AMW Big Discussion Thread

[Beddgelert]

Galatia's post-war history is a bit vague at the moment, so I might have a socialist movement there related to the one in Romnika. I may even go for civil war in the region, with the old triarchy (Galatia had one of its own, all be it more straight-forward than Geletia's nine-tribes/three-kingdoms thing) facing a left-wing revolt that eventually splits between Romnikan and Cornitouti influenced factions and begins fighting itself as well.

How do you see the Great War going in the region, Chemaki, TCB, and Ian?

Presumably Galatia and Romnika went to war... worth noting that Galatia's population at the time was probably only about 3.2 million, and only a few cities were industrialised, and half the available forces would have briefly been directed against the Greeks in Ionia. Military aid from Geletia meant that it probably had a fairly well equipped army-group using then-advanced tactics, and with a young population may have raised as many as a third of a million men by the conflict's peak, so it's probably still believable that the Galatians might at least have thought they could win, capitalising on Romnika's internal strife at the time and having the (later probably unwelcome!) support of the Shield. Especially if Parsistan was also hostile to Romnika.

This is all assuming both Romnika and Parsistan were independent at the time and not part of some western power's empire or something (not that we wouldn't just attack them anyway, like!).

Perhaps the Shieldians mostly used Depkazi and Gallagan levies against Romnika? A couple of semi-mechanised Celtic Druidic divisions on the right flank, a shitload of Turkish Muslim cavalry on the left!

Eventually Shieldian incompetence and low morale amongst their non-Shieldian conscripts and lack of Galatian manpower would scupper the invasion, leading to a fighting retreat (on the part of the Celts, at least!) and eventual armistice involving some sort of reparations and military restrictions to Galatia's disadvantage.

Then, post war, resentment over the defeat, the failure of their Christian, imperialist allies, the debts and austerity necessitated both by the cost of the war and post-war payments to Greece and Romnika leads to left-wing insurrection and eventually open civil war that wages on and off for decades, scuppering development but eventually leading to Igovian victory.

[The Crooked Beat]

At present, my extremely sketchy idea about Parsistani history during the Great War era has its still dangerously feeble government caught between its long-time Shieldian 'protector' and, possibly, a growing level of Walmingtonian influence brought on by Persian-Gulf oil exploration, and therefore clinging to a precarious neutrality, Parsistan probably tolerating both an Oakist and an Aventine military presence as a consequence of its inability to do anything about it in either case. Chances are, I think, that Parsistani foreign policy at that point would have amounted to a strenuous attempt to please all sides and to build-up its international credibility, in the hope that a postwar settlement would simultaneously see Shieldian influence severely curtailed and Romnika dealt damage enough to keep it quiet for the foreseeable future.

There's undoubtedly a lot more room for things to have happened both within and relating to Parsistan, particularly from a religious point of view. It's a subject which I haven't thought nearly enough about. A perfect setting for international espionage and diplomatic intrigue as well, I'd imagine!

Any Parsistani inclination to capitalize on Romnika's military misfortunes, and throw in its lot, however opportunistically, with the Oakists, might have been restrained above all by Walmington, and the Parsistani regime's sharp awareness that its minuscule armed forces could not hope to defend it against serious foreign aggression.

[Chrinthanium]

At present, my extremely sketchy idea about Parsistani history during the Great War era has its still dangerously feeble government caught between its long-time Shieldian 'protector' and, possibly, a growing level of Walmingtonian influence brought on by Persian-Gulf oil exploration, and therefore clinging to a precarious neutrality, Parsistan probably tolerating both an Oakist and an Aventine military presence as a consequence of its inability to do anything about it in either case. Chances are, I think, that Parsistani foreign policy at that point would have amounted to a strenuous attempt to please all sides and to build-up its international credibility, in the hope that a postwar settlement would simultaneously see Shieldian influence severely curtailed and Romnika dealt damage enough to keep it quiet for the foreseeable future.

There's undoubtedly a lot more room for things to have happened both within and relating to Parsistan, particularly from a religious point of view. It's a subject which I haven't thought nearly enough about. A perfect setting for international espionage and diplomatic intrigue as well, I'd imagine!

Any Parsistani inclination to capitalize on Romnika's military misfortunes, and throw in its lot, however opportunistically, with the Oakists, might have been restrained above all by Walmington, and the Parsistani regime's sharp awareness that its minuscule armed forces could not hope to defend it against serious foreign aggression.

I want to update the map... do you have your claim shifting finalized yet? If so, what is it?

[Chemaki]

Presumably Galatia and Romnika went to war... worth noting that Galatia's population at the time was probably only about 3.2 million, and only a few cities were industrialised, and half the available forces would have briefly been directed against the Greeks in Ionia. Military aid from Geletia meant that it probably had a fairly well equipped army-group using then-advanced tactics, and with a young population may have raised as many as a third of a million men by the conflict's peak, so it's probably still believable that the Galatians might at least have thought they could win, capitalising on Romnika's internal strife at the time and having the (later probably unwelcome!) support of the Shield. Especially if Parsistan was also hostile to Romnika.

This is all assuming both Romnika and Parsistan were independent at the time and not part of some western power's empire or something (not that we wouldn't just attack them anyway, like!).

Perhaps the Shieldians mostly used Depkazi and Gallagan levies against Romnika? A couple of semi-mechanised Celtic Druidic divisions on the right flank, a shitload of Turkish Muslim cavalry on the left!

Eventually Shieldian incompetence and low morale amongst their non-Shieldian conscripts and lack of Galatian manpower would scupper the invasion, leading to a fighting retreat (on the part of the Celts, at least!) and eventual armistice involving some sort of reparations and military restrictions to Galatia's disadvantage.

Then, post war, resentment over the defeat, the failure of their Christian, imperialist allies, the debts and austerity necessitated both by the cost of the war and post-war payments to Greece and Romnika leads to left-wing insurrection and eventually open civil war that wages on and off for decades, scuppering development but eventually leading to Igovian victory.

By the time the Great War rolls around, Romnika's position would have been very perilous for a few decades already - although beholden to the Greeks in name and administration as a client state (The East Romanian Republic), most of it functioned as a revolt-breeding backwater, almost Shogunate in character with the Church organizing bands of independent warlords to proclaim succession (and, at least from a de facto standpoint, gain it). Beyond the Levant, which was Greece's main, revanchist interest, Romnika was left to its own devices since the Greeks asserted control of it back in the 1700s - aside from the occasional uprising, which was inevitably crushed after a few years when the Greeks and Italians brought their full might to bear.

That system looked much shakier after the Saimonan War, however - defeat, and the brief but heavy losses incurred by Romnika in their ramshackle invasion of Galatia, brought a multitude of dissedents out of the woodwork. With the national army in tatters, unrest within the Greek-controlled Levant led to the formation of the Komatar, a democratic, cultural nationalist movement, whose growth was now unchecked by military repression. Meanwhile, Communist elements in Anatolia managed to create a power base in the East (the People's Liberation Front), assimilating or annihilating independent generals in a rather Zedongian fashion. By the time the Great War broke out, any loyalist military elements (rebels too, for that matter) would have been armed with whatever weapons they could get their hands on, much like the Nazi Volkssturm; civilians would be drafted and sent into battle with home-made explosives, or if they were lucky some old Tsag equipment left over from '16. I would think even a force of some 300,000, with any decent training, equipment and resolve, would easily crush the similar-sized Romnikan army, leaving the Galatians to slog it out against skirmishers in the Anatolian foothills.

For the Communist PLF, it was a blessing in disguise, with thousands of defected soldiers swelling their ranks and Romnika up for grabs. Already battle-hardened from fending off the (considerably weaker) attacks of Shieldian auxiliaries (perhaps with some half-hearted Parsistani support), the new blood for the PLF would have swelled its ranks to potentially almost two million experienced soldiers, mostly skirmishers spread across the Communist heartland. Though a combination of iron will and some devious tactics, as well as the limitations the more mechanized, concentrated Galatian force faced in the foothills and mountains, the PLF managed to push them back and fight to a standstill until 1944-ish, when the Komatar finally revolted against the Greek government, and the beleaguered Oakists took the opportunity to arrange a peace with both factions, ending Romnika's participation in the Great War and paving the way for fourty years of division.

Any peace agreement would probably be a poor compromise to Galatian, Greek, Shieldian and Romnikan parties; Cicilia, once part of the Greek Empire, would be established as an independent buffer state instead of being incorporated into Galatia or Romnika, before being quickly incorporated into the latter following a pro-Komatar coup. Cyprus would be dealt with in a similar fashion, though perhaps some sort of colonial (Walmingtonian?) influence would see it handled as a mandate, leading for tension in the future when the PLF asserts control (Bay of Pigs, anyone?). Trebizond would also be given some nominal independence, previously being a de facto colony of the Shield (who in turn inherited it from the Greeks) which has always been a hot spot for conflicts; between the PLF, the Shield, Galatia, Greece and various local nationalists. Needless to say, that doesn't last long either before the PLF snaps it up. Aside from a very hazy commitment to demilitarisation in the area, and some initial war reparations incurred by Galatia in supplying and transporting thousands of half-starved Communists, no real agreement was ever ratified. The independence of Cicilia and Cyprus probably wouldn't even be recognized by Greece, considering that the Greeks were still heavily involved in the Great War (though fighting Romnika and Galatia for it would have been a death knell), but an inability by all sides to carry on slogging it out lead to this rushed de facto agreement. Eventually some significant compensation would be paid to Romnika when the Great War concluded, but with the PLF already hated by most other parties, revenue is funelled to the Komatar instead. The Levant prospers with Western support, whilst the Communists in Anatolia are left to rot.

As for what happened after the War, I assume the PLF would have buddied up with any Communist elements in Galatia, supporting each other with arms and equipment and a mutual goal to finally dismantle the imperialist systems (Triarchy, Greek, Shieldian) which have dominated the region for so long; with Galatia and the PLF both thrown under the bus in peace talks, and very worn out from fighting, an alliance would have been seen almost as a necessity. Over the 50s, Anatolia becomes a hotbed for Communism, with factions rising up in Cicilia, Trebizond and perhaps eking out an existance in ultra-nationalist Greece. Whilst the Igovians and PLF differed rather significantly in their interpretations of Communism, perhaps greater than the Sino-Soviet split, the sheer vulnerability of both and their mutual goal would force them to be close allies.

[Walmington on Sea]

((Following on from discussions in the Applications Centre ...))

... Do what you will with Airbus, but I'm having Concord!*

The Royal Aircraft Establishment got the ball rolling and the engines are essentially British anyway, so balls to you Frenchies! I think the Imperial Federation could keep a small fleet profitable. ((I wonder if it'd be worth working on a slight increase to range so as to enable a Durban-Perth connection.))

Honestly, I'm not sure what Anglo-Valendian relations are like. That's probably something we ought to address.

Anglo-French relations I don't see really having been good for more than a brief flash in the pan.

As to the Great War, the picture has become a little cloudy due to all the moving about you smelly continentals do. If Britain, Iberia, France, and Italy are all Aventine it's harder to see how the Oakists ever thought they could win in Western Europe. I think we may have to say that the Oakist plan had the Shield taking on Gandvik almost alone in the early phase, in a classic case of projection; "We could beat them; so could our allies!"

If the West is viewed as disunited in 1939 it could be seen as reasonable to expect that Valendia could still steam-roll France much as IRL and Geletia could do the same to Italy, leaving Iberia either to be overwhelmed by both a few months later or use the time to dig-in throughout the Pyreneese and secure neutrality by representing a nut that's tougher to crack than it is rewarding to eat ((I have the impression that this may be Chrin's preference, and we could support the idea by having Britain react to the fate of France and Italy by shipping a load of fighters and tanks etc. to Iberia on generous credit terms.)).
At the same time Galatia would be expected to deal with the Greeks, and the Shield's manpower ((and I'm assuming massed ranks of cavalry and heavy guns?)) would be expected to hurt Gandvik badly enough that it couldn't recover until the more capable Oakist powers have done their initial jobs and can send support. The best-made plans and all that...

Britain would enter the war because Amberland is over-run as part of an increasingly desperate campaign against a more resilient-than-expected Gandvik and because we've never wanted a hegemonic power on the continent (unless it's us). Britain and the French resistance/government-in-exile would become temporary allies-of-convenience with about as much love as Churchill had for Bolshevism.

I'm finding it harder and harder to comprehend America's role in the war, though, especially as we're looking at a new dynamic with less than jolly Anglo-American relations. I'm sure Mod wants a mid-C20th war of significant proportions but I'm increasingly wondering if the Great War is, 'great' as opposed to, 'global' because the only Americans involved are from Canada. Does anyone else think we should work out another significant past conflict to help set the contemporary stage? Would it be absolutely ridiculous to follow what we now know as the Détente War with something drawing on War Plan Red/Defence Scheme No. 1?

*No typo =P

[Nova Gaul]

Very briefly...and with the admission I am extremely biased on this issue ^^...

Given the lack of a WWI and a centralist royalist government I think that France would have fought tooth and claw against any valendian invasion. The upshot in my mind would be a World War I like stalemate around Lille, with the Valendians pressing perhaps further in at great cost. So at least for me France would have suffered First World War casualties in the kingdoms northeast due to the élan of the royal army but not have well, well experienced what happened IRL.

If anything the bourbons would have seized on the war to show they were the ones defending France against a vicious for. Probably their finest hour, pun intended.

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in, but I just can't see the French folding so quickly. Eespecially once they brought in colonial troops, they'd have even probably launched counteroffensives that cost millions of lives. The monarchy could never have accepted exile in a Great War context I think.

Thoughts?

[Chrinthanium]

WoS, Chrin's preference is to not have been overrun in the Great War. We'll dig into the Pyrenees, we'll allow Britain staging points, whatever it takes to stay out of it. Even if France doesn't get overrun, there's nothing stopping an amphibious landing. Consider Iberia a large parking lot for British military things during the Great War.

I suppose Anglo-Iberian relations are amiable. Probably not each others best friends, but we get along well enough.

I'm going to say this again... I believe there is no requirement to have a WW2-like in AMW. I have said this before in the past and I will maintain this position into the future. However, if the majority want it, I won't stop it. If we're going to have one, then the Great War makes sense being a European thing with North America being in relative peace, an empty South America, an Asia that has little population, and an Africa that is all colonies. Even if/when the rest starts filling in, I think it better to not have to force them to take a side in a war before they get situated and learn who is what around here.

[The Crooked Beat]

To briefly address Chrin's objection, I suppose I would argue that war is an inescapable feature of European politics, and while I tend to agree with you that an AMW version of World War II is not entirely desirable, I'd sooner continue the pattern of near-constant minor (comparatively) warfare up to at least the dawn of the nuclear age, which in a way, with Geletia's campaign against Tsalland and other certain flash-points to consider, is a situation which I think we've gone some way to creating. The state by its very nature is an evil, satanic, murderous, intensely paranoid creation, its hereditary blood-lust restrained now, and precariously at that, by the advent of nuclear weapons, and while an individual is certainly capable of good acts, a state is generally not.

As for the potential balance of forces in our major mid-century continental conflict, I would personally be inclined to put France on the Oakist rather than the Aventine side, since, to me anyway, it seems like France might actually stand to gain a great deal by going to war with Walmington and Italy, while Valendia, behind its well-defined frontiers, would appear to offer precious few tantalizing bits of territory ripe for annexation, either within Europe or in the wider colonial world. Not to mention, the placing of monarchical France and the Papacy on opposite sides in an international conflict is far from without historical precedent!

The Oakist alliance, I'm inclined to believe, might be best understood as a conspiracy among highly opportunistic and by no means mutually-friendly powers with the dismemberment of a supposedly weak Italy, the curtailment of a rising and increasingly land-hungry Gandvik, and, perhaps above all, the destruction of Walmingtonian supremacy at sea (and in consequence the expropriation of its substantial overseas empire) as its core aims. Goals one and three could very reasonably, I think, see French and Valendian interests very much in alignment. Neither Valendia nor, especially, France could really expect to take on the Royal Walmingtonian Navy by itself, but their combined fleet strength might even have surpassed that of Walmington, particularly in light of the fact that Valendian battleship-building would presumably have continued beyond its real-life halt. Both Versailles and Steyr could have seen in Walmington and its colossal navy the gravest threat to their overseas empire-building projects.

Italy also, I'm thinking, might have seemed to both Valendia and France like a temptingly easy target, and where probably neither would have approved of a unilateral attack, by agreeing to demarcate their acquisitions and spheres of influence ahead of time maybe the respective governments figured they would still be able to get most of what they wanted while simultaneously confronting Italy with what must have seemed like an irresistible military challenge. Perhaps in part with an eye to their future strategic position relative to one another, the two powers could have agreed to divide-up northern Italy and Switzerland between them on a somewhat equitable basis, while France, looking to secure its maritime lines of communication through the Strait of Gibraltar and beyond that keenly interested in territorial aggrandizement generally, must have harbored designs on Italy's North African colonial empire.

There may not have been any especially compelling reason for the Oakists to seriously violate Iberian neutrality, France (in this scenario anyway) preferring not to provide Walmington with a convenient base of operations on its southern flank while also conscious of the considerable costs likely to be involved in actually defeating and occupying the peninsula. Iberia might not have seemed like a major threat to French strategic interests either, by virtue of its limited population and industrial base, and it seems possible that the Oakists might have even held out hopes of enlisting Iberian support for their own cause, possibly reasoning that Iberian acquiescence in the carving-up of Italy could be bought with North African colonies.

From these decidedly insidious beginnings, however, what looks on paper like an immensely formidable Oakist alliance quickly loses cohesion, Franco-Valendian enmity in particular being perhaps never far below the surface. To start with, maybe the Franco-Valendian grand plan to destroy Walmingtonian sea power comes badly unstuck, loose security robbing Oakist navies of the surprise element that they might have heavily banked on, and as evidence starts to accumulate before the respective naval ministries that things aren't exactly rolling along like clockwork, caution replaces the needed aggressiveness. Neither France nor Valendia quite lives up to its commitments, not wanting to expose itself to disproportionate losses while its partner holds back from maximum effort, and the result, when mixed with Walmingtonian daring and traditional maritime virtues, is farce and disaster at sea, finger-pointing and recrimination on land. A similar dynamic might well have prevailed over the campaign against Italy, once the expected light resistance proves in fact very heavy.

In short, a Franco-Valendian coalition which on strictly quantitative terms looks very difficult to hold back might end up being undone by a mutual unwillingness to coordinate and cooperate fully, both Steyr and Versailles hedging their bets in hopes that combined initiatives will work more to their benefit than that of their ally.

So all in all, a very long-winded way for me to say that I think France might make more sense as an Oakist power than as an Aventine.

Certainly this isn't WWII, with the bad-guy Axis set against the good-guy Allies, and in its most significant features I tend to think of the Great War (or whatever war or wars it ends up encompassing) as much closer to Europe's eighteenth-century conflicts, driven above all by calculations of opportunism and strategic self-interest.

Much more that could be discussed, but that's probably enough for now!

[Nova Gaul]

TCB--you must have read my mind. France being Oakist rather than Aventine does make more sense and indeed is not without precedence IRL if we think of 'Catholic' France's monarchy not hesitating for a moment to invade Italy against the popes objections. With the more gallican church I've presented (we're Catholic no matter what some fellow in Rome might say) this does indeed make sense.

It would also explain the genesis of the Great War I suppose. I also think the bourbons would have got on better with the Shields at the time monarchy, the Triarachy, and the Valendian throne than I suppose their traditional nemesis WoS (who I suspect France may have had colonial era wars with).

It would also explain why France and Valendia still are somewhat cooperative re Airbus. And why some Galatiens chose to emigrate to France after the revolution. So the why makes sense now TCB and I wholeheartedly support your idea.

Regardless of reversals at sea however on land this Oakist alliance seems fairly daunting. America would have had to enter the war in force, serious force I suspect, along with California, to tip the scales and force a armistice. So where would the main theatre have been? I agree the Iberian wouldn't make a great deal of sense, was it in North Africa then? Italy? Was there a Normandy style landing in Holland to try and cut Franco Valendian lines?

I am all aboard the idea, and look forward to see where the conversation goes.

[Beddgelert]

France as an Oakist, though surely pretty awkward, seems plausible to me.

We'd probably go back to Geletia and France exchanging hostile rhetoric in the late 1930s over supposed Geletian support of Breton nationalism and French support of Tsag nationalism. We may even try to make it appear that Geletian, French, Valendian, and Shieldian militarisation is owing to their fears of war amongst one another rather than against anyone else.

I'm not sure we need to worry about the Pact being too hard to defeat. As TCB implies, the internal divisions are great... initially a strength in that it made their collusion a great surprise to most of the world, but later an inevitable cancer. I agree with what he says about the naval situation, too. If the French and Valendians could organise a combined battle fleet then the Home Fleet would face a genuine existential threat. But neither would see their position in the alliance as that of junior partner and subordinate their ships to the over-all command of a foreigner. Both would end up hoping that the other sorties first, takes the worst of what the Royal Navy can dish out, and in doing so exhausts the latter. Might we end up with a whittling-down of one or both of the Franco-Valendian navies as they try to stay in touch with their colonies without committing the bulk of their forces, and have to contend with British cruiser squadrons and the like?

Despite my view that the Great War is not World War II -for myself it's probably closer to playing a WWI role in history- I'm sure the Battle of Britain's going to be an even bigger national legend for AMW's Britons!

Anyway, as to the possibility of stalemate... once it becomes apparent that the opportunity to knock Britain off top spot in the maritime department has been missed, France and Valendia will have less and less support from their colonies and the domestic situation will deteriorate, making powerful rulers nervous and starting bilateral recriminations. There will also be rapidly growing fears that the colonies will be lost -either to revolution or British annexation- if something isn't done soon.

Meanwhile, Gandvik has rallied in the north and is carving the Shieldians up after perhaps the Polish-Bohemian bit was over-run by Valendia and Geletia? I imagine partisan resistance in the occupied bits would be similarly effective to that in occupied Italy. After a brief lull following their defeat in 1938, the Tsag partisans would also be at it again. Rumyak would have put the under-staffed Galatians on the back-foot, and perhaps British colonial troops are landing there and reinforcing the Italian Suez... with apparently little to worry about in the Pacific, the Empire may have every last ANZAC lad deployed to the Middle East and North Africa... and if the whole South African army isn't there too, it's probably because it's preparing to invade Congo and Equatorial Guinea. Access to -and from- the Mediterranean would be largely at British discretion if Iberia remains anti-Oakist but uncommitted.

I imagine that Valendia may have to invade Scandinavian Gandvik, which would put the Gandvians in a really terrible position, but they'd be doing well in the east, and even if the British have a similarly shambolic initial response in Norway they could always come back in co-ordination with surviving Gandvian forces there (perhaps using more Canadians!). Gandvik could always pull a Finland-level defence against a perhaps ostensibly superior invader, especially where conditions are less favourable to Valendia's preferred style of fighting.

If America and California do stay out and things do go too far in the Oakists' favour, we could even end up with the Pact falling apart because of conflicting ambitions and everyone remembering that they absolutely hate one another

"Hurrah! We pretty much won that war!", "High-five! Who's left to kill, now?" [Both parties narrow their eyes at one another] "Pretty sure I had dibs on San Marino..."

If, contrary to some recent thinking and most of what I've just wasted my morning typing above, the Yanks and/or Californians do join the war, might it be in part with a view to creating a new world in which the particularly evil French grip on half of Africa is released, and even somehow tied in with the form of the Imperial Federation... when does the change from Empire come about? Perhaps this is it? America and/or California agree to help if Britain promises to decolonise in Nilosahara and Dra-pol and to give new powers to the other colonies which, ultimately, creates the federal model? That might fit with the Californians only contributing air power, perhaps refusing to become entangled by putting, 'boots on the ground', and perhaps the Americans are of similar mind and chiefly use the navy and send material and -probably much needed- financial support?- In the past, the British paid other Europeans to fight, now the Americans pay the British to do it!

That notion mostly comes to me in light of what's previously been said about positive Californian sentiment over Britain's role in anti-slaver struggles in their local history and American self-regard as, well, American as opposed to European, and somewhat anti-imperialist.

[Chrinthanium]

Personally, my objection to the war is that it set Europe up into a situation where every single nation is its own power bloc, in essence. None are friends or allies, none are enemies... all float in some weird middle ground between the two. Personally, I feel that hampers RP rather than help it. Yes, you need tension for a story (it is one of the basic ideas of story writing), but I could create the same kind of tension with a person making a cup of tea without having the coffee, milk, sugar, pots, pans, utensils, and the kitchen sink ready to fight the person every step of the way. I just kind of want to see an uptick in the RP quantity in AMW and I fear pigeon-holing ourselves into such sharp divides doesn't always help that.

This being said, since I know no one will think this idea of ratcheting down the tension from 11 to 9 as a good one, I'll state here that Iberia probably views GFR as a nation that it could be friends with. It further thinks it can work with the British, Americans, and Californians. It probably has had a long rivalry with the French (empire vs empire, potentially as new claimants arrive) and views the Valendians and Gandvians with a suspicious eye. The Italians are in a class by themselves in our book. We view Esplanadia as "our little mistake in North America," so we probably feel some sort of responsibility to help push it in the right direction in spite of the fact his hasn't worked since... the 1500s. We think of Depkazia as a backwaters nation that has a lot of stuff we need, so we don't rock the boat there. As far as the middle eastern nations, well, we like your oil if you have it, otherwise, we don't really pay attention to you. We want to be friends with CSR, but we know that is probably not possible since they view Europe as something that belongs to them and the rest of us are squatters. Drapol, now that's a nation with which we've no relations and I'm certain that we both like it like that. That's Iberian world views in a nutshell.

If France didn't get overrun, then we stayed out of the Great War. We build up the military, we prepared ourselves, we even let the British use us as a giant parking lot. We didn't actually fight because France stopped the Aventine advance before it reached the Pyrenees and the British were there (and Americans/Californians if they're in the war). This works well for me. It probably is the reason we soon bid the monarchy a farewell in Madrid because too many European nations were butt hurt the Iberian monarchy didn't take a side and we want to still have some friends on the continent.

Also, our football players can beat your football players on any pitch in any town at any time

AS far as Esplanadia, it didn't get involved in the Great War. It didn't even take a side. It probably didn't have the military to do so, and it probably didn't have the money to build one that could contribute. All it did was try not to antagonize its favorite North American nations, particularly California, while the war was on going. Since then, we don't like California (a bunch of uppity, hipster Hispanics who forgot where they came from). We probably deal with America because they want our drugs (everyone does, really). We don't have an opinion on the British, though we probably don't poke that bear too often for safety sake. Europe.. we can leave it. We'll deal with the French because they pump money into us and we still have some love for Iberia, but it needs to stop telling us what to do and how to do it. The rest of you, as long as you visit Cancun and Acapulco, we're fine with you. [/Esplanadia's world view]

[Nova Gaul]

So many superb points have been made, but, of course, that is the benefit of being part of such a superb community.

Chrin, I quite agree with you about tension able to be built into any type of RP. In fact, I’m excited about the character RP we just started in Esplanadia especially considering the fun with have with ones in the past. It has a phenomenal set up, and I can’t wait to see where it goes (I’m working on something and will hopefully get it up by tomorrow). For me, I think the discussion about the Great War is useful because it really explains our present situation—keeping in mind that I say that, as I do, less than two weeks after returning!

In fact, a part [significant] of me would like to RP out the Great War. But considering the ignominious death such tangential projects have suffered in the past I wouldn’t touch that with a barge pole. It’s enough to chat about it. Though as a history guy I love discussing the mechanics of it, almost as exciting as actually RPing it out.

As to points about negating new members Chrin with international tension etc., all I can say is that a quick scan of the boards shows me the majority of RPs has to do with wars and such. Admittedly we are a cut above the rest (to say nothing of the uber-active bronies) but I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to get more members to create an even more thriving world.

Now onto the war! I follow along in the panzer tracks of BG and TCB. I will add that, for me, the Great War resembles the First World war strategically and the dynastic warns of the 18th Century politically…add to that the Second World War technologically: a glorious mix so apt for AMW. I also think that a feigned arms between the Oakists is a clever idea just as I think it’s sound to say the Oakists (in which France I now believe would definitely have been a member) are more a Mafioso synod that a formal alliance—I can easily see pistols taped under their conference table! I doubt a Bourbon king would get on well with the Druid Triarchy, the Shieldians probably didn’t think too well of the Valendians either, but the thrust of thing is “if the four families can cooperate, the territory could be ours!” Each is in it for what they can get out of it, and the majority of their coalition probably consisted of shared goals and ‘spheres of influence’ in which each state could exercise their action. Whenever joint venture is called for, in the Franco-Valendian case a joint naval campaign against the Anglos, the operations may have become farcical. France wants to use its navy to secure its colonial sea lanes and support landings in North Africa, Valendia probably (with its high tech, gleaming, and in some respects technologically if somewhat inferior to the Anglos quantitatively fleet) wants it to play second fiddle to them if not provide outright canon fodder; and the result is a series of serious naval misadventures.

But that said, I still have a difficult time imagining the industrial powerhouse of Valendia having and difficulty running absolutely rampant over Gandvik. IRL Germany (without the added resources of Denmark and the Benelux) was able to do that—twice—while pummeling my beloved French. In this scenario, France (and Geletia, and the Shield) is their ally. Just maybe if Gandvik had kept its old borders a resistance in depth combined with one hell of a show by the partisans would have slowed Steyr’s juggernaut, but as things stands, I don’t see Gandvik lasting as a coherent state for more than a year after hostilities commence, at best.

Meanwhile the French would have launched their war on Italy, with probably four or five divisions (as many as two of them armored) crashing into Piedmont while the Geletians storm into Friuli and Venice. Italy ‘s position would be dire to say the least. I imagine a smaller effort by the French to land troops in North Africa, but that would depend on the results and timeline of the naval campaign. For France’s part at least (and I imagined they planned to divide Italy neatly up with the Celts) the goal would be to create a new Italian Renaissance political tableau where dozens of tiny Italian states run by quisling-princelings paid homage (and taxes) to Versailles. I wouldn’t even doubt Versailles planned to unseat the pope and install a creature of its own in Avignon. Incidentally, I suppose France may have arranged a white flag event where a powerless Italian aristocrat allied to the Bourbons was deposed to legitimize their war.

But all that said, I just don’t see how the Aventines could hope for a victory on the Continent. How can Gandvik—realistically, and in its current form—fend off the combined thrust of the Shield and Valendia, with the Celts also contributing. Now I know there is a plan for a Tsag uprising, and that would be a problem for Geletia, which is also dealing with Rumyak, but even then I think the Celts could hold their own, and their lack of support doesn’t negate two powerhouses—Valendia and the Shield—mauling Gandvik. Before I blather on, might a solution be for TCB to expand his border to the old Gandvik? Truly, that’s the only way I can see him withstanding such an onslaught.

BG also points to the fact that most likely the Oakist fleets will face reverses at Walmington’s hands, indeed their finest hour. This would of course cut France off from her African resource pots. But with the French crashing into Italy (regardless of stiff resistance), I suspect the French—especially if the Celts were driving in from the east—would be well near Rome before too long in the war—and here I am putting myself in the wig of a Bourbon king…well the French would think: “So we lose Africa, but gain a profitably hegemony over much of Italy and perhaps North Africa? Seems like a fair deal, we’ll be richer off than before and the preeminent Western European power!” Also not forgetting that Congo is a vast trap of a land, and the French could easily fight rearguard actions there, luring the Anglos further into a sandtrap of a theatre that would sap the Anglos of much needed men and materiel. A blockade of French Africa would be simple, a liberation I imagine not worth the military cost given more important theatres.

And this leaves the brave, dashing, and wealthy Walmies with the task of confronting the Oakists in several theatres, all of which will strain their premier logistical apparatus. Yes, send in the ANZAC boys to the Suez, reinforce Ramyak. Send some Canadian divisions to North Africa. Maybe even send some more home island divisions across to Gandvik—though they could be a dangerous move. The point is that the Oakists have strong supply lines to nearby targets, and would be able to fight their campaigns at the fraction of the coast the Anglos would. I’ve no doubt London could steel itself, muster the Empire, and engage the Oakists for a good number of years in many theatres and on many lands, but they’d sooner or later exhaust themselves, no matter how unfriendly the Oakists are with one another.

Hence why I see the need for massive troops and supplies and finances from the Americans and Californians. In my mind, BG, California will need boots on the ground. I think millions of troops would need to arrive from the New World to change the balance of the old, with perhaps separate landings in North Africa, Eastern Europe, and North Western Europe (I joked about Holland earlier, and it would be superlatively sanguinary, but a successful landing there might bring the Oakists to the table.)

Now, that is predicated on the main aspect of France’s Italian war...I’m speaking for myself and as a newly returned self as that, but Italy has not logged on for a bit—God forbid he would have CTE’d. If that were to happen however France would remain Oakist, but would I suppose have devoted more effort to a navy, and may have perhaps posed a greater threat to Walmington? That would change the whole dynamic from my perspective should it play out and negate many of my earlier points, and I suppose we will be having another conversation then?

Anyway, I’m long winded and devil’s advocate, but I just can see Oakist distrust (significant though it might be) negating the huge advantages they have. A few reversals at sea, even massive ones, don’t change the fact that they’d storm over their opponents. Am I getting this completely wrong? Let the conversation continue!

[Chrinthanium]

I think, NG, what they're saying is that the Oakists may not have been defeated entirely by military, but a combo of military and internal divisions that caused the shaky alliance to fracture.

As far as my little project thread, you might be surprised that the Ibañez thing may get settled earlier than you think it should because I have a lot of things planned ahead.

[Nova Gaul]

Awesome Chrin! I can't wait to see where this goes -- I'm working on a worthy post, and should have something for you manana.

As to your point, internal divisions aside, I just don't see that affecting victories in their own little theatres. I don't see how, for example as I said, humongous Valendian advantages re Gandvik would be negated by Steyr not trusting the French. Certainly, I see internal divisions breaking the alliance down, but as I pointed out each Oakist power has serious advantages that--and this is just my opinion--would not have been negated due to mistrust. It just seems to run contrary to logic in my mind. "So, we've huge advantages and can realize our strategic wet dreams, but let's just stop because we don't trust/like each other!" Just doesn't cut the mustard with me buddy.

As I said, I see that argument holding a lot of water when it comes to French and Valendian naval misadventures, but I don't think we can explain away a war due to mistrust. I think my above post does make sense, I just think the distrust can't explain away the magnitude of Oakist advantages. Again, this is just my opinion!

[Nova Gaul]

Just a thought -- again, I know it will most likely be shot down for very good reasons -- but would anyone like to RP out the Great War? I don't know if it is easy feasible, but it would be smashing fun?

We'll need to get everyone's detailed thoughts on this, of course, but it might be a way to explore exactly just how things turned out and why things are the way they are today. I know it's probably a silly idea, but it could be fun and get some more notice for the community. And yes, I'm almost positive it won't go anywhere, but since we're discussing the Great War I thought I'd throw the idea out there.

[Beddgelert]

Not sure RPing the Great War in full is ever going to work. I could maybe see a few of us RPing a small part of it, perhaps a single action or something, probably on a character level. A small action featuring individual characters with a conclusion to be decided through the RP and having no strategic importance, or a bigger effort with a pre-agreed outcome and a focus on telling the stories. I'm not sure.

Anyway, I think that Gandvik does have some significant strategic depth. Hundreds of thousand of Shieldians perishing in the Pripet marshes (and clogging the few roads so that Geletian forces can't pass) is one aspect of that. Large population and industrial bases in European Russia (such as around St Petersburg) is another. The impenetrable nature of the nation's north in real-world military history yet another. If a significant portion of war-critical industry can be relocated to Finland and at least one northern port kept open to the British etc they could probably fight-on after losing most of their Central European-ish territories and parts of Scandinavia.

What if Valendia's initial marine invasions ran into minefields off the prospective Gandvian landing-grounds? The German invasion of Norway was not far from scuppering on similar grounds in more far-flung locales. Gandvian coastal/midget submarine attacks and British carrier-aircraft raids, too?

And then Amberland does not capitulate but fights, in that naive and privileged English manner that was never fully required in WWII but forever hinted at. Pact forces try to drive through Amberland to get at Gandvik, but Amberland stands. This perhaps explains the region's low population in an AMW context (the Baltic states and their surrounds ought to be home to millions more people than is the case), as thousands upon thousands are killed. Naively, women and children in Amberland hurl petrol bombs and spears at the invaders, cut their throats in their sleep, drug their onions, mine the roads, and conduct bayonet charges on the flanks of advancing columns. Amberlanders come off poorly, but it's not what the Pact's forces expected.

The Geletians lose one of their premiers to Bomber Command's attacks and then quit the war before it's otherwise over. Once Geletia leaves and the Shield collapses, France and Valendia are isolated, surrounded, and desperately short on fuel previously on-tap from Geletia and Gallaga. Valendia's prior combined-arms tactics are an irrelevance as British and Commonwealth troops close in along with the Gandvians against an increasingly static defence and that's about all she wrote as the King of France surrenders to a Kiwi shepherd with a £2.3 Sten gun.

While I'm not necessarily suggesting such a total defeat, just saying I think it believable that it could head that way once the Shield's effort collapses and Geletia taps out (having been at war almost non-stop since 1915). The fuel issue is one of the biggest. Especially if the Pact invades North Africa and doesn't fare too well against the British and remaining Italian forces there. IRL Germany invested heavily in the Bergius Process to manufacture synthetic fuel, but in AMW Valendia may never have bothered due to all that oil coming out of Gallaga and Geletia. Once the tap's turned off the Valendian air force can't keep enough fighters up to effectively oppose all those Lancasters, Halifaxes, and Mosquitoes, and the army grinds to a halt.

Actually invading and beating them would be extremely difficult for the British, but they might dedicate something like four million men to it and use characteristic British deception strategies to prevent the Pact knowing whether the invasion's coming from Iberia, North Africa, or England until it's already happening.

Another more radical possibility might be that Valendia tries to invade Geletia after the fall of the Triarchy, to take the Drefolew oil-fields, leading to Celert's formative Principality rejoining the war as a de-facto Allied power in late '44 or early '45. I'd not previously considered it, but it may make sense. Perhaps explains why we get to drop out without being invaded despite having been at the centre of the Oakist conspiracy in the first place.

[Nova Gaul]

Hot on the hobnailed boots of BG…

Yah, I knew the idea of RPing out the Great War was dead-on-arrival. How can we have fun RPing something that has a foregone conclusion, after all? I just thought I’d float the idea, because, well, it may have been fun. My last word on the matter is maybe we could RP the Great War in an open format, see where it leads? But it’s daft and well I know it, given the world as it stands, so I’ll pipe down. Got to admit though guys, it does sound cool right? Enough said!

You make some phenomenal points as usual BG – and they go a long way to answering some questions in my mind. Certainly an exhausted Geletia collapsing would deprive the Oakists of much needed oil, I just didn’t see the leonine Celts folding blue paint and all. Could be that the Triarchy’s folding (and, worse yet, siding with the Aventines in what already is a long, confused, and exhausting war) prompted a last ditch French attempt to take North Africa. I’ll just say again though, I think that even a combined Franco-Valendian resistance alone would be a damn hard nut to crack…I think Amerique will chime in before long too.

Much needs to be discussed by others, of course, so I don’t have too much to add, save that your points are sound. For myself, I’m still crossing my fingers waiting eagerly to hear from Italy. I don’t know what France would have done in the Great War without him. So I’ll just sit back and eagerly await what others have to say, and what happens, before I throw any more ideas out there.

[Chrinthanium]

There will always be an Amberland. Stiff upper lip, properly dressed, fresh from tea, with bayonets and Molotov Cocktails in hand. That'll forevermore be my vision of Amberland after that, Beeg.

I, personally, don't see any need to RP the whole Great War out. While I would love to see action in the community, I just wouldn't see how that would work. Particularly since, as you say, NG, you're waiting on Italy... who is often MIA for months at a time. As Beeg said, if a few less consequential bits were to be fleshed out ICly for certain purposes, probably not a bad idea in my book.

On an RP, NG, sorry about no reply yesterday. Work was too busy for me to pen one and I rather crashed quite early last evening and slept for many hours. I'll get one up today.

[Walmington on Sea]

I hope that Italy and Valendia and Ian and the rest are still with us for the long haul!

If it helps with the balance of power I wouldn't mind having the dread invasion actually occur, and French and/or Valendian troops hit the beaches of Kent or wherever else. If it went as we expect that it would have in reality, that's 80,000 crack Oakist troops, a few hundred aircraft, numerous vessels, and thousands of tonnes of fuel wasted in the blink of an eye.
It'd go even more roughly for the Oakists in our time-line as it appears that the BEF wasn't deployed and so would not have left behind so much equipment at Dunkirk. This leaves Britain better-off by 400 tanks; hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fuel, stores, and munitions; 2,500 guns; 200-odd ships; 64,000 vehicles; 900 aircraft; and thousands of men.
Add them to the British total and subtract what the Oakists would lose in an ill-advised invasion in 1940 or '41, and the picture is far from desperate from the Allied perspective!

It also means that Britain doesn't have to panic and build ridiculous shit like this, you know, in case the Shieldians want a war-era tank to call their own =P

I think that Italy can play a big roll, depending how industrialised their North African territories were at the time. I can't claim to know off hand, but I'd imagine that the population of the territories covered was at least comparable to Canada at the time, and the Canadians ended up with over a million men having served and thousands of tanks and aircraft having been produced. Piaggio P.108s joining the RAF's bombing missions over the continent, Fiat G.55s, Macchi C.205s, and Reggiane Re.2005s covering the landings on Sicily and the mainland as Carro Armato P.26/40s roll off the landing ships?

[Europe - Prussia]

I’m still around, so don’t worry, I just prefer to lurk.

About the Great War, sorry but I’ll remain silent on this issue; as long as the outcome we agreed remains the same I’ll be happy.

Now, about international relations, I have to concur with Chrin on this one: tension is good, but not so much to the point that it grinds to a halt any attempt to RP, especially when it's needed to attract quality RPers to AMW. Originally, I envisioned Valendia having very belligerent international policies as an attempt to demarcate its own sphere of influence, but I’ll change it to a more pragmatic one, less principles and more realpolitik. Then again practicality has always been one of the core points behind Valendia as a concept, so it shouldn't be any kind of deviation.

Now, following this pragmatic approach, Valendia would attempt to have amicable relations with most of the european countries, so it would mostly depend of what is the other country’s opinion on the empire.

On Italy’s case relations are friendly, and with treaties too, because I already talked with Kyle about this. So unless he says otherwise I suppose this remains the same.

On Britain and Iberia, well I’m not sure on these ones, so it would depend on the opinion these countries have on Valendia and if the past of the Great War is buried (which I hope it is).

Now, about France, Gandvik and the CSR, these three would be the exception to Valendia’s pragmatism, they would be viewed with a great deal of suspicion, because they are fundamentally too diferent to the empire: while the two first are considered to be reactionary autocracies and dictatorships in all but name, the CSR’s views are considered too radical to attempt to establish stable relations.

[The Crooked Beat]

To comment briefly, ahead of what I must warn you all will likely be a long and rambling Oakist War discussion, on the idea of conflict in international relations as it pertains to AMW, I suppose I tend to take a somewhat different view than those expressed so far. Certainly few would want to find themselves in a perpetual state of war or near-war, which could well serve as a brake on RP, but I'm inclined to argue that too much friendliness, or rather too little cynical self-interest, leads us more often than not to the sort of dog-pile scenarios where the entire, shall we say, legitimate world bands together against what we might call outlier or non-status-quo states when they do something controversial. In RP terms, I tend to think that the sort of underhanded maneuverings, double-crossings, and often self-defeating secrecy that characterized European politics prior to the advent of American supremacy is fairly good material. And on an individual level, while the average state tends to comport itself with a degree of shamelessness that would reflect poorly on any actual person, there's plenty of room, immense room and scope even, for stories about people as they work within or against a fundamentally inhuman international system.

While I should admit that I used to be strongly against this, and arguably it caused some of our main problems in 'olden-days' AMW, I'm wondering if maybe we should just accept the fact that, as things stand, AMW is very much a Euro-centric setup, and give those European states relatively free reign to victimize the rest of the world? Perhaps, with the cost of major action in Europe running high, nations look upon the colonial struggle as an easier way to advance their interests and chase the power that states in a world such as AMW, lacking as it does a hegemonic actor like the USA, doubtless crave?

So those are my thoughts at least. Certainly we shouldn't be looking at a scenario where every nation is ready to attack any other nation at the drop of a hat, but neither do I think we should foster a world where we have a solid bloc of mutual-friend states set against a minority of prickly ones, of which the latter can't operate as they are meant to without bringing down the wrath of the former. There's also the economic side of things to consider, with no USA to impose a free-trade regime on the world, so maybe the prevalence of trade competition is a lot higher?

[Nova Gaul]

I respect your points EP. So, really, without more explanation, I’ll just lean towards the same: it happened. I suppose, really, there is no reason to go over it in detail if not everyone wants to. It would sort of defeat the purpose.

I will say, however, to WoS, that I don’t think the French at least would have been foolhardy enough to invade Britain. That wouldn’t have really fit with their goals in the Great War: ostensibly (probably, maybe, if Italy is amenable) to feudalize the peninsula as I said before and maybe even recreate an Avignon papacy—I like the idea that the Bourbons have such a big ego they even want to turn the pope into their pet. I just can’t see the French wasting their efforts on such a futile undertaking, the goal from my point of view re Walmington would be to keep the fleet at bay.

You present an interesting perspective TCB. Arguably, I was the main culprit of the madness in the ‘olden’ days, and how vividly I remember you playing African states during that war. But that war spiraled out of control to the extent we remade AMW. And I’m at fault for that, really, I was a bit headstrong and younger then. That said, it is an interesting perspective. That level of action certainly did have AMW thriving. I think what you are mildly proposing in the context of good points about evil government, good government being as you demonstrate mutually exclusive terms (Hannah Arendt aside, I am betraying my own biases I suppose), is pumping up the octane level in AMW by opening it up?

Seeing as I caused the war issues I would have to abstain from voting on your idea, but I will say I think it would work provided people are willing to RP a NPC state in question—something you were kind enough to do and do well. How I even remember Rajasthan! And that the idea is proposed before enacted so the community knows what’s going on. I know Chrin isn’t at all keen on military RPs, but such a mechanism could allow for much more action—and now it comes to my mind that we needn’t even have an PC vs NPC RP. In fact, just as an example, two people could RP a civil war in a NPC state that might have big implications for PC states. Perhaps such activity might even attract new RPers to pick up the NPC state and run with the idea.

A quick scan of the boards shows me AMW hasn’t really been up to all that much for some months, and if memory serves that last war we had in Europe (Gandvik and Nibelunc) was so planned out and formalized that it robbed excitement from the RP.

Like I said I don’t feel I can really support the idea, given my own history as a bugbear the likes of which you’d find on the Isle of Dr. Moreau, but I think it sounds fun and exciting: if I felt I could, I’d support it.

[Chrinthanium]

TCB, I was not advocating everyone around the world joining hands and forming a love train, but taking the tension dial down from 11 to about 9 wouldn't be so bad. Certainly if we want an amount of cooperation among states, some have to learn to swallow their own pride to do it. I'm not saying we all have to live in a world where there's a singular bloc of Western states against a small bloc of "everyone else." Tension is definitely needed for plot. I just don't like seeing a situation where you do something and a war breaks out and what was done wasn't something should've started a war in the first place.

Anyway, time to settle down with my tea and my choco leibniz. NG, post will be up shortly.

[Chemaki]

I know nobody asked, but I'm going to throw in my two cents here. Whilst AMW is going to be rather more divisive than the real-world by nature (there's little fun in roleplaying conflicts with some overarching powerhouse like NATO, and a Cold-War style setup would probably just see any local conflict boil over into a World War), I think that it's pretty hard to justify a lot of technological, social, economic advancement if each nation just goes it alone. What seems to be the case at the moment is that we have a whole bunch of similar-sized, similarly powerful nations, with the greatest disparity probably being between Gandvik and the Shield (and even before its fall from grace, the Shield has historically been a veritable powerhouse dominating Central Asia and Middle East). Sure, we can take the enlightenment-era worldview where each nation must be a formidable power in itself, but that tends to restrict roleplay to some weird isolated bilateral issue, where two or three nations slog it out whilst the rest of the world raises an eyebrow and tuts. I don't really see how the Great War could be borne from this setup - the Pact of Oak could form in much the same opportunistic way as the real-life Axis did, but why would the rest of Europe suddenly want to team up to stop them?

I like the idea of Europe being split up into a few power blocks, poking sticks at each other from their colonies across the globe; as the FIS, I pioneered a Middle Eastern pact with Byzantium to justify projects like a scaled down International Space Station, and I hope to blow the dust off of the UN Plaza subforum and pioneer something like the old Prognitern with Beddgelert. With the map looking especially sparse at the moment, however, it seems rather difficult to organize far-reaching factions and subtle neocolonial power-plays; it may just be that alliances are limited to two or three likeminded nations, with perhaps some very weak international body like the old League of Nations providing some semblance of world unity.

I honestly could go for the idea of some 'throwaway' NPC state which draws a lot of players in, some mess of a civil war like real-life Congo with various nations backing different sides. It could even be a great opportunity to give potential applicants a taster of what AMW is like - we offer them a small rebel faction to work with, let them write up a brief mini-factbook and get them straight into roleplay! They would be too small to do anything particularly stupid, and the detail of AMW would be less overwhelming for them if they were roleplaying a band of seperatists or mercenaries rather than a huge nation. It would also provide a lot of activity and near-inexhaustible opportunities for military roleplay without treading all over someone's nation or having particularly disasterous global repercussions, and provide a focal point for a lot of new roleplay.

[Iansisle]

I'm still here, just haven't been able to motivate myself for much in the way of posting lately. I don't have too much relevant to add, except that I vehemently disagree with any description of the Great War era Shield as a powerhouse. "Net liability or "the albatross around the Oakist neck" might be more accurate. Neglect, hubris, entropy, and incompetence throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had so eroded the Shieldian armed forces that by the 1940s they were not in any real sense a great power, despite the still-large territorial extent and high population.

I'm thinking the most accurate model for the Shield's participation in the Great War might be Russia's performance in 1914-15. Egged on by its allies, keen to avenge humiliations dating back a century or more, the Shield launches a massive invasion, perhaps surprising some contemporary pundits. However, the army quickly outpaces its outdated and inefficient supply train and disagreements in Lenore House cause a massive gap to open between two sectors of the front. The Gandvians are not much better led, but once the possibility of being cut off and encircled starts to circulate the conscripted peasants, panic ensues and poor morale leads to a Tannenberg-style disaster. The Shieldian armies fall back across the border (or are rounded up and taken prisoner). The large geographic extent on the Shield combined with a more competent Valendian offensive keeps Gandvik from finishing off the Shield then and there, allowing it to continue sucking up Oakist resources that would be more productively spent in other theaters. What little infrastructure the Shield possesses is bombed into oblivion by the Walmo-Californian air campaign and finally, with Gandvian third-string reserves driving towards Ianapalis, the High King abdicates and the Shield surrenders. Gandvik and the allies end up leaving the infrastructure of the Grand Empire in place for fear of the chaos that the disintegration would cause and prop up the decaying state until in vanishes in the Gull Flag Revoluton.

As for California, my factbook assumed that the Republic was drawn in by historic ties to Walmington for their abolitionist assistance during the revolt ("Godfrey, we are here!"). I'm not sure that "millions of boots on the ground" is a realistic possibility, as my (brief) research shows a likely ~1940 population of just more than 8.5 million people (compared with a contemporary US population of ~130m). I like California's role as that of air and logistical support, with some little presence on the ground, the Presidial Lancers under Patton making a lot of noise but not doing much in a military sense.