WesWorld

I'd think the U.S would be nuetral, Iberian/Dutch AND Atlantean forces in the Caribbean, good relations with most of the nations involved...

Do you think it is a problem in this situation there is no "fog of war", that is, you know too much about your neighbors and rivals? Historically some wars may not have begun if the aggressor would have known the true strength of his opponent. Or wars were not started because of the expected strength of a contender. In WesWorld we do not have fog of war as we are operating without game masters and all technical data, infrastructure information, treaty texts, production capability etc. is generally known to us players.

No, the real problem is that everyone is trying to build a 'Utopia', where are the Hitlers and Stalins of the world? Where are the accidents and sparks that would light the world on fire? Everyone thinks in terms of peacekeeping and the 21st century.

When I tried (as Australia) to stir up trouble with France, what happened? Instead of France acting tough and demanding that the fishing boat be freed, they instead played nice and asked their fishing boats to be sure to stay outside "Australian' waters.

C'mon people, play tough, don't back down. And the hell with all the non-aggression pacts. I try to stir trouble between India and Australia and then GB goes and makes an alliance with them. I try to stir trouble between Mexico and Iberia, then the US and Atlantis go and make friend with them.

We need a Maine, a Zimmerman Telegraph, a Reichstag fire...

I have to fully agree !!!

As the French player at the time, I recall having my hands full with a situation in the Med. I have a very firm rule: One War at a Time.

That said, sane people wouldn't have gotten into WWII so soon after WWI. After all, it did not turn out well for those who started it, and this was forseen by Hitler's opponents in the military and Foreign Ministry. It took a special sort of insane to get it going.

Now, the natural order of things is once the leaders who were junior and field-grade officers in the trenches leave office, more belligerent types can be expected to take over.

One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd think the U.S would be nuetral, Iberian/Dutch AND Atlantean forces in the Caribbean, good relations with most of the nations involved...

Much of that applies very similarly to Poland, yet you seem to think the Poles would volunteer to be the battlefield between Germany and Russia.

In the (extremely) unlikely event of a GNB vs FAR&AEGIS war, if the US decided it was going to take advantage of this in the Caribbean, it would probably just declare war on Iberia, and then other countries would have to make their decisions.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
No, the real problem is that everyone is trying to build a 'Utopia', where are the Hitlers and Stalins of the world? Where are the accidents and sparks that would light the world on fire? Everyone thinks in terms of peacekeeping and the 21st century.

When I tried (as Australia) to stir up trouble with France, what happened? Instead of France acting tough and demanding that the fishing boat be freed, they instead played nice and asked their fishing boats to be sure to stay outside "Australian' waters.

C'mon people, play tough, don't back down. And the hell with all the non-aggression pacts. I try to stir trouble between India and Australia and then GB goes and makes an alliance with them. I try to stir trouble between Mexico and Iberia, then the US and Atlantis go and make friend with them.

We need a Maine, a Zimmerman Telegraph, a Reichstag fire...

That's part of it. And of course, who (other than maybe Foxy) wants to play Hitler or Stalin when there's no way to "win" as Hitler or Stalin (ie, there's no impartial moderator running wars, no way to game them out other than scripting between those involved so it's unlikely to end with a clear win or loss if the war is between players)? If the situation isn't to your liking as a defender, you don't have to "play".

For example, as Germany, I was very interested in the prospects of the proposed Yugoslav-Italian War (even though I couldn't figure out how Yugoslavia expected to have a chance of winning), because a good chunk of Italy's winnings after the Great War came from Austria and the Austrians would like it back. Had the war happened and the Yugoslavs made good progress, the temptation would have been there to get involved or make demands on Italy not to do so. But given how WW works, Germany probably would have been excluded from that storyline.

Peru will look at these problems as a lurker

Quoted

where are the Hitlers and Stalins of the world?

Don't worry, DF. Tojo's still around.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Much of that applies very similarly to Poland, yet you seem to think the Poles would volunteer to be the battlefield between Germany and Russia.

I said it was possible, more so I was presenting a counter possibility to your rosey outlook

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
In the (extremely) unlikely event of a GNB vs FAR&AEGIS war, if the US decided it was going to take advantage of this in the Caribbean, it would probably just declare war on Iberia, and then other countries would have to make their decisions.

I think I know what Mexico would choose......

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
No, the real problem is that everyone is trying to build a 'Utopia', where are the Hitlers and Stalins of the world? Where are the accidents and sparks that would light the world on fire? Everyone thinks in terms of peacekeeping and the 21st century.

The thing is everyone is trying to play the deplomacy and alliance cards to put them selves in a safe possition, unfortunately for those who want conflict, its working very well!

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
When I tried (as Australia) to stir up trouble with France, what happened? Instead of France acting tough and demanding that the fishing boat be freed, they instead played nice and asked their fishing boats to be sure to stay outside "Australian' waters.

Little bit of info, Atlantis took notice of that incident and was watching very closely. Luckily Australia didn't make a stupid move to force Atlantis to weigh in on the subject. In short you didn't try hard enough or pick the right target!

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
C'mon people, play tough, don't back down. And the hell with all the non-aggression pacts. I try to stir trouble between India and Australia and then GB goes and makes an alliance with them. I try to stir trouble between Mexico and Iberia, then the US and Atlantis go and make friend with them.

Thats because we were looking at other potential ememy's rather than looking for boogymen or scapegoats.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
We need a Maine, a Zimmerman Telegraph, a Reichstag fire...

Your welcome to try, oh wait I think you already have!

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Japan IMO got their hands tied by SEAR. The US in the other hand got some options and IMO they could win in all of them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Very unlikely, because the WW US doesn't have the Far East interests that the OTL US had (the Phillipines, China). The US sphere of interest is, essentially, bounded by the Prime Meridian, the International Date Line, and the Equator. Unless Japan moves east of the Date Line towards US possessions, the US has little reason to quarrel with Japan. Not to mention that, under WW rules, Japan would win a head-to-head confrontation with the US that didn't go as far as the continental US, because while the Japanese fleet was being continuously upgraded during the 20s and early 30s, the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Very unlikely, because the WW US doesn't have the Far East interests that the OTL US had (the Phillipines, China). The US sphere of interest is, essentially, bounded by the Prime Meridian, the International Date Line, and the Equator. Unless Japan moves east of the Date Line towards US possessions, the US has little reason to quarrel with Japan. Not to mention that, under WW rules, Japan would win a head-to-head confrontation with the US that didn't go as far as the continental US, because while the Japanese fleet was being continuously upgraded during the 20s and early 30s, the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

Agree. The US options IMO are closer to home. All of them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
...the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

The US built seven factories for themselves since 1922 and contributed to Mexican infrastructure besides.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Very unlikely, because the WW US doesn't have the Far East interests that the OTL US had (the Phillipines, China). The US sphere of interest is, essentially, bounded by the Prime Meridian, the International Date Line, and the Equator. Unless Japan moves east of the Date Line towards US possessions, the US has little reason to quarrel with Japan. Not to mention that, under WW rules, Japan would win a head-to-head confrontation with the US that didn't go as far as the continental US, because while the Japanese fleet was being continuously upgraded during the 20s and early 30s, the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

I don't think the U.S really sticks to those limits though, both Peru and Chile are well below the equator and yet that didn't stop the U.S. from having heart attacks about the Puru vs.Colombia/Chile conflict.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
...the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

The US built seven factories for themselves since 1922 and contributed to Mexican infrastructure besides.

The US shouldn't have built a single slip or dock during the 20s or 30s (perhaps a few could be lengthened, but the US started with 230 points of docks and slips so even that is probably unnecessary). Building more, though politically understandable (the illusion of future jobs), is, under WW rules, pointless. [I'm creating a new sheet for doing US turns and it makes it VERY clear just how overbuilt the US slip/dock situation is.)

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
One thought- two Great Powers were not seared by trench warfare or subsequent wars. Maybe there are possibilities there.

US and Japan.

Very unlikely, because the WW US doesn't have the Far East interests that the OTL US had (the Phillipines, China). The US sphere of interest is, essentially, bounded by the Prime Meridian, the International Date Line, and the Equator. Unless Japan moves east of the Date Line towards US possessions, the US has little reason to quarrel with Japan. Not to mention that, under WW rules, Japan would win a head-to-head confrontation with the US that didn't go as far as the continental US, because while the Japanese fleet was being continuously upgraded during the 20s and early 30s, the US was..... building more slips and docks that it can't fill.

I don't think the U.S really sticks to those limits though, both Peru and Chile are well below the equator and yet that didn't stop the U.S. from having heart attacks about the Puru vs.Colombia/Chile conflict.

Peru is BARELY south of the Equator, Colombia is almost entirely north of it. If either country had decided to go merchant-raiding to their north, they'd be north of the Equator. And, until the Mexican Canal gets finished, a portion of US trade transits the Panama canal, which isn't very far north of the Equator.

Colombia is firmly in the Atlantean sphere of influence, which is interesting to note because they are west of Atlantean Venezuela (also North of the equator).