Remove ads

Springtime of Nations II: A European Republic Quest

Reader mode
Aedan777 said:
So I endorse any of the -3 leverage plans, they'll ensure the war continues without upsetting the Entente too much. The -1 and -2 plans leave open the issue of counter offers, or worse an outright acceptance. Red Map is unfortunately the worst choice, since it both ensures the war continues and all but guarantees Entente intervention of some form.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is an alternative (which I unfortunately missed the chance to discuss before the vote opened, but anyway): we demand full occupation of Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, and the Habsburg empire, and nothing else. No reparations or reorganization of the rest of the League. This is a -4 plan, meaning we'd probably (although not definitely?) have to sabotage the talks to submit it, but it would set out our broad goals for the Red Map without indicating to the Entente that we're actively trying to destroy the European balance of power. (And if it caused the war to continue we might even get Romania in the bargain anyway.)
 
Fingon888 said:
First of all, let's please relax. We are roleplaying here
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
When you explicitly say that you don't vote in normal elections because none of the parties are right-wing enough for you, you'll have to excuse me when I say that I don't believe you're being forthright with me.

Also, even if you want to be a bloodless centrist pursuing practical foreign policy, fighting colonialism is still a good idea because France and Britain build their strength off of it. Assisting their colonies in their liberatory struggles directly harm their ability to bring materiel to bare against us. There's no justification for not vigorously fighting it... aside from, say, thinking that the people in those colonies are inherently not worth fighting for.
 
Fingon888 said:
This is a game, a story where we are making the decisions of fictional policy makers in the 19th century. In what way could it not be roleplaying? Are you saying the only legitimate thing to do is to argue for something that you personally think is good or moral? That's not how story-telling and games work and dreadfully boring I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's a difference between arguing in context or arguing for something you don't believe in, and playing a role, which you absolutely haven't set up. If you want to roleplay, write an in character omake about an assembly delegate or something.

TheArcanist said:
When you explicitly say that you don't vote in normal elections because none of the parties are right-wing enough for you, you'll have to excuse me when I say that I don't believe you're being forthright with me.

Also, even if you want to be a bloodless centrist pursuing practical foreign policy, fighting colonialism is still a good idea because France and Britain build their strength off of it. Assisting their colonies in their liberatory struggles directly harm their ability to bring materiel to bare against us. There's no justification for not vigorously fighting it... aside from, say, thinking that the people in those colonies are inherently not worth fighting for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, even from a liberal point of view, colonialism closes the world's markets to us by creating fenced gardens for the empires. It's not a great justification for fighting colonialism, but any great power without colonies of its own has good reasons to adopt anti colonialism.
 
TheArcanist said:
When you explicitly say that you don't vote in normal elections because none of the parties are right-wing enough for you, you'll have to excuse me when I say that I don't believe you're being forthright with me.

Also, even if you want to be a bloodless centrist pursuing practical foreign policy, fighting colonialism is still a good idea because France and Britain build their strength off of it. Assisting their colonies in their liberatory struggles directly harm their ability to bring materiel to bare against us. There's no justification for not vigorously fighting it... aside from, say, thinking that the people in those colonies are inherently not worth fighting for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm perfectly happy to discuss the issues of the game and to debate things but I would politely ask you not to insinuate things about myself personally over the matters of storytelling. You don't know a single thing about me or my beliefs.
 
[x] Plan: Engineered Continuation of War
[x] Plan The Pink Map (Sabotaged)
[x] Plan: The Red Map
 
[X] Plan The Pink Map (No Sabotage)
[x] Plan: Engineered Continuation of War

Approval voting for the Pink Map, having had the time to do a full review.
 
[X] Plan: War Goals
-[X] We will cast down tyrants and liberate nations.
-[x] Poland, Lithuania, and Galicia shall be placed under Allied control.
-[X] The Alliance shall additionally take Slovakia and Hungary.
-[X] The Habsburg Empire must be placed under Alliance control.
-[x] Russia and Austria do not have to pay reparations.
-[x] The other League states shall not be punished.
 
Ultrackius said:
What exactly is the benifit of No sabatoge pink over sabatoge pink?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What is the benefit of choosing sabotage over "We will cast down tyrants and liberate nations." for the Pink Map? It's a penalty to Entente relations in exchange for nothing, as we expect the League to reject the Pink Map regardless.
(If the benefit is that you want to flip off the Entente, well, I'm looking forward to it too, but that should wait for a moment when we're less vulnerable.)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top