American entry

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

American entry

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> American entry

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

American entry - 12/3/2008 11:19:52 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

I will once more try to lobby for delaying American starting entry a bit. If you pursue a "be nice to US relations" strategy as the CP and even invest diplomatic points each turn you should still not be surprised to see them enter in summer/fall of 16'.

If you pursue a historic course America should on average enter on the historic date IMO.

So I think their at start entry level should be delayed by half a year.

Post #: 1

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 11:41:16 AM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

I agree

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 2

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 3:42:45 PM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

I agree too. In our game I tried to avoid antagonizing the Americans as much as possible by not invading Belgium and only declaring war on Luxembourg and Greece, nor using unrestricted submarine warfare yet they still entered July/Aug 1916 almost a full year before they did historically with a lot more provocation.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 3

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 5:15:37 PM

EdinHouston

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline

I agree. US seems to enter the war too soon, even without unrestricted sub warfare. This would make a significant play balance improvement for a German hold-out strategy, and would be more realistic too.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 4

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 5:22:31 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

A little history:
U.S. declared war 6 April 1917. First causalties, as part of a divisional operation: 2 November, 1917. I Corps was formed 15 January, 1918.
In the game, not only does U.S. declare war too soon, but strong combat ready "corps" too soon.

I agree with above posters.

(in reply to EdinHouston)

Post #: 5

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 5:31:42 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

As a followup to the above, historically the U.S. had one corps activated eight months after declaration of war. In the game, U.S. has their seven best "corps" in action.
(I know "corps" do not represent historical corps in the game; still trying to figure out what they are.)

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 6

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 5:47:23 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

A mixture of slightly delayed entry and slightly delayed arrival of corps might be the best idea. After all the US should be able to send IPs to Britain/France before they have troops on the ground.

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 7

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 9:01:20 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

It wasnt IPs France and Britian needed, it was manpower,,,boots on the ground,,,Cannonfodder.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 8

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 11:13:40 PM

ILCK

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline

Agree with all these points, the USA needs to arrive later and arrive with less guys or lower quality guys, and maybe both.

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 9

RE: American entry - 12/4/2008 11:55:46 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

The strenght of the US corps have all been reduced by 4 in the latest patch. Their A corps are only quality 7. IMO it would be sufficient to delay US entry and corps arrival somewhat and we're getting there.

(in reply to ILCK)

Post #: 10

RE: American entry - 12/5/2008 2:04:00 AM

Mike Dubost

Posts: 273
Joined: 8/24/2008
From: Sacramento, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

A mixture of�slightly delayed entry and slightly delayed arrival of corps might be the best idea. After all the US should be able to send IPs to Britain/France before they have troops on the ground.

Actually, as I implied in the similar thread (on US Army too strong?), the US should not be able to lend IPs and should in fact have few of their own at first.

Frankly, Wilson was negligent and did not allow the US to prepare for war.

US munitions production was not expected to be "cranked up" fully until 1919! The AEF used UK and French equipment due to the shortage of US manufacturing capacity devoted to the war effort. By rights, the US should almost cost the UK and French production for the first few months of US participation. I would suggest that it was not until 1918 that the US had any "offensives" produced and only a limited number of trained replacements were available at first. The US was planning on a major effort in the (planned) 1919 offensives, but was very limited in their actual contribution until 1918.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 11

RE: American entry - 12/5/2008 5:13:29 AM

OrvalB

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/15/2003
From: Canada
Status: offline

Um, a slight correction; the US did indeed have or could have had artillery and aircraft available; the decision to ship men rather than material across the Atlantic was quite deliberate. At the time, the TE, particularly the French, had a ton of artillery, but were very short of bodies; what the TE needed from America was manpower, pure and simple, and were happy to provide artillery and airplanes and weapons and ammunition, if the yanks could just get more bodies Over There.

Which is a bit of why they got a little cheesed over Pershing's insistence on an American army fighting as a unit; the whole idea from their point of view was that the US would provide more bodies for their sausage machine.

In terms of the game, yes the US shows up too early & too strong most of the time, in terms of battlefield effect; however, historically, the psychological effect on the German generals is hard to overstate. Once the Yanks showed up in sufficient numbers, no matter how unskilled and supported, they pretty much knew their goose was cooked. The Meuse-Argonne could have gone a good deal worse than it did (which was pretty poor, actually), and it still would have essentially won the war. It just took a few tanks and a "Black Day" after that to tip the balance and turn the High Command into surrender monkeys. (And hello Adolf!)

(in reply to Mike Dubost)

Post #: 12

RE: American entry - 12/5/2008 12:51:33 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

You're right. The US contribution is adequately portrayed through atlantic trade and the financial aspect of things are not portrayed in the game. Let's stick to the idea of a delayed entry, then.

(in reply to Mike Dubost)

Post #: 13

RE: American entry - 12/5/2008 3:29:26 PM

mavraamides

Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I guess I don't see why there is any resistance to this. As far as I can tell:

1) The US entry date is ahistorically early.
2) The game when played between equal players seems tilted towards the TE.

Wouldn't delaying US entry to a date closer to the historic one solve both of these problems at the same time?

Two birds with one stone?

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 14

RE: American entry - 12/10/2008 3:16:07 AM

Mike Dubost

Posts: 273
Joined: 8/24/2008
From: Sacramento, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrvalB

Um, a slight correction; the US did indeed have or could have had artillery and aircraft available; the decision to ship men rather than material across the Atlantic was quite deliberate. At the time, the TE, particularly the French,� had a ton of artillery, but were very short of bodies; what the TE needed from America was manpower, pure and simple, and were happy to provide artillery and airplanes and weapons and ammunition, if the yanks could just get more bodies Over There.

Which is a bit of why they got a little cheesed over Pershing's insistence on an American army fighting as a unit; the whole idea from their point of view was that the US would provide more bodies for their sausage machine.

In terms of the game, yes the US shows up too early & too strong most of the time, in terms of battlefield effect; however, historically, the psychological effect on the German generals is hard to overstate. Once the Yanks showed up in sufficient numbers,� no matter how unskilled and supported, they pretty much knew their goose was cooked. The Meuse-Argonne could have gone a good deal worse than it did (which was pretty poor, actually), and it still would have essentially won the war. It just took a few tanks and a "Black Day" after that to tip the balance and turn the High Command into surrender monkeys. (And hello Adolf!)

Sorry about the delayed response (dang real life interfering with virtual interaction again, mumble, grumble

).

Pershing's memoirs clearly indicate that the US did not have enough spare munition manufacting capacity. Partly this was due to it being tied up with (pre-US-entry) Allied orders, but still, they could not have given the US forces adeqate suplies without hurting the BEF or French Army. Furthermore, from the start until well into 1918, whole paragraphs are devoted to discussions of shipping constraints and disagreements over alocation of shipping. Even had more munitions been available in the US, it would have been hard to get them "over there".

This is why in the other thread, I suggested that Wilson deserved censure.

Granted, since this is a memoir, it is not to be mistaken for Gospel on all points. However, I don't see any gain to Pershing in the way he reported this situation, so I think we can accept it.

EDIT: I failed to note that Pershing also said very few military aircraft were being made in the USA at this time, and only a small number would be available prior to the expected 1919 campaign.

< Message edited by Mike Dubost -- 12/10/2008 3:17:22 AM >

(in reply to OrvalB)

Post #: 15

RE: American entry - 12/13/2008 12:34:36 AM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

I will once more try to lobby for delaying American starting entry a bit. If you pursue a "be nice to US relations" strategy as the CP and even invest diplomatic points each turn you should still not be surprised to see them enter in summer/fall of 16'.

If you pursue a historic course America should on average enter on the historic date IMO.

So I think their at start entry level should be delayed by half a year.

In my ongoing CP game against Boogada (1.3f), the US entered in jan/feb 1917. I had previously declared war on Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Romania. The TE declared war on Bulgaria. Both sides invested diplo points every turn. I didn't use unrestricted subs. I feel the outcome wasn't too bad, but I suppose I got lucky.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 16

RE: American entry - 12/13/2008 11:27:50 AM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber
In my ongoing CP game against Boogada (1.3f), the US entered in jan/feb 1917. I had previously declared war on Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Romania. The TE declared war on Bulgaria. Both sides invested diplo points every turn. I didn't use unrestricted subs. I feel the outcome wasn't too bad, but I suppose I got lucky.

You got lucky with U.S. DOW one turn earlier than historically (and large forces entering faster than historically). Romania and Bulgaria should equal out. With no unrestricted subs, your diplomacy must have been handled by Senor Zimmerman.

In game terms, not historical terms you did get lucky, I suppose.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 17

RE: American entry - 12/13/2008 1:20:26 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline