Remove ads

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

Voting is open
Reader mode
So can I suggest my own plan even if I already voted?

[X] Plan Taxes And Spend
- [X]DoD (1/1)
-- [X] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[X] DepState (4/1)
-- [X] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [X ] To St. Louis, And Beyond [SYP]: 1 AP, 1/3 85%
- [X] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [X] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [X] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [X] DepDev (3/3)
-- [X] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepSec (2/1)
-- [X] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepTech (1/1)
-- [ X] Retraining Campaigns [SYP]: 1 AP, 60% 1/2
- [X] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [X] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%
 
Ikacprzak said:
So can I suggest my own plan even if I already voted?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The system is going to take your last post with a vote in any tally. If you include only one vote towards your own plan, only that one counts. You can vote for multiple plans in any vote, with each one being counted towards the plan.

Oh, and I would recommend including Expatriate Outreach rather than To St. Louis and Beyond. The update has made our need for more experts pretty clear, and I would expect this to be a turnoff for many voters.
 
Last edited:
In that case, back to my last vote
[X] Plan Taxes for our Charm Offensive v2
- [X]DoD (1/1)
-- [X] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[X] DepState (4/1)
-- [X] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [X] Expatriate Outreach 1 AP, 85%
- [X] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [X] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [X] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [X] DepDev (3/3)
-- [X] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepSec (2/1)
-- [X] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepTech (1/1)
-- [X] Old World Equipment, 1 AP, 1/2 70%
- [X] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [X] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%
 
[X] Plan Tax And Spend
- [X]DoD (1/1)
-- [X] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[X] DepState (4/1)
-- [X] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [X ] Expatriate Outreach [SYP] 1 AP, 85%
- [X] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [X] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [X] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [X] DepDev (3/3)
-- [X] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepSec (2/1)
-- [X] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepTech (1/1)
-- [ X] Retraining Campaigns [SYP]: 1 AP, 60% 1/2
- [X] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [X] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%
 
I don't want to split the vote so I'll pick

[X] Plan Taxes for our Charm Offensive v2
- [X]DoD (1/1)
-- [X] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[X] DepState (4/1)
-- [X] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [X] Expatriate Outreach 1 AP, 85%
- [X] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [X] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [X] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [X] DepDev (3/3)
-- [X] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepSec (2/1)
-- [X] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepTech (1/1)
-- [X] Old World Equipment, 1 AP, 1/2 70%
- [X] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [X] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%
 
[X] Plan Taxes for our Charm Offensive v2
 
So this voting kind of illustrates why I wish we could vote on individual options rather than whole plans, because I think the ap would be better spent on long term returns rather than acquiring 1 more instance of equipment we might not even need.
 
Ikacprzak said:
So this voting kind of illustrates why I wish we could vote on individual options rather than whole plans, because I think the ap would be better spent on long term returns rather than acquiring 1 more instance of equipment we might not even need.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the part where you make a "identical to your otherwise-preferred plan except for this one thing" alternative plan & try to pitch it to the thread (admittedly ideally before the vote has gotten quite this stagnant). The options are way too interdependent for non-plan voting to be remotely tenable overall.
 
Ikacprzak said:
So this voting kind of illustrates why I wish we could vote on individual options rather than whole plans, because I think the ap would be better spent on long term returns rather than acquiring 1 more instance of equipment we might not even need.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You can vote for multiple plans, as I tried to explain to you. Just to demonstrate to you how you would do this with deliberately invalid votes:

[-] Plan Taxes for our Charm Offensive v2

[-] Plan Tax And Spend
- [-]DoD (1/1)
-- [-] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[-] DepState (4/1)
-- [-] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [-] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [- ] Expatriate Outreach [SYP] 1 AP, 85%
- [-] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [-] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [-] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [-] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [-] DepDev (3/3)
-- [-] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [-] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [-] DepSec (2/1)
-- [-] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [-] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [-] DepTech (1/1)
-- [ -] Retraining Campaigns [SYP]: 1 AP, 60% 1/2
- [-] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [-] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%

Just replace each "-" in the brackets with an "X" and you would be casting a vote for my plan and your own. I hope I made this explanation clear enough.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Taxes for our Charm Offensive v2

[X] Plan Tax And Spend
- [X]DoD (1/1)
-- [X] Officer Academies 1 AP, 1/2 80%
-[X] DepState (4/1)
-- [X] Expand the Department 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Source Foreign Arms 2 AP, ?%
-- [X ] Expatriate Outreach [SYP] 1 AP, 85%
- [X] DepDomestic (6/1)
-- [X] Refugee Management 2 AP, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] The Works 2 AP, 1/2 81%, 2/2 49%
-- [X] Renovate the Bureau of Taxation 2 AP, 1/2 84%, 2/2 36%
- [X] DepDev (3/3)
-- [X] Build Rail 2 AP 75%, 1/1 95%, Overflow 56%
-- [X] Industrial Assessment 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepSec (2/1)
-- [X] Long Tail 1 AP, 70%
-- [X] Trouble in Minnesota 1 AP, 75%
- [X] DepTech (1/1)
-- [ X] Retraining Campaigns [SYP]: 1 AP, 60% 1/2
- [X] DepEducation (2/2)
-- [X] School Survey 2 AP, 1/2 65%, 2/2 42.3%
 
In response to a question on Discord regarding the nature of the Victorian Premier, specifically their level of power relative to the Inquisitors and how our unlamented, departed Premier Swift sat in this.

Discord Poptart said:
Okay, so.
As in many longer-lived authoritarian regimes -- the ones that last long enough to develop a durable state apparatus -- the office of the head of state is of starkly variable power depending on who they are and what the state's going through.
Consider the shifts in how powerful the Chinese head of state has been in the aftermath of Mao.
Likewise with Victoria.
Bill Kraft was an absolute ruler who made the country bend at his order.
The state apparatus, in the form of the rapidly-expanding Christian Marine Corps, and in particular their Inquisitorial branch, rapidly assumed control of government following his death.
Since then, every head of state has been an Inquisitor.
The degree of influence these heads hold is starkly variable.
When the Crusader branch calved off and established itself as an independent branch of the CMC, the Inquisitors spent a good few years having to reassert their hold on power, and the Premier of the time exploited that in acting as a kingmaker.
Tragically, he committed suicide by multiple gunshot wound and autodefenestration in the aftermath of the Inquisitors reasserting themselves.
After this tragic loss, the Premiers tended to learn who their masters were seek the guidance and support of their former comrades more often, as guidance in their stressful duties.
The Inquisitors as an institution hold a great deal of power in Victorian governance.
That being said, the Premiers have not exactly been powerless.
They are selected by the Inquisitors and serve at their pleasure, but to become Premier requires a great deal of political support. While the Inquisitors have, in times of great internal unity, chosen to elevate somebody loyal and pliable (pitched to the populace as a political firebrand and establishment outsider who will bring reform, most typically -- and hey, knowing who would vote for a candidate like that is good data for the priestly branch), more often the new Premier is somebody stepping into the apex of their political career after years of maneuvering and influence trading.
Swift, in public terms has a somewhat vague record, noted as having served as an attaché to the military in an unclear capacity.
Foreign powers have come to recognize this as code for a career in the Inquisitors' federal law enforcement branch, meaning that Swift had a long and bloody career as a trigger-puller for the secret police.
This is a fairly rare background for a Premier, and the common speculation has been that, in his service, he uncovered a lot of dirt on his political opponents.
Like, absolute landslides of blackmail material from operations he participated in or controlled.
If this speculation is correct, then honestly it's hard to tell exactly how he died.
Because, if so, he would, in the wake of the peace treaty, be faced with the certain knowledge that he was facing down the prospect of all the people he pissed off abruptly having the chance to call the imbalance due.
Maybe he committed suicide.
Maybe his opponents read the writing on the wall faster, and he merely wished that he had.
Hard to say.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Simon_Jester said:
Hm.

Kraft only died within the past 30-35 years. How many premiers have there been?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The upper ranks of Victoria might be rather geriatric. If the time for career advancement is similar to the ones for the Soviet premiers, it is entirely conceivable to have a string of leaders who had the position for ~ 5 years before they died of old age/ "unexpected accidents". So maybe somewhere around 5-8, if my speculation holds true.
Of course, with the immanent ascendance of Blackwell, the system would change from a oligarchy towards a dictatorship, with a fairly young dictator at the helm.
 
Last edited:
Ikacprzak said:
So Kamil Galeev actually wrote several threads detailing Russia deep seated internal problems, and it kind of makes you wonder how much Alexander managed to clean up versus what still persists. At this point the WW2 surplus might have been the best they could afford in general.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I believe that Alexander did not really solve Russia's deep-seated problems, but by virtue of his personality and his absolute power he kept them within tolerable bounds throughout his life.
I mean Alexander was a competent warlord who successfully managed not only to seize power but also to stay in power until his natural death and to build a dynasty. This requires a very wide range of skills, which should make it easier for him to keep the usual problems under control, if not make them disappear.
The question will be how long his incompetent son will be able to do so and how bad things will get under him.
Because let's be clear, he has none of his father's qualities and was not even the desired successor, which means he had to make deals with others within Russia's leadership, which in turn means that certain individuals and factions within the power apparatus will have gained power and influence over him.
In short, he will be much less able to deal with the excesses of his allies who are also his power base than his father who did not need to.
 
mayboro said:
I believe that Alexander did not really solve Russia's deep-seated problems, but by virtue of his personality and his absolute power he kept them within tolerable bounds throughout his life.
I mean Alexander was a competent warlord who successfully managed not only to seize power but also to stay in power until his natural death and to build a dynasty. This requires a very wide range of skills, which should make it easier for him to keep the usual problems under control, if not make them disappear.
The question will be how long his incompetent son will be able to do so and how bad things will get under him.
Because let's be clear, he has none of his father's qualities and was not even the desired successor, which means he had to make deals with others within Russia's leadership, which in turn means that certain individuals and factions within the power apparatus will have gained power and influence over him.
In short, he will be much less able to deal with the excesses of his allies who are also his power base than his father who did not need to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It probably won't collapse overnight, but what are the odds Russia has some internal problems that check its worldly ambitions?
 
Ikacprzak said:
It probably won't collapse overnight, but what are the odds Russia has some internal problems that check its worldly ambitions?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would not be surprised if many of Russia's, let's say, traditional problems persist and have so far only been covered up by an extremely competent leader.
But Russia's biggest problem seems to be that they have never taken care to build a world order that may not be loved by their enemies but is at least accepted. I mean Alexander's decision to unleash riots in France to get his hands on his daughter's lover has not only caused a massive rethink in Germany and Germany to send 4 armoured divisions to Poland instead of one, forcing him to send 4 Guards armoured divisions in response, but it has also caused the EU to move rapidly towards federation.
At the same time, he has lost both pillars of his policy in America, one permanently, the other temporarily, which does not make the situation any better, at least in the long run.
In Asia, his two allies India and Japan, which he uses to keep China in check, are also in problematic situations.
Japan is overstretched and can barely control the territory they have, so they can't really help Russia by shouldering part of the burden and thereby freeing up Russian troops.
India seems to be in internal trouble and the party supporting Russia is in danger of losing power, which means that India cannot do much either.
Which in turn could mean that China can direct more troops against Russia, which will certainly ensure that the military in Russia will have sleepless nights.
And in this difficult world situation, Russia is led by a man who is, shall we say, less suited to the position he holds.
Who has none of his father's outstanding qualities and has made the politically unwise decision right from the start to rescue Victoria from her humble situation using official Russian troops.
Open support for arguably the most hated country on the planet is not exactly a good foreign policy decision.
What does this mean for us? Not much at first, except that we have to intensify our modernisation efforts to be able to stand up to Victoria in the future, because the timeline for a second round has moved forward.
There is nothing we can do against Russia itself, as Russia could probably crush us with an airborne brigade, such are the technological differences between us.
But the fact that problems closer to home will tie up much of Russia's attention means that we have more time to get into a position where we can force a stalemate against Russia.
 
mayboro said:
I would not be surprised if many of Russia's, let's say, traditional problems persist and have so far only been covered up by an extremely competent leader.
But Russia's biggest problem seems to be that they have never taken care to build a world order that may not be loved by their enemies but is at least accepted. I mean Alexander's decision to unleash riots in France to get his hands on his daughter's lover has not only caused a massive rethink in Germany and Germany to send 4 armoured divisions to Poland instead of one, forcing him to send 4 Guards armoured divisions in response, but it has also caused the EU to move rapidly towards federation.
At the same time, he has lost both pillars of his policy in America, one permanently, the other temporarily, which does not make the situation any better, at least in the long run.
In Asia, his two allies India and Japan, which he uses to keep China in check, are also in problematic situations.
Japan is overstretched and can barely control the territory they have, so they can't really help Russia by shouldering part of the burden and thereby freeing up Russian troops.
India seems to be in internal trouble and the party supporting Russia is in danger of losing power, which means that India cannot do much either.
Which in turn could mean that China can direct more troops against Russia, which will certainly ensure that the military in Russia will have sleepless nights.
And in this difficult world situation, Russia is led by a man who is, shall we say, less suited to the position he holds.
Who has none of his father's outstanding qualities and has made the politically unwise decision right from the start to rescue Victoria from her humble situation using official Russian troops.
Open support for arguably the most hated country on the planet is not exactly a good foreign policy decision.
What does this mean for us? Not much at first, except that we have to intensify our modernisation efforts to be able to stand up to Victoria in the future, because the timeline for a second round has moved forward.
There is nothing we can do against Russia itself, as Russia could probably crush us with an airborne brigade, such are the technological differences between us.
But the fact that problems closer to home will tie up much of Russia's attention means that we have more time to get into a position where we can force a stalemate against Russia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All this also got me thinking about what's going to happen with the Hohenzollerns and their imperial ambitions.
 
So I want to keep up with what's happening to the Pacific Northwest, I bet the NCR is eyeing it and weighing their options.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top