WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
And I still don't understand why GNUK would feel the need to attack FAR. Both of our treaties are defensive - who's to say that if, for instance, Germany declares war on France, that Britain and Nordmark won't say "Fugitaboutit!" and stay neutral? Suddenly it's Germany versus FAR. Still a tough slog (especially for France), but not impossible.

I kinda feel this discussion is kinda pointless. None of us want to sign up to lose a major war: we all want to win on our own terms. So we just fall back on kicking around minor powers and NPCs. There's nothing serious being discussed here, just the usual "Well my alliance can beat your alliance so nyah nyah nyah."

<chuckle> Oh, I totally agree. I can't see the match that starts this fire, given how the politics have played out over the years. I've been talking strictly in the sense of a sand-table exercise, what could happen if somehow the spark was lit AND the alliances held together.

If Germany, without VERY good reason, declared war on France, I'd expect Nordmark and the UK to say "On your own head be it". I'm not as sure what would happen if France (for reasons unknown at this time) declared war on Germany, because FAR sometimes seems more locked together than the other alliances, but it's certainly possible that Atlantis, Chile, and Russia would step back and say, "Hey, not our problem, you go fight your own wars" (while perhaps sending diplomatic cables to Berlin asking the German government to limit the reparations if the war ends badly for Paris).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I'm not as sure what would happen if France (for reasons unknown at this time) declared war on Germany, because FAR sometimes seems more locked together than the other alliances, but it's certainly possible that Atlantis, Chile, and Russia would step back and say, "Hey, not our problem, you go fight your own wars" (while perhaps sending diplomatic cables to Berlin asking the German government to limit the reparations if the war ends badly for Paris).

For me, it would depend on France's reasons for doing so. If, say, the French attacked because Germany was clearly planning to invade, then I think FAR would back France on that. If France attacked because Germany was blowing their nose in France's general direction... well, I'd send some volunteer groups to try to help, and try to talk some sense into those silly Europeans.

I agree that all this is just a sand table exercise. Nothing else. Without neutral referees and mechanism to decide ramdom results it will end in "my forces will drop from the sky and march to your capital to dictate terms" discussion.

I try to look at all the angles and still miss something in final analysis.

But IMO if alliances stick together:

FAR vs AEGIS = FAR
FAR vs GBN = GBN
AEGIS vs GBN = GBN
AEGIS vs NATO = NATO
SAER vs SATSUMA = SAER

SEAR? Or SAER? I always thought it was SAER... *Wanders off to look*

Edit: Security Agreement for Eastern Regions. "It was seared, seared into my memory!"

</nitpick>

I think it is a North American thing, most likely caused by...

I could swear that in early discussions there was a SEAR acronym, but it got changed to SAER.

Yeah its all sandtable.

I could allow the Dutch to loose, they are only mid-sized with relatively poor infrastructure for the population...but they would not go down as easily as in 1940/41, which would mean a great deal of time to work out which I doubt I have.

So the sandtable exercise becomes the closest we are likely to come and an interesting one.

Plus it's always possible we will hit on a doable conflict and so have something to play with. Part of that is wondering where the alliances that make scripting something so tough...break down.

In some cases though, I wonder about oil supplies and other raw materials. Which, like logistics, tend to get glossed over. This is, as historically, where the US could play a critical roll. That GBN:AEGIS war may go differently if AEGIS can leverage their control of trade choke points to block oil...but not if the US oil continues to flow.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I could swear that in early discussions there was a SEAR acronym, but it got changed to SAER.

Yeah its all sandtable.

I could allow the Dutch to loose, they are only mid-sized with relatively poor infrastructure for the population...but they would not go down as easily as in 1940/41, which would mean a great deal of time to work out which I doubt I have.

So the sandtable exercise becomes the closest we are likely to come and an interesting one.

Plus it's always possible we will hit on a doable conflict and so have something to play with. Part of that is wondering where the alliances that make scripting something so tough...break down.

In some cases though, I wonder about oil supplies and other raw materials. Which, like logistics, tend to get glossed over. This is, as historically, where the US could play a critical roll. That GBN:AEGIS war may go differently if AEGIS can leverage their control of trade choke points to block oil...but not if the US oil continues to flow.

I went with a GBN victory over AEGIS due to GBN IMO being strongest were it counts the most, in Europe. The Dutch and the Italians IMO will be crushed; not an easy OTL campaign but IMO the end result. Also historically in the 1930's Romania was in the top five oil producers of the world so their production have to be taken into consideration.


In regard to alliances I for once agree with DF. India pretty much eliminate SATSUMA as a serious threat due to pulling out after achieving their objectives (read getting Pakistan and Persia plus access to their oil). I start to make WW more realistic by starting to break those big alliances

For example it makes more sense to me for the Dutch to seek accomodation with the GBN and the SAE and leave AANM; that gives you more security at home and brings the number one player in the Indian Ocean to your side.

Other nations alliances make sense; for example the FAR and the Iberian-Italian part of their Alliance.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
I went with a GBN victory over AEGIS due to GBN IMO being strongest were it counts the most, in Europe. The Dutch and the Italians IMO will be crushed; not an easy OTL campaign but IMO the end result. Also historically in the 1930's Romania was in the top five oil producers of the world so their production have to be taken into consideration.
...
For example it makes more sense to me for the Dutch to seek accomodation with the GBN and the SAE and leave AANM; that gives you more security at home and brings the number one player in the Indian Ocean to your side.
....

Well, if Germany is invading the Netherlands, the Belgians will be involved, they are not going to sit around and let the Germans invade. They will also scream bloody murder for help from France (not that it would help). Add in Denmark in the North, and Italy in the south- likely reinforced from Iberia, and Germany trying to wade through the forts and waterbarriers may not have such a fun time in Holland..but with GB and Nordmark there is no doubt the Dutch loose. Though given South America, and OTL 1939-44, I disagree the RAF could flatten Holland in a reasonable timeframe. Overall, the Dutch policy has been to make the cost of fighting us painfully high, our neighbors are just to big otherwise.

Any Middle East oil would have a devil of a time getting places. Rumanian oil would be of use to Germany, but there may not be enough to tranship to keep Nordmark and the RN going. Hence the reference to the US.

As for the alliances... thats where the Land administration was headed (both a SAE-NL-Nord and joining GBN was discussed)- particularly after the Italian cruiser fiascos... until SATSUMA bailed from Cleito and made his non-confrontational approach unacceptable to the voters, who voted in the pro-Italy militarists. You don't drop functional alliances when the people that keep talking about kicking you out of NEI start taking overly aggressive actions.

I agree with the way you played the situation. I did a similar analysis and pretty much was that membership in SATSUMA has lost its appeal as soon as we reached the Pakistan deal. The final piece was to get the British to actually agree to help us in case of being attacked. India is happy and will keep quiet in regard to getting the Europeans out. Still want them out because they can fill the vacuum but will not be vocal about it.

Romania's policy on the sale of oil to non-allied countries that are at war is quite simple: No sale. The Romanians wish for Europe to remain at peace, and are willing to place an oil embargo on any nation(s) that break the peace of Europe, a peace that was bought with the blood of millions. Now mind you, there are other sources of oil besides Romanian, but Romanian is the closest for most central European countries.............

I think after all these pages of discussion we've practically ruled out a European War as unfeasable. It woud take two years for every Sim Year with all the scripting etc. No-one has yet come up with one good reason for a major alliance war. I feel the European powers after the horrors of the Great War would do alot to prevent a general war in Europe.

OTL the Brits until the Fall of France were very timid, not bombing civilian targets and generally avoiding bad situations. In WW I can't see that atitiude changing overnight.

Generally the greedy European powers might fight abroad much easier if they thought the gains were high enough. Africa and the Arabian areas are ripe for poltical re-organsing. Someone might get greedy and a fairly low-level land campaign is unlikely to arouse much enthusiasm at home. Even an ally might not be that interested in joining.

The Angola idea sounds good, as does a Kongo storyline with them breaking away or something. The SAE Vs Italy idea sounds interesting, maybe another European power instead, France Vs Denmark? Iberia Vs Atlantis?

Even an India Vs China war would be interesting and not too far fetched.


It is SEAR and always been SEAR, its a case of mispelling has become common useage, much to my annoyance since it took me some time to make a decent acronym.

Where's Hitler and Stalin when you need 'em?

Mexico would be more than willing to sell oil to the highest bidder in a general European war, and i have a llot of it to sell...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
It is SEAR and always been SEAR, its a case of mispelling has become common useage, much to my annoyance since it took me some time to make a decent acronym.

Uh. How does "Security Agreement for Eastern Regions" turn into SEAR without inverting the middle two parts of the acronym?

*Gets pen and begins doodling over the Security Agreement for Eastern Regions*


Ok call it whatever, SEAR, SAER, European Smackdown League, Old Gent's Cricket and Tea & Scones Club...
The end result is the same.

If Satsuma imploded then we wouldn't need SEAR/SAER anymore. Actually that would make things more interesting in the Far East. China, Japan and the Philippines would be pretty free and we could have some fun Far East without triggering the doomsday device Dr Strangelove parked under Hong Kong!

Quoted

Old Gent's Cricket

Got one thing to say about that:
BODYLINE

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Romania's policy on the sale of oil to non-allied countries that are at war is quite simple: No sale. The Romanians wish for Europe to remain at peace, and are willing to place an oil embargo on any nation(s) that break the peace of Europe, a peace that was bought with the blood of millions. Now mind you, there are other sources of oil besides Romanian, but Romanian is the closest for most central European countries.............

An interesting, but I would think very unprofitable, stance. After all, if Rumania won't sell to Country A, then someone else (be they Mexico, Russia, the US, etc) will. And, long term, that means that Rumania is not a reliable supplier, if they're willing to cut off the attacked country as well as the attacker.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The Angola idea sounds good, as does a Kongo storyline with them breaking away or something. The SAE Vs Italy idea sounds interesting, maybe another European power instead, France Vs Denmark? Iberia Vs Atlantis?

Heh, at one time Earl and I were seriously discussing a Nordmarkian-German invasion of Denmark. This was during Mac's most recent period of silence, and we dropped it after his return, but it was something we contemplated. Iberia vs Atlantis would be good (the US says, salivating), but Atlantis has mostly buried that hatchet (alas). The US vs Iberia is another possibility, but one that could very easily grow out of hand.

Quoted

Even an India Vs China war would be interesting and not too far fetched.

Uhm, they barely have a border, and it's the Himalayas. Not a very practical border to have a fight across......

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Uhm, they barely have a border, and it's the Himalayas. Not a very practical border to have a fight across......

That one could happen. Small enough and who really cares that China and India trades shots on the top of the World. And happened IOTL in 1962. Another reason I have mountain divisions.

Too bad there's no independent Pakistan - you could fight them on Siachen Glacier like historical. (The world's highest battlefield.)

And there is always my wiping boy, Afghanistan.