Voting is open
Brown-water navy because we're basically going to be in center of the Mississippi/Missouri basins and Green-Water because the Great Lakes are also big conduits for trade (or invasion/military ops).
Projecting power on the Great Lakes; forcing the Mackinack Strait when that time comes.
We're the orange. Every single line touching us is a waterway.
With respect, but I think that at this point force projection is a boondoggle. We need to have standing troops to defend ourselves against attacks of opportunity, and an intelligence service for counter-intelligence, but I don't think we should look into offensive capabilities just yet. First, we really should build up our own infrastructure/industry/economy. I suppose I could see an argument in that vein for protecting the trade lanes, but well, we'll have to cut corners somewhere, and I'd prioritize economy over defence for now, and within defence I'd prioritize army and counter-intelligence over the navy. So the navy pretty looks like the corner to cut for me.

Basically, my strategy would be to bunker in and invest. Turtling and booming, that is :p
 
With respect, but I think that at this point force projection is a boondoggle. We need to have standing troops to defend ourselves against attacks of opportunity, and an intelligence service for counter-intelligence, but I don't think we should look into offensive capabilities just yet. First, we really should build up our own infrastructure/industry/economy. I suppose I could see an argument in that vein for protecting the trade lanes, but well, we'll have to cut corners somewhere, and I'd prioritize economy over defence for now, and within defence I'd prioritize army and counter-intelligence over the navy. So the navy pretty looks like the corner to cut for me.

Basically, my strategy would be to bunker in and invest. Turtling and booming, that is :p

I actually see having the Brown Water force as vital to growing economically. To prevent river piracy and to keep open the waterways to support our merchants as they ply the area.

It would help set up a skeleton for efficient transport, would help for troop deployment, and the Brown Water force isn't really an offensive arm, it's specifically to secure our vital arteries. And in the long term is the base for further expansion.

I'm not really desirous of any of the other military options (aside from logistics) but I'd count this one as vital.
 
You guys do realize that we'll still have a naval force even if we don't take Brown Water Navy, right? It's only if we take No Navy that we don't have a navy.
 
I'm all in on Sara or Jameson, and all out on Daley and Marsden.

I also think our most important early-game priority should be the economy, which means railroads, merchants, and a brown water navy. I'd also like to see us grab ear to the ground or good security, because intelligence is going to be one of our biggest force multipliers here.
 
I like the Daly option. "The Machine" is so very Chicago too. Not taking it would be a damn shame. I just wish there was some kind of escalation policy we could implement and call it "The Chicago Way"



Living our political dreams is great and all, but we picked Chicago, why not use that fact? Not just for the good stuff, but the warts too. Do y'all really want to make another nation of Mary Sues?
 
Living our political dreams is great and all, but we picked Chicago, why not use that fact? Not just for the good stuff, but the warts too. Do y'all really want to make another nation of Mary Sues?
They came at us with wannabe Mary Sues, we come at them with the real thing. That's the Chicago Way.
 
Last edited:
[][BOSS] The Old Guard
Brown-Water Navy (-2 CP)
Incompetent Military (2 CP)
Revivalist Connections (-1 CP)
Established (-2 CP)
Good Security (-1 CP)
Independent Merchants (-2 CP)
Rail Companies (-2 CP)
Disunited Currency (3 CP)
Population Boom (2 CP)
Libraries (-2 CP)
Hostile Neighborhood (1 CP)

I'd like to advocate for this build.

Gives us a navy that is superior to the Victorians' boat technicals. Incompetent military can be fixed eventually, meanwhile the Old Guard's battalion can be the hammer while our ragtag militias bog down any Victorian attack if it occurs.

Established and Revivalist Connections builds on each other in terms of building influence in the area. Revivalist can open doors while the Established trait can help us work on diplomatically absorbing groups near us and have a in with factions like the NCR. Merchants and Rail companies are essential to build the economy.

Libraries are self explainatary.

On the malus that I haven't mentioned, Pop. Boom can be mitigated by using our Merchant and Rail network. Disunited Currency... well, it kinda makes sense to pick it given that we are bringing together a plethora of factions, each probably had their own currency.

Hostile Neighborhood can be negated by not going on a conquering spree, rather working with the Established and Revivalist connections traits to diplomatically annex our smaller, less organized neighbors.
 
Can we... not found our nation on criminality and corruption?

I'm pretty certain that everyone from the NCs on over to the Communists can agree that we don't want our nation to be build on throwing the rule of law out the window.
 
[][BOSS] The Local Hero
Libraries (-2CP)
Universities (-2CP)
Independant Merchants(-2CP)
Rail Companies(-2CP)
Brown Water Navy(-2CP)
Professionals Study Logistics(-3CP)

Population Boom(2CP)
Incompetant Military(2CP)
Disunited Currency(3CP)

Basically my reasoning for this plan is that it provides a massive amount of knowledge and economic potential at the start. Then, when we get currency issues sorted out, we can start properly tooling up the economy and putting all of that knowledge to use. With the eventual goal of using trade and economic ability to unify the region instead of force.
 
Last edited:
I will not vote for anything that starts us with incompetent military.

Especially if we start with Victorian attention or Russian attention. I want the Chicagoan forces not to be a paper tiger if people come knocking. Keeping in mind that we also have no idea how long it'll take to shape them up into something not terrible.
 
Yes. Superb geographic location, superb strategic location, good infrastructure, access to the bread basket...

That doesn't mean we need to take the bad with the good.
That's true. We don't need to. We don't need to have any disadvantages. We can remain morally and ideologically pure at every turn, never compromising, never needing to accommodate anything at all remotely realistic. All of our enemies can be easily walked over nincompoops, all of our challenges can be easily handled non-challenges.

But that sounds boring. It sounds lame. It sounds like a waste of a city with a colorful and interesting history just to search out a few mechanical bonuses.
 
I will not vote for anything that starts us with incompetent military.

Especially if we start with Victorian attention or Russian attention. I want the Chicagoan forces not to be a paper tiger if people come knocking. Keeping in mind that we also have no idea how long it'll take to shape them up into something not terrible.

I think having a not fully trained but large military would work fairly well, especialy with population boom. As it would represent both the massive upscaling and lack of seasoned NCO's. Plus, with time and a few losses or diplomacy we should be able to actualy build up a decent officer core.
 
No popular front option for a socDem-socialist-communist coalition? Despite socDems being leery of revolutionary ideology, they OTL show themselves pretty willing to enter coalitions with communists if they're the dominant partners and the communists agree to work within the electoral system, which they are here. The French popular front was a great example of that. In fact, the stopper to such coalitions was usually from the left, not the right. In fact, market liberal parties frequently didn't see the difference between anything left of center so coalition with capitalists seem less likely. Especially with no soviet union to fill the communists with delusions about social fascists. Or anyone killing Rosa recently.

@PoptartProdigy is there a good reason why this isn't an option here? Could we get a write in for a full coalition of the lefts with solid concessions for the socialists and small ones for the communists? Probably on unions. Since most support for communists was shared with socialists during the vote, that seem like it would make sense to me?


As for leaders, Sara gives up the option of a clean slate with no drawback, but I think it's a mistake. We probably need a drawback to build up somewhere else. Should we assume no leader has political baggage in terms of parties? If so I'd probably go for the old guard and trying to go all in towards building for conflict with Victoria. People are more likely to rally to us if we're leading the fight.
 
No popular front option for a socDem-socialist-communist coalition? Despite socDems being leery of revolutionary ideology, they OTL show themselves pretty willing to enter coalitions with communists if they're the dominant partners and the communists agree to work within the electoral system, which they are here. The French popular front was a great example of that. In fact, the stopper to such coalitions was usually from the left, not the right. In fact, market liberal parties frequently didn't see the difference between anything left of center so coalition with capitalists seem less likely. Especially with no soviet union to fill the communists with delusions about social fascists. Or anyone killing Rosa recently.

@PoptartProdigy is there a good reason why this isn't an option here? Could we get a write in for a full coalition of the lefts with solid concessions for the socialists and small ones for the communists? Probably on unions. Since most support for communists was shared with socialists during the vote, that seem like it would make sense to me?


As for leaders, Sara gives up the option of a clean slate with no drawback, but I think it's a mistake. We probably need a drawback to build up somewhere else. Should we assume no leader has political baggage in terms of parties? If so I'd probably go for the old guard and trying to go all in towards building for conflict with Victoria. People are more likely to rally to us if we're leading the fight.

Cause Poptart has no stomach for any more politics than necessary in quest thread, I suppose. 5 mod posts (well 6 now) within 12 threadmarks is quite a track record.
'course, nothing is apolitical, but main politics of the quest seem to will be "punch Nazis", "humans matter" and "USA might've had some good actually", or something; and there's not much debate to be had about those, aside from quibbling.



Not sure about the choices themselves. Military start can work, but we have to be aware it is a military start; and I, personally, just think that Riverine Carthage would be very goddamn cool way to play.
 
Cause Poptart has no stomach for any more politics than necessary in quest thread, I suppose. 5 mod posts (well 6 now) within 12 threadmarks is quite a track record.
'course, nothing is apolitical, but main politics of the quest seem to will be "punch Nazis", "humans matter" and "USA might've had some good actually", or something; and there's not much debate to be had about those, aside from quibbling.

I mean, no? All the other coalition choices are equally political decisions. Or do you mean they overlooked/discarded the possibility because politics isn't their focus?
 
Ooh, I'm highly tempted to go for the Secretary. The story that could be told...

Alas, the Russian Attention and lack of CP are disconcerting. Maybe.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top