War to end all wars

WW1 by Aetius is perfect example of how map creators want to force players to play always same style and tactics, holding strictly to narrow diapason of choices, usually only one option:

- Trench warfare on the West. Understandable. But something have to change when US troops arrive, or tanks, or both. UK, France and Germany are practically doing nothing beside stacking one city(trench) for 15 turns. If farming is banned, then i think this playstyle where you sit and doing nothing for an hour should be punishable as well lol. Perhaps adding US troops earlier in game, or tanks with bonus against trenches. But it shouldnt be over for Germany if UK/FR pass trench lines as true battles can commence on open battlefield.

- Italian front, kinda same like french-german. Plus there are Alps between Austria and Italy, so even worse to fight. Probably transport boats for Austria and Italy on Adriatic sea but low range like 2 points, so it takes time to invade coast. That way they can both avoid Alps and fight on the sea until someone land on coast where ground battle can begin.

- Russian front, worst in scenario. Russian regions doesnt have artillery, infantry, machine guns. But they have weak cavalry and expensive special forces. Some regions have machine guns but no arty, other have arty but no MGs. Total mess. If creator decided to remove infantry from Russia, then atleast every Russian region should have MG and arty to enlarge Russian diapason of options. Otherwise whoever pick Russia it will be doomed to die while true gaming is about balance so both teams have chances to win. Thats fun. But here Russia is forced to build walls only and wait until Prussia get 160 stealth units 10/5 all over Russia. Not to mention Inflation and unrest unit which drain economy.


Players should have option to choose their moves and decide their tactics, and not be forced to play as commanded. Thats not fun. Tik-tok made trenches in his WW2 near Vladivostok so Japan and USSR cant fight, so he denied 2 players to decide if they going to fight and relieve the pressure from their ally front. But dont confuse Tik-Tok/Aetius style with Kentuckyball's style for example. In his WW2 he made trenches from Leningrad to Stalingrad, yet there is alot of space for player to make decisions, tactics and even manouvers.

War to end all wars was designed to be as accurate and balanced as possible. That is its appeal.

If you don't like it, go play the meester WW1 or Rommels WW1, Ultimate WW1, or Great War which are very inaccurate but you can have your precious "choices" or whatever.

Also, your Russia was a failing state at this point so stop cry, you are not good enough to play it.

Russia in WWI was basically the Russian Army perpetually bleeding manpower by the hundreds of thousands, losing battle after battle, for three years until they got fed up and launched a revolution.

Conscript spam seems pretty solid to me. One of the reasons the Eastern Front never had proper trench warfare is because the Russian Army was too primitive to allow it.

Well,wee all see by your posts that you never played russia in aetius's ww1.
First,if you know to play Russia,you can stop germany from getting more than poland and maybe galicia,thats maximum.
He can try,but overspamming conscitps make that def od the stacks alone are more than that one german stack.
And how time goes,russia is more and more stronger,than here comes evolution,i dont want to speak about that,its easy to be killed if you know to play Russia,prussia will take mbe volhynia and lithuania,but there goes again overspamming.
So,there isnt way that player that knows Russia rly to lose.......
So,we can tell that russia is too strong XD
But you won't be tito if you dont troll,insult,make flamewar or hate........

They said port cant be taken. Well #trollface
And also captured New York lol

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

WW1 by Aetius is perfect example of how map creators want to force players to play always same style and tactics, holding strictly to narrow diapason of choices, usually only one option:

Agree and Disagree.

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

- Trench warfare on the West. Understandable. But something have to change when US troops arrive, or tanks, or both. UK, France and Germany are practically doing nothing beside stacking one city(trench) for 15 turns. If farming is banned, then i think this playstyle where you sit and doing nothing for an hour should be punishable as well lol. Perhaps adding US troops earlier in game, or tanks with bonus against trenches. But it shouldnt be over for Germany if UK/FR pass trench lines as true battles can commence on open battlefield.

100% agree. Western Germany was designed to sit for an hour doing nothing but funding teammate and that sucks lol. I would rather go balkans or try retaking my trade back from UK (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this).

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

- Italian front, kinda same like french-german. Plus there are Alps between Austria and Italy, so even worse to fight. Probably transport boats for Austria and Italy on Adriatic sea but low range like 2 points, so it takes time to invade coast. That way they can both avoid Alps and fight on the sea until someone land on coast where ground battle can begin.

10000000% agree (I wish I could agree harder...)

The sea trans are awesome - Italy would need some coastal cities though. My wonder is about blitzkrieg..

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

- Russian front, worst in scenario. Russian regions doesnt have artillery, infantry, machine guns. But they have weak cavalry and expensive special forces. Some regions have machine guns but no arty, other have arty but no MGs. Total mess. If creator decided to remove infantry from Russia, then atleast every Russian region should have MG and arty to enlarge Russian diapason of options. Otherwise whoever pick Russia it will be doomed to die while true gaming is about balance so both teams have chances to win. Thats fun. But here Russia is forced to build walls only and wait until Prussia get 160 stealth units 10/5 all over Russia. Not to mention Inflation and unrest unit which drain economy.

Disagree. Russia is strong enough to beat Prussia.
However agree it is not even realist, and most of the times Russia is forced to wall and wait to die. I've only won as Russia when prussia is noob (like Tunder3) or my western allies send me a lot of money so I can buy marines and retake russia from the revolution.

I've never been losing as Prussia, even when my allies loses I'm still winning my front. When I play Russia it looks more like 50% for me. It is very controversial indeed, but I don't think it is balanced.

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

Players should have option to choose their moves and decide their tactics, and not be forced to play as commanded. Thats not fun.

And we did that!

1. France uses Africa and even mainland reinf to balkans. WG also try to help in balkans. Russia uses half the southern zone reinforcements to crush ottomans in caucasus. Sometimes UK uses sea transport to attack syria and bypass the trenches. NC WG can go into naval warfare against UK. Prussia is the country with most of the changes, a common thing is to aim for galicia and poland T4.

The players are incredibly! Just like the bored Europe - in such small maps we eventually manage to add new mechanics into the game to make it more interesting.

Написао Aetius, 16.05.2015 at 23:32

War to end all wars was designed to be as accurate and balanced as possible. That is its appeal.

If you don't like it, go play the meester WW1 or Rommels WW1, Ultimate WW1, or Great War which are very inaccurate but you can have your precious "choices" or whatever.

Ottomans are everything but balanced... specially after the removal of machine guns bonus. That's the only reason about why I like Rommel's WW1 because ottomans actually have chances of winning. So I am not really sure in which sense you're saying the map is "Balanced".

Написао Aetius, 16.05.2015 at 23:32

Also, your precious Russia was a failing state at this point so stop cry, you are not good enough to play it.

Were they?

Написао International, 17.05.2015 at 04:11

Russia in WWI was basically the Russian Army perpetually bleeding manpower by the hundreds of thousands, losing battle after battle, for three years until they got fed up and launched a revolution.

Conscript spam seems pretty solid to me. One of the reasons the Eastern Front never had proper trench warfare is because the Russian Army was too primitive to allow it.

1. Russia in WW1 never lost Galicia or Riga or Minsk though. Galicia is impossible to be hold and most likely failing on Turn 4.

That the game allows you to rush galicia and change the history is cool. What's not cool is that you can't even hold poland or galicia off germs before Turn 5...

Написао Kromn, 17.05.2015 at 20:11

Well,wee all see by your posts that you never played russia in aetius's ww1.

Написао Kromn, 17.05.2015 at 20:11

First,if you know to play Russia,you can stop germany from getting more than poland and maybe galicia,thats maximum.

In the first 4 turns, yes you can. In the whole game though, you can't.

Написао Kromn, 17.05.2015 at 20:11

He can try,but overspamming conscitps make that def od the stacks alone are more than that one german stack.

*weak 5-def-conscripts against strong artillery with boosted critical, sure. Sometimes 60 RA artillery alone can kill 100 PD conscrips...
Russia is supposed to be 2:1 russ:pruss otherwise prussia is good or russia is doing it wrong.

Написао Kromn, 17.05.2015 at 20:11

And how time goes,russia is more and more stronger,than here comes evolution,i dont want to speak about that,its easy to be killed if you know to playyou murder UK to make him send you money

Написао Kromn, 17.05.2015 at 20:11

So,there isnt way that player that knows Russia rly to lose.......
So,we can tell that russia is too strong XD
But you won't be tito if you dont troll,insult,make flamewar or hate........

Agree Russia is strong, but it is dependable of money + bored, repetitive wall gameplay.

Agree. Make Italian front better

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

10000000% agree (I wish I could agree harder...)

The sea trans are awesome - Italy would need some coastal cities though. My wonder is about blitzkrieg..

Italy really had sea skirmishes with Austria and even captured few islands in Adriatic Sea, but in Aetius map we cant fight that way.

source: youtube/user/TheGreatWar/videos

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

Disagree. Russia is strong enough to beat Prussia.
However agree it is not even realist, and most of the times Russia is forced to wall and wait to die. I've only won as Russia when prussia is noob (like Tunder3) or my western allies send me a lot of money so I can buy marines and retake russia from the revolution.

I've never been losing as Prussia, even when my allies loses I'm still winning my front. When I play Russia it looks more like 50% for me. It is very controversial indeed, but I don't think it is balanced.

Atleast he can follow constistency and put units in regions, i dont understand why one region can produce machine guns and other cant, then one region can produce cossacks and other cant, one region produce artillery and other can not.

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

Players should have option to choose their moves and decide their tactics, and not be forced to play as commanded. Thats not fun.

And we did that!

1. France uses Africa and even mainland reinf to balkans. WG also try to help in balkans. Russia uses half the southern zone reinforcements to crush ottomans in caucasus. Sometimes UK uses sea transport to attack syria and bypass the trenches. NC WG can go into naval warfare against UK. Prussia is the country with most of the changes, a common thing is to aim for galicia and poland T4.

The players are incredibly! Just like the bored Europe - in such small maps we eventually manage to add new mechanics into the game to make it more interesting.

In other words you want to say that you have free will to send troops from France, Italy and Germany to small Balkans and clusterfight Serbia and Bulgaria in one trench on Greek border. So Aetius made such a large map only so we can move troops to smallest part of map and smap infantry wf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

Написао Aetius, 16.05.2015 at 23:32

Also, your precious Russia was a failing state at this point so stop cry, you are not good enough to play it.

Were they?

He is nazi (his clan obviously) he hates Russia because Russia beat his beloved Gitler in WWII.

Germany said that Russia in 1917 will reach superpower status because it will finish railway, military and economic reform. Thats why Germany made plans to attack Russia in 1914.

Let me add that Russian Empire had third largest population where all males went to the military for 3 years and 20 years reserve, that created large pool of experienced reserve army to be called to war. And Russian economy was 4th largest in the world with Russian Empire being 2nd largest exporter of food.

source:
wikipedia/russian_empire
youtube/user/TheGreatWar/videos

Написао Skanderbeg, 17.09.2015 at 06:18

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

10000000% agree (I wish I could agree harder...)

The sea trans are awesome - Italy would need some coastal cities though. My wonder is about blitzkrieg..

Italy really had sea skirmishes with Austria and even captured few islands in Adriatic Sea, but in Aetius map we cant fight that way.

source: youtube/user/TheGreatWar/videos

Yes, my problem is the balance - blitzkrieg could abuse those transport's range. Maybe building some special transports with few capacity would balance it.

P.S: Most Italy I've see ignores trenches and uses one event sea transport from Libya to move (directly to) Balkans.

Написао Skanderbeg, 17.09.2015 at 06:18

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

Disagree. Russia is strong enough to beat Prussia.
However agree it is not even realist, and most of the times Russia is forced to wall and wait to die. I've only won as Russia when prussia is noob (like Tunder3) or my western allies send me a lot of money so I can buy marines and retake russia from the revolution.

I've never been losing as Prussia, even when my allies loses I'm still winning my front. When I play Russia it looks more like 50% for me. It is very controversial indeed, but I don't think it is balanced.

Atleast he can follow constistency and put units in regions, i dont understand why one region can produce machine guns and other cant, then one region can produce cossacks and other cant, one region produce artillery and other can not.

I believe artillery were removed because Imperialist Russia could spam them and it was OP back then. Maybe cossacks were for the same reason. I don't understand machine guns though.

Not like Russia use those that much anyway...

Написао Skanderbeg, 17.09.2015 at 06:18

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

Players should have option to choose their moves and decide their tactics, and not be forced to play as commanded. Thats not fun.

And we did that!

1. France uses Africa and even mainland reinf to balkans. WG also try to help in balkans. Russia uses half the southern zone reinforcements to crush ottomans in caucasus. Sometimes UK uses sea transport to attack syria and bypass the trenches. NC WG can go into naval warfare against UK. Prussia is the country with most of the changes, a common thing is to aim for galicia and poland T4.

The players are incredibly! Just like the bored Europe - in such small maps we eventually manage to add new mechanics into the game to make it more interesting.

In other words you want to say that you have free will to send troops from France, Italy and Germany to small Balkans and clusterfight Serbia and Bulgaria in one trench on Greek border. So Aetius made such a large map only so we can move troops to smallest part of map and smap infantry wf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

As WG you can: Send troops to fight russia, to fight romania, to fight serbia, to help taking italian trenches, etc.
As France you can send troops to balkans to aid serbia, or to kill ottomans. Italy can do the same but it is usually to aid serbia / hit austrians.

I don't think Aetius intended those moves though.

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

[...] that created large pool of experienced reserve army to be called to war.

I though they were incompetent.

Russia was a rising country in 1914. but it was still a mess,to say it wasnt is just stupid

and tito,if we remember it was russia that mobilized first and declared on austria forcing germany to declare which clearly shows they wanted a war

Yes i'm 100% sure aetius made russia hard (or how it is now) because he is an ebil nazi and wants to be biased against everything! Seriously what ignorance

Also russia is really strong before the revolution starts (especially if they are good), so once the revolution starts russia gets extremely weak and most prussia's can move in and finally kill russia. I don't see how this is biased at all, I don't see how this is aetius being an ebil nazi but him making it accurate?

lol

Написао Skanderbeg, 17.09.2015 at 06:18

He is nazi (his clan obviously) he hates Russia because Russia beat his beloved Gitler in WWII.

This thread has nothing with World War II to do. You are the only person reliably bringing it up.

Написао Skanderbeg, 17.09.2015 at 06:18

Germany said that Russia in 1917 will reach superpower status because it will finish railway, military and economic reform. Thats why Germany made plans to attack Russia in 1914.

Let me add that Russian Empire had third largest population where all males went to the military for 3 years and 20 years reserve, that created large pool of experienced reserve army to be called to war. And Russian economy was 4th largest in the world with Russian Empire being 2nd largest exporter of food.

You forget that Russia still was a largely agrarian, multi-ethnic state with a lot of leftist movements before the war. The Bolsheviks were literally waiting for the moment to dismantle it by 1914. The Russian economy was the largest because of the population numbers, while Russia itself remained undeveloped. Russian infrastructure and industry was built during the reign of Iosif Stalin.

Написао clovis1122, 17.09.2015 at 06:48

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

[...] that created large pool of experienced reserve army to be called to war.

I though they were incompetent.

West learn history that way, both for WWI and WWII, but never provide source of such claims. There are no evidence that Russian Imperial Army lacked weapons and food (before Riga was taken) or Soviet Army in WWII waiting soldiers to die to take their rifle and continue to fight. Thats considered stereotype.

Russian Army had severe lack of artillery shells because they had large front, firing at Germans, Austrians and Turks on Caucasus, artillery is also used to keep enemy ships away from Russian coast like Baltic and Black Sea. Factories at home couldnt keep up with production, especially when Communists sabotaged it later in 1917.

Russian soldiers were competent due to 3-years training plus few weeks training every year during time in reserve (for the rest of their life). Even in WWII Soviet Army was competent, equiped and strong, but lacked good officers and generals who would create tactic, strategy and plan to fight (officers were usually promoted by communist party favoring loyalty and not skill).

Написао 5th SS Wiking, 18.09.2015 at 13:19

You forget that Russia still was a largely agrarian, multi-ethnic state with a lot of leftist movements before the war. The Bolsheviks were literally waiting for the moment to dismantle it by 1914. The Russian economy was the largest because of the population numbers, while Russia itself remained undeveloped. Russian infrastructure and industry was built during the reign of Iosif Stalin.

Being agrarian is good, 90% of Russian population in that time lived on countryside, no crowding, fresh air, healthy farm work, healthy food and no stress, while workers smell in overcrowded cities with fumes, gases, smoke, factories, oil, mud on street and cr*p on all sides. Peasants in WWI had easier life in war than citizens, because they knew nature and had more strength and health than citizens, so they were better soldiers. I can make a topic about that if i have more free time.

Yes, Communists were waiting for right time to strike after they failed in 1905, WWI was right moment. Sad indeed because they didnt only damaged Russia, but Russian ally Serbia and whole Entente as well.

Russia was 2nd largest exporter of food, it had trans-siberian railway (longest in the world), it had shipyards producing battleships (remember Russian-Japan war), so it wasnt underdeveloped, just less developed than West Europe, that doesnt mean it was weak or poor. It actually produced everything others produced as well, just maybe not in the same amount as others. Russian society had better standard of living than under USSR, and unrest was caused because multi-party system Imperial Russia had, not economic problems (parties wanted power and cried every time others win on elections thus starting riots and protests)


Just wanted to point some stuff, dont want to go offtopic. I dont disagree with Aetius WWI Russia being poor, just that it need consistency in available troops in russian western regions.

Написао Skanderbeg, 16.05.2015 at 16:15

WW1 by Aetius is perfect example of how map creators want to force players to play always same style and tactics, holding strictly to narrow diapason of choices, usually only one option

you have awoken from the matrix, now you only need to stop being a shill.

Написао Skanderbeg, 18.09.2015 at 15:54

Написао clovis1122, 17.09.2015 at 06:48

Написао clovis1122, 16.09.2015 at 22:46

[...] that created large pool of experienced reserve army to be called to war.

I though they were incompetent.

West learn history that way, both for WWI and WWII, but never provide source of such claims. There are no evidence that Russian Imperial Army lacked weapons and food (before Riga was taken) or Soviet Army in WWII waiting soldiers to die to take their rifle and continue to fight. Thats considered stereotype.

I suggest you to read Winston Churchill's memoirs regarding WW2, in which he states Russian Red Army lacked weapons badly, and Britain had to supply russia using american supplies by sending them to Murmansk.
So yes, Russia had a lack of weapons at least until 1942/43, as described in the memoirs.

Aetius' ww1 is okay

but fuck aetius.

Right all off-topic post deleted. Stay on topic or risk forum ban.
Clovis stop arguing about you 60x60 JPEG trophies.

NC rush to Constantinople cant be stoped.

Tried this 4 times as UK. Pick NC, produce destroyers in Gibraltar, Egypt, Greece and Lemnos. Gather them near Galipoli, add some dreads from Lemnos turn you atack for bigger firepower, rush turn 5 or 6, flawless win. You will cap otto in turn 8 or less unless he spam walls. Ottoman is eliminated, balance of power is seriously changed, players quit game, entente won.

Ofcourse, this is all based on 4 atempts, and on surprise atack and shock. No one is expecting NC UK. One of the problems is money, you run out of it pretty fast. You cant use all of reinfs and do Galipoli rush successfully, so you focus only on destroyer spam. This could be dangerous cuz other fronts are neglected: all of cons from uk put on trench, same for egypt. Defending and taking of trade post is easier. Biggest problem could be greek trench but againg, you are going for surprise atack and bulgaria rearly atacks it. If you use some trench units or MG's it can hapen that you need extra money (lolo) from your alies for final spam of destroyers.
With bigger range and capacity for transports (15) it is easier to move inf and cons so you should be able to defend Constantinople from moderate bulg or austrian artilery stack.

What happens later in the game is big question; because games ended as soon as Otto falled.
In my opinion, trench warfare would be a lot harder. Also, it would be harder to recuperate income and hold Constantinople against bigger stacks of artilery. British Greece could fall, but there would probably be some french or italian troops to repel, hold or wall it. Lot of ''ifs''...

You played against noobs (which most of new wwi players are) that dont even bother to look at other fronts and other areas but their own, the second otto sees destroyers coming from gibraltar,egypt and sees dreads spam in lemnos he should know to spam coastal guns in constantinople as there is no other target for those ships to hit, for imp otto 8 CGs are easy spam.

I dont remember all 4 players I played against, but 2 are regular ww1 players.
Problem with making CG's in capital is that on turn 5. they buyed MG's, infantry or naval mines in Constantinople to reinforce Galipoli thinking he cant fall. Hell, even if they buy them, in Galipoli I lost lot of destroyers, and have lot of reinfs to drag, including artilery on which CG's dont have bonuses, combined atack will work before turn 9.

Написао International, 17.05.2015 at 04:11

Conscript spam seems pretty solid to me. One of the reasons the Eastern Front never had proper trench warfare is because the Russian Army was too primitive to allow it.

this is so wrong, so very wrong.
Russians AND Germans didn't try to build trenches because the front was like 1000+ miles of land,

Написао Evic, 17.09.2015 at 14:19

Russia was a rising country in 1914. but it was still a mess,to say it wasnt is just stupid

and tito,if we remember it was russia that mobilized first and declared on austria forcing germany to declare which clearly shows they wanted a war

well actually, Russia was forced to back Serbia, who was attacked by Austria-Hungary who made the first move, which made Germany attack Russia which made France declare on Germany. which then Germany went into Belguim and then England declared on Germany,

Italy should have declared on France due an alliance with central powers and Greece should have backed up Serbia because of another alliance but those two found loopholes in the agreements.
all because arch duke Franz Ferdinand was killed by some disgruntled serbian national.

Написао Netre, 11.11.2015 at 08:37

this is so wrong, so very wrong.
Russians AND Germans didn't try to build trenches because the front was like 1000+ miles of land,

Western front was 440 miles long and eastern was not much longer in the beginning, only after russians got pushed back hard did the front get to 1000 miles long.
So pretty much if they dug trenches they would get pushed back (probably)

Написао RP Pro, 11.11.2015 at 11:31

Написао Netre, 11.11.2015 at 08:37

Western front was 440 miles long and eastern was not much longer in the beginning, only after russians got pushed back hard did the front get to 1000 miles long.
So pretty much if they dug trenches they would get pushed back (probably)

the eastern front "in the begginning" was larger than when it first got pushed back, much longer. the russians were able to get right into austria hungary and originaly had alot of success in Poland before getting pushed back.
one of the only reason the russians were able to hold out is because from the baltic sea to the black sea, the front was shorter and the geology was in the defender's favour. as is always the case with russia.
but regardless of that the front was always something like 1600 kilometre's worth of distance as opposed to the western front ,700km , ( 990 miles, 440 miles )

Написао Your Laki, 10.11.2015 at 14:30

NC rush to Constantinople cant be stoped.

Plot Twist: The destroyers in WW1 are "Naval: Secondary Attack" and doesn't receive any boost with NC.

Написао Netre, 11.11.2015 at 08:37

Написао International, 17.05.2015 at 04:11

Conscript spam seems pretty solid to me. One of the reasons the Eastern Front never had proper trench warfare is because the Russian Army was too primitive to allow it.

this is so wrong, so very wrong.
Russians AND Germans didn't try to build trenches because the front was like 1000+ miles of land,

Note, "one of the."

Of course the fact that the Eastern Front was several times longer was a big reason also.

Написао Netre, 11.11.2015 at 08:46

Написао Evic, 17.09.2015 at 14:19

Russia was a rising country in 1914. but it was still a mess,to say it wasnt is just stupid

and tito,if we remember it was russia that mobilized first and declared on austria forcing germany to declare which clearly shows they wanted a war

well actually, Russia was forced to back Serbia, who was attacked by Austria-Hungary who made the first move, which made Germany attack Russia which made France declare on Germany. which then Germany went into Belguim and then England declared on Germany,

Italy should have declared on France due an alliance with central powers and Greece should have backed up Serbia because of another alliance but those two found loopholes in the agreements.
all because arch duke Franz Ferdinand was killed by some disgruntled serbian national.

Not one country in all of freaking World War 1 went to war because of its treaty obligations. Treaty obligations was just a convenient excuse to go to war and demand concessions, which were what countries were actually after.

Austria-Hungary went to war not because the Archduke got killed (that was just the excuse), but rather because they sought Balkan superiority.
Russia went to war to gain more influence in the Balkans (especially in Turkey and the Constantinople strait), and Serbia was just an excuse.
Germany declared war because the Kaiser was an aggressive maniac (September Programme, etc). Its pact with Austria-Hungary was just an excuse.
France went to war in order to recover territory it lost in 1871. Its alliance with Russia was just an excuse.
Britain went to war in order to contain Germany and cut their military down to size. You think they actually cared about Belgium?

Написао clovis1122, 11.11.2015 at 20:56

Написао Your Laki, 10.11.2015 at 14:30

NC rush to Constantinople cant be stoped.

Plot Twist: The destroyers in WW1 are "Naval: Secondary Attack" and doesn't receive any boost with NC.

Check that again, I got range and atack, probably defence too, boost, from 7 to 9 I think.

Or you say that was changed recently due to NC strat changes? Cuz I didnt played since silverlight died

Написао Your Laki, 12.11.2015 at 05:34

Or you say that was changed recently due to NC strat changes? Cuz I didnt played since silverlight died

Написао International, 12.11.2015 at 02:00

Написао Netre, 11.11.2015 at 08:46

Написао Evic, 17.09.2015 at 14:19

Not one country in all of freaking World War 1 went to war because of its treaty obligations. Treaty obligations was just a convenient excuse to go to war and demand concessions, which were what countries were actually after.

Austria-Hungary went to war not because the Archduke got killed (that was just the excuse), but rather because they sought Balkan superiority.
Russia went to war to gain more influence in the Balkans (especially in Turkey and the Constantinople strait), and Serbia was just an excuse.
Germany declared war because the Kaiser was an aggressive maniac (September Programme, etc). Its pact with Austria-Hungary was just an excuse.
France went to war in order to recover territory it lost in 1871. Its alliance with Russia was just an excuse.
Britain went to war in order to contain Germany and cut their military down to size. You think they actually cared about Belgium?

ok so all of these country's used excuses to go to war, which were the treaty's they had signed. The treaty was an excuse to go to war.
i mean of course they wanted land/power that is as natural to empires as eating is to humanity but the fact that its natural means nothing unless you can get it and the treaty's were the way in which the empires got to war. and the nation that started it was Austria.

also a country would have to go to war because of its treaty's or it would look like an easy target an irrelevant power,other countries wouldn't be so willing to sign a defensive pact with that country because there would be no point.

The only countries that didn't go to war because of its treaty was Italy, Greece got out of its treaty because it stated that the Serbs and Greeks only had to back each other up when attacked by another Balkan nation.

and no i dont think the brits would care about Belgium, i cant remember right now but i'm pretty sure there was an economic/raw material reason for them getting involved.
you also have to remember that it was always assumed that the French would help the russians and vice versa. so that treaty was something widely assumed to be in stone.
the germans had a whole strategy built up around that fact, the schleiffan plan.