NationStates

Meh, I wrote a rather long (tl;dr) posting about the war problem (and congratulating Vec on his marriage, many happy years mate), essentially some trigger-happy Germans or Romans overreacting over a small border incident which could throw us in a war nobody really wants, just because everyone mistrusts each other. Well.

I think that Gurg's idea has potential, especially since there is so far no RL precedence of one democracy going to war against another, what they call "democratic peace" in political science.
Well, the USQ are pretty popular in Germany and Cassanos right now, having freed and protected us and all that stuff. The increasingly irritating policy of the new government might change that, though.
Anyway, I'm rather sure that neither Germany nor Cassanos would go to war against the USQ with some 3-400,000 Quinntonian troops on their soil. Should PM King become somewhat of a deranged maniac (;)) though, well, they might get evicted. Though this would have to be a very long-term process given the (perceived) threat of Roma/Kiev.

The idea is very good and leaves me and Cassanos with a tough decision, possibly being decided by who shot first; this may just be the catalyst that AMW needs. The Baltic would typically prefer to side with Britain over USQ due to general attitudes and religiosity specifically (the nation is not anti-religious but is very wary of state decisions being made in a religious context). If it came to it, we would prefer to side with Britain even though the USQ is helping us build our navy etc (although we need to iron out the specifics). Cassanos/Germany seems to have become a very close ally and with Kiev so threatening we are always likely to side with them if we cannot remain neutral. If Rome and Kiev were to split, I don't think there would be any prizes over which one we would side with - given some rather recent history.

Tbh, the Baltic really doesn't view Rome as a bad guy; we think they would be best to base their empire on our federation but thats not important. Regarding the Baltic crisis Rome seemed supportive and far more helpful in potentially resolving the dispute than the USQ (which seemed intent on causing a global conflict concentrated on my little nation). I could quite easily see my pragmatic people join with Rome but this then would at least raise eyebrows in Germany unless their relationship changes. Other than Kiev, the pragmatic Balts will probably ally with anyone they can and might try to act as peacemaker. This reminds me, I think my diplomats are due to meet with Spyran counterparts at some point.

There is always going to be some tension between the Baltic and Kiev unless some sort of capitalist revolution sweeps through and divides the nation into smaller, less threatening states - this seems unlikely atm but the Baltic is not going to be above 'liberating' Kaliningrad or causing unrest in some republics in Kievskaya Rus if it can get away with it. I'm not sure how I could do anything along these lines right now but if there was a lot of waring and alliance making going on, I think it could be a good side-story to complicate matters.

Exciting.

I like the idea partly because I think that Quinntonia would need quite a push before thinking of the British as a genuine enemy, and that's exactly what would drive a certain sort of Britain, or a certain sort of Briton, to try its luck.

As to Britain not having a chance, well, when has that ever kept them from having a go, anyway (and almost invariably winning)? It's when Britain's clearly in a position of superiority that things tend to go a bit shonky (witness, uh, the United States, plus a fair few debacles against Zulus, Afghans, and Sudanese to name but a few!). When the whole ruddy Reich's about to come down on them, military fortunes tend to pick up a bit. More seriously though, I've always wondered about and really ought to have investigated (given my nation's character) the economic conditions in Egypt and Sudan. If they're developed territories, that's a hundred and twenty million people worth of modern economic muscle on top of ninety-odd million in the other parts of the empire, and if they're not much better than in reality (as I have tended to imagine) it's at least a pretty substantial manpower reserve in which even a very much sub-par wage by British/Australian/Singaporean standards would be not only sufficient but potentially attractive to young men with few other opportunities... especially if you had a prominent Muslim state on your side [nudge nudge]

Al'Gharb Al'Andalus has little against either proposed belligerent, USQ or B&E, but regards the latter as a historic and tactically important ally in Europe.

Al'Išbūnah would probably want to avoid being too obvious about supporting British aggression for fear of a US carrier battle group turning up off the coast to be confronted by our mighty fleet of seven frigates, nine corvettes, and a submarine, but if it all kicked off, Andalusian aid to the British effort would perhaps be proportional to security provisions granted by the Royal Navy et cetera. "You can borrow our islands, but if you break 'em you bought 'em" sort of thing. Maybe you could even give us raw recruits from Egypt and Sudan to be trained and lead by Andalusian officers and stationed to defend the United Taifas and its humble Atlantic holdings.

Kievskaya Rus wrote:I'll just quietly raise my hand to say "I still want to play in this little game".

WTF is goin on here?

What do you mean? And, no offense, who are you?

Anyway, we need Q to voice his opinion about this.
I still think that this should be a long term development, though. NATO breaking apart before it's really founded, long time allies suddenly going to war against each other without reason... Nah.

Perhaps the negotiation of NATO is actually the straw that breaks the camels back, as it were... throughout the Cold War, the UK-USQ relationship has never been written down, each side assuming that they were united in purpose and not examining the cracks around the edges too closely. When everyone finally sits down to officially work out the details, it turns out the two have far different views on how things ought be. A political crisis, becoming worse as London and Washington move to pursue conflicting agendas and secure support amongst a pool of shared allies for their particular vision.

Given Spyran perspectives on the world, the PRS would obviously be behind Britain in any such conflict... though its hard to imagine how a total war scenario would play out given how different it would be from what we've seen so far in AMW.

Mogck wrote:

Kievskaya Rus wrote:I'll just quietly raise my hand to say "I still want to play in this little game".

WTF is goin on here?

Charmed, I'm sure.

It occurs to me that part of the interesting factor of such a conflict (it doesn't have to start out as a war, obviously, it could be as little as a diplomatic split leading to a proxy war somewhere) is the degree to which neither side really wants to continue fighting, but feels as though it has to. That's not too unusual in the sort of murky modern wars that we've seen in the last fifty-odd years, a good example being Korea in 1952-3. We wanted out, China wanted out, but neither side was going to accept a stalemate after the DPRK crossed the 38th parallel and we tried to cross the Yalu.

On another topic, I wrote a sort of basic history of the African territories, which describes a few British initiatives during the 1940s and 50s that increased the standard of living slightly. While Egypt has essentially the same standard of living as it has in real life, Sudan seems to be marginally better due to increased infrastructure, a privatized oil industry, and a lack of ethnic cleansing that comes along with possessing a stable government.

The problem with having a proxy war is that there are virtually no places to have it, unless we allowed an NPC area to be used as one. Unless someone joins up now to be to fought over nation but as the ideologies of the USQ and B&E are not so different it would be difficult to see what each side was really trying to achieve. Neither wants to control any new regions directly (at least I don't think so and the two are already big enough). The tension may make more sense as an open war as Britain would possibly try to avoid getting in to a conflict before Q goes on a crusade against them. Once attacked Britain would have to push back and would most likely receive the support of the rest of NATO making it a fair fight.

We still need Q's input for any of this to get going.

well, my word processor ate my post, so I'll just sum it up. Basically, I'm still here and interested, but I need neighbors to spur on activity. I could move claims, but I'd really rather not. Also, I have no problem with retconning TSoA, since it never really went anywhere.

I'm about to post some hilarious images of my military in my factbook on the website, so if you guys get a chance, go check them out.

Gurguvungunit wrote:Hmm, additionally, do you have any thoughts on Spain?

Hmmm....the more I think about it, the more reluctant I am to let go of Spain. I have put a lot of work in it, and I'm not sure that I like the idea of saying that it's all worthless now. Greece was the nation that was the rebellion state, though I regret not playing that up or making it an active RP ground. I'd like to fix that though. Spain was a big piece for me since it gave me a lot more control over the Mediteranean. I too have noticed that Portugal has limited options for RP, but that's why I thought entering into an alliance with me and Kiev might open up some possibilities for him. Granted at the time our activity was not at a level, with the rest of AMW, but I was mostly waiting to get that done before entering into anything. I guess there's a chance for Taifas to work something out with Britain, but I don't think that I'd like to give up Spain.

I must say, Mr. G, that you seem to have come up with an excellent idea! This kind of split might go a long way towards breaking AMW out of its prevailing geopolitical oppositions. I only hope Quinntonia sees things similarly.

Parsistan would most likely support Britain in any prospective UK-US conflict. The Republic really couldn't stomach the prospect of an open war with Quinntonia, and probably isn't alone in that sentiment, but if that ever does happen it will probably be a long way down the road. Whatever way Spyr decides to lean will no doubt be a major determining factor in Parsistan's own alignment.

Re: Spain:

Wouldn't it make more sense, geographically at least, if Taifas took one or two territories in northern Africa which are closer to him? Morocco and/or Algeria and Tunesia would present themselves, of course.

Well, I'm not all that interested, in all seriousness, in expanding my claim, Spain was more about getting another player (Mac) involved, but I suppose if he's really interested he can find plenty of other places to build a claim.

There is, now that you mention it, some appeal to a claim in the Maghreb, as it would give me the right to pin down the region's history as is arguably important to Al Andalus and to why Portugal is full of Berbers. But I don't really want my claim to take up a lot of space or people. However, if anyone could work out a way for a -perhaps rebellious- Maghreb to present the British and Quinntonians with a setting for this mooted proxy war, another Taifa across the water might be doable. Probably it would depend on Q having an interest in repaying British intrigue by backing a dissident Amir in the Maghreb against Britain's old ally. Of course if the prospective Taifa faces Spain across the Bab el-Zakat, a conflict there may also concern the feudal powers.

Well, I suppose it's one idea.

Has anyone reached Quinn so far?

Quinn is off to Australia tomorrow and will be gone for most of the month, maybe two. I can talk to him when I see him again.

Well, with that apparently on hold, everyone to Qusqu!

Just saying im still here, and if Burma is around, can he do something to provoke me into attacking, so I can get the India trouble on the stove so to speak

Well, I have an rp idea, but it sort-of-ish involves an NPC country, namely Guinea. This idea has been going round my head for a while, and originally was planned as a development of the SoA.

Basically I would be going in, possibly under the banner of NATO, as a peacekeeper force to stop the sporadic attacks from the USAR and restabilise the country. I would then not leave and establish a modern colony with the aim of helping the people and showing that Africa could have a robust democracy.

Advantages:
-Talost has a neighbour to RP with, keeping west Africa busy and interesting. This means more fun with Eric Bundu!
-Guinea has already got some history with Talost (as there were previously more nations in the area), this means that if a new person came to take Guinea, some retconning would be required anyway. Africa is pretty empty and Guinea seems very unlikely to be claimed at the moment.
-The war has the potential to divide NATO and spark the war that has been discussed, although this is not necessary.
-Gives the Baltic (me) a chance to really get onto the world stage...sort-of.
-It helps to Blur the lines internationally, which makes things far more interesting.
-If a new player comes to West Africa, he will have more potential RP.
-Discussed with Talost on IRC. He seems to like the idea:
<Talost|Kargucagstan> like, officially NATO, but solely made up of Baltic troops
<Talost|Kargucagstan> that would be pretty good

This isn't part of some major expansion, but a single movement, even with local mercenaries it will tie up all my military making it impossible for any further advance even if I did want to.

Disadvantages:
-A new player will be unable to take Guinea.
-Logistical problems of getting an army to Africa unnoticed/something to kick it off. Not too difficult to resolve.
-Something I havn't noticed.

As this would essentially be a new claim, I'm putting it up for group consideration before any go ahead. This doesn't require NATO to go to war or any other major conflict, but it might spark it or increase tensions or whatever.

So, thoughts, suggestions and rejections? Possibly some sort of approval too...maybe.

I like the idea for the reasons you posted, and also because I think it would be hilarious (in the best possible sense) if, of all nations, the Baltics would go to Africa and establish a new colony in the 21st century .
And if this is actually an expansion of your claim, I am in favour of it, for what it's worth.

You would have to get your troops there, of course, but since we already planned an expedition to the USAR in TSoA, maybe you could get there along with German/Cassanotian troops on their ships. My thoughts:
- The USAR becomes aggressive and expansionist twoards Guinea.
- The European nations mount a peacekeeping operation with a large Baltic contingent (maybe called by Guinean officials).
- The Cassanotians and Germans stay for a while, then withdraw as they planned.
- The Balts surprise everyone by staying.

Yes, this might be a good way to produce tension within NATO.

And a good way to get Bundu some dusted-off TB-580s and mountain howitzers, and maybe a Lancer or two

A Baltic colony vs. the USAR is the kind of proxy war that the BDR could actually get involved in, for once, which may give other countries an excuse for ignoring Baltic imperialism, I suppose.

100% in favor of this. It could be a really good RP, and has potential to give us a few more off-shoot RPs. IC, the USAR has been attacking Guinea for... 2 years now? Bundu uses it to distract the people from how horrible their lives are and to get possible revolutionaries out of the country. I could see the atrocities being committed there coming to light of NATO, who sends a task force.

There might have to be some reason to keep NATO from just lolpwning USAR, some political reason I imagine.

EDIT: Also, BG support FTW

I like the idea as well. One reason that NATO wouldn't crush USAR might be Rome. We might enter the conflict as a third party, we wouldn't want NATO in Africa anymore than the USAR would. Rome would not be an ally with the USAR, but might have a non-spoken, non-aggression, the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of deal. Provided that BG can get his supplies and what-not into the USAR without Rome noticing.

I think it'll probably become pretty apparent when somebody counts the wheels on a shiny new USAR tank and realises, hey! That's not a T-55, that's not a T-55 at all! :/

Even if Rome knows what's going on, they may not have much reason to stop it... if the state of the USAR itself is any indication, Bundu will hardly be a threat to the Romans even if he happens to be successful, and every tank the BDR puts in Africa is one less sitting in Europe.

Indeed.

Unless we divert the ones ordered by Dra-pol.

Dude, we totally remember mailing them! Go home, check the post, they'll be there!