Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-39133133-20200423205640/@comment-38730394-20200501123323

Belarusball1 wrote: Bosnia Mapper wrote: Panch molina wrote: Bosnia Mapper wrote:

Panch molina wrote: danubia

-we begin our assault on Utrecht: artillery rains down on the city before jagdkommandos and tanks push the dutch defenders to the outskirts

-danubian artillery focus fire on allied tanks which usually takes them out

-the Luftwaffe responds in kind by bombing allied trenches in the Netherlands

-the dutch zeppelins prove pretty easy targets for our airplanes and guns

-greek front: our Albanian offensive begins jagdkommandos of course jump into british trenches killing allied soldiers and causing mayhem causing us to break through all across the front and push them to sarande

-tells the germans that if they commit their troops to the battle of Utrecht we can take the city and march on Amsterdam As I previously said, you guys are nowhere near Utrecht.This map shows the current front lines of the war. The orange line is what the front lines were at last turn. The blue line is what you think the front lines are at.

We were winning in the north. Even with the influx of Danubians, trench warfare lines do not shift that much in four months. besides, the Germans and Danubians would have to be competing with the superior technology and manpower of the Low Countries and colonies, the French Empire, all the countries of Scandinavia, Portugal, the entire British Empire,  and now the Japanese, Chinese, and Thai troops as well.

While I do agree that you could be pushing us back, four months is not enough time for Germany and a weaker power like Danubia to invade the entire way from Eindhoven and Brussels to Utrecht and Leeuwarden. If anything, we should be holding you guys, or even pushing back to the original borders.

​​​​​​Danubia isn't the powerhouse you think it is. Out of the five major European powers in WW1, Austria-Hungary had the smallest army and mobilized the least troops. They didn't exactly have a large population, and in this timeline, they had already been fighting a war for a few years before WW1 started. Danubian troops would have had to march from Greece all the way over through Danubia and  Germany, crossing many mountains and traveling over rugged terrain, all the way to the Low Countries, who they were not originally hostile to. Furthermore, this is Austria-Hungary after a civil war, which would certainly weaken the nation, using up supplies for a real war and killing thousands. Most of the Hungarians, who lost the civil war, probably wouldn't be too keen on supporting an ally of the Austrians.

Moreover, do you think we haven't learned our lesson from the Jagdkommandos and learned how to repel their attacks? It isn't that hard to do. All we need is someone always keeping watch and making sure that the Jagdkommandos are spotted before they make it into the trench and then they're toast. Thinking that you can invent a new type of soldier that can take out multiple troops at once and survive and then expecting it to work for more than a few months is unrealistic. the war with Hungary was a steam roll there wasint that much devastation hell realistically Hungary would have fallen in a week

also how are you superior in technology as I see it were on par with each other

also this isint the same Austro Hungarian army that got its ass kicked by russia it is much better prepared and modernized

also dude we did break we are at Utrecht with 100% support by the German army along with the stormtroopers and jagdkommandos even with the troops arrive you should have the manpower disadvantage

Btw should I remind you Germany took out Belgium irl in a week or so I'm not saying my technology is superior, I'm saying our collective technology is. We developed tanks and war planes first. And what do you mean by, "We did break?" 100% support from the Germans still means nothing if we have better technology and manpower. And don't say we don't have the manpower to do this. Your side consists of three smaller countries, none of which still have their colonies. Our side consists of multiple worldwide powerhouses and empires. 90% of Africa, all of Asia that isn't Russia, all of the Pacific, Australia, and a decent amount of Latin America are fully in the war against you guys or would at least be supporting the war effort. Meanwhile, you have three empires that have, for the most part, been on the decline for the past few decades/years. There is no possible way that we have less manpower than you. Who are you calling "smaller countries"? None of you have any influence outside of Europe or the Middle East.