WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.

Not necessarily; someone just has to not care about the cost of such actions.

After all, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had already beaten them without firing a shot - the US quite literally bankrupted Japan by 1941... and a bankrupted nation struggling to win a war in China then proceeded to attack a country which controlled over 40% of the planet's economic warmaking potential and had a gross domestic product seventeen times larger than Japan's.

They lost and it was inevitable; but that didn't change their desire to declare war.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?

Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.

Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.

US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.

Judging by history, Saddam would still be controlling Kuwait, the sanctions didn't bite him hard enough and there would have been plenty of smuggling to deal with the other costs. Not to mention, if (somehow) sanctions on oil were enacted and enforced, how high would the price of oil been during the early-mid 1990s?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.

Not necessarily; someone just has to not care about the cost of such actions.

Or, they have to get bigger friends. Hmmmm. Need to talk to some people.....

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?

Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.

Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.

US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.

Hey, I'm not a Pacifist, I understand the use of force. What amuses me is when Hoo said: "I've yet failled to see at least one other player moving". Okay, so we're bloodthirsty enough to march our little fictional people off to die for our amusement on battlefields of the imagination? Is that somehow morally superior to conducting wars by means of diplomacy, economics, etc? Why can't we fight THOSE kinds of wars, too - why does only combat "count"?

At the very least, it seems Hood and Perdedor have understood the principles of War By Peaceful Means. India's maneuvers over the past few sim years are an almost flawless example of war by politics. India used SATSUMA to gain her part of Pakistan; then used her defection from SATSUMA to gain her peace with Britain, suzerainty of Persia, assurance of oil, and a line to incorporate her growing economy into the monetary greenhouse of Europe and the West. India's used a bit of force in Baluchistan and Persia, but that's almost tiddliwinks compared to their diplomatic coups.

THAT's a splendid example of my kind of war.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.

Not necessarily; someone just has to not care about the cost of such actions.

After all, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had already beaten them without firing a shot - the US quite literally bankrupted Japan by 1941... and a bankrupted nation struggling to win a war in China then proceeded to attack a country which controlled over 40% of the planet's economic warmaking potential and had a gross domestic product seventeen times larger than Japan's.

They lost and it was inevitable; but that didn't change their desire to declare war.

Japan gamble they could have won a negotiated peace and lost that gamble. That was their objective. Then they achieved their early objectives too easily and got bitten by the "victory bug".

I agree they miscalculated but Japan got their reasons. As I said, it was a calculated risk and they lost.

Quoted

After all, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had already beaten them without firing a shot - the US quite literally bankrupted Japan by 1941... and a bankrupted nation struggling to win a war in China then proceeded to attack a country which controlled over 40% of the planet's economic warmaking potential and had a gross domestic product seventeen times larger than Japan's.

They lost and it was inevitable; but that didn't change their desire to declare war.

The Japanese believed the US lacked the will to fight. That a severe initial defeat, and a swift victory would prevent the US from being willing to continue. They misunderstood that Democracies can be viscous too.

Quoted

At the very least, it seems Hood and Perdedor have understood the principles of War By Peaceful Means. India's maneuvers over the past few sim years are an almost flawless example of war by politics. India used SATSUMA to gain her part of Pakistan; then used her defection from SATSUMA to gain her peace with Britain, suzerainty of Persia, assurance of oil, and a line to incorporate her growing economy into the monetary greenhouse of Europe and the West. India's used a bit of force in Baluchistan and Persia, but that's almost tiddliwinks compared to their diplomatic coups.

THAT's a splendid example of my kind of war.

India’s done a bang up job. I think Hood’s given up a little bit more than he should have, but I get the drive there too. Dutch goals have been advanced by SAER, but overall I haven’t been nearly as effective diplomatically.

I think the alliance vs. alliance discussion is useful for identifying where such things would or would not break down. To me, it has re-raised some questions – like Dutch in AEGIS, or Atlantis in FAR.

Satsuma as the aggressor : Satsuma was formed for the purpose of, and with the rhetoric for, expelling the Europeans from their eastern possession. Satsuma has had the most aggressive members, expanding its territories. Satsuma has activated alliance troops on a couple of occasions, including against the rebels Filipinos. The Satsuma nations pulled out of Cleito en mass early. As the Dutch took great glee in pointing out, despite recognizing France as custodian of Indochina, they won’t recognize France’s role in dispensing of potential Indochinese territory in the Paracels.

In short, Satsuma has stated territorial ambitions, been bellicose, aggressive, combative and not terribly trustworthy. So it does not seem unreasonable to presume they would be the aggressor.

Atlantis and FAR : Actually, at this stage, I wonder why Atlantis is in FAR anymore.
With the Iberian tensions mostly resolved, and South America secure, I would think NATO would take the place of FAR.

Alliances fighting for far off places : Indian troops in the Phillipines?, Chinese troops in Hedjaz? Dutch in Bolivia? There are some oddities to be sure. In my case, Dutch policy was to project a militaristic, aggressive posture, while gaining experience and strengthening the legitimacy of international institutions. Playing World Police advanced those agendas. There have been other cases, such as the Crimean war, the Boxer Rebellion, etc. We explicitly did not have the meat grinder of WWI as in OTL, it was bad, but not so bad as to make nations pacifistic as OTL.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?

Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.

Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.

US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.

Judging by history, Saddam would still be controlling Kuwait, the sanctions didn't bite him hard enough and there would have been plenty of smuggling to deal with the other costs. Not to mention, if (somehow) sanctions on oil were enacted and enforced, how high would the price of oil been during the early-mid 1990s?

very damn expensive to drive a car, maybe more electric cars today.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Japan gamble they could have won a negotiated peace and lost that gamble. That was their objective. Then they achieved their early objectives too easily and got bitten by the "victory bug".

I agree they miscalculated but Japan got their reasons. As I said, it was a calculated risk and they lost.

I quoted Sun Tzu earlier, but this one really applies to the Pacific War:

Quoted

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

That Japan did as well as they did is a tribute to their discipline and fighting prowess.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Atlantis and FAR : Actually, at this stage, I wonder why Atlantis is in FAR anymore.
With the Iberian tensions mostly resolved, and South America secure, I would think NATO would take the place of FAR.

Same reason Chile joined FAR instead of NATO: I wanted to ally with countries that would actually respond if required.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
We explicitly did not have the meat grinder of WWI as in OTL, it was bad, but not so bad as to make nations pacifistic as OTL.

I don't know about this part: for Versailles to be as it was, the war had to be about as bad as it was historically. MORE territory changed hands after WW WWI than OTL, and the only change to the treaty terms was that Germany wasn't quite as limited in naval matters as OTL. To me, that looks like the war was as bad, because if Germany, Austria, and Turkey hadn't been completely exhausted by the war, those terms would have resulted in the war restarting.

Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).

Now you're just sounding petulant.

Well I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and invade Cuba... alone. Just give me a few years to get some amphibs and we can have a war.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).

Now you're just sounding petulant.

Well? Isn't that a logical extension of your Domino Policy? "A SATSUMA member (China) is involved in a war. That means French Indochina is about to be invaded. Send out the hordes!" Isn't that, in a nutshell, the FAR policy you yourself stated back a few posts?

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Well I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and invade Cuba... alone. Just give me a few years to get some amphibs and we can have a war.

Easier to increase the size of your Army and have both Canals under Mexican administration. Then you have Mexican Canal 1 and 2. *runs away*

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.

True enough. At this point, I can't see anywhere in the world (except perhaps North America or Australia) where FAR won't want to pull out this doctrine. South America? Nope, Chile's there, might affect them, we're in. Africa? Nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Europe? Nope, we're there already, we're in. Asia, nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Australia proper and continental North America are really the only places they don't have a leg to stand on..... wait, continental North America has Quebec. Oh, might affect French speakers, we're in. Sheesh.

Quoted

Easier to increase the size of your Army and have both Canals under Mexican administration. Then you have Mexican Canal 1 and 2. *runs away*

Hey! Stop reading my secret documents!

Quoted

True enough. At this point, I can't see anywhere in the world (except perhaps North America or Australia) where FAR won't want to pull out this doctrine. South America? Nope, Chile's there, might affect them, we're in. Africa? Nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Europe? Nope, we're there already, we're in. Asia, nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Australia proper and continental North America are really the only places they don't have a leg to stand on..... wait, continental North America has Quebec. Oh, might affect French speakers, we're in. Sheesh.

World vs FAR? Once they are out of the picture we can have some fun.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).

Now you're just sounding petulant.

Well? Isn't that a logical extension of your Domino Policy? "A SATSUMA member (China) is involved in a war. That means French Indochina is about to be invaded. Send out the hordes!" Isn't that, in a nutshell, the FAR policy you yourself stated back a few posts?

Like I said, now you're just being petulant, and it doesn't suit you. Domino Theory affects the regions in SE Asia, not places like Tibet or Africa or such. It's the same d@mn thing that SEAR covers, with Iberian territory added in.

*Edit, after some consideration*
I'd like to take a moment to note that FAR's Domino Doctrine is applied to San Hainando because of our discussions with CG/Iberia - and no other reasons. It's not as if FAR randomly declared such and such an area off limits to conquest; it's because the players involved made a gentleman's agreement. The responses I'm seeing appear, IMHO, to not take this into account (as if FAR randomly was going to apply the doctrine anywhere and everywhere in the world). The Domino Doctrine was a special case to fill in a void left by SEAR.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
We explicitly did not have the meat grinder of WWI as in OTL, it was bad, but not so bad as to make nations pacifistic as OTL.

I don't know about this part: for Versailles to be as it was, the war had to be about as bad as it was historically. MORE territory changed hands after WW WWI than OTL, and the only change to the treaty terms was that Germany wasn't quite as limited in naval matters as OTL. To me, that looks like the war was as bad, because if Germany, Austria, and Turkey hadn't been completely exhausted by the war, those terms would have resulted in the war restarting.

When I joined one of the bits I was told was WWI wasn't as bad as historical, that it ended a bit earlier, the US wasn't involved, but others were, and they really hadn't worked out the details.

Consider if Germany wasn't able to make as much synthetic nitrogen as historical- would run out of explosives, or if the food issue was more mishandled, and so 1917 saw starvation. Heck, just the fact Russia didn't collapse, while Atlantis joined in early could tip the scales. If the Brusilov offensive (?) had more steam, AH could have been pushed out earlier, etc etc. One of the big factors for a 'nicer' war would simply be smarter western generals desisting from Somme-style slaughters and an earlier adoption of mining and infiltration tactics.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
World vs FAR? Once they are out of the picture we can have some fun.

We need to come up with an alliance acronym for AWAY. Then it can be FAR vs. AWAY.

Overall, FAR is strongest in the pacific, doesn't need to be in the Atlantic as much. Russia fighting in Siberia would be a problem for Atlantis and France, while Atlantis in the Carrib sees the others out of place.