified with Anders... One Tooth Grin
Valdemar
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:30:11 PM
 Corporal
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 87
Location: Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Well, I'm about to make yet another unpopular suggestion that will be poop-pooped and ignored but will later be adopted after hard lessons are learned. LOL!

Prestige serves a useful purpose for determining who goes first on the world market, and for enabling (or disabling) a nation to undertake diplomatic actions, but the idea that prestige translates to actual power is ludicrous. All that matters is economy and military. Thats it. The Russians, both under the Tsars and under the Communists, had always had very low prestige and no one would have paid them any attention at all, but they used their military might to force people to do as they wished or give some weight to their actions. And nations did pay them attention, because they had a large military (and later an economy geared almost entirely to make war).

Likewise, the USA has enjoyed large prestige for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, but had a tiny military from 1776 right to 1945, which is why no one in Europe paid us any attention and why we were attacked during WWI and WWII - because we were militarily weak. But everyone knows who is the top dog on the block now, and that is because the USA maintains a relatively large, high-technology military and because our annual GDP is 13 TRILLION dollars a year. People pay attention to us, not through prestige, because the USA is universally hated, but because we'll use our economic and military might to bury our enemies. It really is that simple.

You all know from your own games that what really makes diplomatic actions count is the credible use of military force to back up the claims and demands. I could have all the prestige in the world, but if I maintain a small military and I demand you stop doing something I don't like, how much weight will you give it? You might pay attention if my economy is very powerful and I can build a strong military quickly, but my prestige will mean nothing to you, right? It is the actual (military) and potential (economy) force I can muster that you will cause you to pay attention.

So, I recommend that you discount prestige completely when determining victory points.

Regards,
Valdemar

"Tell my mother that, when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. She'll understand that." - Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan
Stalins Elite
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:38:49 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/16/2007
Posts: 1,000
Location: Under your mum's bed!!!
Valdemar wrote:
Well, I'm about to make yet another unpopular suggestion that will be poop-pooped and ignored but will later be adopted after hard lessons are learned. LOL!

Prestige serves a useful purpose for determining who goes first on the world market, and for enabling (or disabling) a nation to undertake diplomatic actions, but the idea that prestige translates to actual power is ludicrous. All that matters is economy and military. Thats it. The Russians, both under the Tsars and under the Communists, had always had very low prestige and no one would have paid them any attention at all, but they used their military might to force people to do as they wished or give some weight to their actions. And nations did pay them attention, because they had a large military (and later an economy geared almost entirely to make war).

Likewise, the USA has enjoyed large prestige for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, but had a tiny military from 1776 right to 1945, which is why no one in Europe paid us any attention and why we were attacked during WWI and WWII - because we were militarily weak. But everyone knows who is the top dog on the block now, and that is because the USA maintains a relatively large, high-technology military and because our annual GDP is 13 TRILLION dollars a year. People pay attention to us, not through prestige, because the USA is universally hated, but because we'll use our economic and military might to bury our enemies. It really is that simple.

You all know from your own games that what really makes diplomatic actions count is the credible use of military force to back up the claims and demands. I could have all the prestige in the world, but if I maintain a small military and I demand you stop doing something I don't like, how much weight will you give it? You might pay attention if my economy is very powerful and I can build a strong military quickly, but my prestige will mean nothing to you, right? It is the actual (military) and potential (economy) force I can muster that you will cause you to pay attention.

So, I recommend that you discount prestige completely when determining victory points.

Regards,
Valdemar



Honestly I couldn't aggree more. How were the very first Kingdoms and empires created in the world. They were forged at the tip of a sword. How did one muster enough swords to forge an empire, not through prestige, wealth is the only real answer. Hence military and economy. SE.

A favourite little quote from another Empire building game that I play (Rome Total War). Above all else, an abundance of silver makes all wars go smoothly. Economy.

The strong took what they willed, and the weak suffered what they must. Military.

Admiral Kutzenov - The Cold War lives.



Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:36:19 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Valdemar wrote:
Well, I'm about to make yet another unpopular suggestion that will be poop-pooped and ignored but will later be adopted after hard lessons are learned. LOL!
...

Regards,
Valdemar

I can only agree, thought I'd give prestiege little more credit in the game terms. Here are my reasons:

Military score does not reflect country's actual might. Someone can have lot of worthless ships which wouldn't be able to hurt single enemy vessel, but they still count. If someone has top-notch army with lot of brigades and best doctrines, but his standing army is 10times smaller than army of some overpopulated country where almost nobody can read & write, he got's fragment of military score of backwards country. So, until military score reflects real relative power of armies, we have to fix it somehow. One way how to do it is through prestiege.

If someone gets high prestiege due to cultural techs, military strong power which rather focused on army techs can prevent him from taking victory by simply attacking him and humiliating him. (you can always fabricate some cassus belli Wink)
M&M
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:15:07 AM
 General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 2,335
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Lord Ederon wrote:
If prestiege is more important, people would be more willing to fight wars for prestiege rather than splitting pops all the time. Wink

Speak for yourself, the italian goverment realises the importance of being the most prestigious nation amongst you filthy peasants & hostile vagrants Teasing.

Quote:
You all know from your own games that what really makes diplomatic actions count is the credible use of military force to back up the claims and demands.

Absolutely, for example anders repeated threats were not taken seriously due to him failing to back it up several times. But I wouldn't blame him, getting invaded by france quite a distance away as well as getting satellited by germany does tend to have its effect on any threatning behavior Tongue.

As for fixing prestige, we could always engineer our own custom events for prestige gain & reduction. Military & economical might are all indicators of a nations power or prestige. Another thing for example is wars, the austrian & russian race for jerusalem was a prime example for one that deserved prestige.

Finally I think the Nile & pole expeditions as well as suez & panama should get alot more prestige.
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:21:05 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Valdemar wrote:
which is why no one in Europe paid us any attention and why we were attacked during WWI and WWII - because we were militarily weak.

Slight nitpick: No-one attacked the USA in WWI.

And I agree that Prestige shouldn't count.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Valdemar
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:43:42 AM
 Corporal
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 87
Location: Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Anders wrote:
Slight nitpick: No-one attacked the USA in WWI.

And I agree that Prestige shouldn't count.


Yes, the United States was attacked directly (on at least two occasions that I can think of off the top of my head) and we were the subject of actions which constituted acts of war. The Zimmerman telegram was considered an act of war by even the weakest liberals and German agents blew up a factory and a warehouse (two separate attacks) that caused major damage and some loss of life. The sinking of RMS Lusitania, in which about 120 Americans were killed was widely viewed by the American public as a cause for war and turned our public sentiments from slightly pro-Allied to unbridled support for the Allies (some parts of the country were pro-German before the Lusitania). If we'd hadn't had a naive communist college professor for President (Woodrow Wilson) the USA would have surely entered the war sooner than it did. Those attacks and schemes would likely not have occurred if the USA had had a credible defense (and/or a President with balls).

Long story short, the USA was indeed most certainly attacked before our entry into WWI and it was the sum of those provocations that led to war.

Reference the military score issue: If you want to weight military and economic technology to compensate for the game's poor methods of calculating victory points, that would be a good idea, but you can do that without using prestige.

Regards,
Valdemar

"Tell my mother that, when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. She'll understand that." - Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan
M&M
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:19:03 AM
 General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 2,335
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
I really don't see why everyone is so anxious to take prestige out of the equation. Just because a certain game aspect isn't really all that effective in its purpose doesn't mean we should drop it entirely Crazy, if anything we should try to fix it much like we're trying to fix everything else.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:56:37 AM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Valdemar wrote:
Reference the military score issue: If you want to weight military and economic technology to compensate for the game's poor methods of calculating victory points, that would be a good idea, but you can do that without using prestige.

Prestiege can be easily altered using game mechanics - i.e. wars. Powerful country lacking prestiege can robb other waker or weak countries of it using rough power. That's why I want to include it. That way, you military would have to be proven in battle. Otherwise you could have big army with good tech, but nobody would believe you are able to use it properly.
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:44:34 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Ed, I got -100 on a peacedeal with you, and II think I didn't lose more than a single TP. And I wasn't even the one who DOWed.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Stalins Elite
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:29:26 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/16/2007
Posts: 1,000
Location: Under your mum's bed!!!
Valdemar wrote:
Yes, the United States was attacked directly (on at least two occasions that I can think of off the top of my head) and we were the subject of actions which constituted acts of war. The Zimmerman telegram was considered an act of war by even the weakest liberals and German agents blew up a factory and a warehouse (two separate attacks) that caused major damage and some loss of life. The sinking of RMS Lusitania, in which about 120 Americans were killed was widely viewed by the American public as a cause for war and turned our public sentiments from slightly pro-Allied to unbridled support for the Allies (some parts of the country were pro-German before the Lusitania). If we'd hadn't had a naive communist college professor for President (Woodrow Wilson) the USA would have surely entered the war sooner than it did. Those attacks and schemes would likely not have occurred if the USA had had a credible defense (and/or a President with balls).

Long story short, the USA was indeed most certainly attacked before our entry into WWI and it was the sum of those provocations that led to war.

Reference the military score issue: If you want to weight military and economic technology to compensate for the game's poor methods of calculating victory points, that would be a good idea, but you can do that without using prestige.

Regards,
Valdemar



Hate to break it to you Anders, but the hill billy Reb is right. If I am correct it was the German torpedoing of the Lusitania that was the last straw and caused the Yanks to join the war. There were several warnings issued to Germany from America saying that any direct or non direct attacks against American civilian or military targets by any Central alliance powers would be deemed a provacation and act of war. Due to America's lack of credibility and 'PRESTIGE' amongst the international community, they obviously were not taken seriously. SE.

Admiral Kutzenov - The Cold War lives.



Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:40:14 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Anders wrote:
Ed, I got -100 on a peacedeal with you, and II think I didn't lose more than a single TP. And I wasn't even the one who DOWed.

You DoW'ed me, not vice versa. I don't know what you lost, but you certainly lost respect in my eyes (as Czar of Russia) Wink
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:06:37 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
I didn't DOW anyone, that's the problem. I Joined China's alliance, and that automatically made Russia at war with Spain.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:09:04 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Anders wrote:
I didn't DOW anyone, that's the problem. I Joined China's alliance, and that automatically made Russia at war with Spain.

Well, than you probably shouldn't join them. Anyway, I think Russia deserved loss of prestiege more than Spain Wink
Anders
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:52:05 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
That's entirely subjective, Ed.


"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:58:16 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Anders wrote:
That's entirely subjective, Ed.

I don't say it isn't. Besides, in either case you'd have lost 100 prestiege or more ships. It was your call.

EDIT: But I suggest we continue "shootouts" on this topic in Vicky II forum. Smile
Valdemar
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:22:57 PM
 Corporal
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 87
Location: Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Stalins Elite wrote:
Hate to break it to you Anders, but the hill billy Reb is right. If I am correct it was the German torpedoing of the Lusitania that was the last straw and caused the Yanks to join the war. There were several warnings issued to Germany from America saying that any direct or non direct attacks against American civilian or military targets by any Central alliance powers would be deemed a provacation and act of war. Due to America's lack of credibility and 'PRESTIGE' amongst the international community, they obviously were not taken seriously. SE.


Hillbilly rebel??? Anyway, the two things that sent Wilson to Congress to ask for a declaration of war, were the Zimmermann Telegram and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in early 1917. The Lusitania and other acts of war were definitely on the minds of all, but these two events were the final straws.

Interesting note: The United States did not join the alliance formally drafted by the aptly named Allies. We had a separate war with Germany and officially declared ourselves co-belligerents, much like Finland did with Germany in WWII to distance itself from German ideology and war aims. While I have little regard for Wilson, this act was almost prescient considering the cynical politics of the peace settlement and it was clear that American and Allied policies and war aims were quite different.

To the point, the use of prestige to demonstrate military use and skill is suspect. I sympathize with your reasoning, Lord Ed, but as pointed out the prestige granted and taken away by the game in war can have some very unrealistic results. Another point, is that I would support your idea if the demonstration of military prowess was against another major power but beating up on a minor is hardly being battle tested for purposes that you propose.

It is good to discuss these things, I think. Most folks offer good ideas and have good intentions of making the game better.

Regards,
Valdemar



"Tell my mother that, when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. She'll understand that." - Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan
sonofliberty
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:48:37 PM
Free Man

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 4,329
I disagree about removing the effects of prestige from the game. It gives you a way to achieve a good game score without having to go to war all the time. At it's heart, vicky is not about war. I believe this should be reflected in the scoring.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
Stalins Elite
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:39:21 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/16/2007
Posts: 1,000
Location: Under your mum's bed!!!
Valdemar wrote:
Hillbilly rebel??? Anyway, the two things that sent Wilson to Congress to ask for a declaration of war, were the Zimmermann Telegram and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in early 1917. The Lusitania and other acts of war were definitely on the minds of all, but these two events were the final straws.

Interesting note: The United States did not join the alliance formally drafted by the aptly named Allies. We had a separate war with Germany and officially declared ourselves co-belligerents, much like Finland did with Germany in WWII to distance itself from German ideology and war aims. While I have little regard for Wilson, this act was almost prescient considering the cynical politics of the peace settlement and it was clear that American and Allied policies and war aims were quite different.

To the point, the use of prestige to demonstrate military use and skill is suspect. I sympathize with your reasoning, Lord Ed, but as pointed out the prestige granted and taken away by the game in war can have some very unrealistic results. Another point, is that I would support your idea if the demonstration of military prowess was against another major power but beating up on a minor is hardly being battle tested for purposes that you propose.

It is good to discuss these things, I think. Most folks offer good ideas and have good intentions of making the game better.

Regards,
Valdemar



Yes these points are very true in regards to America and the Allies war goals. Naturally WW1 started due to the assasination of Arduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian extremist. As a result Austria-Hungary declared universal mobilization and DOW'd Serbia. Russia had a defense pact with Serbia and choose to honour it's pact and declared mobilization and DOW'd Austria. Germany who had a defense pact (I'm pretty certain this is correct) with Austria mobilized and Dow'd Russia. This sore some of the biggest cavalry battles in the history of the world which pitted the 2 best cavalry forces (the Austrian/German Hussar armies and the Russian Cossack armies), against one another in a series of deadly and catostrophic battles for both sides. This is were it get's interesting and my history of the situation get's patchy. UK and France DOW'd Germany and Austria. I have read sources that said it was because they feared that Russia and Serbia would collapse against the combined might of both Austria and Germany hence unbalancing the power on the European mainland. I have also read sources that say they declared war because during the early 1900's. Not only was Germany growing as one of, if not the largest military and industrial power in the world. But they were also growing into quite a large and powerful colonial power which threatened to unbalance the UK and Frances positions as the largest powers in the world in respect to colonial territories. So as it would seem, the allies as such were not quite the same as the allies of WW2 which fought for liberation and the end to tyranny and oppression of the European continent under the control of the Nazi jag boot. They were merely fighting as a means to maintain they're hold and they're own oppressive ways over they're own colonial empires. So I guess that the treaty of versailles which condemned Germany and blamed them for starting WW1 could be argued against, I beleive Adolf Hitler referred to it as the 'Slave Treaty of Versailles'. Technically if I have my facts correct, Germany like Russia was coming to an aide of a friend and ally, while Britain and France were merely oppurtunists. SE.

Admiral Kutzenov - The Cold War lives.



sonofliberty
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:46:05 PM
Free Man

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 4,329
Stalins Elite wrote:
Yes these points are very true in regards to America and the Allies war goals. Naturally WW1 started due to the assasination of Arduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian extremist. As a result Austria-Hungary declared universal mobilization and DOW'd Serbia. Russia had a defense pact with Serbia and choose to honour it's pact and declared mobilization and DOW'd Austria. Germany who had a defense pact (I'm pretty certain this is correct) with Austria mobilized and Dow'd Russia. This sore some of the biggest cavalry battles in the history of the world which pitted the 2 best cavalry forces (the Austrian/German Hussar armies and the Russian Cossack armies), against one another in a series of deadly and catostrophic battles for both sides. This is were it get's interesting and my history of the situation get's patchy. UK and France DOW'd Germany and Austria. I have read sources that said it was because they feared that Russia and Serbia would collapse against the combined might of both Austria and Germany hence unbalancing the power on the European mainland. I have also read sources that say they declared war because during the early 1900's. Not only was Germany growing as one of, if not the largest military and industrial power in the world. But they were also growing into quite a large and powerful colonial power which threatened to unbalance the UK and Frances positions as the largest powers in the world in respect to colonial territories. So as it would seem, the allies as such were not quite the same as the allies of WW2 which fought for liberation and the end to tyranny and oppression of the European continent under the control of the Nazi jag boot. They were merely fighting as a means to maintain they're hold and they're own oppressive ways over they're own colonial empires. So I guess that the treaty of versailles which condemned Germany and blamed them for starting WW1 could be argued against, I beleive Adolf Hitler referred to it as the 'Slave Treaty of Versailles'. Technically if I have my facts correct, Germany like Russia was coming to an aide of a friend and ally, while Britain and France were merely oppurtunists. SE.
My understanding of the underlying causes of ww1 parallel yours, though I believe there may be more to it. One of my conspiracy theories I would be happy to discuss in offtopic, not here.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.