AMW Big Discussion Thread

[DaShunchao]

Actually, the Shun (and especially the Princely States) would be far more open to traders than the Ming or the (irl) Qing. I've been giving this some thought, and there's no real reason that they'd have stuck with just Hong Kong and Macau for foreign factories. There's also no real urgent desire on the part of the Shun to reclaim the ports, which for the most part would remain nominally under Chinese sovereignty. The Shun don't welcome foreigners, but they also don't expel them.

Here's a list of potential tradeport concessions:

*Shantou (centered on Nanao Island)

*Zhoushandao

*Dongshan

*Kinmendao/XIamen city

*Haitandao

*Langqidao

*Shanghai

*Yongjia/Wenzhou

[The Crooked Beat]

Just a couple of thoughts I wanted to discuss.

So a question for the military minded in AMW, I am currently working on Sennar's fact book and in terms of the Kingdom's of military I am little stuck on possible organisation and size, as military matters isn't my strong point. Basically, I wanted to conceptualize the Sennari armed forces as being less of a proper army and more of a Gendarmerie type organisation that is more concerned with suppressing dissent and defending key resources that actually fighting other militaries. In addition, the Kingdom would also be looking to keep the military from becoming a potential political threat to the royal family and ensuring only certain ethnic groups/tribes are recruited. I was looking around at a few other African militaries for inspiration and initially thought about modelling the army off of South Sudan or Eritrea, but changed my mind as they seemed a little larger than what I was looking for and come from a history of militarisation that isn't really present in Sennar. Thus I was thinking of modelling the Sennari army off Mauritania or Cote D'Ivoir which have much smaller forces seemingly more dedicated to internal suppression of marginalized groups.

With this in mind, would it make more sense for the Sennari army to be divided into say, 4 divisions tasked with defending specific military zones, or for it to be divided into numerours independent brigades that can be moved around into different regional commands depending on need. I'm leaning towards the latter I think as it would also reflect the concerns of the Sennari state from preventing the army from becoming too powerful a force by preventing Generals from establishing themselves in any area too long. Plus it would also allow the Kingdom to move soldiers from their homelands and into areas with differing ethnic/tribal populations, again to prevent the creation of ethnic based power networks. In terms of its actual composition, I'd imagine it would mostly be either infantry or mechanised infantry (or maybe mechanised infantry where half the vehicles don't work) with probably very little need for armour or artillery.

Secondly, a question on the status of Communism in AMW, as AMW currently seems to have a number of socialist states, however do these form a distinct political bloc or are they perhaps more loosely organised and divided over ideological differences and geopolitical considerations? I ask as I intend to have communist movements to have been a former major political force in Sennar and one that is still lurking around although somewhat dormant. Sennari proto socialist movements probably would have emerged in the large mechanised irrigation schemes along the Nile in the 1930s and 1940s where large numbers of workers would have been brought together from all over the country to work as sharecroppers, giving rise to the first worker unions. From these worker unions would have emerged the "Sudanese" movement, an Africanist like political movement opposing Marimaiain colonial rule and the unity of all Sennari regardless of ethnicity or tribe (hence the designation Sudanese from term Bilad as Sudan = Land of the Blacks used to describe Sennar). While not initially an explicitly socialist movement, by say the 1950s and 1960s (the post war era if their is still a Great War?) the Sudanese movement would have become more or less synonymous with socialism and a major opponent of the Marimaian government, starting to engage in guerrilla activity. I think around this period between the 1950s-1980s it appears as though a lot of AMW's communist states come into existence if i'm not mistaken, and so the Sudanese communist movement could likely have been apart of this trend.

However in the case of Sennar, due to a combination of internal and external factors, the revolutionary movement fails and dies off by the 1980s/1990s. In its current form, the Sudanese movement would consist of a political party in exile to some friendly communist state whose membership consists of old guard revolutionaries still dreaming of class struggle and recent arrivals who have left/fled Sennar. On the ground however, the movement would consist of scattered groups of guerrillas in remote areas that are less interested in class struggle and more driven by parochial interests. However the appearance of revolutionary ideology is kept in order to receive financial and military assistance from friendly states. In addition their would be numerous underground unions and student movements more loosely connected with the original Revolutionary groups. Thus revolutionary communism would still be a potent and potential source of political opposition towards the Sennari monarchy, along with tribal and ethnic identity movements and a growing group of political Islamists.

In belated response to this thought-provoking post, yes, the military structure appropriate to such a nation as Sennar is definitely not so easy to discern. Structure, indeed, may not even be the best word to use. I suppose a lot of it depends on the strength and influence of the central government, and the nature of the state itself. To what extent is governance a question of ethnically-based influence-peddling and patronage? Does the government purport to take a neutral line in that respect?

I suppose for any weak (institutionally speaking) state, the military is always going to be a potential threat, certainly when military officers are not themselves governing and often enough even when they are. Is the central government (such as it is) in Sennar more of a mediator to/prisoner of influential regional strongmen/operators, or does it at least aspire to control the nation's entire territory? What's the ethnic balance? Probably for any military raised and run by a state such as (I presume) Sennar, short on resources and lacking the ideological/institutional structure that supports war-making in larger, more deeply-entrenched militaristic countries, the line between formal and informal is always going to be blurry, and an order of battle that may exist on paper may not hold in practical reality. Perhaps the division/area concept you outlined earlier might be somewhat viable, as it would presumably allow for each division commander to carve-out a sphere of personal influence while simultaneously denying any individual military leader a nationwide platform, possibly making it easier for the central authority to play one commander off against another.

I really wish I had more to say about this question, as those smaller, quasi-informal militaries are tremendously interesting and are more and more the norm nowadays. I'd have to think that Chad is worth looking at, since while undeniably a deeply troubled country, its military has, if I'm not too terribly mistaken, proven rather effective at least in the context of the Sahel's various conflicts. Chad certainly managed to defeat Libya in the Toyota War, and seems to have done fairly well against Boko Haram and Ansar Dine more recently. Lots of fellows riding around on Hiluxes and RAM armored cars girded for war, at any rate. It seems you'd if nothing else be looking at a lot of 4x4 vehicles covered in various machine guns.

[Walmington on Sea]

((Holds perfectly still))

((Shifts gaze side to side))

((Hmm))

((Very slowly fixes bayonet))

Good morning, friends. Are we all... quite all right?

[United Kongo]

In belated response to this thought-provoking post, yes, the military structure appropriate to such a nation as Sennar is definitely not so easy to discern. Structure, indeed, may not even be the best word to use. I suppose a lot of it depends on the strength and influence of the central government, and the nature of the state itself. To what extent is governance a question of ethnically-based influence-peddling and patronage? Does the government purport to take a neutral line in that respect?

I suppose for any weak (institutionally speaking) state, the military is always going to be a potential threat, certainly when military officers are not themselves governing and often enough even when they are. Is the central government (such as it is) in Sennar more of a mediator to/prisoner of influential regional strongmen/operators, or does it at least aspire to control the nation's entire territory? What's the ethnic balance? Probably for any military raised and run by a state such as (I presume) Sennar, short on resources and lacking the ideological/institutional structure that supports war-making in larger, more deeply-entrenched militaristic countries, the line between formal and informal is always going to be blurry, and an order of battle that may exist on paper may not hold in practical reality. Perhaps the division/area concept you outlined earlier might be somewhat viable, as it would presumably allow for each division commander to carve-out a sphere of personal influence while simultaneously denying any individual military leader a nationwide platform, possibly making it easier for the central authority to play one commander off against another.

I really wish I had more to say about this question, as those smaller, quasi-informal militaries are tremendously interesting and are more and more the norm nowadays. I'd have to think that Chad is worth looking at, since while undeniably a deeply troubled country, its military has, if I'm not too terribly mistaken, proven rather effective at least in the context of the Sahel's various conflicts. Chad certainly managed to defeat Libya in the Toyota War, and seems to have done fairly well against Boko Haram and Ansar Dine more recently. Lots of fellows riding around on Hiluxes and RAM armored cars girded for war, at any rate. It seems you'd if nothing else be looking at a lot of 4x4 vehicles covered in various machine guns.

The Sennari government is definitely one based on patronage networks where central power is traditionally held by the Shukriyya Arab tribe who hold a monopoly on government positions and resources and then disperse them to key actors throughout the country in order to ensure their loyalty. Ethnicity definitely plays a role as Arabs no doubt hold a great many positions but it is not necessarily a defining factor, as the Sennari government relies on ties with a few non Arab elites in some key provinces and even among the Arabs it depends more on what tribe you belong than being Arab in itself. Thus the Sennari state I guess is much more of a mediator of power in Sennar, redistributing resources to key allies in order to ensure enough loyalty to keep the state together. It wouldn't really aspire to exert proper control over the whole state, just what is necessary to hold it together and key resources.

I'm thinking much of the military officer class would be dominated by the ruling group and those loyal to the monarchy to help neutralist the threat of a unified army mutiny, while the lower ranks are much more diverse. This would emphasis loyalty over effectiveness for the army. Aye Chad is an interesting example, however its effectiveness is perhaps not what I'm looking for, especially as the Chadian state has been involved in numerous civil and external conflicts to give rise to powerful military networks. Sennar is much more based on kinship systems, having never really had to face any major mil threats since the end of a communist insurgency in the 1980s. Thus I'm thinking more Cote'Divoir in the 1980s, militarily weak and focused on securing major resources of the state.

[Walmington on Sea]

It seems like a lot is happening and I have missed most of it. This is what I get for telling you to knock yourselves out and do whatever.

What is Cass doing, then?

I am going to have to re-think the little-brother role, aren't I?

[Chrinthanium]

It seems like a lot is happening and I have missed most of it. This is what I get for telling you to knock yourselves out and do whatever.

What is Cass doing, then?

I am going to have to re-think the little-brother role, aren't I?

Yeah, a lot is happening. The net result of conversations was that I volunteered to relinquish the UK to Cass so he could play his Nordic claim since, at the time, nothing else was clicking for him. Of course, I have been going back and forth on the Discord about actually doing it trying to work out how it best works for all parties. Working out meaning that it doesn't really blow up anything while giving someone who has no claim something while I have two. That is the nuts and bolts of it all. I'm still iffy on everything, though leaning towards a complete drop of Britain and its empire in favor of a Latin Empire/Republic/Thingy with Spain, Portugal, S. France, and Italy (plus the small nations trapped in there). This again allows Cass to go back to his Nordic/Scandinavian/Viking claim. Still not 100% on the idea, but I am trying to work it so that things don't go pear shaped.

As far as little brother idea, the current histories being conjured up involve you going around the world and building an empire and having Britain coming in behind you to take it over when it gets too hot for you to handle. Not quite the history I was going for. So it seems you were, historically, the big brother who helped strengthen your little brother who outgrew you and never looked back.

You will all note that I have not officially dropped or claimed anything. So anyone trying to get former British territory should actually remember that. It is still in discussion as you'll note the words "potential idea" and "What I am planning" in the back several posts. So before you all start factbooking and taking places, remember it is still actually British territory until I officially drop it, thanks.

[Cassanos]

So far, the only thing that stands that TCB has graciously decided to let me inherit Sweden and Norway, as well as a Norse treaty port on Hong Kong.
I've drawn up a preliminary list of possible colonies as well, which won't interfere with any existing claims. Anything beyond that is subject to Chrin's decision(s) and how/if all parties affected can make make it work. There have been a few other ideas floated such as Danelaw in Scotland while keeping the BE, or maybe a Norse expansion into the unclaimed western Mediterranean.

[Walmington on Sea]

In reference to what I have thus far read on these forums and in my telegram inbox...

I am not sure how this is going to unfold, but I think that if England and the English continue to exist in any form, it is safe to say that the Walmingtonians and Norse should share a history of bitter conflict, as the former are unlikely ever to accept that England is not English by divine right. There may even be a romantic commitment to a manifest destiny in the reconquest of England in particular or perhaps the British Isles in general.

I do not think that I want to become embroiled in running a British Empire again for the sake of it, and any Walmingtonian presence in England would have to be limited to some periphery lest it over-power the Walmingtonianness of my nation. I do not want to play England, per se, but would consider an English rump resulting from Walmingtonian counter-invasion or a Crusade to relieve a besieged England/East Anglia/Essex/Kent/Wessex, or what have you, at some crucial point in history.

[Chrinthanium]

In reference to what I have thus far read on these forums and in my telegram inbox...

I am not sure how this is going to unfold, but I think that if England and the English continue to exist in any form, it is safe to say that the Walmingtonians and Norse should share a history of bitter conflict, as the former are unlikely ever to accept that England is not English by divine right. There may even be a romantic commitment to a manifest destiny in the reconquest of England in particular or perhaps the British Isles in general.

I do not think that I want to become embroiled in running a British Empire again for the sake of it, and any Walmingtonian presence in England would have to be limited to some periphery lest it over-power the Walmingtonianness of my nation. I do not want to play England, per se, but would consider an English rump resulting from Walmingtonian counter-invasion or a Crusade to relieve a besieged England/East Anglia/Essex/Kent/Wessex, or what have you, at some crucial point in history.

It basically boiled down, at least for me, that Cass had an idea he really wanted to play and I, as a person holding part of what he wanted, opted to relinquish that to him for the benefit of AMW as a whole.

This being said, and reading your reply, I think I may rethink the 2nd claim again. No, I'm not going back on giving things up for Cass, but as since you're not interested in being England, and some of us do need an England, that if you're not too interested in English territory, I can take that southern bit of England to keep the English and leave southern Europe open to a new player. A 15ish million person 2nd claim that is the remnant of what used to be. Perhaps even having a few colonies of its own.

How does that sound?

[Amerique]

An English rump would work for the purposes of maintaining the histories we have as is. Walmington seems amenable to a little England, at least, particularly if it was a once-successful English Empire beat back later by a Norse highland charge from Scotland and on its southern counties until Walmingtonian relief arrived. Since Cass is mostly looking to use Scandinavian stuff, it also leaves some British things behind for Walmington.

[Walmington on Sea]

This being AMW, there can be no hurry.

Chrin, do not play something that you do not want to, especially not just to please me, or you shall end up in the same mess I mean to avoid for myself.

If the Walmingtonians -Angelish and Amberlandic- came to save, perhaps, Kent and/or Sussex as the last hold-outs of the Anglo-Saxon world in Britain, that could be made to work. Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight count fewer than six million residents between them.

Essex and Greater London would take that sum to more than 16 million.

That is more than the population of WoS as it stands, of course.

London is an issue. Either more people than I wish to add to WoS, or a target that WoS would never stop fighting for, regardless of the odds.

[Amerique]

http://www.edugeek.net/attachments/foru ... ngdoms.jpg Would the Kingdom of Wessex as pictured here work? Alternatively, Southern England and Wales but shifting the population of the Greater London Area to Cassanos' claim by agreement.

[Cassanos]

@WoS, I have also assumed that Walmington and the tentatively named Danelaw will be rivals, both in Europe (the Baltic Sea and maybe England) and as rivals over colonies. Although, with most of Britain having been Norse for around a thousand years, it might be that the rivalry is somewhat one-sided by now, at least as far as historical claims go.

I'm going to claim the United Kingdom without the regions of South West England, South East England and Northern Ireland. That comes up to a total of about 15-16 million people, leaving 50 million in the UK - more than enough for me. Now, I'm willing to incorporate some or all of those into my final claim, but if WoS or Chrin want to take territory there, be it a few counties or the whole lot, it's completely fine by me.

Again @WoS, if you have a list of all British equipment in use by Walmington, I'll be happy to leave it to you so you don't have to rework your entire factbook. I'll have more than enough actual stuff or prototype ideas to make it work easily.

About London:
I'd like to claim Greater London for its port and large population, but would transfer most of the population to the North and Scandinavia, which I feel makes sense from a historical perspective. That does not mean it can't be a relatively small border city the Walmingtonians or English want as much as the Arabs want Jerusalem.

[Chrinthanium]

This being AMW, there can be no hurry.

Chrin, do not play something that you do not want to, especially not just to please me, or you shall end up in the same mess I mean to avoid for myself.

If the Walmingtonians -Angelish and Amberlandic- came to save, perhaps, Kent and/or Sussex as the last hold-outs of the Anglo-Saxon world in Britain, that could be made to work. Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight count fewer than six million residents between them.

Essex and Greater London would take that sum to more than 16 million.

That is more than the population of WoS as it stands, of course.

London is an issue. Either more people than I wish to add to WoS, or a target that WoS would never stop fighting for, regardless of the odds.

It's not a question of not wanting to, but more a way to accommodate a quality player. I long assumed that I would wind up having to make that choice in the event AMW got crowded, so this became a simple decision after my initial hesitation. I'm not saying I didn't want to keep the UK. I did it because it benefited AMW more to relinquish it. It isnt like we are fully stocked on claims and there's other places it could work.

Now, as Amerique said, if others won't take the same idea in another location as seriously as they would Britain, it means there's less impetus on my part to even go through with the idea for Southern Europe. Of course, it would also give me a reason to make it worth everyone's interest and attention.

[Walmington on Sea]

Well, now I do not know.

I doubt that 15 million people would make for much of a Fascist menace, in any case. You would have to come up with an entirely new angle, Chrin.

Fifteen million Walmingtonians and fifteen million English... I am not sure, it does not seem likely to make for great empire building and power behind the Gulfers et cetera, does it?

Perhaps it is best if you stick with southern Europe, if you actually had a vision for it. There is enough power to be had there for it to represent a viable menace to liberal democracy.

If part of England were added to Walmington, I think that it would exist in a complicated legal and constitutional state, probably in a perpetual state of declared crisis. So it may well be a miniature Fascist state, in effect!

With Dra-pol drawn-down in scale and reverted to introspective Agrarian Socialism, I really ought to be able to manage a slightly more important Walmington. Isolated from British imperial support, I would want to play it as a nation with Singaporean productivity and Israeli militarisation. It would be more committed to supporting Fredonia and defending very Little England, as those would appear to be existential requirements in a lonely world.

If the British Empire is gone ((and it seems to me that with Cass's formative claim it must be)), Walmington will have to take-over for much to make sense, to me at least.

If I am to take part of England, then the Anglo-Walmingtonian Empire will have a global fishing fleet that replaces that of the People's Republic of China IRL, a merchant marine that replaces Greek shipping in large part, a financial centre that replaces a little, contested, and half-surrounded London, and world-class turbine, ship, and aerospace manufacturing centres.

It still shall want for manpower, perhaps furthering reliance on the Gulfers and interest in the Gull F...laggers.

As before, the Walmingtonians shall have been very early out into the world, and it may be necessary in a post-British world for me to retake some colonies in Asia and beyond. The Atlantic-only empire was based on accepting junior status in line behind a global British Empire that no longer seems likely to exist. Small, defensible, strategic outposts rather than sprawling colonies would, though, continue to be the flavour.


Welcome to the second month of 2018, because apparently that is right now and somehow not in the far distant sci-fi future.

[Amerique]

Forgive me for saying this but a strong and financially-relevant Walmingtonian Empire that you describe, almost as a larger Little England than you mentioned before, seems like it would fit pretty well in the mold of the more aesthetically pleasing set up of the East of England, London, South East, South West and West Midlands arrangement from the regions of England either with or without Wales. Depending on how large you'd like London then, you could shift population around the Empire or potentially shave some London population to Cassanos if possible to do. I'd suggest at least an arrangement of South East, South West and West Midlands when it comes to what you're picturing.

[Walmington on Sea]

Right-ho, let's have a go at this!

Britain and her empire are gone, so WoS can no longer play the little brother, which does rather shed doubt on my abandonment of our East of Suez equivalent. I gave up colonies in the Indian and Pacific theatres on the assumption that Walmington found herself over-stretched -having gone in early on the colonial game, rather taking Portugal's place in some respects- and rather than going down fighting or simply abandoning the colonies, gradually transferred power to a bigger and more able Britain, while presumably retaining some private commercial interests and relative privilege in those outposts.

Now, I still see Walmington on Sea as a seafaring nation -it is rather ingrained in the name!- and by necessity it must become a nation of explorers and colonists relatively early in history. In a world that preserves the Danelaw, Iceland is full (well, not "full"; it is Iceland) of Anglo-Saxons and to a lesser degree Celts, and likewise Greenland Greenland, Canaria, Cabo Verde, and more that would be otherwise occupied if the Walmingtonians did not get to it between a thousand and five hundred years ago at the very latest, and in some force.

And so I still see WoS as one of the earliest pioneers of European colonialism around the world. WoS, without Britain behind her, shall have to be hyper-rich or else defeated and not the nation that it is.

Yet I still do not want to run a superpower in AMW. I think that working out a minimal viable England in the South East or there about must be one key matter, and pinning down small, profitable colonial outposts around the world another. In the Atlantic, the latter issue is largely settled by my claim as it stands, while in the Indian ocean my first thought is to reclaim the Spice Islands, should they be available post shake-up, before discerning what ports may be held in South and South East Asia, and perhaps China... if I am reading the Shun correctly I hope that the Walmingtonians -wealthy, ambitious, well armed, but few in number and disinterested in wholesale conquest, as well as obsessed with protocol and decorum, and first arriving in Chinese waters in the 1500s at the latest- may have made a comparatively good impression.

Trincomalee? Singapore? Is Hong Kong already re-assigned? Perhaps some of the other Indian Ocean islands. Oh, and I do not know if I ever got round to asking TCB what became of Bornholm, which I think each of us had held under prior incarnations.

In public reply to a telegram from Cassanos about British military technology, I can answer again only in part!

The majority of the warships I need can be found in Denmark, provided at least that I secure enough friendly ports around the world to support them. I would like if possibly to keep Britain's old diesel-electric Upholder/Victoria submarines and perhaps the Invincible Class light carriers, if that's agreeable. Britain's nuclear submarines and fleet carriers are more than Walmington can justify. I am hoping to keep one old gun-and-armour ship as a maximum-Walmington flagship. I'd tentatively gone with HMS Blake, though that is in practical terms an absolute shambles of a choice for a modern flagship... or a retro-'60s flagship... or a flagship for Æthelstan at Sandwich. But she or Belfast would suffice for my twisted purpose, I do not mind too much.

Otherwise, my only naval vessels are or were the Canadian Protecteur Class auxiliaries and the Singaporean Endurance Class LPDs, which seemed a more Walmington-scale choice than the British equivalents, a decision taken when Singapore switched to British control.

On land, I had tended to select what ifs and prototypes from British archives, because apparently I have known TCB for too many years and this is the kind of thinking that results. EM-2 rifles (oh, and if you choose modern British small-arms over Scandinavian, please adopt 4.85x49mm rather than that silly, snub-nosed American cartridge everyone's using these days, since I shall be using .280 British), and projects such as the LIMAWS, M777 Portee, which seemed to offer reasonably modern firepower at comparatively low cost and with inherent transportability as would be essential to a small but far-flung empire never knowing which potential trouble spot will be next to flare. Tanks remained a question unanswered, but if all else fails I am sure that the Gulfers still have dibs on one of the American light tank projects. Some of Britain's SAMs but not others; room for negotiation at least, I should hope.

Of course military aircraft present a greater challenge. I would very much like to keep the Harrier and Sea Harrier, as they seem to fit Mainwaring's vision for defence strategy rather well. I had chosen very old British helicopters (Scout and Westminster, for example) and assumed them partially modernised. There may not be enough to go around in AMW, with fewer broad-reaching security organisations and less commonality. The American based players (and TCB) may have to share?

I had gone for other proposals and prototypes where possible. AW.681 transport aircraft, NDN Firecracker trainers, and the TSR-2 interdiction bomber. I would also like to keep hold of the Folland Gnat, because it has spread from WoS to Iansisle at the very least and also I think to Depkazia (and I am still deciding for Dra-pol, where WoS may again have colonial history).

I had pencilled-in an Anglofighter Typhoon as a joint British-Walmingtonian project, but that no longer seems remotely viable. I know that it is rational for WoS to make use of Gulfer F-16s or what have you, but you absolutely can not say a convincing, "Tally-ho! while flying something made in the Deep South.

I'd hoped to make use of some other older British support aircraft, too. Chipmunk trainer, VC-10 tanker, Nimrod maritime patrol and, "Gosh, this was a bad idea" AEW.

I don't know that I would want to take so much of England as Amerique proposes. South East seems sensible, East and West each not unreasonable, London a mixed bag with location saying aye and population perhaps not, then the Midlands and Wales perhaps pushing matters a bit far. Then again, it seems likely that Wales would have held out longest against both Norse and Saxons, so it is a question of to whom it fell first, perhaps?

[Chrinthanium]

With the Philadelphia Eagles going on a successful Super Bowl run (our first Super Bowl victory), I have been hard pressed to work out anything because the NFL is my favorite sport and the Eagles my favorite team and I had to watch everything about it (not to mention spend the Sennar GDP on Eagles merchandise).

Now that's all over (apart from a victory parade on Thursday), I can get back to really concentrating on AMW again. I am aware of the disaster I have caused, but I did what I thought was best for a player I really respect as much as you, WoS, and a group I care about. I didn't want to do it originally, but I decided, as I have maintained, that Cass is worth giving it up for because I know he'll rise to the occasion and AMW will be better for him being here again. My apologies (again) for the upheaval this has caused.

While everyone is busy working out things, I wanted to take a moment to work out what this Pan-Latinist claim will look like. It will be Southern France, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Italy (without that Northeastern bit), Spain (without Canaries) and Portugal (without Azores or Madeira), and Macau. I have also opted to lump in Angola, Zambia, Katanga, Kongo-Central province of DR Congo (which connects the little piece of Angola with the rest of it), Puerto Rico, and Uruguay. Cass has mentioned to me about taking Singapore if you, WoS, didn't want it and he opted out of it. I would if neither of you took it. Would help explain how we got all the way to Macau in the first place. Cass also asked about BIOT. I think the Latins will keep BIOT. There's no native people there, so it adds no population to the claim. And that's the territorial extent I was going for. Some 204.5 million people with Singapore. Without it, about 199 million.

[Cassanos]

Only a quick response from me for now, since I've been working through the night and will be for some time. I'm happy to see we might just find a way to accomodate everyone with this switch. WoS, your ideas seem eminently reasonable. Now, to address at least a few of the more pressing topics:

England and London

Like I said, I'm happy to part with South East and South West England as well as possibly the West Midlands as well as any portion or combination thereof that makes sense. I'd rather like East of England for historical reasons, as it is the most likely starting point for the Danelaw. Wales might look a tad weird tacked on by a bare sliver of land. Maybe Northern Ireland might be a good addition to Walmington though?

Now, London, in my view, would be nowhere nearly as large as it is IRL and I'd mostly use it as a source of population to shift around to other regions. You're absolutely on point about the strategic location, though.
I'd suggest something of a split - I'd be more than happy to take a chunk of London's population off your hands and retain it as a Walmingtonian port city, maybe one that has been governed by one side or the other over the last millenium. And while my instincts of course tell me to make the river Themse a national border, I admit that would not make too much sense. What about Greater London and maybe a few surrounding districts going to Walmington, possibly with a demilitarised zone, following some war maybe 200, 300 years ago? That might force Walmingtonian politics into a position where they feel they have to be always ready for a Norse attack (which is unlikely, but still), so it might be too much of a burden both IC and OOC.

The East

Like I said, I don't really need Singapore too much, and I'm willing to hand over Hong Kong if DaShun doesn't mind - another treaty port and/or maybe Cam Ranh Bay would suit me just fine as well.
I will claim a bit of Malaya, though, and might also go for Palawan and maybe Mindoro in the Philippines.

As for equipment, I'll address those in turn, and will also draw up a preliminary list of what I'd like to use (which doesn't mean I can't find replacements easily enough, of course).

Naval Equipment

Capital ships:
There are enough designs to go around, so I'd have no problem replacing the Invincibles with a VTL-prepared HMS Ocean or maybe something akin to the Spanish Juan Carlos I. If the Albion class LPDs are available, I'll take them. I'd also either retain some older carriers (like the Audacious class maybe), have the QE-class inducted earlier, or both for fleet carriers.
I have also long toyed with the idea of using modernised gun cruisers for naval gun support, and since the Norse will emphasize amphibious forces far more than, say, Nibelunc, I finally can! There are a lot of British cruiser designs to choose from though, so I have no problem with some designs going to WoS.

Frigates and Destroyers:
No problems here, if the Type 23, Type 42 and Type 45 are available I'll take them and/or the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansens. If not, I can work something out.

Smaller vessels:
Corvettes, FACs and mine warfare vessels? I have Norway and Sweden, I am absolutely and utterly satisfied .

Conventional submarines:
Again, with Sweden's designs and so many concepts, I am all set.

Nuclear submarines:
Should I decide to use them, Britain has the Trafalgar, Astute, and Vanguard. If WoS doesn't take them, I will.

Aircraft

Rotary Wing
Westland and the American states as well as possibly Valendia should be more than enough for transport, utility, attack and naval helicopters.

Fixed Wing - multirole and fighters
Both Valendia and the Latins would have equal claim to the Typhoon. I will go for the Gripen (or navalised Gripen) anyway. In the past, the Viggen, Lansen and British designs will be fine.

Fixed Wing - strike fighters and bombers
What is the status of the Tornado in AMW? The SEPECAT Jaguar might have remained in service a bit longer in AMW, as well as the Canberra.
Strategic bombers aren't much of a priority, but I suppose there were ideas for a replacement of the V-bombers.

Transport and reconnaissance
America and California seems like the most likely sources for those. Luckily, the P-3 is made by Lockheed, and if California is amenable to exporting to a fellow liberal country...

I'll get into more detail about small arms and missiles later, but with American support, I should be all set.

/EDIT: And as for the Harrier, I have no problem with giving them up. There was a German design I used for Nibelunc that E-P might be willing to share, and enough other projects to go around so I can pick one. Not sure about the F-35 in AMW?

[Iansisle]

Only a quick response from me for now, Transport and reconnaissance

America and California seems like the most likely sources for those. Luckily, the P-3 is made by Lockheed, and if California is amenable to exporting to a fellow liberal country...

/EDIT: And as for the Harrier, I have no problem with giving them up. There was a German design I used for Nibelunc that E-P might be willing to share, and enough other projects to go around so I can pick one. Not sure about the F-35 in AMW?

An even quicker reply!

Sure. The P-3 is designated the "Virgo" in Californian service, and would face no export restrictions. More sensitive technologies might, however.

The F-35's only reference in my factbook is: "Lockheed's privately-funded 'Advanced Light Fighter' concept to replace the Codorniz has been plagued by technological setbacks and political indifference; an attempt to get official funding in 2010 was scuttled by Green ministers on the defense acquisition committee."

Also, fuck you, photobucket.

[Walmington on Sea]

I was going to suggest dividing London on the Thames and sending the population from south of the river to the north, but if you, Cass, are willing to send the whole city to WoS (while you retain the population) that would also be agreeable to me.

Though I admit to initial scepticism about Amerique's relatively far-reaching proposals, in this light I can see the South East, South West, West Midlands, and Wales fitting together, with the Norse sweeping Scotland along with the north and east of England, only being stopped in the west by Wales being full of hills and relatively little of value in a pre-industrial era (the locally significant farmlands of Anglesey probably not appearing all that significant to an empire of international regard) and in the south by the Angleish and/or Amberlanders sailing up the Thames to join the 'last ditch' defence (I rather fancy that one may have gone to London while the other sacked some Scandinavian port and forced a shift in strategic focus).

The Thames may now also become known as, “The Ditch”, for better or worse.

In such a division, based upon a cursory reading of the regions -and a more precise accounting may presumably be derived through a county-by-county survey-, some 19,637,000 Englishmen would be counted Walmingtonian, assuming all of Greater London's population amongst the 33,963,761 Norse in 'England'. These estimations of course exclude Wales, Scotland, Mann, and Northern Ireland.


A rough look at the maximum I feel that I could work with. I am willing to discuss having less than that, but not more!

I would want WoS without Britain to have small but significant outposts. The obvious ones do include Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. I am not trying to lay down the law, but I think that if these are to be colonial outposts, and WoS is to be amongst the nations with colonial outposts, well, does this not seem natural?

So many other potential outposts are worthy of consideration, but I owe a reply of some relevance and this is taking far too long.

[Cassanos]

I was going to suggest dividing London on the Thames and sending the population from south of the river to the north, but if you, Cass, are willing to send the whole city to WoS (while you retain the population) that would also be agreeable to me.

Though I admit to initial scepticism about Amerique's relatively far-reaching proposals, in this light I can see the South East, South West, West Midlands, and Wales fitting together, with the Norse sweeping Scotland along with the north and east of England, only being stopped in the west by Wales being full of hills and relatively little of value in a pre-industrial era (the locally significant farmlands of Anglesey probably not appearing all that significant to an empire of international regard) and in the south by the Angleish and/or Amberlanders sailing up the Thames to join the 'last ditch' defence (I rather fancy that one may have gone to London while the other sacked some Scandinavian port and forced a shift in strategic focus).

The Thames may now also become known as, “The Ditch”, for better or worse.

In such a division, based upon a cursory reading of the regions -and a more precise accounting may presumably be derived through a county-by-county survey-, some 19,637,000 Englishmen would be counted Walmingtonian, assuming all of Greater London's population amongst the 33,963,761 Norse in 'England'. These estimations of course exclude Wales, Scotland, Mann, and Northern Ireland.

(Image)
A rough look at the maximum I feel that I could work with. I am willing to discuss having less than that, but not more!

That seems very reasonable to me. It would give Walmington a significant power base for colonisation and makes sense from a historical point of view. I also like the idea about a last Ditch (heh) defence of "England" against the Norse, even though a large part of their army would likely have consisted of Mercians, Northumbrians and Angles by that point - traitors to the English cause, of course . With ports on both the North and Irish Seas and the fertile heartlands of England under Norse control, they would probably have called it a day, especially with an Amberlander raid on Scandinavia. Zealand and Amberland are very close to several important ports, not least the King's home at Kungahälla.

I have three small (or rather not so small) suggestions regarding this split though.
1. I would really like to claim Birmingham and its corporations and industrial base for the Norse, but seeing as it sits right in the centre of the Western Midlands, that would necessitate adding the counties of Warwickshire and possibly also Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire to the Norse territory.
2. Milton Keynes is stabbing into East of England quite a bit, it would be more aesthetically pleasing to remove that salient - or you might keep it as a former border fortress - which for everyone who has read Good Omens would be strange . Your call of course.
3. With Scotland* going to the Norse, it might make sense to change the Shetlands and the Faeroer Islands to them as well, since I don't quite see how they could have remained independent in the midst of a literal Norse Sea.
All of these are merely ideas I had when looking at the map, of course. If you find that this reduces Walmington too much (a good 4-5 million people, after all), I'm absolutely willing to either switch other counties to you or find another solution that works for both of us such as a Walmingtonian Northern Ireland or a population switch as we did in London, only in the other direction.

*Scotland would likely have married into the Norse aristocracy, which probably makes them traitors to the Celtic cause. Ah, well. Nobody can say no to Scandinavian women.

I would want WoS without Britain to have small but significant outposts. The obvious ones do include Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. I am not trying to lay down the law, but I think that if these are to be colonial outposts, and WoS is to be amongst the nations with colonial outposts, well, does this not seem natural?

So many other potential outposts are worthy of consideration, but I owe a reply of some relevance and this is taking far too long.

You have my vote. It fits Walmington perfectly and keeps those vital locations out of the reach of the vast 100M+ powers. I will claim territories close to Singapore though, as well as a treaty port/military harbour in China or Indochina.

[Cassanos]

Only a quick response from me for now, Transport and reconnaissance

America and California seems like the most likely sources for those. Luckily, the P-3 is made by Lockheed, and if California is amenable to exporting to a fellow liberal country...

/EDIT: And as for the Harrier, I have no problem with giving them up. There was a German design I used for Nibelunc that E-P might be willing to share, and enough other projects to go around so I can pick one. Not sure about the F-35 in AMW?

An even quicker reply!

Sure. The P-3 is designated the "Virgo" in Californian service, and would face no export restrictions. More sensitive technologies might, however.

The F-35's only reference in my factbook is: "Lockheed's privately-funded 'Advanced Light Fighter' concept to replace the Codorniz has been plagued by technological setbacks and political indifference; an attempt to get official funding in 2010 was scuttled by Green ministers on the defense acquisition committee."

Also, fuck you, photobucket.

Perfect! Does that go for other not too sensitive Californian equipment as well?
In a similar vein, would California be willing to allow Lockheed to turn over some or all of their research to Saab (or whatever I'll call it)? That would improve my ideas for a modern V/STOL aircraft based on the Hawker Siddeley P.1216 and might help placate the non-Green Cali politicians with a huge sack of (totally not looted, swear!) gold.

[Iansisle]

Argh, so you want me to actually enumerate my vague thoughts on export restrictions???

No worries. I'll have to do some thinking on it myself. I'll try to hang around discord and hook up with you there for some real chatting!

[Marimaia]

I was going to suggest dividing London on the Thames and sending the population from south of the river to the north, but if you, Cass, are willing to send the whole city to WoS (while you retain the population) that would also be agreeable to me.

Though I admit to initial scepticism about Amerique's relatively far-reaching proposals, in this light I can see the South East, South West, West Midlands, and Wales fitting together, with the Norse sweeping Scotland along with the north and east of England, only being stopped in the west by Wales being full of hills and relatively little of value in a pre-industrial era (the locally significant farmlands of Anglesey probably not appearing all that significant to an empire of international regard) and in the south by the Angleish and/or Amberlanders sailing up the Thames to join the 'last ditch' defence (I rather fancy that one may have gone to London while the other sacked some Scandinavian port and forced a shift in strategic focus).

The Thames may now also become known as, “The Ditch”, for better or worse.

In such a division, based upon a cursory reading of the regions -and a more precise accounting may presumably be derived through a county-by-county survey-, some 19,637,000 Englishmen would be counted Walmingtonian, assuming all of Greater London's population amongst the 33,963,761 Norse in 'England'. These estimations of course exclude Wales, Scotland, Mann, and Northern Ireland.

(Image)
A rough look at the maximum I feel that I could work with. I am willing to discuss having less than that, but not more!

I would want WoS without Britain to have small but significant outposts. The obvious ones do include Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. I am not trying to lay down the law, but I think that if these are to be colonial outposts, and WoS is to be amongst the nations with colonial outposts, well, does this not seem natural?

So many other potential outposts are worthy of consideration, but I owe a reply of some relevance and this is taking far too long.

No need to invade the Suez, Walmington can have a seat on the Board of the 'Suez Canal Company' that I proposed having (after Chrin suggested it).

So......

With it looking likely that my democratic, socially liberal Caliphate idea has received no objections and will therefore go ahead, there exists the prospect of what to do with the Suez Canal. Discussions on Discord have led to the idea that the Suez Canal will not be owned by the Caliphate but rather exist under 'international authority', something which I am perfectly happy with. So my proposal is for there to be an administrative organisation called the 'Suez Canal Treaty Organisation', 'Suez Canal Company', or something similar. The organisation will be much like the RL Suez Canal Authority, in that it 'owns' the Canal and attached buildings/equipment/etc., collects the tolls, and is responsible for the operation/maintenance/traffic safety of the Canal (the tolls being used to pay for these things).

As it will be an international organisation, the idea is that AMW nations will have representatives sitting on the Board of Governors/Directors/whatever. This Board will exist to oversee administration and maintain the Canal's neutrality. If there is some crisis/situation with the Canal which requires additional funding outside of the tolls, then the cost would be divided evenly between all represented nations (because if you want a say over how the Canal is operated, it's only fair that you contribute if it becomes necessary but you'd pay the same as every other nation on the Board). Basically it would act as a not-for-profit organisation because all income from tolls or anything else under the body's control would be ploughed back into maintenance, etc. I'm thinking that a majority vote would carry rather than a unanimous vote, just in case we get representatives on the Board who try being contrary to show the follies of capitalism, globalism, or somesuch.

We'd also need an AMW equivalent of the RL 1888 Convention of Constantinople, which grants the right of free access and use of the canal at equal conditions to all ships, commercial ships and ships of war, in times of peace or of war, even to ships of belligerent parties. That way if any one nation tries to block access to the Canal for someone else, the rest of the world has the right to Bonstock the crap out of them.

If this particular proposal is adopted then we're going to need AMW nations to sit on the Board. I'd like to put the Caliphate on the Board because the Canal cuts through their territory and is obviously important for their economy, so if you think the proposal works and want to be on the Board then say so.

If anyone's got any alternative ideas then feel free to offer them

I had a tentative 'yes' for Board members from Valendia and Chrinthania before things shook around a bit, but I still think it's the best plan for the Canal.