If people want to mod the game to better reflect things naval, the first thing to ask is the question posed above. The answer is not all that difficult. Limited!
In the Great War sea power was what we call today an "enabling" element. It enabled the Entente to win the war. How?
First, there was the blockade, which wore Germany down. In the game the blockade is not simulated at all.
Second, there was Entente sea control, which allowed everything, including millions of American troops, to cross the Atlantic, largely unmolested.
Third, there was the foolish German decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare, a decision they knew would bring in the US.
Beyond that, navies did very little.
The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz
Re: The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
millions of usa troops? its not ww2 
there apparantly also was a succesful naval campaign of the brits in the baltic, but it wasnt unrestricted.
i think the game should give the players the option to a) do a restricted subwarfare or b) unrestricted subwarfare. the unrestricted warfare should also affect the morale of the brits if its succesful for the germans, because besides to a relative large amount of tonnage sunk compared to subs lost the campaign was quite succesful and also had an impact on the homefront i think.
there were also subs in the med, although the theatre was a bit quiet compared to the atlantic.
but regardless, 2 things should be distinguished a) the historical part b) the gaming part. the gamers should have the means to fight a different war within certain historical limits. a player should have the means to make a navy useful without having some sort of ahistoric powerful fleet. now however there is just no way to make the navy useful for the CP with the small exception of sometimes being able to harrass Petrograd if you manage to sink the russian navy there.
i agree that some way to portray the british blockade would add that dimension which might make naval warfare something you would HAVE to deal with. the germans would want to break the blockade, thus invest more in the navy to catch a brit player offguard and once broken the germans would become more powerful. the brits would like to avoid that so in turn be wary of any surprises set by the germans. but with how naval warfare is now, its quite predictable and straightforward so there is no way i see it working now.
on a side note, i think you are wrong to say the role of naval powers were limited, id agree more with pete, the contol of the seas was ultimately decisive, the blockade crippled germany, the british naval superiority made the german navy useless and just a drain of a lot of supplies. ultimately the naval superiority was much like what air superiority has been later and now (although perhaps now we came to the era where its really about nuclear weapons but still in campaigns such as afganistan, those who control the skies will ultimately win the war. you are right though that its not a direct effect, you still need soldiers on the ground to have control.
there apparantly also was a succesful naval campaign of the brits in the baltic, but it wasnt unrestricted.
i think the game should give the players the option to a) do a restricted subwarfare or b) unrestricted subwarfare. the unrestricted warfare should also affect the morale of the brits if its succesful for the germans, because besides to a relative large amount of tonnage sunk compared to subs lost the campaign was quite succesful and also had an impact on the homefront i think.
there were also subs in the med, although the theatre was a bit quiet compared to the atlantic.
but regardless, 2 things should be distinguished a) the historical part b) the gaming part. the gamers should have the means to fight a different war within certain historical limits. a player should have the means to make a navy useful without having some sort of ahistoric powerful fleet. now however there is just no way to make the navy useful for the CP with the small exception of sometimes being able to harrass Petrograd if you manage to sink the russian navy there.
i agree that some way to portray the british blockade would add that dimension which might make naval warfare something you would HAVE to deal with. the germans would want to break the blockade, thus invest more in the navy to catch a brit player offguard and once broken the germans would become more powerful. the brits would like to avoid that so in turn be wary of any surprises set by the germans. but with how naval warfare is now, its quite predictable and straightforward so there is no way i see it working now.
on a side note, i think you are wrong to say the role of naval powers were limited, id agree more with pete, the contol of the seas was ultimately decisive, the blockade crippled germany, the british naval superiority made the german navy useless and just a drain of a lot of supplies. ultimately the naval superiority was much like what air superiority has been later and now (although perhaps now we came to the era where its really about nuclear weapons but still in campaigns such as afganistan, those who control the skies will ultimately win the war. you are right though that its not a direct effect, you still need soldiers on the ground to have control.
Last edited by Umeu on Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677
-
stockwellpete
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14501
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
But equally you could argue that your first and second points were decisive - the blockade of Germany and the relatively free movement of supplies and soldiers for the Entente really forced Germany to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and to take the gamble at Jutland. If Germany had managed to take control of the North Sea then the Central Powers would have won the war.
Re: The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
stockwellpete wrote:But equally you could argue that your first and second points were decisive - the blockade of Germany and the relatively free movement of supplies and soldiers for the Entente really forced Germany to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and to take the gamble at Jutland. If Germany had managed to take control of the North Sea then the Central Powers would have won the war.
I agree. But it is necessary to increase the number of battleships in England and Germany, that would keep the historical proportions.
-
nimblebooks
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:48 pm
Re: The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
[quote="Hott"][quote="stockwellpete"]But equally you could argue that your first and second points were decisive - the blockade of Germany and the relatively free movement of supplies and soldiers for the Entente really forced Germany to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and to take the gamble at Jutland. If Germany had managed to take control of the North Sea then the Central Powers would have won the war.[/quote]
[b]I agree. But it is necessary to increase the number of battleships in England and Germany, that would keep the historical proportions.[/b][/quote]
Incresaing # of battleships would help deal with the excessive bloodiness of naval combat. Too often it's one battle and the fleet's gone. That's not what happened in the actual war.
[b]I agree. But it is necessary to increase the number of battleships in England and Germany, that would keep the historical proportions.[/b][/quote]
Incresaing # of battleships would help deal with the excessive bloodiness of naval combat. Too often it's one battle and the fleet's gone. That's not what happened in the actual war.
Re: The Role of Sea Power in the Great War?
I didn't get to finish this post as planned because I had to catch a plane and I've since been out of the country.
By the end of the war there were about 2 million Americans in Europe. They weren't all in France in a trench, but they had all crossed "The Pond." The German navy had proven totally incapable of interdicting this movement. At one point in mid-1918 the Americans were landing something like 10k troops per day.
Had the war continued into 1919 and beyond, as the Entente had expected, Pershing was pushing for a force of 3 million!
You can read his official postwar report here.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/pershingreport1.htm
By the end of the war there were about 2 million Americans in Europe. They weren't all in France in a trench, but they had all crossed "The Pond." The German navy had proven totally incapable of interdicting this movement. At one point in mid-1918 the Americans were landing something like 10k troops per day.
Had the war continued into 1919 and beyond, as the Entente had expected, Pershing was pushing for a force of 3 million!
You can read his official postwar report here.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/pershingreport1.htm