Voting is open
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.
Nobody voting for any option has suggested preventing the Buffalo natives from coming with us.
So I don't really get where this is coming from.
You might want to chill.
 
[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 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.

We have the ability to remove the population, so yes we can and it's deeply appaling to suggest anyone is "better" under Victoria.
We have the ability to force the population to move after using them as a bargainning chip.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, it's being perfectly okay with Victoria holding Buffalo indefinitely and regretting that it isn't the case anymore. I fail to see a relevant distinction there. :V

If you can't reasonably extend an offer of protection to the people you're liberating from the fascists, you're not really liberating them in any meaningful sense.
 
If you can't reasonably extend an offer of protection to the people you're liberating from the fascists, you're not really liberating them in any meaningful sense.
Which we can and will assuming our metaphorical legs aren't cut out from under us at the negotiating table.

Giving Victorians what they want is incompatible with making sure the people of Buffalo are safely removed.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, it's being perfectly okay with Victoria holding Buffalo indefinitely and regretting that it isn't the case anymore. I fail to see a relevant distinction there. :V
Why do you keep attacking strawmen? Are you that afraid of arguing with actual people instead of phantoms of your own creation?
 
[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.


[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 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] 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 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:
There is no way our current war ends with Victoria giving away Buffalo at the negotiating table.
Given the Farmers will literally take anything the Victorians deign to offer if they get into power, that very much is not something you can prove.

Why do you keep attacking strawmen? Are you that afraid of arguing with actual people instead of phantoms of your own creation?
A bold claim given the discussion in question.

Let me make it simple for you.

>I would rather we not currently be in Buffalo
>I would rather not have had this war win the vote and happen.
ie:
>Given the option, I would rather have not had this war, which has led to a free Buffalo, ie: I would rather not Buffalo be currently freed.

In other words, the liberation of Buffalo right now at best does not matter to this viewpoint. Call that whatever you want, it's quite obvious what it means in the context of secondguessing us liberating Buffalo through warfare.
 
Last edited:
Poptart has said that there's no way we keep Buffalo.

There's no way this war ends with us not giving away Buffalo.
Actually, given that, it honestly does mean Buffalo's people need us to come to the table with the strongest possible bargaining position given the alternative is screwing over other people Victorians have power over, or ourselves, ie: robbing Peter to pay Paul. It also takes some of the sting out of the uncomfortable Free City approach, given a lot of it's inevitable.
 
In line with being a ruthless, pragmatic bastard; if the cost is fifty thousand Victorian civilians caught in a crossfire to have the Victorian nation dismantle itself in a civil war and secessionist movements, I'm willing to pay that price.
Victoria is in the middle of a civil war, with no standing professional military forces to really speak of. It's not out of the question that given the right push, it'll all fall apart. In a situation where Victoria was not currently undergoing a civil war, I wouldn't consider the idea of banking on secessionist movements spreading. But with no standing military force, and them feeding their remaining militia forces into the meat grinder that is the Commonwealth defensive positions; I'm willing to put hope into the idea that people will see the way the wind is blowing and jump ship. I am, with reasonable certainty, sure that fifty or so thousand civilians are a small price to pay to start the process of tearing down Victoria. Whom I am entierly sure would kill more people by sheer dint of existence in the long run.

If that is cold, ruthless, and morally repulsive? So be it.
 
In line with being a ruthless, pragmatic bastard; if the cost is fifty thousand Victorian civilians caught in a crossfire to have the Victorian nation dismantle itself in a civil war and secessionist movements, I'm willing to pay that price.
Victoria will survive this.

The GM has said at various points that Victoria is stronger than many here assume it is. They can survive this debacle.
 
You know what, I'll bite.

Yeah, I would rather that Buffalo not currently be "freed"; because if we had taken a more reasonable peace, for starters, four thousand of them would currently be alive instead of dead, and but mostly because we would have had time to build up and prepare for the next war, in which we actually destroy Victoria and are capable of liberating their territories for real, not "maybe thousands of civilians will believe us when we say that they need to come with us or they'll get massacred."

I mean, I still think we should push for Victoria to make peace on our terms, rather than accepting theirs, but damn, reading these arguments is making that taste awful sour.
 
In line with being a ruthless, pragmatic bastard; if the cost is fifty thousand Victorian civilians caught in a crossfire to have the Victorian nation dismantle itself in a civil war and secessionist movements, I'm willing to pay that price.
Victoria is in the middle of a civil war, with no standing professional military forces to really speak of. It's not out of the question that given the right push, it'll all fall apart. In a situation where Victoria was not currently undergoing a civil war, I wouldn't consider the idea of banking on secessionist movements spreading. But with no standing military force, and them feeding their remaining militia forces into the meat grinder that is the Commonwealth defensive positions; I'm willing to put hope into the idea that people will see the way the wind is blowing and jump ship. I am, with reasonable certainty, sure that fifty or so thousand civilians are a small price to pay to start the process of tearing down Victoria. Whom I am entierly sure would kill more people by sheer dint of existence in the long run.

If that is cold, ruthless, and morally repulsive? So be it.
I'm entirely not okay with leaving Buffalo's civilians twisting in the breeze. There's no outcome of a fair treaty where we can leave the unwilling here or just leave.

They want to go back to their deaths of their own accord? That's something we likely have to allow, despite that being honestly grounds for deprogramming in an ideal pre-War world.

We want to wage war centered on Buffalo? We can't and by that vote option won't keep the civilians around for it. That wouldn't be pragmatism, that's just Victorian war criminal bullshit.

Any reasonable treaty by reasonable people, ie: not the Farmers hellbent on surrender, would likely account for the Buffalo civliians- or make it a fait accompli in the background.

So yeah, short of a surrender, I don't see the people of Buffalo being directly subjected to Victorian bullshit ever again.

You know what, I'll bite.

Yeah, I would rather that Buffalo not currently be "freed"; because if we had taken a more reasonable peace, for starters, four thousand of them would currently be alive instead of dead, and but mostly because we would have had time to build up and prepare for the next war, in which we actually destroy Victoria and are capable of liberating their territories for real, not "maybe thousands of civilians will believe us when we say that they need to come with us or they'll get massacred."

I mean, I still think we should push for Victoria to make peace on our terms, rather than accepting theirs, but damn, reading these arguments is making that taste awful sour.
Given a victorian approach to domestic affairs, it's honestly up in the air if they'd have killed more people from Buffalo- neglect, wartime rationing, general disregard for the wellfare of their own and using their own people as human resources- in that hypothetical than they did in this one. They're already using their own people up, purely in their internal civil war.

This war is necessary groundwork for the next one, and frankly not laying that groundwork to the maximum possible extent would be immoral.

It doesn't matter either way because the goal now starts and ends with ending said war without faceplanting at the endline, which in theory everyone should be on board with.
 
Last edited:
I'm entirely not okay with leaving Buffalo's civilians twisting in the breeze. There's no outcome of a fair treaty where we can leave the unwilling here or just leave.
Luckily, none of those options require that.

Just because the Free City is the only plan that requires a mandatory evacuation, doesn't mean that it's the only plan that has a voluntary evacuation. I highly doubt we'd force people to stay under any of the other plans.
 
Luckily, none of those options require that.

Just because the Free City is the only plan that requires a mandatory evacuation, doesn't mean that it's the only plan that has a voluntary evacuation. I highly doubt we'd force people to stay under any of the other plans.
Well, no, I simply don't trust the Farmers in the surrender or coup options to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to prioritizing civilians over saying they ended the war. Obviously while we have leverage and our priorities in order, they should be fine when that comes up.
 
Last edited:
I'm entirely not okay with leaving Buffalo's civilians twisting in the breeze. There's no outcome of a fair treaty where we can leave the unwilling here or just leave.

They want to go back to their deaths of their own accord? That's something we likely have to allow, despite that being honestly grounds for deprogramming in an ideal pre-War world.

We want to wage war? We can't and by the votes won't keep the civilians around for it. That's not pragmatism, that's just Victorian war criminal bullshit.

Any reasonable treaty by reasonable people, ie: not the Farmers hellbent on surrender, would likely account for the Buffalo civliians- or make it a fait accompli in the background.
I agree with extracting the willing, but in the hypothetical situation where none of them wants to leave their homes and lives (a very real possibility) I am perfectly fine with that.
Victoria will survive this.

The GM has said at various points that Victoria is stronger than many here assume it is. They can survive this debacle.
True, but even just setting the precedent for secession is worth it to me.
You know what, I'll bite.

Yeah, I would rather that Buffalo not currently be "freed"; because if we had taken a more reasonable peace, for starters, four thousand of them would currently be alive instead of dead, and but mostly because we would have had time to build up and prepare for the next war, in which we actually destroy Victoria and are capable of liberating their territories for real, not "maybe thousands of civilians will believe us when we say that they need to come with us or they'll get massacred."

I mean, I still think we should push for Victoria to make peace on our terms, rather than accepting theirs, but damn, reading these arguments is making that taste awful sour.
Honestly; agreed. But that's not the situation we find ourselves in. In a perfect world, we could have gotten a "good enough" treaty and wait for the time for when we were truly ready to destroy Victoria once and for all. But I'm not for crying for spilt milk at this point. Tearing up the industry and infrastructure or assaulting their mustering points would likely have greater short term effects for less diplomatic cost. But the timer is on and we need to finish this now. With that, I'm willing to back Operation Buffalo. It forces Victoria's hand into ordering poorly trained and equipped militias against our dug-in forces with artillery support in the winter.

All I want are dead Victorian soldiers, and this gets us that. Moral implications do not interest me. Crippling Victoria does.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top