WesWorld

Quoted

Quoted

The problem for the Dutch in any such war is that while they might like to support the SAE, they would have to be careful that such support did not bleed into Europe: the last thing the Dutch (should) want is a war that involves the Netherlands themselves.

Agreed. Because AANM was opposed to FAR… which has always made me wonder why the Dutch were in AANM with France next door… the Dutch have worked on the home defenses, but I don’t pretend they can do much more than slow down the French. The scenario gets a bit better as Belgium would likely sit out and make the French go around.

Germany is not a likely foe, and the combination of Belgo-Dutch forces, Dutch forts, and Italy/Denmark on the edges makes that better…of course there is Nordmark.

The UK…. How the heck to avoid that? Very painful.

I figured that the Dutch were in AANM because they had the Belgians between them and the French, and the Belgians were unlikely to willingly allow the French to cross their country to engage the Dutch. Now that the Belgians are more closely allied with the Dutch, this is a bit less tenable, though the Belgians still might declare their neutrality in the event of an AANM-FAR war. Germany doesn't really want to go to war with the Dutch, though it could happen I suppose, but the spectre of such a thing should really frighten the Dutch High Command (probably why they keep talking about flooding the country).

Quoted

Quoted

However there are some points to bear in mind. While the DEI forces could wreak havoc with British forces what about Holland. The RN would clear the North Sea and Channel of every vessel with a Dutch ensign, the home ports would be blockaded, the RAF would flatten every important town and city in Holland.

Pretty much. I think the RAF’s capacity right now isn’t quite there, and perhaps the neutrals in the conflict would object, but the rest is a bad proposition for the Dutch. This actually is where a Nordmark-SAE alliance would have helped, giving significant North Sea forces. AEGIS isn’t quite as well situated, but would leave everything outside the UK in tatters….but Holland would suffer the brunt.

Nordmark would have to decide which alliance is worth more to it: it's alliance with the UK, or it's alliance with the SAE. I know which of those _I'd_ choose, but that's me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

I figured that the Dutch were in AANM because they had the Belgians between them and the French, and the Belgians were unlikely to willingly allow the French to cross their country to engage the Dutch. Now that the Belgians are more closely allied with the Dutch, this is a bit less tenable, though the Belgians still might declare their neutrality in the event of an AANM-FAR war. Germany doesn't really want to go to war with the Dutch, though it could happen I suppose, but the spectre of such a thing should really frighten the Dutch High Command (probably why they keep talking about flooding the country).

There is also a fortified line to the east, and between Belgium + NL, a substantial amount of Germany's strength.

Technically, Belgium and France were allies in WWI, and historically Belgium pulled out and went for armed nuetrality when France failed to stop Germany from disarming. This was OTL and WWTL after the Dutch joined AANM. At the very least they should have expected Belgium to let the French through.

Now of course, Belgium would solidly be nuetral in a Franco-Dutch conflict...as that keeps from the messy decisions and probably is more useful as a barrier than by actively joining the Dutch. The Queen is canny enough for that.

Quoted

Nordmark would have to decide which alliance is worth more to it: it's alliance with the UK, or it's alliance with the SAE. I know which of those _I'd_ choose, but that's me.

More to loose against the UK, but a chance to break the big power as well. Kings have personal ties that can muddle things.

I don't see FAR having any reason for fight AEGIS at present. Peru's behaving, Siam's quiet, etc etc etc.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I don't see FAR having any reason for fight AEGIS at present. Peru's behaving, Siam's quiet, etc etc etc.

Well maybe instead of SAE-NL vs UK we should be talking FAR against... ? AEGIS ? That would be messy, and also would likely spiral out as Brock observes.. so who could FAR fight? AWAY?

Actually, a Nordmark-UK-Germ vs FAR might be interesting to watch, if I ran a nation not in Europe...

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Actually, a Nordmark-UK-Germ vs FAR might be interesting to watch, if I ran a nation not in Europe...

What possible reason would FAR have for fighting one of their most likely allies?

All this peace, love, friendship, and massive alliances sucks. Only possible war seems to be SATSUMA vs someone, but it will soon turn into SATSUMA vs everyone.

To have any decent war we would have to forget alliances and have everyone just fight for what benefits them directly. Let the backstabbing begin. Actually that would be pretty interesting, especially for nations that have based their fleets on what their allies have. Ships designed to support others might soon be fighting against the ships they where designed to support...

Let the Latvia vs. Poland games commence! (jk, Marek....)

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I don't see FAR having any reason for fight AEGIS at present. Peru's behaving, Siam's quiet, etc etc etc.

Well maybe instead of SAE-NL vs UK we should be talking FAR against... ? AEGIS ? That would be messy, and also would likely spiral out as Brock observes.. so who could FAR fight? AWAY?

Actually, a Nordmark-UK-Germ vs FAR might be interesting to watch, if I ran a nation not in Europe...

Gah! OK, we sacrifice East Prussia, and punch out France as fast as possible. Then it becomes a long slog trying to get either Atlantis or Russia to fold before we do. Atlantis is ideally placed to cut off most of Britain's direct merchant traffic coming from the Med or the Caribbean, Canada, Italy and Iberia would make a killing transshipping products that the Brits need.

Yes, but once East Prussia goes the way of the Dodo, what's to say that you can take out France incredibly fast. They probebly are much improved over OTL in terms of military warfare, and tank technology isn't to the point where it can do what happened in WWII. Then, you have a repeat of WWI, with the large trench lines, but with a agressive Russian force you can't attack directly, since Germany doesn't have a amphib force.

Quoted

To have any decent war we would have to forget alliances and have everyone just fight for what benefits them directly.

Say France invades Siam. Is Italy going to declare war on France because of a signature on a piece of paper or look after it's own interests?

Quoted

They probebly are much improved over OTL in terms of military warfare, and tank technology isn't to the point where it can do what happened in WWII.

It basically comes down to whether Germany wants to invade the Netherlands/Belgium as well, or prefers Blitzkrieg through hills and across the Rhine. No idea if the Maginot line is around here, though French tanks seem to be even more limited than historically, no Char B or S35 been mentioned.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Yes, but once East Prussia goes the way of the Dodo, what's to say that you can take out France incredibly fast. They probebly are much improved over OTL in terms of military warfare, and tank technology isn't to the point where it can do what happened in WWII. Then, you have a repeat of WWI, with the large trench lines, but with a agressive Russian force you can't attack directly, since Germany doesn't have a amphib force.

Tanks are actually 3 years ahead of history, approximately. Germany is, as of 1939, fielding essentially Panzer IVGs and deciding on what changes it wants to make to the Tiger I prototypes. So Manstein's plan is definitely possible (not to mention there's no Maginot line at all), and with the Brits being allied to Germany the northern part of France is in danger from the UK.

In the East, East Prussia would have to be sacrificed, but the question then becomes what does Russia do next? Do they invade a neutral to get at Germany? Do they try to slog across eastern Nordmark (also known as Finland)? Invade down coastal Norway? Germany does not currently have an amphib force, but Nordmark does have some amphibs, and they're not a neutral in this scenario....

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

They probebly are much improved over OTL in terms of military warfare, and tank technology isn't to the point where it can do what happened in WWII.

It basically comes down to whether Germany wants to invade the Netherlands/Belgium as well, or prefers Blitzkrieg through hills and across the Rhine. No idea if the Maginot line is around here, though French tanks seem to be even more limited than historically, no Char B or S35 been mentioned.

Adm. K. has said more than once that there is no Maginot Line. Up until the much discussed AT/TT-37 heavy tank, yes, the French armored force seems to be behind the curve, but the TT-37 is a solid heavy tank design. It will be expensive, though, so can't be produced in the numbers of a medium tank.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It basically comes down to whether Germany wants to invade the Netherlands/Belgium as well, or prefers Blitzkrieg through hills and across the Rhine. No idea if the Maginot line is around here, though French tanks seem to be even more limited than historically, no Char B or S35 been mentioned.

No Maginot Line; the Somua S35 is there, as is the Char-B, and the FAR T-37/AT37 is also in French service.

In an FAR vs. GBN war, although PRJ might like to stay out it is possible they might get drawn in, depending on who is the agressor, and both sides would likely be promising things to PRJ, should they join. Poland did have treaties with Russia, Germany, and Nordmark at one time, although I am not sure if they are still in effect.

Personally, I really don't see a war between any of the European powers as likely at this point, most of them are all allied to one another against SATSUMA, and they all have too much to lose in the Far East if they all start to fight one another. In any sort of conflict in Europe, the only winner is Japan.

As for conflicts in South America, well ABC could beat down Peru I suppose, but Alex really hasn't done anything to warrant that sort of treatment. And against SAE, unless the SAE decides to stir something up, Brazil would prefer waiting till 48/49 when the third phase of their naval reconstruction is completed to start picking a fight. By that time, the game is almost over anyhow if we decide to stop at 1950.

IMO the only possible conflicts right due to the WW political situation would be an Italian-SAE fight, a Satsuma-everybody slugfest, a rematch of the South American War, a Third Balkan War and Mexico-AANM conflict.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Tanks are actually 3 years ahead of history, approximately. Germany is, as of 1939, fielding essentially Panzer IVGs and deciding on what changes it wants to make to the Tiger I prototypes. So Manstein's plan is definitely possible (not to mention there's no Maginot line at all), and with the Brits being allied to Germany the northern part of France is in danger from the UK.
.

I've simply taken Hooman's course and stopped trying to keep my land/air forces updated because the ahead of the curve designs and tech advances ...severely annoy me. If a war comes, I'll figure out whats WW "current" and magically field that.

That said, while there may not be a Maginot line, both the Dutch and Belgians have eastward pointing defenses built in the early 1930s... except for the Maasricht area which the Dutch felt was too easy to be cut off. So the Germans are strongly encouraged to head south and not swing through the lowlands this time.

Quoted

Personally, I really don't see a war between any of the European powers as likely at this point, most of them are all allied to one another against SATSUMA, and they all have too much to lose in the Far East if they all start to fight one another. In any sort of conflict in Europe, the only winner is Japan.

To a large extent thats true. The alliance structures are rather complex and are cause for things to spiral out of control.

Quoted

IMO the only possible conflicts right due to the WW political situation would be an Italian-SAE fight, a Satsuma-everybody slugfest, a rematch of the South American War, a Third Balkan War and Mexico-AANM conflict.

Italy-SAE is doable, and I supposed Iberia-SAE over Angola, a SATSUMA-everyone, the ABCs could actually pick a fight with a couple neighbors, but SAE remains the most obvious.

The PRJ and WASP would be interesting for a Black sea & Aegean showdown. Greece-Italy would be an interesting wrinkle.

Mexico-Iberia, or Mexico-AEGIS would have to start with Mexico to avoid NATO, because once the 600-lb USA gets in, ouch.

Quoted

To have any decent war we would have to forget alliances and have everyone just fight for what benefits them directly. Let the backstabbing begin. Actually that would be pretty interesting, especially for nations that have based their fleets on what their allies have. Ships designed to support others might soon be fighting against the ships they where designed to support...

Interesting but a bit late. The Dutch do presume certain fleet roles can be best met by allied units, and the fact AEGIS controls the gates to the Red Sea, Med, Carrib, Panama, and Indian-Pacific routes factors into my trade protection needs. Lastly, looking at my potential OPFOR and what they are likely to do has definitely influenced my fleet. Dropping all those considerations...fleet will be a bit out of place, though still well fairly rounded.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I've simply taken Hooman's course and stopped trying to keep my land/air forces updated because the ahead of the curve designs and tech advances ...severely annoy me. If a war comes, I'll figure out whats WW "current" and magically field that.

Ah.... Yes. There was this one point..... I dared looking on the latest posts on Army stuff. It looked (!) a bit like 1970s but seemed to be 1950s tech "only". But then again, I have no idea what these tank buffs are talking about. *g*

Quoted

To a large extent thats true. The alliance structures are rather complex and are cause for things to spiral out of control.

This is why I feel we are stalled somehow - except somebody simply agrees in the pre-war scripting phase not to trigger a treaty or stand to his word.

Quoted

Italy-SAE is doable, and I supposed Iberia-SAE over Angola, a SATSUMA-everyone, the ABCs could actually pick a fight with a couple neighbors, but SAE remains the most obvious.

Looks like the SAE is the most likely contender for a future war. From a players point this is good news (at least there are some options) but from an IC perspective the SAE seems to have done something wrong. Or it is just because of the somewhat remote location....

Has anybody considered Japan versus China? Nothing the SAE would be involved in but at least a possible scenario, methinks.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
The PRJ and WASP would be interesting for a Black sea & Aegean showdown. Greece-Italy would be an interesting wrinkle.

WASP is a situational treaty like SAER. Pretty much, Russia, Turkey and Atlantis guaranteed the borders of the Little Boys in the Middle East.

I once proposed Yugoslavia attempting to take Macedonia from Greece. Bulgaria and Turkey could fight Yugoslavia - in the sort of "We don't want to be next" mindset, or fight Greece - in the "Get revenge for our mutual humiliations in the 1910s and 1920s" mode. When Greece rebuffed TBA offers of friendship - even to the point of letting the Greeks write their own terms - Greece inadvertently made the second option more likely.

Only problem is Britain's support for Greece, and their NPC status.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
As for conflicts in South America, well ABC could beat down Peru I suppose, but Alex really hasn't done anything to warrant that sort of treatment.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Italy-SAE is doable, and I supposed Iberia-SAE over Angola, a SATSUMA-everyone, the ABCs could actually pick a fight with a couple neighbors, but SAE remains the most obvious.

Looks like the SAE is the most likely contender for a future war. From a players point this is good news (at least there are some options) but from an IC perspective the SAE seems to have done something wrong. Or it is just because of the somewhat remote location....

Fairly remote location is the main advantage. Many other countries, if they started something, are in much more crowded neighborhoods.

Quoted

Has anybody considered Japan versus China? Nothing the SAE would be involved in but at least a possible scenario, methinks.

China and Japan are currently allies, so it would take a fair amount of backstory to explain a shooting war. Not to mention that we can see what the result of that is: the Japanese sweep the seas of Chinese ships, can probably control the coasts, but haven't the manpower to defeat China.

Quoted

And I just noticed the name of the author of the book in the first post

Yes, I figured you would notice, did you get the joke behind it though?

Quoted

Looks like the SAE is the most likely contender for a future war. From a players point this is good news (at least there are some options) but from an IC perspective the SAE seems to have done something wrong. Or it is just because of the somewhat remote location....

Well it should be obvious as to why the Brazilians want to fight the SAE, I am not sure of why everyone else seems to want to, but Im not complaining .

Quoted

Has anybody considered Japan versus China? Nothing the SAE would be involved in but at least a possible scenario, methinks.

Possible, if they weren't both members of SATSUMA

Quoted

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

Atlantis/Chile/Columbia have, Argentina and Brazil haven't, and I wants a t-shirt!