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

I am... almost tempted by the plebiscite option. My inner idealist likes it on some level.

But I'm going to be honest, at this point I want to take a firm stance against strategic overreach more than I want to *win* this round, where "win" is defined as "get a DC 90 treaty instead of a DC 60 or even 30 treaty."

Once we commit to the plebiscite publicly, we can't renege on that without consequence. We can't easily say "oh no never mind we are pulling out." It's going to inflict a hit on our credibility. That will cost us, just as the favorable treaty provisions benefit us.

If it fails, things get ugly. Even if it succeeds, things get ugly, because either we have to say "nope never mind pulling out of Buffalo" after saying we're planning to offer the city its freedom... Or we have to somehow force the Victorians to accept the continued independence of Victoria, which will probably be a bigger and more bitter pill for them to swallow than any of the other peace treaty terms combined.

...

Moreover, if the plan succeeds, we're going to be walking away from this with that happy sense of "oh, the enemy caved, we just had to keep escalating."

This was not a prudent series of actions for us. We have handled this entire attempt to arrange peace with Victoria in a way I can only describe as overconfidence. We've repeatedly charged forward, taken risks, or turned down opportunities to walk away with MOST of what we want...

And all the while, voting pluralities, sometimes majorities, have kept up an atmosphere of confidence that "victory is just around the corner." I've fallen into it too sometimes.

And we've had a rise of rhetoric along the lines of saying that any price is worth not having to "surrender to the Vicks," where 'surrender to the Vicks' is being defined as 'any arrangement in which we get the maximum we can plausibly even imagine getting, at the Vicks' expense."

...

This is dangerous.

We're getting away with it now, because the Victorian military is crippled by their flawed doctrine and inadequate equipment, and because their best troops along with the bulk of their army are off elsewhere fighting among themselves.

But even a few years from now? The civil war will likely be over. Blackwell will, in all likelihood, have begun training the core of a New Model Army. They will likely be armed with more powerful Russian-made equipment, probably including things like body armor that we'd struggle to duplicate. They'll probably have the beginnings of an organized supply corps. The Russians may decide to unsubtly interfere on their behalf with drone strikes or something if we get uppity, whereas right now they are leaving Victoria to its own devices.

Us falling into a habit of thinking we can reliably win big by pushing over and over could ruin us at some future date. I want to cut the cycle of escalation short here and now, accept a reasonably large fraction of all the possible rewards we could get out of winning our victory against Victoria at Detroit, and call it quits while we're still intact, secure, and not saddled with any overwhelming new commitments that will cost us precious resources while we're struggling to rebuild our Collapsed economy.

...

Maybe it'll work. Maybe it won't. But the entire situation we're in? It's the result of round after round of doubling down on our bets. Doing so again and again, in hopes that one more 'double or nothing' roll of the dice will give us what we want. Promising ourselves that we'd quit and back down if things got too ugly, then not backing down.

And that's a very dangerous habit to get into. Even if it works, we can't count on it working again... and we can't count on it working this time.

...

[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.

Simon_Jester said:

Moreover, if the plan succeeds, we're going to be walking away from this with that happy sense of "oh, the enemy caved, we just had to keep escalating."

This was not a prudent series of actions for us. We have handled this entire attempt to arrange peace with Victoria in a way I can only describe as overconfidence. We've repeatedly charged forward, taken risks, or turned down opportunities to walk away with MOST of what we want...

And all the while, voting pluralities, sometimes majorities, have kept up an atmosphere of confidence that "victory is just around the corner." I've fallen into it too sometimes.

And we've had a rise of rhetoric along the lines of saying that any price is worth not having to "surrender to the Vicks," where 'surrender to the Vicks' is being defined as 'any arrangement in which we get the maximum we can plausibly even imagine getting, at the Vicks' expense."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

ok, do you have a reason to think if we force a decisive battle it won't end well for us? You keep saying how it's wrong to think we're one more big push from victory, but you don't really offer evidence for it, just say the mindset is dangerous. Blackwells ploy was to massacre civilians to shock us into accepting a less harsh treaty, by his indoctrination that had a pretty good chance of working. Further, we know for a fact that the troops he has in the area are not sufficient to displace us if we can force an engagement while we are concentrated.

If we peace out now, blackwell will get his lighter treaty. we can't afford the political cost of refusing one, and our bargaining position is at a low ebb. If we peace out after scoring some kind of big flashy win, we will be in a vastly superior bargaining position. Do you disagree with any part of that statement?

Blackwell does not have the troops he needs to beat us. we've seen the muster. Further, quality 0 milita are the worst kind of troops to get tricky with, especially if you don't have a solid officer core. While battles are never safe, if we force a fight we have very good odds of winning. Further, if he does nothing holding the vote alone will be a big flashy symbol that will give us a better bargaining position. Do you disagree with any part of that statement?

those are the two key points about why doing this is not a bad idea. IF you think any of them are wrong, then we can discuss that, but if you just have a gut feeling or think the mindset is dangerous, I can't really coment on that.

[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] 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.

Is it even possible to have an actual plebiscite international community will accept as not rigged while the city if occupied by armed forces (that would be us)? Surely Victoria will just denounce it as us forcing the citizens to vote for the option we like at gunpoint, and it'll be rather convincing, no?

random_npc said:

ok, do you have a reason to think if we force a decisive battle it won't end well for us?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, I'm pretty sure the battle will end well, though Blackwell may pull some innovative shit like pecking away at our lines with mortar teams in hopes of drawing down disproportionate artillery counter-fire and running us out of shells. Especially after the lake freezes over.

But it's entirely possible in my eyes that Blackwell will just keep up a siege of Buffalo all winter long. And not bother uselessly sacrificing more than, oh, another five or ten thousand men to prove the point to his subordinates that it's gonna take a while.

The problem is that our objective isn't to win a battle against Blackwell, it's to force him to sign a treaty. He doesn't actually have to sign that treaty if he doesn't want to, and if we try to troll him into coming to us he gets to set the pace and tempo of his attack. Sure, we can put him under pressure to attack us in some way, but he's already dealing with one group of traitors against the Victorian government, and he can reasonably say "I'd rather concentrate on the viper slithering towards our throat than worry about the lizard nibbling on our toe."

Us winning another battle against Blackwell doesn't guarantee us getting the treaty we want. Just because we can win the next push, doesn't mean that winning the push on the operational level translates into winning on the strategic level.

If we peace out now, blackwell will get his lighter treaty. we can't afford the political cost of refusing one, and our bargaining position is at a low ebb. If we peace out after scoring some kind of big flashy win, we will be in a vastly superior bargaining position. Do you disagree with any part of that statement?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We will... but Blackwell still has the option of choosing not to bargain when we are at an advantage, just as you are choosing not to bargain when he is at an advantage. The reality remains, we can tear the shit out of western upstate New York when spring comes. We can embarrass him. But we can't physically march over and end the life of his regime, the way the Crusaders potentially can.

As I said before, look at (for instance) the history of the Byzantine or Chinese empires. Look at how many times a civil war for control of the throne continued to be fought even as outside invaders snipped provinces off the periphery of imperial territory. Blackwell has a lot of predecessors as autocrats who have done essentially what I describe- accepted that the 'barbarians' would do damage, that the local garrisons could do no more than mitigate that damage, and still shrug and accept the damage because the alternatives are:

1) Fatally weakening his position in a civil war, or
2) Giving away a tribute to the 'barbarians' so large that it isn't worth it to him.

those are the two key points about why doing this is not a bad idea. IF you think any of them are wrong, then we can discuss that, but if you just have a gut feeling or think the mindset is dangerous, I can't really coment on that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well, I do think the mindset is dangerous, and I've explained that- I think we need to stop gambling on bigger and bigger payoffs while we still have a margin of error. I'd rather get a medium-sized payoff now, assuredly, than gamble on escalating payoffs in a way that may leave us committed, postwar, to the military defense of a small 'free city' enclave hanging precariously off the edge of Victorian territory, where the Victorians have every reason to harbor revanchist sentiment.

random_npc said:

ok, do you have a reason to think if we force a decisive battle it won't end well for us?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, I'm pretty sure the battle will end well, though Blackwell may pull some innovative shit like pecking away at our lines with mortar teams in hopes of drawing down disproportionate artillery counter-fire and running us out of shells. Especially after the lake freezes over.

But it's entirely possible in my eyes that Blackwell will just keep up a siege of Buffalo all winter long. And not bother uselessly sacrificing more than, oh, another five or ten thousand men to prove the point to his subordinates that it's gonna take a while.

The problem is that our objective isn't to win a battle against Blackwell, it's to force him to sign a treaty. He doesn't actually have to sign that treaty if he doesn't want to, and if we try to troll him into coming to us he gets to set the pace and tempo of his attack. Sure, we can put him under pressure to attack us in some way, but he's already dealing with one group of traitors against the Victorian government, and he can reasonably say "I'd rather concentrate on the viper slithering towards our throat than worry about the lizard nibbling on our toe."

Us winning another battle against Blackwell doesn't guarantee us getting the treaty we want. Just because we can win the next push, doesn't mean that winning the push on the operational level translates into winning on the strategic level.

If we peace out now, blackwell will get his lighter treaty. we can't afford the political cost of refusing one, and our bargaining position is at a low ebb. If we peace out after scoring some kind of big flashy win, we will be in a vastly superior bargaining position. Do you disagree with any part of that statement?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We will... but Blackwell still has the option of choosing not to bargain when we are at an advantage, just as you are choosing not to bargain when he is at an advantage. The reality remains, we can tear the shit out of western upstate New York when spring comes. We can embarrass him. But we can't physically march over and end the life of his regime, the way the Crusaders potentially can.

As I said before, look at (for instance) the history of the Byzantine or Chinese empires. Look at how many times a civil war for control of the throne continued to be fought even as outside invaders snipped provinces off the periphery of imperial territory. Blackwell has a lot of predecessors as autocrats who have done essentially what I describe- accepted that the 'barbarians' would do damage, that the local garrisons could do no more than mitigate that damage, and still shrug and accept the damage because the alternatives are:

1) Fatally weakening his position in a civil war, or
2) Giving away a tribute to the 'barbarians' so large that it isn't worth it to him.

those are the two key points about why doing this is not a bad idea. IF you think any of them are wrong, then we can discuss that, but if you just have a gut feeling or think the mindset is dangerous, I can't really coment on that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well, I do think the mindset is dangerous, and I've explained that- I think we need to stop gambling on bigger and bigger payoffs while we still have a margin of error. I'd rather get a medium-sized payoff now, assuredly, than gamble on escalating payoffs.

Especially if we gamble in a way that may leave us committed, postwar, to the military defense of a small 'free city' enclave hanging precariously off the edge of Victorian territory, where the Victorians have every reason to harbor revanchist sentiment.

tapkomet said:

Is it even possible to have an actual plebiscite international community will accept as not rigged while the city if occupied by armed forces (that would be us)? Surely Victoria will just denounce it as us forcing the citizens to vote for the option we like at gunpoint, and it'll be rather convincing, no?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, I bet we COULD get in international observers if we really tried.

I think it might even be to our advantage to do so. It makes Blackwell look stupid if he launches a human wave attack on the city and it gets slaughtered, and setting up a plebiscite properly gives us a valid pretext to draw out the occupation of land around Buffalo for months without further aggressive military operations.

[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.

End of our logistical rope, end of our political rope too. This one's simple. It's time to cash out and stop throwing good money after bad.
If I remember correctly, the original plan was to get a treaty signed. This does that.

[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.

Mm. I find Simon_Jester's arguments here compelling.

[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] 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.

Simon_Jester said:

We will... but Blackwell still has the option of choosing not to bargain when we are at an advantage, just as you are choosing not to bargain when he is at an advantage. The reality remains, we can tear the shit out of western upstate New York when spring comes. We can embarrass him. But we can't physically march over and end the life of his regime, the way the Crusaders potentially can.

As I said before, look at (for instance) the history of the Byzantine or Chinese empires. Look at how many times a civil war for control of the throne continued to be fought even as outside invaders snipped provinces off the periphery of imperial territory. Blackwell has a lot of predecessors as autocrats who have done essentially what I describe- accepted that the 'barbarians' would do damage, that the local garrisons could do no more than mitigate that damage, and still shrug and accept the damage because the alternatives are:

1) Fatally weakening his position in a civil war, or
2) Giving away a tribute to the 'barbarians' so large that it isn't worth it to him.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's possible he will refuse to talk after the battle, but I find it unlikely. We will be in the process of taking a city and have just crushed local forces, exposing pretty much anything within easy raiding range of said city. We're not the only ones with domestic pressure, not when blackwell is in the middle of a civil war, with alexander explicitly considering if he's worth keeping around. He could run us out of shells with bodies, but even if he knew that he would probably really prefer not to because losing that many bodies could well cost him the civil war. The nightmare scenario where he keeps throwing men at us, is catastrophic for both victora and the comonwelth. That's why I think he'll talk, he does not have the bodies to get a more advantageous position, and if he takes us out he loses almost as hard as we do.

Simon_Jester said:

Well, I do think the mindset is dangerous, and I've explained that- I think we need to stop gambling on bigger and bigger payoffs while we still have a margin of error. I'd rather get a medium-sized payoff now, assuredly, than gamble on escalating payoffs.

Especially if we gamble in a way that may leave us committed, postwar, to the military defense of a small 'free city' enclave hanging precariously off the edge of Victorian territory, where the Victorians have every reason to harbor revanchist sentiment.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

the mindset of "keep taking risks forever!" is very much a dangerous one I grant you. But so is the mindset of never taking risks ever, and folding at the first road bump. Taking no risks ever is a fantastic way to lose a war. Peacing out no is no less tied to a dangerous mindset as pressing on. I find ascribing wanting to press on to a worrying reckless mindset counterproductive, and honestly false. We took one big risk when we went for a coinflip, taking buffalo was notably the middle of the road option rather than the high-risk high reward option, further, you'll note we're not taking the riskiest option here either. There was one choice in the last few that could be objectively said to be taking a massive risk. The rest of the choices have not been taking the safest possible path true, but I would not call them some horrifying pattern of recklessness, no more than I would call wanting to peace out now cowardice.

tapkomet said:

Is it even possible to have an actual plebiscite international community will accept as not rigged while the city if occupied by armed forces (that would be us)? Surely Victoria will just denounce it as us forcing the citizens to vote for the option we like at gunpoint, and it'll be rather convincing, no?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Nah it's totally impossible and everyone will read it depending on what they think of Victoria rather than think the result in itself valid.

random_npc said:

the mindset of "keep taking risks forever!" is very much a dangerous one I grant you. But so is the mindset of never taking risks ever, and folding at the first road bump. Taking no risks ever is a fantastic way to lose a war. Peacing out no is no less tied to a dangerous mindset as pressing on. I find ascribing wanting to press on to a worrying reckless mindset counterproductive, and honestly false. We took one big risk when we went for a coinflip, taking buffalo was notably the middle of the road option rather than the high-risk high reward option, further, you'll note we're not taking the riskiest option here either. There was one choice in the last few that could be objectively said to be taking a massive risk. The rest of the choices have not been taking the safest possible path true, but I would not call them some horrifying pattern of recklessness, no more than I would call wanting to peace out now cowardice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The problem is that we've taken risk after risk to push for maximal gains. Sure, we haven't always picked the absolute most crazy option, but the goal is always all or nothing in terms of outcomes. At some point, we have to accept that we've had our win, and risking it on a hypothetical for smaller gains on top isn't really worth it.

When you're ahead, as we are having beat back Victoria, you build up to get more ahead, then come back, you don't bet it all on a last attack. Risk taking is what you do when you are behind. Like we did when we were fighting for survival and breakout, at which point it was totally valid to take some risks to get the upper hand.

random_npc said:

It's possible he will refuse to talk after the battle, but I find it unlikely. We will be in the process of taking a city and have just crushed local forces, exposing pretty much anything within easy raiding range of said city.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean yes, but at the same time, nothing we can easily raid from here in the middle of winter, with no one plowing the roads as foot after foot of snow falls on them, is all that critical to Victoria. The Crusaders are a much more imminent threat, and Blackwell has a ready-made justification to mostly ignore us over the course of the winter as long as he makes a good faith effort to contain our forces with a siege ring or something.

Maybe I'm underestimating how much pressure he'll face to deal with us personally, as opposed to the Crusaders... but then again, maybe you're overestimating it. Maybe he has better control of his own government than you think. We don't have detailed knowledge of what's going on in Augusta.

The point is, there is no guarantee, nor even concrete evidence of an overwhelming likelihood, that Blackwell will be forced to accept the DC 90 peace treaty (which would itself put him under great humiliation and political pressure) even if we succeed in repelling a Vick counter-attack on Buffalo.

He could run us out of shells with bodies, but even if he knew that he would probably really prefer not to because losing that many bodies could well cost him the civil war.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm actually more worried about the scenario where he launches a single abortive attack (losing no more than, say, 5-10 thousand men) and then just besieges us, or at least heavily garrisons the surrounding towns along major roadways, infiltrating up mortar teams to harass our perimeter and spurring us to keep using our own artillery to keep the enemy at bay.

He doesn't have to drown us in corpses to exert military pressure on us, any more than we have to unleash the Devil Brigade to be exerting military pressure on him. And as long as we are kinda sorta contained (which the winter will do for him) he may be able to say "I'll squash these bozos as soon as I deal with the Crusaders, who are a lot closer to us, very heavily armed, and gunning for us in particular."

the mindset of "keep taking risks forever!" is very much a dangerous one I grant you. But so is the mindset of never taking risks ever, and folding at the first road bump.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The first road-bump was when we failed the roll to get the Victorians to accept our initial offer and then didn't stick with the plan to accept being negotiated down

The second road-bump was when they didn't even offer us terms after we seized the Welland Canal and the west bank of the Niagara River, after we spent an AP and whatever "resources not tracked within our eyesight" it cost us to maintain this military operation.

We're on the third road-bump now. With the fourth one (the Communist Farmer-Labor Party managing to put together a successful antiwar movement) looming on the horizon.

There was one choice in the last few that could be objectively said to be taking a massive risk. The rest of the choices have not been taking the safest possible path true, but I would not call them some horrifying pattern of recklessness, no more than I would call wanting to peace out now cowardice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I feel like the DC 90 peace treaty was only NOT a massive risk in the context of us actually being willing to accept being negotiated down in accordance with the plan advertised by the advocates of DC 90 peace treaties.

The problem is that we saw very little willingness to do that when the time came, compared to the alternative of even a 50% chance of actually getting the DC 90 peace treaty.

Nyvis said:

Nah it's totally impossible and everyone will read it depending on what they think of Victoria rather than think the result in itself valid.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To be fair, everyone agrees Victorians are terrible, so that's not so bad.

We MIGHT be able to get in foreign observers from, say, the EU, though. Dunno, though. I commented on this earlier.

[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.


Yeah, the more I think about it, cutting things here is the better option, we bluffed and didn't won, we should be able to hear Blacwells proposal now and if it is reasonable enough take it, even if it isn't all that we wanted. and if it isn't reasonable? well... that is another matter. if he proves extra unreasonable, then what? we keep forces in buffalo? with winter we won't be able to move back much of the forces deployed, especially if the lakes freeze or keep them supplied.
That part I am less sure about.
Still, it seems the plebiscite option will win and that is fine by me

We already know what happened when quality 0 militia got hit by a mass of disciplined troops. Despite having to execute one of the most grueling and failure-prone of operations (an amphibious assault), they were routed and scattered by a force numerically inferior than their own within the opening hours. The arrival of line troops practically made the rest of the operation clean up.

Now it's being posited that they can somehow contain a force where the only advantage this mass of militia has is in numbers. These militia have neither the war material that their regular counterparts would've had, they have none of the training or fanaticism that made them push beyond their limitations, and to cap it off they have inferior mobility on a good sunny day, nevermind how the weather would severely worsen both their logistical tail and tactical mobility. Given their subpar performance on the defense in one of the better conditions available, such an attempt at sieging would result in rout and effective destruction due to dispersed elements being rolled up by concentrated Commonwealth forces.

Nyvis said:

The problem is that we've taken risk after risk to push for maximal gains. Sure, we haven't always picked the absolute most crazy option, but the goal is always all or nothing in terms of outcomes. At some point, we have to accept that we've had our win, and risking it on a hypothetical for smaller gains on top isn't really worth it.

When you're ahead, as we are having beat back Victoria, you build up to get more ahead, then come back, you don't bet it all on a last attack. Risk taking is what you do when you are behind. Like we did when we were fighting for survival and breakout, at which point it was totally valid to take some risks to get the upper hand.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

we have taken options that have the possibility of negative outcomes, but every option presented to us in the last few choices had the possibility of negative outcomes. If you stretch the definition of reckless risk-taking to include that sort of measured approach every option is a being reckless, which admittedly does create a worrying pattern of reckless risk-taking stretching back to the start of the quest.

Simon_Jester said:

I feel like the DC 90 peace treaty was only NOT a massive risk in the context of us actually being willing to accept being negotiated down in accordance with the plan advertised by the advocates of DC 90 peace treaties.

The problem is that we saw very little willingness to do that when the time came, compared to the alternative of even a 50% chance of actually getting the DC 90 peace treaty.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

umm, yes? that was the risk I was talking about. Using a new DC modifier to try for a coin flip treaty that would have crippled victoray. That is, in fact, the ong big high-risk high reward action we have taken. I don't really see why you brought this up? We both agreed that was a high risk high reward choice. I don't really see how this in any real way touches on anything, other than taking a chance to slip in a dig at the people who voted to flip that coin.

Simon_Jester said:

The first road-bump was when we failed the roll to get the Victorians to accept our initial offer and then didn't stick with the plan to accept being negotiated down

The second road-bump was when they didn't even offer us terms after we seized the Welland Canal and the west bank of the Niagara River, after we spent an AP and whatever "resources not tracked within our eyesight" it cost us to maintain this military operation.

We're on the third road-bump now. With the fourth one (the Communist Farmer-Labor Party managing to put together a successful antiwar movement) looming on the horizon.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

while I find this a rather suspect way to count setbacks, its also not really relevant? the point stands that the deciding factor should be how likely further setbacks are rather than what has already happened, and the mindset of folding when faced with a sudden shock rather than accessing if pressing on would be viable is still a bad mindset. I also can't help but notice you kinda ignored the actual point of the quoted text. About how I disagree with your assertion we've been reckless, and making the mindset argument is less structerd argument, and more a way to make digs at the other guy and dismiss their arguments. Like, if I just called wanting to peace out cowardice and grumbled about how risk-averse questers can get after taking damage it would not really help the discussion right? same thing here, it's not a productive argument.

Simon_Jester said:

I mean yes, but at the same time, nothing we can easily raid from here in the middle of winter, with no one plowing the roads as foot after foot of snow falls on them, is all that critical to Victoria. The Crusaders are a much more imminent threat, and Blackwell has a ready-made justification to mostly ignore us over the course of the winter as long as he makes a good faith effort to contain our forces with a siege ring or something.

Maybe I'm underestimating how much pressure he'll face to deal with us personally, as opposed to the Crusaders... but then again, maybe you're overestimating it. Maybe he has better control of his own government than you think. We don't have detailed knowledge of what's going on in Augusta.

The point is, there is no guarantee, nor even concrete evidence of an overwhelming likelihood, that Blackwell will be forced to accept the DC 90 peace treaty (which would itself put him under great humiliation and political pressure) even if we succeed in repelling a Vick counter-attack on Buffalo.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

ok, first off, I do not expect us to get that DC 90 treaty. that was a one time double or nothing chance. But its not that or nothing you know? how good a treaty we get is a fairly granular slider. But if we fold now we're getting like, a dc 20-30 treaty with Blackwell being the one to design it to minimize harm to victora. If you don't think he would softball it that much, us balking at blood is exactly what he is indoctrinated to expect us to do, his biases will very much push him towards thinking he has an amazing bargaining position. But whatever treaty he comes up with, we can be sure It will absolutely be one that will make round 2 a hell of a lot more dangerous. Second, I very much do think you're underestimating the pressure he'd be under. The idea of him sieging us is somewhat unlikely to me. He knows what putting his men within range of our guns means. Further, it would take a hell of a lot of men to keep us bottled up. Likely more than he can spare given the nature of the civil war.

again, that is even if he knows we're bluffing. Which would be a worst-case scenario, he's weighing his options and counting how badly we could chew up his men if we are at 100% capacity. he knows we have the guns to make a seige bloody as fuck, and the devil are a near-ideal breakthrough unit. While things might go wrong, I don't think the idea of a seige is the shape a disaster could take. Especially when you consider he's got a decimated officer core and very very few other generals. He does not have the commanders to fight a competent two-front war.


by the way, this conversation is getting kinda stupid fractured. would you mind not splitting up your reply? it's approaching the point of being silly.

Exterminatus said:

We already know what happened when quality 0 militia got hit by a mass of disciplined troops. Despite having to execute one of the most grueling and failure-prone of operations (an amphibious assault), they were routed and scattered by a force numerically inferior than their own within the opening hours. The arrival of line troops practically made the rest of the operation clean up.

Now it's being posited that they can somehow contain a force where the only advantage this mass of militia has is in numbers. These militia have neither the war material that their regular counterparts would've had, they have none of the training or fanaticism that made them push beyond their limitations, and to cap it off they have inferior mobility on a good sunny day, nevermind how the weather would severely worsen both their logistical tail and tactical mobility. Given their subpar performance on the defense in one of the better conditions available, such an attempt at sieging would result in rout and effective destruction due to dispersed elements being rolled up by concentrated Commonwealth forces.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone is arguing we're at risk of losing the next battle?

random_npc said:

we have taken options that have the possibility of negative outcomes, but every option presented to us in the last few choices had the possibility of negative outcomes. If you stretch the definition of reckless risk-taking to include that sort of measured approach every option is a being reckless, which admittedly does create a worrying pattern of reckless risk-taking stretching back to the start of the quest.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The problem with risks isn't that they exist, it's that you take them when you don't have to. We've thrown away the possibility of picking our treaty and going home by asking for the most maximalist one possible, and when that failed, we kept running with 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 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.

Nyvis said:

The problem with risks isn't that they exist, it's that you take them when you don't have to. We've thrown away the possibility of picking our treaty and going home by asking for the most maximalist one possible, and when that failed, we kept running with it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

we've made what, 3 choices since the reaty? the coinflip one was risky as hell yes, pushing was I'd say less so, and taking buffalo was arguably the least risky choice given the other two both had far worse failure states. I hardly think we've been madly throwing caution to the wind. hell, the winning attack choice is notably the one that accepts an assured political headache rather than serious risk.

Inserted tally

[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 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] 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 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