WesWorld

Since I dont play Persia anymore I dont feel that I should post in the PCW or LoN threads, so i will do it here.

I know that i can get heated in debates and that it has rubbed some people the wrong way but that shouldnt affect the PCW story arc now that I left. First of all I dont understand this hang up on SATSUMA gobbling up countries, which country has it gobbled up in recent years? On the other hand we have seen Goverments being set up and toppled at a whim in South America, Saudi has become a condominium and Yugoslavia is about to be carved up. So why the hangup on Persia now? If anything Persia has been on the reciving end on unequal treaties.

The story arc was a way to explain how Persia came to be in a union with India, sure a few merchants may be hit but those are most likely to be Indian or British (as Kirk explained to me Shell tankers are British flagged), Britain being included because of the parallell Baluchi story and China for flavor.

We showed the courtesy of not interfering when told that it wasnt practical/desirable to do so in the SA stories, is it to much to ask for the same courtesy?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
If anything Persia has been on the reciving end on unequal treaties.

If they were so unequal, why agree to them?

And if you're talking about the "Get free land in exchange for piddly security assurances" followed by "revoke the treaty but keep the land", well. My heart bleeds. It really does. Such inequality.

Everyone will see events through their own eyes and it appears this is the case in this post. Its easy to paint such a picture when you ignore the timeline of events. Sorry but I just don't see the same thing. Everyone deals with the same interaction.

Not that I intended to get bogged down in WW politics but you forgot the step in between "Sure we signed the treaty but we have no intention of honoring it" and lets not forget the fun Caspian Sea treaty, "ofcourse Turkey has to dictate the borders anything else would be so wrong"

What I wanted to say was that THIS story arc is not really changing anything but who is playing Persia

So in otherwords you expected Turkey to say nothing and not worry that a nation with clearly increasing territorial aspirations could possibly just increase the length of border between both 3 fold?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
and lets not forget the fun Caspian Sea treaty, "ofcourse Turkey has to dictate the borders anything else would be so wrong"

Um, 'scuse me, but this is rather an erronous view of what actually occurred.

Point 1: No Caspian Sea treaty was ever signed because you did not ever agree to any terms. Azerbaijan and Russia made several suggestions and all we got from Persia was silence until the conference died.

Point 2: Azerbaijan requested the Russian presence to solve the issue of Caspian territorial waters; Azerbaijan requested Turkey as an observer because India had butted in unwelcome, and the Azeris wanted friends about.

First of all Turkey has no Caspian Sea border at all so it wouldnt change the length in any way, secondly Persia was the one suggesting a number of variations of territorial waters and EEZ.

And we are rapidly going OT

I still fail to see how these events somehow are meddling in how Persia's run by whomever....

Turkey is, along with its Bulgarian ally, attempting to assist the Saudi's whom India and the rest of SATSUMA are letting wither on a wine, presumedly (though maybe not actually) for the purposes of softening them up for future conquest.

Turkey is quite content to see Persia fracture and become puppets of India, further validating the claim that India is a conquorer and not the benevolent enlightening nation they claim to be.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
First of all Turkey has no Caspian Sea border at all so it wouldnt change the length in any way, secondly Persia was the one suggesting a number of variations of territorial waters and EEZ.

And we are rapidly going OT

I was talking the Persian/Turkish border. A war between Persia/Armenia and azerbaijan would be bloody but theres no doubt who would win....and that is where the border expands. Turkey sought the treaty to prevent a war.

I have yet to see what this topic is really about.....

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
First of all Turkey has no Caspian Sea border at all so it wouldnt change the length in any way, secondly Persia was the one suggesting a number of variations of territorial waters and EEZ.

After re-reading the thread in question, I do not find this statement to be factual. Should the current Persian player wish to discuss this, I will do so.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I have yet to see what this topic is really about....

Me either. With that, I think I'm going to cease participating in this discussion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad


The story arc was a way to explain how Persia came to be in a union with India, sure a few merchants may be hit but those are most likely to be Indian or British (as Kirk explained to me Shell tankers are British flagged), Britain being included because of the parallell Baluchi story and China for flavor.

We showed the courtesy of not interfering when told that it wasnt practical/desirable to do so in the SA stories, is it to much to ask for the same courtesy?

1) There's no problem in asking the players to allow for a story to unfold.

1a) However, this is a multi-player simulation. While the common held rule is that combat and general interaction between nations is scripted, there is something to be said for the unpredictability of the actions of others. This is a multi-person game we are all playing, not a single person's alternate history novel. Rather than view other player's actions (or in most cases, reactions) as problems or hindrances, try and view them as opportunities to allow a story to develop in otherwise unknown directions.

1b) You may ask a player to not interfere, but attempting to demand the entire world ignore what's going is a bit much. Even so, unexpected things happen. No one foresaw (And very few were pleased with) Japanese forces being deployed into Bolivia a few years back. More recently, Brock and Wes did not anticipate the NATO Neutrality patrol, but found it did not impact their storyline at all. Which leads to

2) Seperate rhetoric from relevant actions; Nations frequently posture, rant, and whine about all manner of things. How often does this result in real action? Until there's something quantifiable to dispute, treat rhetoric as just that. The fact that many nations are making noise in the LoN regarding the situation in Persia does not mean anything will come of it, or that anything will come to pass in time to be relevant to the ongoing storyline.

3) I confess to be at a loss as to most of the preceeding conversation; I did not educate myself too much on the Persia/Turkey/Russia/A/A debate, so I will not comment. However, the Karachi agreement was nothing Persia was forced into, nor did anyone force Persia into abrogating it. Going back even further, no one forced Persia into joining SATSUMA, nor was anyone forcing you as a player into continuing that relationship if you felt it was not suiting you.

In summation, other players can choose to deploy assets wherever they want in the world, but as far as I can tell, no player has attempted nor seems interested in forcing any of the Persian Civil War players into integrating them into any stories or plots written or planned.

Well since this comes shortly after the Dutch "took action", let me explain. (edit, not until I re-read Shin Ra's did I find out there was stuff going on in the LON, I don't see that forum unless I scroll down...)

One, the story occurs within a greater international setting. Things that occur there should have ripples elsewhere. If story events effect the international scene, some reactions should be expected.

Take Peru- I had nothing to do with it, but it was obvious Atlantis geared up, and there was potential for a FAR-AEGIS disagreement, so the Dutch shored up Guyana, got the Home Fleet clear of the Channel. We didn't put substantial forces in-theater as I didn't want to provide grounds for escalation.

Two, the Dutch reaction this time is similar to what they did in the Red Sea, the difference is they brought main fleet units for the initial set up, to "discourage" meddling. The slower escorts take longer to arrive and can take over.

Three... and this is part of why I posted in the OOC thread originally, is that it doesn't have to effect your story at all. I'm not attacking your ships, or smuggling supplies (which I did in the Asir war to support the story), not sending Saudi aircraft on belligerent scouting runs...all I'm doing is saying "hey, my merchants are escorted" ..and posturing internationally.
As you referenced, much of the Shell traffic in the area is British-flagged anyhow, it's far more convenient in that area.

It's not like you would have planned on sinking a bunch of Dutch ships anyhow without chatting with me, so this really should not gravely effect your plans.

Hmmm..... I tried to follow the Persian thing from the start but posts came too quickle to read them all and despite reading individual pieces I no longer followed events. Poor me.

So I´m not aware of any problems. Could someone please explain why the fuzz? In just a few sentances?

Thanks.

The accusation that others are meddling with the Persian war storyline has been made, but somehow events that occured in the past in South America are somehow related? My own participation in events any way linked to that story are...

1) Turkish involvement in the TBA fleet currently sheilding the Saudi's and..

2) participating in the vote in the League.

I really don't care when the date of the vote is, my votes won't change, Turkey's practically outright hostile towards Persian nationalists, who Turkey veiws with serious mistrust, while Atlantis and Colombia support free trade on the oceans and frown upon Persian nationalist naval strategy vs. neutral shiping.
Simple political posturing.

...and I hate to admit it but I too find the current storyline rather fast paced, so much so that I didn't get to complete my own in South America before it got overshadowed by the current story. I now think its prudent to wait untill the current storyline runs it's course and then post the remainder of mine so it doesn't get missed in all the rapid fire posts.

I have no issues with the IC responses. Shin Ra pretty much summarized my only concern. I expected the reaction, what I didn't expect was the speed of events of the other players unfolded, unrealistic IMO, and pretty much mess up my timetable and the script. I know the Turkish reaction is an IC one as my Bharati one is. That's the why asking the Turks to stay in port while the Bulgarians are asked to plea join in if they so desire. IC politics, nothing else.

But I have no beef with anyone, is only a SIM.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
I know the Turkish reaction is an IC one as my Bharati one is. That's the why asking the Turks to stay in port while the Bulgarians are asked to plea join in if they so desire.

Also why the Bulgarians are going to "think about it" until the invite drops. Only if the LoN is "in command" will the Bulgarians say yes, and that's because of Bulgarian deference for the LoN.