WesWorld

I figured that rather than pollute Rocky's thread, I should just start another.

Now, I'll go delete my last post from Rocky's thread and put it here.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
It is only due to our hindsight, knowing what the Treaty of Versailles led to in the 1940s, that a pairing of France, Germany, and Russia (plus Atlantis) looks at all odd.

Many of the alliances made sense at the time, and tended to be for some common end- generally to counter someone else. The older ones oft had familial ties as well.

France and Britain : Yes, odd. Not publically military, allowed both powers to avoid colonial conflicts to focus on a rising Germany. Plus their last major conflict had been in 1815, and they had allied in 1856- against a common threat to the Med.

Franco-British-Dutch: Familial relations, and a rising Spain

Franco-Spanish : against Britain

Russian-Prussian-Austrian : Monarch driven to contain revolutionaries post-Napolean. Considered to have lasted until the Czar's death.

Franco-British-Russian-Austrian-Prussian : Like the preceeding, again Monarch driven in the interests of preserving their rule against revolutionary threats.

All of these examples involve states banding together to oppose a threat to the status quo and their continuation.

Where's the threat that drives France, Russia, Germany and Atlantis into each other's arms? That is so overwhelming the people will support dying for the other countries?

Is Germany keen to defend Russia's Chinese frontier? Or to defend French Indochina ? Is Atlantis keen to defend Germany against..welll...what *are* the Germans gaining security from? The Swiss threat ?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Same reaction when NATO, SEAR and SATSUMA were formed.........

I wouldn't know on SATSUMA, that one actually makes some sense to me. The Dutch joining AANM only made sense while the informal agreements with the UK were considered. NATO never made great sense to me. SAER as I envisioned -UK-NL-AU, made sense, and then everyone else with property threatened by SATSUMA-who had just left Cleito- jumped in, a banding together in the face of an apparent rising threat. Which worked.

As for cooperative writing, I'm willing within time constraints. Which tend to preclude me doing much most of the time. The more people the more difficult.
Overall I'm thinking a central writer, getting modular input and making judgements from opposing players, might be the way to run a larger war.

Over in Navalism, I did actually write a war, but did it as the master writer with input as to movements from the two other nations involved, and I provided the closing Dutch movements after Korpen bailed in the Pacific war.

Here, I wrote little side stories about Asir, but left Rocky's story alone, I was asked to stay out of the South American conflict- and it's eruption curtailed a Dutch/SAE exercise I was writing. Peru was thought up and done without me,Yugoslavia-Italy never came off, but I listed troops and arrival dates. I supplied what I was asked for for Bolivia, Lithuania, and for Belgium.

So no, I'm not a big war-writer, but I do chip in.