StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To be fair to Beowulf, I was the one who came up with the idea of encircling the Soviet forces in Hailar, not Beowulf. I am not the greatest at strategy no matter how much I enjoy it as such. I was thinking that the Soviet forces were mostly concentrated on Hailar itself and that they would encircle and trap a large amount with enough turning around to deal with any Soviet forces to the North. Not practical I know but that was what my mind was going through when I was thinking about that.

Oh and Stas, don't quit. Your one of the best players and you gave the USSR a lot of character. When I read your posts I always wonder what pov your going to present them from (be it a lowly solider to civvie). Losing you to this mess would be a blow to this entire game.

I'll see what the mods think of this mess, of course.

To be clear - I expected this game to be fun and force utilization to be sensible. I wanted to play lax and make once-a-week literature posts about soldiers walking around and all that, not spend my day drawing huge uber-detailed maps to just expose force machinations of the another player (and then have him redraw the entire attack at will) - I mean, I spent more time detailing my forces than most other players and I didn't presume anything atrocious like 100 km per day marches which overrun entire nations, entirely motorized divisions, super-railways that stretch everywhere along the border and such.

I thought the prohibitive costs of war should manifest in economic attrition and so forth - not in the actual extreme attrition of my work and leisure time due to the aforementioned machinations.

As of now I'm of mind to simply retcon the entire encirclement due to the timing it was given, as I was mistaken in the timing intended and where the blow was intended to land, and to have everything set where the Soviets are bombarding Hailar and trying to take out its strategic rail juncture as the Sino-Manchurian forces hold them back, perhaps along the Hailar He, and begin preparations for an encirclement attack based from a powerful thrust out of the east. It should take roughly two weeks from the point of the war starting for the first major Chinese units to arrive given the logical concentration of rail in the area.

Also, the two day grace period? That's also for people to get OrBats done. The Mods will have to do the Balkan OrBat, but Shady was kind enough to inform us of this instead of just, y'know, not doing anything and not saying anything. If you still have no OrBat after the grace period and have not given us a good reason for it we will consider your military as being in a state of inactive operation and you will require months to get it back into operation.

SO GET YOUR GOD DAMNED ORBATS DONE ALREADY!!!

Yes, Shep, this includes you!

*Cough*

But yes, the more I read of how this war has gone the more I see Beo has not been playing in good faith and the more tempted I am to simply have all Manchurian dispositions left up to mod discretion. That said, logistics go both ways, and the Soviet effort here would logically mean the Soviets will need time to move the extra forces they want up and to replenish units that have been in heavy fighting.

At this point, since the war is two months behind in-game, I would think it better for the two of you to simply tell me, Rogue, and Timothy your intentions up to July in terms of operations and then we will write a summary of the war up to the time of the game freeze.

RogueIce wrote:

Lascaris wrote:

Navy:

7 Aoba class Heavy Cruisers (7100t), 49.7 IBP's. Complete Janaury 1926.

And to continue on the spoilsport path. Raj the 7100t figure for the Aobas was pure fantasy. The actual figure was 8300t (Conways 1922-46 page 188) Not that this affect you much beyond changing the number of ships from 7 to 6...

Wikipedia says 7100t standard and gives a source (Whitley, M J (1995). Cruisers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia. London: Arms and Armour Press. pp. 104 & 109. ISBN 1-85409-225-1). I can talk with Steve and TimothyC, but while we all know Wiki is not the most reliable, it is easy. And we're not all going to have nifty naval history books readily on hand.

Well I could just as well claim the Myoko clones I think of laying down are 10,000t on the same logic. This does not stop them from actually being 10,980t. The Japanese start the fine tradition of announcing fantastic tonnages with the Aobas...

How detailed does the Orbat have to be? I have my active army fleshed out (for the most part), but do we need reserves to be fully fleshed out?

Also, I might need some help with appropriate aircraft. With whom can I speak about that?

Akhlut wrote:How detailed does the Orbat have to be? I have my active army fleshed out (for the most part), but do we need reserves to be fully fleshed out?

Also, I might need some help with appropriate aircraft. With whom can I speak about that?

Does the flesh out include aircraft and tank types? Just want to make sure since I have them covered but not broken down by type

It's the same thing every time: half the people are "story telling" with plots, characters, and dialogue, with the intent to make a tale; the other half are just empire-building and wargaming with the intent to "win", and if characters are even named at all it is to spread a thin veneer of almost-plot to the machinations.

There's nothing wrong with either, really, just so long as everyone knows and agrees to the format ahead of time. Clearly I was going more for character and story rather than powering-up. [/shrug]

Stas Bush wrote: Maginot line, etc. (in the 1920s, few nations actually constructed such fortifications; with the absence of World War I as it was, the impetus for that is hardly there)

Like how the Sheppo-Goddamn war from 1913-1915 never happened, how nobody sent any advisors to see the Sheppos and goddamns killing each other. It only ended in a timeout, due to the damn hindoo commie-anarcho-jihadi rebellion of '15...

Akhlut wrote:How detailed does the Orbat have to be? I have my active army fleshed out (for the most part), but do we need reserves to be fully fleshed out?

Also, I might need some help with appropriate aircraft. With whom can I speak about that?

Specify your reserve formations and where they're drawn from by region at the very least.

As for aircraft, just specify the year it entered service. I'm almost honestly ready to do that universally since the designs of this era aren't as well known.

I'd like OrBats to specify as much as possible, yes.

I can't really handle my aircraft - I know nothing of anything pre-cold war (and a little of WW2) in that respect. All I know is it has two airships as well as about twenty bombers, with the rest being fighters and reccie planes.

That's why I said specify the year it entered service, that gives us an idea of logical characteristics. Keep in mind your Air Tech level - if Air Tech 3 your newest aircraft should only be 1922 with some 1923-level designs entering prototype stage.

Well, that's dealt with. I'll update with regional commands for the reserves once I'm off work and have access to my maps again (to work them around the railroad network, mostly, which is essentially at this stage a loop through the middle of Afghanistan, connecting the major cities with spokes splitting to minor cities and regional capitols, as well as areas of substantial military importance.)

Lascaris wrote:Well I could just as well claim the Myoko clones I think of laying down are 10,000t on the same logic. This does not stop them from actually being 10,980t. The Japanese start the fine tradition of announcing fantastic tonnages with the Aobas...

If you have some convenient source with the One True Displacement of the world's warships, I'd love to see it. Makes things easier.

If not, than it is pointless of us to mandate people go try and find some naval history books or whatever to find these things out, over a game on an Internet message board. That's more effort than I would be willing to put in, so I can hardly say, "Oh well the rest of you should do it anyway."

If it offends you that much, you can provide a source (preferably available online) if somebody gets displacement wrong and the mods can decide what to do, if anything. Otherwise, I am willing to accept the listed displacements on a 'good faith' basis.

I concur with Rogue.

Norade wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Okay then, I'll be blunt with a repeat of my previous statement. If for no other reason than because countries with their roots in the European Enlightenment which would mean all of Europe and most of the nations of the Western Hemisphere would find base land grabs to be base thievery...if you attack the Dutch without warning and for no other cause than that of aiding the French and German Empire you WILL receive and ultimatum from Mexico and I will blow every merchant ship flying your flag out of the Panama Canal straight to the bottom of the sea (after giving fair time to abandon ship)...In other words absolute sovereignty is worth defending.

Such behavior out of a European nation would have the intellectual class in a state of near revolt, energize any latent socialist movement AND piss off everyone. I'll let you know right now it'll piss me off that much. I'd much rather trade with Portugal but I also won't allow naked land grabs in so far as I can help it.

I doubt such a revolt would do much in Portugal, most people would be happy given the governments stance on employment and welfare as well as hospitals and education and the Low Countries would be painted as the next big threat. Some bleeding hearts might care, but they would be sent over as relief teams and either work or disappear.

As for Mexico declaring war, well no offense but without allies I'd curb stomp you. NF 5 > NF 4, 1,080,000 regulars > 1,017,600 regulars (though not by much), I have the large air force and by rights should have a more advanced force due to research in a prolonged war. I may lose forces defending Guiana, however you would never do anything to my mainland and would take heavy losses to remove Guiana from my control especially as I have an extra 1.2 million in reserves over you. In short, attacking me would be a bad idea no matter how you feel about my actions.

I don't want this war to happen, either, but if you think to sink my ships after they go through Panama other nations might not look kindly on that so you're weighing the value of sovereignty versus the value of free trade. I'm not sure how it would go, but it could be interesting.

So why you are wrong:
1) Your active army is all that is going to matter for a conflict under a month logn unless you plan on crossing to invade, moreover since your forces would be tied up atacking the Dutch even their colonial outpost forces would allow me to outnumber you.
2) Greater infrastructure means that I can mobilise and deploy faster (and also means I have a larger absolute manpower reserve of 17mil versus 14mil)
3) You may have NF5 versus NF4 BUT there are several points where this is actually working against you

• A) You would have to concentrate your entire fleet against me to get more than 100 or 200kt of total weight differential,
  B) Which would also require steaming them across the Atlantic subject to breakdowns and the need to find a frienly port to refuel (which would ALSO allow me to better locate you), then and even if you did all that
  C) You actually have FEWER Capital Ships (19 versus 22) compared to Mexico and
  D) Your largest ships (one 50kt and three 43 kt) are outclassed by my SIX (6) 45.7 kt ships. In the later case I outweigh and outgun them, in the former case I outgun you (420mm versus 16") and also because you can't superfire (so your ROF and Broadside are reduced)
  E) Sure you could wait until 1926 and get 2 more major combatants but a year later I'll have my 55kt Battlecruisers coming online with 18" guns AND it would negate the whole point of this potential standoff

4) Declaring war on you gives methe right to detain and sink your shipping as well as detain ships suspected of transporting supplies to you subject only to ensuring the safe passage of the crews to land. Prize rules are as old as the sailing age and are an accepted part of European Warfare, so long as I don't sink passenger ships or neutral shipping I would be fine. Since I don't have the sub forces nor the inclination to engage in an unrestricted campaign this becomes relatively easy especially with the ease of access to Caribbean ports for offloading crews.


Now that's just a quick and dirty hit. I would prefer not to get in to a fight because I have other issues at hand...but I will uphold the ideal of absolute sovreignty if need be.

MKSheppard wrote:Like how the Sheppo-Goddamn war from 1913-1915 never happened, how nobody sent any advisors to see the Sheppos and goddamns killing each other

And in ten years they made lines that make all nations blush. Load of crap. Did the French build the Maginot line in 1918-1928, or actually like more than ten years after their own huge war?

Stas Bush wrote:And in ten years they made lines that make all nations blush. Load of crap.

Everyone is going to be upgrading their forts and installing new modern dispersed combat blocs to supplement the old forts after they see the damage wreaked onto Sheppo/Goddamn fort systems built in 1870/1880/1890 by modernish (1910ish) seige howitzers in 1913.

Forts that were expected to hold out for weeks get smashed in a few days by modern heavy mortars/howitzers firing without a worry of counterbattery fire (remember, in 1913; counterbattery virtually doesn't exist as a scientific military doctrine and system); so you can park your heavy guns 15 kilometers from the fort, and slowly walk fire onto the fort.

Even then; direct hits will be rare -- the forts will surrender due to a clutch of things, like morale being smashed; the living conditions in forts being similar to the black hole of calcutta, etc.

So this will spur a worldwide fort modernization effort, which would be going on, even without the example of the Sheppo/Goddamn War of 1913.

In OTL, before WWI, the French semi modernized the protection of several of their forts -- they basically ripped off all the old upper layers of brick/masonry, and poured new concrete layers - Fort Douamont was one of those that received this modernization -- and it held up against French 400mm railroad guns quite well after it was captured by the Germans.

Did the French build the Maginot line in 1918-1928, or actually like more than ten years after their own huge war?

How sad then, that the Magniot line was actually planned in 1920-1926.

Money for construction however wasn't authorized until 1929. This was due to the occupation of the Rhineland being seen in French Politico-Militaro circles as keeping the Germans in check for the 1920s.

There's also the fact that if you want a fort to have:

1.) Better ventilation and sanitation systems (many of the french forts in WWI surrendered after the air inside them became foul, crushing morale).

2.) Integral Gas Protection

You're going to have to start from scratch; as while you can retrofit some features to older forts like modern electric lighting or forced ventilation via electric fans, adding things like sanitary facilities worthy of the name would be prohibitively expensive; and you wouldn't be able to get as good gas tight seals as with a purpose built new fort.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Norade wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Okay then, I'll be blunt with a repeat of my previous statement. If for no other reason than because countries with their roots in the European Enlightenment which would mean all of Europe and most of the nations of the Western Hemisphere would find base land grabs to be base thievery...if you attack the Dutch without warning and for no other cause than that of aiding the French and German Empire you WILL receive and ultimatum from Mexico and I will blow every merchant ship flying your flag out of the Panama Canal straight to the bottom of the sea (after giving fair time to abandon ship)...In other words absolute sovereignty is worth defending.

Such behavior out of a European nation would have the intellectual class in a state of near revolt, energize any latent socialist movement AND piss off everyone. I'll let you know right now it'll piss me off that much. I'd much rather trade with Portugal but I also won't allow naked land grabs in so far as I can help it.

I doubt such a revolt would do much in Portugal, most people would be happy given the governments stance on employment and welfare as well as hospitals and education and the Low Countries would be painted as the next big threat. Some bleeding hearts might care, but they would be sent over as relief teams and either work or disappear.

As for Mexico declaring war, well no offense but without allies I'd curb stomp you. NF 5 > NF 4, 1,080,000 regulars > 1,017,600 regulars (though not by much), I have the large air force and by rights should have a more advanced force due to research in a prolonged war. I may lose forces defending Guiana, however you would never do anything to my mainland and would take heavy losses to remove Guiana from my control especially as I have an extra 1.2 million in reserves over you. In short, attacking me would be a bad idea no matter how you feel about my actions.

I don't want this war to happen, either, but if you think to sink my ships after they go through Panama other nations might not look kindly on that so you're weighing the value of sovereignty versus the value of free trade. I'm not sure how it would go, but it could be interesting.

So why you are wrong:
1) Your active army is all that is going to matter for a conflict under a month logn unless you plan on crossing to invade, moreover since your forces would be tied up atacking the Dutch even their colonial outpost forces would allow me to outnumber you.
2) Greater infrastructure means that I can mobilise and deploy faster (and also means I have a larger absolute manpower reserve of 17mil versus 14mil)
3) You may have NF5 versus NF4 BUT there are several points where this is actually working against you

• A) You would have to concentrate your entire fleet against me to get more than 100 or 200kt of total weight differential,
  B) Which would also require steaming them across the Atlantic subject to breakdowns and the need to find a frienly port to refuel (which would ALSO allow me to better locate you), then and even if you did all that
  C) You actually have FEWER Capital Ships (19 versus 22) compared to Mexico and
  D) Your largest ships (one 50kt and three 43 kt) are outclassed by my SIX (6) 45.7 kt ships. In the later case I outweigh and outgun them, in the former case I outgun you (420mm versus 16") and also because you can't superfire (so your ROF and Broadside are reduced)
  E) Sure you could wait until 1926 and get 2 more major combatants but a year later I'll have my 55kt Battlecruisers coming online with 18" guns AND it would negate the whole point of this potential standoff

4) Declaring war on you gives methe right to detain and sink your shipping as well as detain ships suspected of transporting supplies to you subject only to ensuring the safe passage of the crews to land. Prize rules are as old as the sailing age and are an accepted part of European Warfare, so long as I don't sink passenger ships or neutral shipping I would be fine. Since I don't have the sub forces nor the inclination to engage in an unrestricted campaign this becomes relatively easy especially with the ease of access to Caribbean ports for offloading crews.


Now that's just a quick and dirty hit. I would prefer not to get in to a fight because I have other issues at hand...but I will uphold the ideal of absolute sovreignty if need be.

1) You would outnumber in my colony, however you would still have to force a landing and while my forts are rather under gunned, they are good enough to kill transports while taking your heaviest guns to hurt me. While your heavy guns have a choice between fighting my fleet or my ships your forces that out number me are dying before they reach the shore.
2) You can deploy and mobilize faster, but in this war you'll be coming to me and that extra time will even the odds.
3) A) Local battles aren't about overall strength and I agree that you have more local strength than I do.
B) Like I said, I would likely be forced to pull back from my colony if you attacked and I was unable to secure aid from my allies who are also fighting the Dutch, but after that you would have a hard slog to do anything else.
C) True enough, you do have more heavy combatants than I do, however aircraft and aircraft carriers are an area where I beat you and half of any naval battle is finding the enemy fleet first and that is where I have an advantage.
D) Most of my ships are built to super fire but the 3b doesn't seem to show that raised turrets can super fire so it is apparent. As for my lack of 18" guns talk to Steve about that, he asked me not to filed my original design so I was forced to change it and am feeling a bit shafted now?
E) By the time your newest fleet is built I could modify my next two major combatants, still in the laying stage, to fit larger guns so your point isn't a great one. Also your newest ships aren't an established design so crew readiness and ability to fight would naturally be reduced on such a new design.
4) I would tend to agree with that, but as worded you made it sound like you'd be pouching me in or near the canal and I can't imagine people looking kindly to that. I think that most of the world at this stage cares more about free trade than absolute sovereignty.

I short you'd lose more than I would in the war and aren't in the greatest position to wage such a war against me anyway.

MKSheppard wrote:How sad then, that the Magniot line was actually planned in 1920-1926.

Yeah, planned - the construction of the thing took ten years. So that's 2 years after the war they only started to plan the fortifications.

MKSheppard wrote:You're going to have to start from scratch; as while you can retrofit some features to older forts like modern electric lighting or forced ventilation via electric fans, adding things like sanitary facilities worthy of the name would be prohibitively expensive; and you wouldn't be able to get as good gas tight seals as with a purpose built new fort.

Starting from scratch in 1920 and erecting the Maginot line in 5 years? Really? Yeah, that's right - the French planned the line, but even when they authorized construction in 1929, it was until 1935 when it came in operation.

You can't magic fortifications - they are planned for, and constructed over years, not days.

My OOB is now complete down to the forts, equipment, and organization as well as where reserves are raised from. My forts and their number/size are my biggest concern and C&C is welcome before the freeze is done.

Norade,

Being somewhat clearer. If you engage in a naked land grab I'm simply going to wreck your economy. I don't need to invade in order to cause you damage. Wreck your merchant fleet, kill half your trade and use my bases in the Antilles to effectively cut your ability to ship anywhere other than through the Suez (which will increase pressure and costs in addition to the fact that our hyper-industrialized world is probably already straining the canal's capacity). I don't NEED to attack you by land in order to force a decision and since I can wreck your economy faster than you can wreck mine (my Pacific trade would be ridiculously difficult to intercept) andwe start from the same basis I could simply outlast you.

As to the 'free trade' argument you'd be wrong by a mile. Despite clear economic benefits from the 19th century onwards the right of prize rules and blockade kept major European powers from intervening even when there was economic benefit tobe had (e.g. the American Civil War and American shipping detained or sunk by German Q-boats in WWI). The power of "free trade" doctrine has nowhere near the impact of the doctrine of sovereignty historically. Put another way France and Germany need this war agains the low Countries entirely for political purposes...BUT they are goingthrough a rather mroe invovled and drawn out process because outright territorial grabs would, in a realistic world, have resulted in expulsion of ambassadors, an international condemnation and black listing and a host of other reprisals. You can't just wage war for no good reason, shit just look at the modern world for that matter, how much of a blow to its diplomatic corps was it that the US made such a blatantly unjustified atack on Iraq? One can see dominioes falling all over the palce in subtle loss of authority and it remains only the US' clearly dominant position in terms of economy and conventional military power that enables it to get away with the shit it pulled and even THEN we've taken a hit. In the 1920s a nation which so blatantly violated the sovreignty of another for no cause would become a pariah.


*Edit*
Addendum on the ships. Your first 50kt class vessel just entered service this year so it would still be undergoing shake downs. Conversely my 45.7 kt ships entered service between 1923 and 1924 meaning they've had plenty of time to learn how to oeprate. Hell even without my future ships (which started building Q1 1925) I'd STILL outgun you (by virtue of having 16.54" guns rather than 16" guns) and outnumber you. If you add in that my 1920 series Battlecruisers also have the same gun that give me 10 ships with guns bigger than your largest.

Ad to the 18" guns forthcoming well Colombia has been making noises about an 17.7" armed ship which forced my designers to account for it and counter it.

My reserves now have locations in the OrBat, I'll tend to to the forts later, gotta finalize the railroads first.

Edit:
Fuck me, crashed and lost my railroad overlays because of this fucking heat and this overheating fucking power supply unit. Deliberate sabotage is the only way to account for these troubles.

Which one of you is sabotaging me? Is it you, Shep?! Trying to delay my war mobilization?!?

CmdrWilkens wrote:Norade,

Being somewhat clearer. If you engage in a naked land grab I'm simply going to wreck your economy. I don't need to invade in order to cause you damage. Wreck your merchant fleet, kill half your trade and use my bases in the Antilles to effectively cut your ability to ship anywhere other than through the Suez (which will increase pressure and costs in addition to the fact that our hyper-industrialized world is probably already straining the canal's capacity). I don't NEED to attack you by land in order to force a decision and since I can wreck your economy faster than you can wreck mine (my Pacific trade would be ridiculously difficult to intercept) andwe start from the same basis I could simply outlast you.

As to the 'free trade' argument you'd be wrong by a mile. Despite clear economic benefits from the 19th century onwards the right of prize rules and blockade kept major European powers from intervening even when there was economic benefit tobe had (e.g. the American Civil War and American shipping detained or sunk by German Q-boats in WWI). The power of "free trade" doctrine has nowhere near the impact of the doctrine of sovereignty historically. Put another way France and Germany need this war agains the low Countries entirely for political purposes...BUT they are goingthrough a rather mroe invovled and drawn out process because outright territorial grabs would, in a realistic world, have resulted in expulsion of ambassadors, an international condemnation and black listing and a host of other reprisals. You can't just wage war for no good reason, shit just look at the modern world for that matter, how much of a blow to its diplomatic corps was it that the US made such a blatantly unjustified atack on Iraq? One can see dominioes falling all over the palce in subtle loss of authority and it remains only the US' clearly dominant position in terms of economy and conventional military power that enables it to get away with the shit it pulled and even THEN we've taken a hit. In the 1920s a nation which so blatantly violated the sovreignty of another for no cause would become a pariah.


*Edit*
Addendum on the ships. Your first 50kt class vessel just entered service this year so it would still be undergoing shake downs. Conversely my 45.7 kt ships entered service between 1923 and 1924 meaning they've had plenty of time to learn how to oeprate. Hell even without my future ships (which started building Q1 1925) I'd STILL outgun you (by virtue of having 16.54" guns rather than 16" guns) and outnumber you. If you add in that my 1920 series Battlecruisers also have the same gun that give me 10 ships with guns bigger than your largest.

Ad to the 18" guns forthcoming well Colombia has been making noises about an 17.7" armed ship which forced my designers to account for it and counter it.

Most of my trade is a good deal closer to home than you seem to think, my main trade partners historically have been Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Angola, UK, and the Netherlands. In this time line as far more advanced nation I think my trade would be wider ranged than it was IRL, but much of my trade could be done in Europe, South America, and North America a long way away from your nation. My one concern is oil and coal as the world is using far more of it than should have been used in the OTL so I need to be careful of that though Nigeria can help supply that need for now.

So that said you likely wouldn't see many of my ships to sink them.

As for my ships don't presume to know too much about them, the designs posted aren't the ones I'm using except for general tonnage.

It seems Byzantium has a habit of being forgotten, and there's not exactly an "Italian" nation state beyond Tuscany, and Byzantine Taranto/Bari.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:It seems Byzantium has a habit of being forgotten, and there's not exactly an "Italian" nation state beyond Tuscany, and Byzantine Taranto/Bari.

I was listing that based on IRL sources as listed by the CIA factbook for major trade partners. Other nations were not forgotten and would likely step into those spots in this time line.