WesWorld

I would like to announce my interest in taking over Nordmark

Can you provide more specifics of why you would make a good player for Nordmark, and what you would propose to do there?

I am very familiar with the area and its history with a rather good references to what happened and what was available and planned OTL (that ofcourse exludes Vinland).

So why Nordmark, as you know I live there and Nordmark is relatively free of international entanglements.
Specifics are harder, I´ll have to update the Nordmark forces and see what is available (here any aid from Earl would be precious.

I personalty would like to know more about why you stopped playing Persia before I comment more on this issue. Nordmark is a rather large country for someone who once described the rule as "alien space bats", and I am curious if that factored into your decision to stop playing Persia.

What rule? Not that I say that I havent but I cant recall it. I have said that the WW politics are ASB and that scripted wars make large scale conflicts all but impossible if thats what you mean.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
What rule? Not that I say that I havent but I cant recall it. I have said that the WW politics are ASB and that scripted wars make large scale conflicts all but impossible if thats what you mean.

If you think that WW politics are ASB, then may I ask why you want to come back to play a country that will be even more politically-intensive than Persia? It sounds like you're just setting yourself up for punishment.

I must be missing something is there any other treaty binding Nordmark other than the treaty with Germany (not counting non aggression and trade treaties)?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
I must be missing something is there any other treaty binding Nordmark other than the treaty with Germany (not counting non aggression and trade treaties)?

Nordmark is a member of GNUK with Britain and Germany, and a longstanding ally of the SAE.

As I understand it the SAE-Nordmark relationship is rather informal and I dont see SAE doing something drastic that would change the relationship.
I cant find the GNUK treaty text (if there is one), so I assume that it doesnt burden Nordmark with any extra European burdens or obligations.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
What rule? Not that I say that I havent but I cant recall it. I have said that the WW politics are ASB and that scripted wars make large scale conflicts all but impossible if thats what you mean.

I am curious why you think WW politics are ASB?

yes, I think that statement deserves some clarification.

Because century old OTL grudges/ambitions are happily ignored solved
with an alliance or ceding of territory without any reactions from the populations. I understand that some of it is due to the problem of scripting conflicts but still... There are a number of examples but to take one: the Turco-Greek alliance, why? Turkey cant take on Greece since its allied with the UK and Greece is unable to succesfully wage war against the Turco-Bulgarian alliance combine that with the old hostility between these nations.


I also belive that the current pseudo-NATO/WP alliances are not somtehing that are appropriate for this time period. In short there is a terror balance or if you prefer a coldwar thinking present that IMHO shouldnt be there.

Don't you mean the Turko-Greek Treaty of Mutual Hatred?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
As I understand it the SAE-Nordmark relationship is rather informal and I dont see SAE doing something drastic that would change the relationship.
I cant find the GNUK treaty text (if there is one), so I assume that it doesnt burden Nordmark with any extra European burdens or obligations.

Having reviewed the list of treaties in the files, I find that Nordmark is a party to at least three international treaties:

Between Nordmark and Chile
Between Nordmark and Poland, and
Between Nordmark and Germany - of which there are two conflicting versions (one written by Hrolf, and one written by Earl) which I have been seeking to resolve since taking on Germany.

There appears to be no formal written document summarizing the relations of Germany, Nordmark and the United Kingdom.

If you consider the current alliance structure of Wesworld to be ASB, this suggests to me that you are unwilling to accept them and any constraints implied in them vis-a-vis Nordmark. If that is not the case, I think a clarification of your views is called for before the player-base can make an reasoned decision on your request.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Because century old OTL grudges/ambitions are happily ignored solved
with an alliance or ceding of territory without any reactions from the populations. I understand that some of it is due to the problem of scripting conflicts but still... There are a number of examples but to take one: the Turco-Greek alliance, why? Turkey cant take on Greece since its allied with the UK and Greece is unable to succesfully wage war against the Turco-Bulgarian alliance combine that with the old hostility between these nations.


I also belive that the current pseudo-NATO/WP alliances are not somtehing that are appropriate for this time period. In short there is a terror balance or if you prefer a coldwar thinking present that IMHO shouldnt be there.

A couple of points here:

First, one merely needs to look at the WW1 Alliances and see that nations are not dependent on centuries old grudges/ambitions to fuel their foreign policy but that rather it is what is perceived to be in the nation's best interests that drives foreign policy . And that perception is influenced by the views of those governing the country at the time. Britain, France, and Russia had all fought wars against each other in the previous 200 years, the Anglo-French, Anglo-Russian, Russo-French rivalries are all fairly well documented in history, from Richard I to the Napoleonic Wars, and even the Anglo-French and Anglo-Russian rivalries at the turn of the last century. Yet all three fought as allies in the First War. Turkey and Bulgaria had fought not one but two wars against each other less than 5 years before 1914, yet in 1915 they were allies. The Ottoman-Austrian rivalry for the Balkans lasted over 300 years, yet both nations were allies. And less than 50 years before the Great War Austria got hammered by Prussia, yet they too were allies.

Most if not all the alliances in WW don't make much sense historically, but this is not OTL, nor is it entirely an alternate-history game. And for that matter as I mentioned above most of the alliances didn't make much sense historically if you look at it from the grudges/ambitions angle. Some have worked out and written out ingame why there nation has allied with another, a lot haven't. Romania's concern in joining the Warsaw Pact was over the three Great Powers who have interests in the Balkans trying to play the various nations off against each other to the detriment of all. Brazil's involvement in ABC stemmed from the SAE having a foothold in South America. I will be quite honest and say that had I known the SAE would have given Gran Uruguay some form of semi-dominion independence like for instance Canada, Brazil under my tenure would have left ABC and gone back to rivalry with Argentina and Chile. That didn't happen so far as I know, and ABC remains, an alliance where historically there was rivalry.

In short, I don't feel that WW relations are all warm and fuzzy, especially in Europe. Its just no one has yet seemed to feel an interest in exploring areas for potential conflicts.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
As I understand it the SAE-Nordmark relationship is rather informal and I dont see SAE doing something drastic that would change the relationship.
I cant find the GNUK treaty text (if there is one), so I assume that it doesnt burden Nordmark with any extra European burdens or obligations.

Having reviewed the list of treaties in the files, I find that Nordmark is a party to at least three international treaties:

Between Nordmark and Chile
Between Nordmark and Poland, and
Between Nordmark and Germany - of which there are two conflicting versions (one written by Hrolf, and one written by Earl) which I have been seeking to resolve since taking on Germany.

There appears to be no formal written document summarizing the relations of Germany, Nordmark and the United Kingdom.

If you consider the current alliance structure of Wesworld to be ASB, this suggests to me that you are unwilling to accept them and any constraints implied in them vis-a-vis Nordmark. If that is not the case, I think a clarification of your views is called for before the player-base can make an reasoned decision on your request.

There isnt really a question (in my mind) about whether I am willing to accept treaties or not as the previous player(s) have accepted them, its quite another thing if i am willing to extend them. Nordmark isnt part (AFAIK) of any non bilateral defence agreement.

The specific treaties I found are the German-Nordmark treaty by Hrolf which I presume replaces the earlier treaty

A SAE-Nordmark treaty that has a secret(?) text

And some non-aggression treaties that need to be checked if they are still in force (such as the Nordmark-Poland treaty).

I cant find the treaty with Chile

Quoted

Originally posted by snip
I personalty would like to know more about why you stopped playing Persia before I comment more on this issue. Nordmark is a rather large country for someone who once described the rule as "alien space bats", and I am curious if that factored into your decision to stop playing Persia.

I'd be interested in hearing a good answer to this, since it seems to have been overlooked earlier.

The Nordish-SAE treaty has such a secret text that I suspect neither I or Hoo has ever really got an idea of what it actually says.

Chile treaty is here

There is also a presently valid treaty with France & Russia.

Nordmark is a large and rather brutal beast. It is complex and not a very easy nation to play, as I have now found twice. It is also not a nation that can be played 'on the side', it cannot be done justice without some significant writing, something I was never that good at.

I will happily pass my files onto whoever takes on Nordmark.

There seem to be non-agresson pacts with Canada, SAE, Atlantis, UK, Germany, Russia, Poland and Chile.
The exact text of the GNUK has never been decided, we have two different texts from Hrolf and me, Bruce and Earl never got things straightened out. At best all I can say is that Britain joined under whatever terms Nordmark and Germany already had but we were looking at making a firmer bond betwen us, but again work on that was stillborn.

Snip's question is a good one given your rapid exit from Persia and participation on the board apart from a few drawings etc. Then the other month you suddenly abandoned your efforts with the Peruvian air force eqaully as rapidly rather than talking the issue through logically with those who had misgivings.
Perhaps an explanation of both would help?

Nordmark is a complex nation but its pretty stable, they don't do much poking or empire-building and seem to be quite content, with their Northern neighbours, to maintain the peace.
WW politics are what they are, we can't change it and we must accept it. If as a player you want to change the poltical outlook of Nordmark then so be it but it will require OOC explanation.

There is no written treaty between Nordmark and the SAE. THere never was to be one. The relationship between those two nations is based on the role Nordmark played in founding and supporting the SAE, and of course both Royal Families are tied together by marriage. That was the setting when we started WesWorld and so it remained over time.

I expect any new player for Nordmark to accept and to honor this setting, although there is no written text of a treaty.