Remove ads

Victoria Falls: A Post-Collapse American Nation Quest [Down With Victoria!]

Voting is open
Reader mode
-[X] This isn't worth it. Call for peace with the Loyalists and accept that they will be able to use this travesty as a victory for leverage in negotiations. Victoria will present a peace plan. It will be significantly better for them than what you offered. You get to choose to accept or reject it. Negotiations will keep you locked up long enough that snow will be on the ground and practical campaigning will be done with.

-[X] Blackwell is waiting to do enough damage to you that he can land a decisive blow. If you halt where you are and simply wait through the winter, you deny him that opportunity, and this momentary perception of victory starts to fade. Throughout, you'll send annoyance raids using your F-16s; this won't apply much pressure, but it'll at least make the point that you have in no way been beaten by this sanctioned terrorist attack. If he attacks in order to keep his symbolic victory, great, he'll suffer a massive defeat! If he doesn't attack, also fine. You'll withdraw with spring, your point made; that is your walk-away point. The risk is that this one plays really fast and loose with the risk of a regime change which, given the Farmers' stated stance that they'll peace out on first offer, will drastically undercut the message you're trying to convey.

-[X] Blackwell has overplayed his hand; by calling a muster at Rochester, he's given you a concrete target. If you move out to the city with your motorized forces, you should be able cut the forces there off from supply and communications, and force a decisive battle with your superior forces. The risk is that they get enough warning to simply, leaving you very overextended and vulnerable to attacks on your own supply lines.

I don't think this is a time for half measures. We must commit to something.
 
Horologer said:
Yeah, that's pretty conclusive. Good to know.

But yikes. The Victorians killing everyone? That's even worse than I thought, and I was expecting some pretty brutal retaliation. At that point, I think the matter becomes less about tactics and more about common decency. If we do this, we're treating the people of Buffalo like expendable pawns, and I really do not like the precedent that sets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Should we instead leave the people who helped us root out Victorian partisans to the American Nazi's mercy?

We have a moral obligation to get these people out no matter what, anything less is to condemn a significant minority at least to death.

You're right that using their ostensible secession as a political ploy for our advantage is... morally gray, to say the least. But is there any alternative way to get these people out of the firing line short of outright kidnapping them?
 
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] If you can make it unacceptable for Blackwell to keep waiting you out, he'll be forced to attack you, guaranteeing you a crushing, heavily symbolic victory. Put about on public broadcast announcements of a Plebiscite of Independence for Buffalo. They hate Blackwell more than they hate you, and he knows it. Blackwell absolutely cannot ignore the threat this leaves, and has to to launch an attack immediately - which will end in a dismal failure.
 
Last edited:
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] If you can make it unacceptable for Blackwell to keep waiting you out, he'll be forced to attack you, guaranteeing you a crushing, heavily symbolic victory. Put about on public broadcast announcements that you're planning to recognize Buffalo and surrounds -- including the Niagara Isthmus -- as an independent and free city, and are organizing elections to that effect. Blackwell absolutely could not ignore that, and would be politically required to launch an attack immediately, which would get him slaughtered. The downside is that you'd need to get the population out, because anybody remaining behind would have a death sentence on their heads. Something to demand in the peace treaty after you crush Blackwell's assault, in exchange for returning the physical location to him. Also...well, this looks fairly callous, and being used as bait for a trap won't really make the people of Buffalo grateful, much less being relocated from their homes under threat of death afterwards. And if you don't get peace, somehow, you're in the nasty position of having to evacuate a city under siege using your logistics...or leaving it.
 
[X] This isn't worth it. Call for peace with the Loyalists and accept that they will be able to use this travesty as a victory for leverage in negotiations. Victoria will present a peace plan. It will be significantly better for them than what you offered. You get to choose to accept or reject it. Negotiations will keep you locked up long enough that snow will be on the ground and practical campaigning will be done with.

[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] Blackwell wants to avoid your main strength and strike where you are weak? Two can play at that game. Advance a couple of divisions as tripwires against an assault from Rochester and disperse the rest into upstate New York. Tear up the industrial infrastructure Blackwell needs to fight these wars, and he will be forced to respond, allowing you to draw him out to battle on your own terms. The risk is that, when he responds, he managed to find a favorable engagement and bleed you enough that the victory you're seeking is denied.
 
Last edited:
Horologer said:
But yikes. The Victorians killing everyone? That's even worse than I thought, and I was expecting some pretty brutal retaliation. At that point, I think the matter becomes less about tactics and more about common decency. If we do this, we're treating the people of Buffalo like expendable pawns, and I really do not like the precedent that sets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am considering the option for a few different reasons.

1. Buffalo is already going to be subject to substantial reprisals. Blackwell was already willing to use them Buffalo casualties to try and make us back off - and will no doubt make an example of the city afterwards. Granted, this option explicitly says they will kill anyone who remains, but I had no high hopes of them sparing the population in any case.
2. This allows us to evacuate our new allies, the people of the Buffalo Free State, as part of a treaty (instead of just, you know, kidnapping them)
3. Poptart has guaranteed that if we choose this the Victorians will come marching - giving us exactly the sort of fight we want
 
Rhodes said:
Should we instead leave the people who helped us root out Victorian partisans to the American Nazi's mercy?

We have a moral obligation to get these people out no matter what, anything less is to condemn a significant minority at least to death.

You're right that using their ostensible secession as a political ploy for our advantage is... morally gray, to say the least. But is there any alternative way to get these people out of the firing line short of outright kidnapping them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can't hold Buffalo. Unless they leave the city, those people are going to be at the mercy of Victoria at some point, regardless of what we do. This plan doesn't get them out of the firing line. In fact, it puts a lot of mere bystanders in harm's way, because making Buffalo secede makes the entire city complicit in the eyes of Victoria, and ensures that everyone will die.

Rivenscryr said:
I am considering the option for a few different reasons.

1. Buffalo is already going to be subject to substantial reprisals. Blackwell was already willing to use them Buffalo casualties to try and make us back off - and will no doubt make an example of the city afterwards. Granted, this option explicitly says they will kill anyone who remains, but I had no high hopes of them sparing the population in any case.
2. This allows us to evacuate our new allies, the people of the Buffalo Free State, as part of a treaty (instead of just, you know, kidnapping them)
3. Poptart has guaranteed that if we choose this the Victorians will come marching - giving us exactly the sort of fight we want
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a wide gap between "substantial reprisals" and "kill 'em all". I do expect the former regardless of what happens next, but I don't expect the Loyalists to raze the place unless they really have to. I also question whether we can actually evacuate Buffalo without causing a major humanitarian crisis of some kind; it's hard enough just to move an army, much less an entire city, however depopulated.

With the information you gave, it seems fair to say that this will give us what we want, militarily speaking. I just don't think the cost is worth it. Frankly, I think I'd rather go for peace.
 
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] If you can make it unacceptable for Blackwell to keep waiting you out, he'll be forced to attack you, guaranteeing you a crushing, heavily symbolic victory. Put about on public broadcast announcements of a Plebiscite of Independence for Buffalo. They hate Blackwell more than they hate you, and he knows it. Blackwell absolutely cannot ignore the threat this leaves, and has to to launch an attack immediately - which will end in a dismal failure.
 
Last edited:
Using the people of Buffalo, who didn't want us here in the first place and do not have a desire to currently secede from Victoria as some kind of political bargaining chip/pressure point is frankly, deeply immoral and may well have substantial negative knock-on effects in our efforts in the future. Which I think is being overlooked via desire to stick it to Victoria and make sure this bluff actually pays out.

To unilaterally declare for people that they will be free in order to entice their government to attempt to storm our lines is kind of vile, honestly. If only because they are the ones who will have to flee their homes, places of work and worship, and their communities to become unwilling refugees because of our political powerplay.
 
Horologer said:
Yeah, that's pretty conclusive. Good to know.
But yikes. The Victorians killing everyone? That's even worse than I thought, and I was expecting some pretty brutal retaliation
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
During Saddam's regime, Chemical Ali killed between 50,000 and 180,000 Iraqi Kurds and Assyrians in the Anfal genocide.
Iraq was roughly the size of Victoria in population.

Given what they have already done, and what Blackwell's rep is like, it is fairly predictable.
WoG is that Victoria still vanishes communities in Victoria.
Atrocity in civil war is just the normal state of affairs writ large.

Horologer said:
At that point, I think the matter becomes less about tactics and more about common decency.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ours or theirs?
Because if we have any, we are resigning our soldiers to fighting a major battle with a logistics malus, as the same logistics that are supposed to ship in weapons are moving civilians out.

Horologer said:
If we do this, we're treating the people of Buffalo like expendable pawns, and I really do not like the precedent that sets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, I'm more worried about the image it presents to the rest of the world.

While the Vics are pretty widely reviled, how we treat them matters to how other people see and relate to us. Not to mention that arranging something like this will drastically hamper our future attempts to create intelligence networks in Victoria.
The more so if we dont manage to evacuate all the civilians.

Plus, in the future, we WILL have to invade Victoria, and a reputation for putting civilians in the line of fire will not help when we need to separate the fanatics from the persuadable.
 
[X] Blackwell wants to avoid your main strength and strike where you are weak? Two can play at that game. Advance a couple of divisions as tripwires against an assault from Rochester and disperse the rest into upstate New York. Tear up the industrial infrastructure Blackwell needs to fight these wars, and he will be forced to respond, allowing you to draw him out to battle on your own terms. The risk is that, when he responds, he managed to find a favorable engagement and bleed you enough that the victory you're seeking is denied.
 
Ugolino said:
Are you reading?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, yes I am.
me.me.here said:
We do, but I'm not sure the guarantee of a strong victory/bargaining position/treaty now is worth setting the precedent that the Commonwealth will force regime changes on local populace's without their consent. Combined with our "Defender of the Midwest" narrative it sounds like the sort of thing that could interact badly with Hostile Neighbourhood if nearby polities start getting nervous about if we'll start toppling their governments if they don't meet our arbitrary/changing requirements.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ugolino said:
I'm just going to note that if Victorian cities undergoing regime change is a problem then we may as well throw in the towel now for the quest. If you're worried about optics, making the case for "Victoria is bad" is its own thing, no?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
me.me.here said:
The locals were already seriously spooked before we went and invaded Victoria and forced them to sign the treaty we wanted. Also, we didn't invade Victoria because they were Victoria - we invaded them specifically because the Victorians did something we didn't want them to. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with the thought that we don't actually care what they think their government should be - their rulers haven't done things we didn't want them to like embargoing us, selling us food at astronomical margins when we were starving, or selling Victorians critical supplies so they'd be perfectly safe. Nothing to worry about whatsoever. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ugolino said:
I mean, "Victorian collaboration" needs to be ended one way or the other, anyway, so...I'm not really seeing the drawback here other than making sure our reasoning is very clear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
me.me.here said:
Okay then - you're free to advocate for invading and conquering our neighbors at the drop of a hat or for retroactive stuff. Just don't expect that to be a very popular opinion when we try and convince people on the Mississippi to let our trade ships through.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Me: I'm not sure the immediate benefits are worth setting the precedent we'll change governments regardless of what the locals want.
You: We can't not change Victoria during this quest. Besides, the precedent of "Don't be like Victoria or else" is useful.
Me: Our neighbors are already afraid of us, and as a consequence of Victoria ruling the roost for 50 years states falling into the "Is/was like Victoria to some degree" bucket is pretty common.
You: We need to put a stop to that kind of thing one way or another, so as long as we're clear that that's what we're doing it'll be fine.
Me: I'm pretty sure punishing for being like Victoria will always be a benefit when we try and sweet-talk a bunch of people who may or may not be like Victoria, but you do you.
You: Are you even listening to me? I'm saying we should smack Victoria and glare menacingly at anyone who looks like they might resemble them!

If there's a party who isn't reading what the points the other person is making, it's definitely not me.
 
stairmaster said:
-[X] This isn't worth it. Call for peace with the Loyalists and accept that they will be able to use this travesty as a victory for leverage in negotiations. Victoria will present a peace plan. It will be significantly better for them than what you offered. You get to choose to accept or reject it. Negotiations will keep you locked up long enough that snow will be on the ground and practical campaigning will be done with.

-[X] Blackwell is waiting to do enough damage to you that he can land a decisive blow. If you halt where you are and simply wait through the winter, you deny him that opportunity, and this momentary perception of victory starts to fade. Throughout, you'll send annoyance raids using your F-16s; this won't apply much pressure, but it'll at least make the point that you have in no way been beaten by this sanctioned terrorist attack. If he attacks in order to keep his symbolic victory, great, he'll suffer a massive defeat! If he doesn't attack, also fine. You'll withdraw with spring, your point made; that is your walk-away point. The risk is that this one plays really fast and loose with the risk of a regime change which, given the Farmers' stated stance that they'll peace out on first offer, will drastically undercut the message you're trying to convey.

-[X] Blackwell has overplayed his hand; by calling a muster at Rochester, he's given you a concrete target. If you move out to the city with your motorized forces, you should be able cut the forces there off from supply and communications, and force a decisive battle with your superior forces. The risk is that they get enough warning to simply, leaving you very overextended and vulnerable to attacks on your own supply lines.

I don't think this is a time for half measures. We must commit to something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You accidentally selected the Victorian peace, which isn't really consistent with the war options, I think?
 
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue. Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] Blackwell has overplayed his hand; by calling a muster at Rochester, he's given you a concrete target. If you move out to the city with your motorized forces, you should be able cut it off and force a decisive battle with your superior forces.
 
I am highly opposed to the Buffalo plan, because it's basically forcing the citizens of Buffalo to choose being strung up by their fellow Victorians after we leave or a forced evacuation to god knows where, potentially in the middle of winter. And make no mistake, we are consigning them to a potentially horrible fate because we cannot protect Buffalo. We do not have that ability. It will be retaken by whichever side of the Victorian civil war comes out on top and it is likely to be awful for them. We are using 40,000 lives as a tool and a plaything to score political points when we don't need to.
 
Artificial Girl said:
Using the people of Buffalo, who didn't want us here in the first place and do not have a desire to currently secede from Victoria as some kind of political bargaining chip/pressure point is frankly, deeply immoral and may well have substantial negative knock-on effects in our efforts in the future. Which I think is being overlooked via desire to stick it to Victoria and make sure this bluff actually pays out.

To unilaterally declare for people that they will be free in order to entice their government to attempt to storm our lines is kind of vile, honestly. If only because they are the ones who will have to flee their homes, places of work and worship, and their communities to become unwilling refugees because of our political powerplay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As opposed to trusing them up and handing them over to Victoria as a reward for them getting butchered by Victoria, which is apparently completely moral.
 
Rat King said:
I am highly opposed to the Buffalo plan, because it's basically forcing the citizens of Buffalo to choose being strung up by their fellow Victorians after we leave or a forced evacuation to god knows where, potentially in the middle of winter. And make no mistake, we are consigning them to a potentially horrible fate because we cannot protect Buffalo. We do not have that ability. It will be retaken by whichever side of the Victorian civil war comes out on top and it is likely to be awful for them. We are using 40,000(60,000-3000) lives as a tool and a plaything to score political points when we don't need to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
FTFY.
 
Ugolino said:
As opposed to trusing them up and handing them over to Victoria as a reward for them getting butchered by Victoria, which is apparently completely moral.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Handing them over to Victoria is going to happen at some point. We can't hold Buffalo. The question is what happens to them at that point. Blackwell wants Buffalo somewhat intact so he can use it as a staging point against us, so he's not going to annihilate the place unless he has to.
 
Ugolino said:
As opposed to trusing them up and handing them over to Victoria as a reward for them getting butchered by Victoria, which is apparently completely moral.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean the war would be over and our soldiers wouldn't be in Buffalo if we hadn't decided that getting less than everything we wanted was too objectionable a course of action to consider.
 
[X] This isn't worth it. Call for peace with the Loyalists and accept that they will be able to use this travesty as a victory for leverage in negotiations. Victoria will present a peace plan. It will be significantly better for them than what you offered. You get to choose to accept or reject it. Negotiations will keep you locked up long enough that snow will be on the ground and practical campaigning will be done with.

Too much of a risk.
 
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue.
Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure
-[X] Blackwell wants to avoid your main strength and strike where you are weak? Two can play at that game. Advance a couple of divisions as tripwires against an assault from Rochester and disperse the rest into upstate New York. Tear up the industrial infrastructure Blackwell needs to fight these wars, and he will be forced to respond, allowing you to draw him out to battle on your own terms. The risk is that, when he responds, he managed to find a favorable engagement and bleed you enough that the victory you're seeking is denied
 
[X] This was not a decisive blow, merely a painful setback. It wasn't even a defeat! You achieved your operational objectives and pushed out the forces responsible for this. Operations will continue.
Continue the war, now racing internal dissent as well as Loyalist pressure.
-[X] Blackwell wants to avoid your main strength and strike where you are weak? Two can play at that game. Advance a couple of divisions as tripwires against an assault from Rochester and disperse the rest into upstate New York. Tear up the industrial infrastructure Blackwell needs to fight these wars, and he will be forced to respond, allowing you to draw him out to battle on your own terms. The risk is that, when he responds, he managed to find a favorable engagement and bleed you enough that the victory you're seeking is denied.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top