Voting is open
But... y'all chose Chicago.
Yeah, but we also chose CRUSH:None by a fairly overwhelming margin, so I'd say the opportunity to go for clinging to power by hook and crook has passed.
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.
Look, I didn't know Poptart from Adam when this thread started, but from the way people have been talking about them since I think we can trust our most benevolent QM to give us challenges without needing our help. I can probably dig up the quotes I'm thinking of if you want, but not immediately since I'm about to crash.
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?
The political parties here need not map perfectly to OTL political thought. The constitutional convention post makes it clear that in Chicago the Social Democratic Party has more in common with the New Capitalist Party than the Communist Party, to the point that the Commies are somewhat pissy about the Soc Dem win but the New Caps are fine with it.
 
Last edited:
[ ][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
  • Legitimacy+
  • Pisses off Communists.
  • Appealing to a wide international audience, although the shift may prompt some minor caution. Foreign investment is going to like the market, given its similarity to most of the markets from which they'll be coming; if you have something worth their time, they will come. You are less of an obvious soft economic target to begin with, here.
  • Select democratized businesses from a selection of industries gain government subsidies in order to give them a head start and see how they play.

Eh, it's a decent compromise.
SocDems actually supporting workplace democracy.

With this, Merchants makes more sense - to compete with foreign investors.

We may or may not shift over time to more of workplace democracies, depending on what options does QM give us and what do we do.



Btw, choice of compromise should depend on choices of CP buys. Vaccinations play extremely well with Healthcare compromise, for example.
 
[ ][BOSS] Local Hero: You first came to prominence as a young woman during the neo-Nazi occupation of the northern Midwest. You fought back against them, helped to throw them out, and presided over the slow emptying of Chicago in the aftermath. Since then you've been managing the city and keeping it on life support. You've slowly built things back up and forged a new state around your home. You will see things fixed once more. You will ensure that your home never again knows the terror of being at a monster's mercy. You will do what is necessary, to the shores of Maine if you must.
  • Sara M. Johnson.
  • Start with 6 CP.
  • If not taken, becomes a member of the legislature.
Erm.

I would bet on you having chosen the last name deliberately to avoid people asking this question, but just to be clear, this is not the grumpy military character I drafted, correct? Because she clearly wants the same things as my Sara, and did some of the same things, and probably knows my Sara personally and has for years if not decades... but different name.

[Just in case anyone in the audience didn't pick up on it, the character I roughly sketched out, Sara Goldblum, is Jewish, and that informed the way she reacted to the neo-Nazis and to the overall state of post-Collapse America as the war with the neo-Nazis wound down.]

[ ][BOSS] Springfield Schemer: Illinois did not fall to the Nazis.
Thank some valiant crusaders on a mission from God, and a well-timed mechanized campaign. :p

[ ][BOSS] The Old Guard: You have fought in parts of the world most Americans haven't even seen. You unit returned home in the wake of the Collapse, and you've been wandering the country ever since. You fought for the New American Confederation, Cascadia, and the Pacific Republic in turn. Your commanding officer died in California, and you took command. Your unit has been fighting the Victorians ever since, striking from the shadows and desperately keeping their weaponry maintained. You were young when your war started...now you're old. So damn old. But the fight's just kicking up. You're not done yet. You cleared the southern tip of the Lake of Victorian eyes. Time to get ready to strike a stronger blow against the bastards.
Recommended Listening: The Shooting Company of Captain Frans B. Cocq

Yes, I make some unusual music recommendations.

[ ][BOSS] The Last Echo: You were chosen as Secretary of State by a woman who had been Speaker of the House before those before her in the line of succession died in transit to a safe location amid the chaos of the Collapse. You were confirmed by the last Congress of the United States minutes later. You served your President for years before a Russian assassin killed her and most of her cabinet, and you took up her role. By the slimmest of technicalities and a lot of bluffing, you hold a position that grants you precedence in the eyes of many. You convinced Chicago to call the Congress; you presided. It has been years, and you have been hunted for all of them. You have no room left in your heart for nostalgia. This country is a broken thing. No matter how much it must change, you will see it fixed and better than before. And once you serve a country that deserves the pride of the United States, you will tear Alexander from his throne.
[hugs]
 
Look, I didn't know Poptart from Adam when this thread started, but from the way people have been talking about them since I think we can trust our most benevolent QM to give us challenges without needing our help. I can probably dig up the quotes I'm thinking of if you want, but not immediately since I'm about to crash.

I think they're being sarcastic? At least that's my feeling. Always hard to tell over the internet.

The political parties here need not map perfectly to OTL political thought. The constitutional convention post makes it clear that in Chicago the Social Democratic Party has more in common with the New Capitalist Party than the Communist Party, to the point that the Commies are somewhat pissy about the Soc Dem win but the New Caps are fine with it.

Oh commies were pissy about SocDems being senior partners OTL too. But outside of Weimar and its specific Rosa-killing circumstances, they bucked down and worked with them. Especially when Moscow stopped sending idiotic instructions about rejecting popular fronts when opposition to it in Germany gave them a massive Hitler shaped issue on their border. Here, we don't have to contend with papa Stalin and people still have some knowledge of past history, so I think popular fronts are going to be more popular, not less. Especially since communists are already participating in electoral politics with the idea that they can win that way. People should also be more willing to form broad coalitions in general because that's what you do when you have enemies at the gate.
 
It occurred to me that we should calculate net CP bonuses/maluses.

[ ][BOSS] Local Hero: You first came to prominence as a young woman during the neo-Nazi occupation of the northern Midwest. You fought back against them, helped to throw them out, and presided over the slow emptying of Chicago in the aftermath. Since then you've been managing the city and keeping it on life support. You've slowly built things back up and forged a new state around your home. You will see things fixed once more. You will ensure that your home never again knows the terror of being at a monster's mercy. You will do what is necessary, to the shores of Maine if you must.
  • Sara M. Johnson.
  • Start with 6 CP.
  • If not taken, becomes a member of the legislature.
This is straightforward. +6 starting CP to spend. No mandatory disadvantages, giving us maximum customizability. Fairly strong starting position.

[ ][BOSS] The Old Boss: The Daleys have been big names in Chicago since the '50s. The 1950s. A hundred and twenty years of political prominence will grind itself in. You're no different. Your family managed to hold onto its influence throughout the collapse, and you were the one to take charge of things afterward, leveraging various friendships you made during the bad years. Chicago's been on the outs too long. The Daleys will be the ones to bring it back.
  • Richard D. Daley.
  • Starts with Restart the Machine, Domestic Connections, and Import/Export Professionals. 5 CP.
  • If not taken, the Daleys lost all power and wealth during the Collapse. You'd have to search to find out if they're still alive.
So, +5 starting CP to spend, and mandatory options that would normally suck badly enough that we'd net another +2 CP just from having to put up with them. Effectively, then, gives us +3 CP for starting bonuses.

Charmingly unique to Chicagoland, but kind of a weak start. @PoptartProdigy , either I've misunderstood the rules, or this choice is kind of, uh... nerfed? That may be intentional on your part, of course, but I wanted to mention it.

[ ][BOSS] Springfield Schemer: Illinois did not fall to the Nazis. The state government pulled through all of the chaos just fine...and when you came to the Governor's office, you made sure to keep an eye on things. When Chicago started pulling itself together, you were far-sighted enough to recognize the opportunity. You left for Chicago and put your political skills to work on trying to build something bigger than your own patch. A fair amount of people have taken your foresight for aggression, though. You will need to keep your eyes about you.
  • Audrey F. Jameson.
  • Starts with Ear to the Ground, Good Security, Aerial Reconnaissance, Hostile Neighborhood. 4 CP.
  • If not taken, swore to the new federal government along with everybody else.
+4 starting CP to spend, and bonuses worth another +4. Only 1 CP worth of maluses, albeit a malus that could have awkward plot consequences. This is a strong starting position, not gonna lie. Lots of bonuses in the 'Intelligence' category; we'll know a lot about what's going on in our surrounding areas, and the fact that we'd have an aerial drone corps gives us the start of an air force, which is nothing to sneeze at in this day and age. The Victorians, by their nature, can't be especially good at air defense.

[ ][BOSS] The Old Guard: You have fought in parts of the world most Americans haven't even seen. You unit returned home in the wake of the Collapse, and you've been wandering the country ever since. You fought for the New American Confederation, Cascadia, and the Pacific Republic in turn. Your commanding officer died in California, and you took command. Your unit has been fighting the Victorians ever since, striking from the shadows and desperately keeping their weaponry maintained. You were young when your war started...now you're old. So damn old. But the fight's just kicking up. You're not done yet. You cleared the southern tip of the Lake of Victorian eyes. Time to get ready to strike a stronger blow against the bastards.
  • Ron C. Burns.
  • Starts with Old World Equipment, Old World Soldiers, Professionals Study Logistics, and Victorian Attention. 4 CP.
  • If not taken, he and his unit died in the fall of the Pacific Republic, choosing to go out in a blaze of glory.
+4 starting CP to spend, but comes with military options that are worth a combined +5 CP. Having to deal with Victorian attention is a malus that would normally be worth 2 CP, for a net of +7. Strong start.

This is definitely the place we want to start if we want a military-heavy campaign. It will mean armed clashes with the Victorians early on, but it also gives us the badassery needed to have a reasonable chance of winning those clashes.

[ ][BOSS] The Last Echo: You were chosen as Secretary of State by a woman who had been Speaker of the House before those before her in the line of succession died in transit to a safe location amid the chaos of the Collapse. You were confirmed by the last Congress of the United States minutes later. You served your President for years before a Russian assassin killed her and most of her cabinet, and you took up her role. By the slimmest of technicalities and a lot of bluffing, you hold a position that grants you precedence in the eyes of many. You convinced Chicago to call the Congress; you presided. It has been years, and you have been hunted for all of them. You have no room left in your heart for nostalgia. This country is a broken thing. No matter how much it must change, you will see it fixed and better than before. And once you serve a country that deserves the pride of the United States, you will tear Alexander from his throne.
  • Tamara C. Marsden.
  • Starts with Revivalist Connections, Good Reputation, Independent Merchants, Established, Russian Attention, and +2 Legitimacy. 0 CP.
  • If not taken, died years ago at the hands of a Russian assassin.
Zero starting CP, we're effectively locked into our starting stat-line except insofar as we eat more maluses. Rough start. We get +6 CP worth of starting advantages, mostly political but with a sideline in economic. But Russian Attention is a 3 CP malus; it's probably survivable but it's not going to be pleasant by any stretch of the imagination.

+2 Legitimacy is a good thing and I get the feeling more Legitimacy is gonna be hard to come by after game start. Not sure how it stacks up against having more or fewer starting CP.




Oh crud, sorry @Derpmind , didn't see that you'd already done the thing I did. :(

I'm leaning more towards Sara because I like the idea of Local Woman Piledrives Nazi Into Fencepost being one of our founders.
Me too.

Burns
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)

Tentative trait plan for people to look over. Burns gives Old World Soldiers, Equipment and Logistics while bringing Victorian attention. However, we if we can dominate the rivers with our brown navy we can crush Victorian punitive expeditions via logistics. Plus counter intelligence is really important. Pop Boom can be mitigated by merchants and rail. Hostile Neighbors can be mitigated by not aggressively militarily expanding but diplomatically annexing, helped by Established and Connections.
"Incompetent Military" means that Burns' unit (how large?) is the only effective combat force we have. I'd much rather sacrifice a few of our bonuses to avoid that malus. Among other things because it leaves us open to the vulnerability the historical Japanese Navy had in World War Two- our entire strategy depends on an elite corps of people who are very hard to replace, and we can't even pull them off the front lines for long enough to let them train replacements because they're needed at the front. We blow one Tactics check or whatever, and we're screwed in a way that we can't recover from in a timely manner.

We can survive early Victorian Attention, but I dont imagine we can survive early Russian Attention.
I dunno. The Russians are strong, but far away, and have literally the entire world to worry about. Whereas the Victorians are weaker, but closer, and while they have other concerns, they don't have many as pressing as "so yeah, about that state growing in the Midwest."

The Russians are a lot more likely to settle for the equivalent of a drive-by shooting, especially with Czar Alexander IV or whatever already having one foot in the grave. The Victorians, even if we defeat them, are liable to keep coming back.

Also, cold-bloodedly, the Russians might try to act on their attention by, say, assassinating Secretary Johnson, and succeed, and decide "well, we're done here." That wouldn't be great, but it'd be survivable.

Counter-point: I don't think Poptart would build a trap option in like that. Hopefully. Although it's probably gonna be hardmode.
As others have pointed out, I don't call it a trap option. Poptart has explicitly told us in so many words that the Russians like to take potential American successor states and crush them under its big heavy boot. And indeed, that's the main reason they even still bother to support the Victorians, as a proxy to help them do that.

I'm not saying Poptart wrote that option with the express intent that it would be totally unsurvivable, but it's definitely an existential threat to our state.
 
Last edited:
+4 starting CP to spend, and bonuses worth another +4. Only 1 CP worth of maluses, albeit a malus that could have awkward plot consequences. This is a strong starting position, not gonna lie. Lots of bonuses in the 'Intelligence' category; we'll know a lot about what's going on in our surrounding areas, and the fact that we'd have an aerial drone corps gives us the start of an air force, which is nothing to sneeze at in this day and age. The Victorians, by their nature, can't be especially good at air defense.

I really don't like what that malus does though. It's going to crimp our peaceful expansion. And the package doesn't really compensate with the necessary force to just ignore other people's opinion.

This is definitely the place we want to start if we want a military-heavy campaign. It will mean armed clashes with the Victorians early on, but it also gives us the badassery needed to have a reasonable chance of winning those clashes.

Mostly agree. The CP value is good, the options are complementary. It's just a question of whether that strategy is the right one.

+2 Legitimacy is a good thing and I get the feeling more Legitimacy is gonna be hard to come by after game start. Not sure how it stacks up against having more or fewer starting CP.

Is it? The QM kinda hinted both high legitimacy and low legitimacy are valid strategies, and that the worst position is probably flopping in between because neither radicals nor traditionalists like you enough to make friends.I think we're at +1 right now, between our policies bonus and the revivalist malus, so we're not that committed to one side or the other.

The bonuses are pretty solid sounding if we want to play a slow diplomatic game to ensure that Russian attention doesn't become Russian intervention. But on the other hand, the trade bonus seem awkward combined with having to go slowly since it would really benefit from rushing to reestablish trade routes.
 
I really don't like what that malus does though. It's going to crimp our peaceful expansion. And the package doesn't really compensate with the necessary force to just ignore other people's opinion.
The wording if anything makes me think that we'd get better results from a non-hostile approach; the neighbors are suspicious and hostile but "unite against us" if we try to go a-conquering.

Not sure.

Is it? The QM kinda hinted both high legitimacy and low legitimacy are valid strategies, and that the worst position is probably flopping in between because neither radicals nor traditionalists like you enough to make friends.I think we're at +1 right now, between our policies bonus and the revivalist malus, so we're not that committed to one side or the other.
Well, I don't want to deliberately burn legitimacy on the strength of hints, because even while that could work, the logical endpoint is ugly. The Victorians have -12 legitimacy and are hated across the nation, which I suspect are related phenomena.

So I'd rather pursue a high-if-not-sky-high legitimacy option. I don't think our starting options have forcibly committed us to a strategy of "well, might as well push our legitimacy down to the floor."

The bonuses are pretty solid sounding if we want to play a slow diplomatic game to ensure that Russian attention doesn't become Russian intervention. But on the other hand, the trade bonus seem awkward combined with having to go slowly since it would really benefit from rushing to reestablish trade routes.
"Russian Attention" is already going to mean at least limited intervention (attempts to sabotage if not destroy us). I think we can safely assume it doesn't mean "the Russians try as hard as they can to keep hitting you until you're dead," but we'd be dealing with a lot of Russia problems, probably as many or more than we can handle.
 
The wording if anything makes me think that we'd get better results from a non-hostile approach; the neighbors are suspicious and hostile but "unite against us" if we try to go a-conquering.

Not sure.

So we would need to go diplomatic but it makes it harder to do so? Yeah I still feel that's bad. Intelligence could help find things we can pry at to take them one by one but still, not sold.

Well, I don't want to deliberately burn legitimacy on the strength of hints, because even while that could work, the logical endpoint is ugly. The Victorians have -12 legitimacy and are hated across the nation, which I suspect are related phenomena.

That's a weird leap of logic. Legitimacy represents how much of the old US's mantle you inherited if I understood correctly. Not how liked you are. I would wager the Victorians are hated because they're cheap Nazi knockoffs, not because they aren't descended from the founders.

I may be biased because I'm one of the radicals who would like to do away with the old, though.

"Russian Attention" is already going to mean at least limited intervention (attempts to sabotage if not destroy us). I think we can safely assume it doesn't mean "the Russians try as hard as they can to keep hitting you until you're dead," but we'd be dealing with a lot of Russia problems, probably as many or more than we can handle.

Could be, could be. I still feel it sounds like a good option for a diplomatically minded campaign because it gives an opening towards the rest of the continent but it's risky yes.
 
I don't want to canonize this in case people think that I'm endorsing this as an accurate representation of one of the political parties. :confused: Non-canon, for now...

Well, "Ghost" isn't a mainstream New Capitalist but a far-right ideologue who may have secret sympathies for Victoria, so no, his views are NOT supposed to accurately represent the New Capitalist party.

[ ][BOSS] Local Hero: You first came to prominence as a young woman during the neo-Nazi occupation of the northern Midwest. You fought back against them, helped to throw them out, and presided over the slow emptying of Chicago in the aftermath. Since then you've been managing the city and keeping it on life support. You've slowly built things back up and forged a new state around your home. You will see things fixed once more. You will ensure that your home never again knows the terror of being at a monster's mercy. You will do what is necessary, to the shores of Maine if you must.

The other options have too much baggage and I'd rather start with a clean slate.

[ ][GOV] Form a coalition with the Socialists. Together with them, you will dominate the government.
-[ ][GOV] Cave in on the unions issue. You're a little leery of granting them that much power, but it's not like there's no need for strong unions.

I feel like having strong unions that can organize field-wide business practices and quality standards will be a great help, despite the risks.
 
[ ][BOSS] Local Hero
[ ][BOSS] The Old Guard

[ ][GOV] Form a coalition with the Socialists. Together with them, you will dominate the government.
-[ ][GOV] Cave in on the healthcare issue. You are worried about the state of healthcare, to be honest, you were only worried about the cost.

[ ][BOSS] The Old Boss:
Criminals have no place in government.
[ ][BOSS] The Last Echo:
We really don't need Russian Attention and we aren't going for a legitimacy build.
[ ][BOSS] Springfield Schemer:
No particular objection, I just don't like her.
 
I'm inclined towards Old Guard for a few reasons.
1. Ron makes a good foil for John Rumford: the good soldier trying rebuild the best of the USA to Rumford's traitor.
2. It gets us to the "shooting vicks in their goddamn traitor faces" stage early. That is one of this quest's draws for me.
 
So we would need to go diplomatic but it makes it harder to do so? Yeah I still feel that's bad. Intelligence could help find things we can pry at to take them one by one but still, not sold.
True. On the other hand, it's a +1 CP malus. I know Poptart is lawful evil and all, but they're not an ass; if the malus were going to make things that much harder for us it would be worth more points.

Similarly I'm worried that any malus good for a +3 CP is probably going to be very rough to deal with, though possibly in ways invisible to us because they affect us slowly over time.

That's a weird leap of logic. Legitimacy represents how much of the old US's mantle you inherited if I understood correctly. Not how liked you are. I would wager the Victorians are hated because they're cheap Nazi knockoffs, not because they aren't descended from the founders.
Let me clarify. We have two potential sources of small-l legitimacy, that is to say popular support on the America-wide level as a "real" national government.

One is "people love us for what we are." If Chicago is a beacon of hope for Catholics, Catholics love us. Beacon of hope for socialists, socialists love us. And so on. Victoria mostly lacks this source of support because so many people hate what they are. I'm going to call this niche appeal.

The other is "we represent continuation or restoration of America, a thing almost everyone in the former United States would like to see come back in one form or another." This is what is represented by capital-L Legitimacy stats. And Victoria lacks this too, because they're so unlike, and so destructive of, the old America.

...

The trick is that the first kind of small-l legitimacy only appeals to very specific interest groups. I called it 'niche appeal' for a reason. For example, we could play ourselves up as a socialist workers' paradise, and that would win us lots of support among socialists, but not among "everyone else." And there IS an "everyone else." Likewise, a deeply Catholic theocratic state would appeal to (some) American Catholics, but not to many other people. Indeed, having strong niche appeal can even earn you enemies. For instance, being a freewheeling center of business and capitalism would earn us enemies among communists.

There are, no doubt, Americans who are far enough to the right that they could be comfortable with Victoria if it weren't a brutal police state squatting on the ruins of the old America that it helped to tear apart. As it stands, Victoria's popularity is even further in the toilet than it would otherwise be- because it lacks both niche appeal AND large-L Legitimacy. It is hated because its policies are overtly terrible AND because it has actively sought to destroy the symbols of the old America.

...

There are a lot of Americans who distrust the "socialist workers' paradise" model of government. Or any other single model of government. Niche appeal is not going to give us an easy path to small-l legitimacy, to being seen as a true national government.

The most consistent and reliable source of small-l legitimacy that we have is to cultivate large-L Legitimacy. Without that, we're left trying to balance specific factions of outsiders against others, dealing with a very mixed viewpoint. With that, we can convince even people who disagree with our specific political goals of the moment that we're The Good Guys- which is what the Chicago Accords were originally intended to be about; people with a wide range of political values coming together and agreeing to engage in normal politics, rather than squabbling about which faction deserves to be on top.
 
Oh crud, sorry @Derpmind , didn't see that you'd already done the thing I did. :(

It's cool. We both have different styles for analysis, so it's not like you're stepping on my toes or whatever.

On the topic of legitimacy, I think it's a mistake to exchange for it during character creation. Legitimacy can be raised through actions, but buying it at the price of disadvantages that have to be dealt with is just frontloading the action economy and risking damage from failure.

Military: 14 CP worth of advantages, 7 CP worth of disadvantages.
Diplomatic: 7 CP worth of advantages, 9 CP worth of disadvantages.
Intelligence: 4 CP worth of advantages, 7 CP worth of disadvantages.
Economics: 10 CP worth of advantages, 6 CP worth of disadvantages.
Technology: 5 CP worth of advantages, 6 CP worth of disadvantages.
Nuke: 5 CP worth advantage.
Total: 45 CP of advantages, 35 CP of disadvantages. Not to mention that some advantages and disadvantages are mutually exclusive. Though now I'm curious how many disadvantages can be crammed together in one plan...
 
True. On the other hand, it's a +1 CP malus. I know Poptart is lawful evil and all, but they're not an ass; if the malus were going to make things that much harder for us it would be worth more points.

I think it's +1 because it's not game ending by itself, just slowing us down. It could be slowing us down a lot, but unless we're morons, it's not going to kill us like Russia or Victoria can.

The most consistent and reliable source of small-l legitimacy that we have is to cultivate large-L Legitimacy. Without that, we're left trying to balance specific factions of outsiders against others, dealing with a very mixed viewpoint. With that, we can convince even people who disagree with our specific political goals of the moment that we're The Good Guys- which is what the Chicago Accords were originally intended to be about; people with a wide range of political values coming together and agreeing to engage in normal politics, rather than squabbling about which faction deserves to be on top.

Yeah but this is likely to leave us with an article of confederation level of dysfunctionality. And maybe set us up for a civil war down the line like the old US. I'd rather have half the territory but know the people who are in are really with us than have to make so many compromises we're basically impotent.
 
The trick is that the first kind of small-l legitimacy only appeals to very specific interest groups. I called it 'niche appeal' for a reason. For example, we could play ourselves up as a socialist workers' paradise, and that would win us lots of support among socialists, but not among "everyone else." And there IS an "everyone else." Likewise, a deeply Catholic theocratic state would appeal to (some) American Catholics, but not to many other people. Indeed, having strong niche appeal can even earn you enemies. For instance, being a freewheeling center of business and capitalism would earn us enemies among communists.

I'm still unclear as to how "Bringing back the old country" doesn't also only appeal to a subset of people. Like, you haven't done a great job differentiating, because I'm still confused,
 
Strongly leaning towards Old Guard / Ron C. Burns.

Out of all the disadvantages in the rules, being the enemy of Victoria is the best one.

Particularly when combined with military advantages.


Let's fuckin' do this thing.

I figure the 4 CP should go to Libraries, because a large base of collective knowledge combined with a literate population is, frankly, the bedrock of civilization, and Rail Companies, because TRAINS!!!

I don't know the back-end rules, but a rail network should synergize with Old World Soldiers and Professionals Study Logistics because it means we could shuffle our combined arms battalion around to where it's most useful and then supply it. (The value of rail lines in military logistics can't be overstated.)

Plus, trains are handy for just about everything. Industrial supply lines, trade (particularly when combined with ports), efficient passenger service, even social cohesiveness. And there's prestige value, too. Having a decent rail network tells people you have your act together. And Chicago's seriously a great spot for it, as you can see from pretty much any US rail map from the last hundred years.
 
Last edited:
I mean, most of the social Dems leaned more left than right, so it would make sense that economics leaned slightly left. Why is healthcare and unions mutually exclusive? Social Democrats like socialised medicine, so that one should be a default guaranteed thing.
 
@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?
Well, for one thing, as I've previously stated:
You are Social Democrats; the only people you don't like are Communists.
These are not the politics of the modern day. We are fifty years and one (1) standard-issue mild-to-moderate societal apocalypse later, on this continent. Things have changed significantly. There are a couple of reasons why the SocDems are unwilling to consider an alliance with the Communists:
  1. As stated, they have reaffirmed their ideology as fundamentally being rooted in the idea of private enterprise. They're interested in cooperatives but insist that private businesses are critical. The Communists are actively hostile to that notion, and thus, to this new era's Social Democrats' foundational political ideal.
  2. The SocDems do not in any way need the Communists. They don't even need the New Capitalists, and only consider taking them anyway because it would make a very clear point about who is the primary partner in this coalition. Even with that, they almost certainly aren't worth the effort. An S/SD coalition commands over 70% of the legislature. They don't need anybody else.
For the SD to ally with the Communists would demand that they, commanding a massive supermajority in the government with the Socialists, look to the Communists, a party who in this era is actively hostile to the SD's fundamental political ideal, and say, "You know what? Yes. I think that you are worth the trouble."

I am writing enough things that strain my suspension of disbelief just by writing in this setting.
I would bet on you having chosen the last name deliberately to avoid people asking this question, but just to be clear, this is not the grumpy military character I drafted, correct? Because she clearly wants the same things as my Sara, and did some of the same things, and probably knows my Sara personally and has for years if not decades... but different name.

[Just in case anyone in the audience didn't pick up on it, the character I roughly sketched out, Sara Goldblum, is Jewish, and that informed the way she reacted to the neo-Nazis and to the overall state of post-Collapse America as the war with the neo-Nazis wound down.]
You haven't even given me permission to use Goldblum. Name's a coincidence, I'm afraid. :lol
Charmingly unique to Chicagoland, but kind of a weak start. @PoptartProdigy , either I've misunderstood the rules, or this choice is kind of, uh... nerfed? That may be intentional on your part, of course, but I wanted to mention it.
It's a flavor start. Fair amount of customization to offset the weakness, but its primary draw is in you electing an ex-smuggler as your first leader to restart the Machine.
 
[ ][BOSS] Local Hero: You first came to prominence as a young woman during the neo-Nazi occupation of the northern Midwest. You fought back against them, helped to throw them out, and presided over the slow emptying of Chicago in the aftermath. Since then you've been managing the city and keeping it on life support. You've slowly built things back up and forged a new state around your home. You will see things fixed once more. You will ensure that your home never again knows the terror of being at a monster's mercy. You will do what is necessary, to the shores of Maine if you must.
  • Sara M. Johnson.
  • Start with 6 CP.
  • If not taken, becomes a member of the legislature.

Ngl I prefer this one.
"local woman just punches Nazis" is kind of cool.

The most consistent and reliable source of small-l legitimacy that we have is to cultivate large-L Legitimacy. Without that, we're left trying to balance specific factions of outsiders against others, dealing with a very mixed viewpoint. With that, we can convince even people who disagree with our specific political goals of the moment that we're The Good Guys- which is what the Chicago Accords were originally intended to be about; people with a wide range of political values coming together and agreeing to engage in normal politics, rather than squabbling about which faction deserves to be on top.


Not really.
That said, Legitimacy is most useful to a strict Revivalist faction. If you actually want to build something intensely different from the old system, low Legitimacy is beneficial to you over the long term, assuming you go about this remotely honestly. Low Legitimacy means that people let go of some of their preconceptions. You clearly aren't a USA successor, so nobody expects you to act like one. While it also means some will be inclined to see you as illegitimate usurpers, it clears your plate of having to play a part you may not necessarily want to play.

Neutral Legitimacy, which in practice is, "Less than the Free City of New York's, but not critically so," means that, as a faction, you really just fail to stand out. You're another faction emerging out of the chaos. Neither the old Country born anew nor some radical, (potential) dark mirror of Victoria.

I wouldn't recommend trying to game this too hard; Legitimacy shifts constantly as other factions make decisions, and given the nature of the system, the value of a single point of the stuff won't stay stable. It's meant to quantify your polity's RP comparative to others', not serve as a super-crunchy stat. That said, at game start, FSNY leads the rankings with Legitimacy 9, and Victoria is the bottom finalist with Legitimacy -12.

As far as Legitimacy has mechanical effects, it happens at higher levels. Any faction that hits Legitimacy 25 gains international recognition as the rightful successor to the United States of America, gaining free casus bellis on all territory once held by the former United States. Low Legitimacy does not have a similar threshold, but again, it's better if you intend to build something different.

High Legitimacy works for those who are into old USA, and annoys those who are not (understandable position, given that old USA lost to luddite Nazis - imagine being this pathetic of a failure). Low Legitimacy works for those who want something new and not same old with some bugfixes.

Those are two different focuses, each can work. "Big-L Legitimacy is best source of small-l legitimacy" is factually wrong take, Simon.
 
I think neutral legitimacy is the sweet spot.

Edit: also, I think it was a mistake to vote for multiple things that are exclusive to each other. So from now on I'm gonna gonna vote for strictly what I want, and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
For the SD to ally with the Communists would demand that they, commanding a massive supermajority in the government with the Socialists, look to the Communists, a party who in this era is actively hostile to the SD's fundamental political ideal, and say, "You know what? Yes. I think that you are worth the trouble."

On one hand, it makes sense because all the historical examples I can think of were cases where it was needed to form a leftist coalition, rather than a courtesy inclusion.

On the other hand, the vote showed there was basically no one who was voting communist but not voting socialist. I don't know how much of that vote you want to use in shaping your political parties, but I personally think the trend is interesting enough to play with, just because it bucks the stereotype of sectarian communist parties refusing to work within the system at all. Your reasoning makes total sense if you don't really want to base the party relationships on how we voted though.

I think neutral legitimacy is the sweet spot.

On one hand, being unremarkable is unlikely to attract anyone wanting to join. On the other hand, it probably means we're overlooked too. But the QM's description of both sides make me think both extremes are net gains here, as long as your policies align with their leaning.
 
So here is something to consider: Do we restrict ourselves to the historical united states? Canada shattered as badly as the states and Victoria stole their eastern coast all the way up to the arctic circle. Do we stop on the southern shore of the lakes and at the 49th parallel? Just sit back and hope a Canadian successor state puts itself together?

This is somewhat part of a larger issue: How do we treat other post-US nations? What do we do if California and Florida don't want to be part of our 'new united states'? Are we willing to be one of many new nations? Can there be only one? Do we bow to New York if they can stake a better claim to being the Legitimate United States?

Just some things to ponder.
 
On one hand, it makes sense because all the historical examples I can think of were cases where it was needed to form a leftist coalition, rather than a courtesy inclusion.

On the other hand, the vote showed there was basically no one who was voting communist but not voting socialist. I don't know how much of that vote you want to use in shaping your political parties, but I personally think the trend is interesting enough to play with, just because it bucks the stereotype of sectarian communist parties refusing to work within the system at all. Your reasoning makes total sense if you don't really want to base the party relationships on how we voted though.
Oh, it absolutely informs how I do it. The Social Democrats are well aware of how friendly the Socialists and the Communists (of whom the SDs are very suspicious) were during the Congress.

Which is another reason why they refuse to enter into a coalition with both of them, when that would give S/C just over 50% of the legislature in a single bloc.

Remember that this is the start with political growing pains. Coalitions are a stretch in the first place; if the SD had a majority, they wouldn't bother with a coalition at all. No party would.
 
So here is something to consider: Do we restrict ourselves to the historical united states? Canada shattered as badly as the states and Victoria stole their eastern coast all the way up to the arctic circle. Do we stop on the southern shore of the lakes and at the 49th parallel? Just sit back and hope a Canadian successor state puts itself together?

This is somewhat part of a larger issue: How do we treat other post-US nations? What do we do if California and Florida don't want to be part of our 'new united states'? Are we willing to be one of many new nations? Can there be only one? Do we bow to New York if they can stake a better claim to being the Legitimate United States?

Just some things to ponder.
I'm gonna go with "World Revolution", but I'm a filthy Commie, so....
 
Oh crud, sorry @Derpmind , didn't see that you'd already done the thing I did. :(
i was about to write that :p
[ ][BOSS] Springfield Schemer: Illinois did not fall to the Nazis. The state government pulled through all of the chaos just fine...and when you came to the Governor's office, you made sure to keep an eye on things. When Chicago started pulling itself together, you were far-sighted enough to recognize the opportunity. You left for Chicago and put your political skills to work on trying to build something bigger than your own patch. A fair amount of people have taken your foresight for aggression, though. You will need to keep your eyes about you.
  • Audrey F. Jameson.
  • Starts with Ear to the Ground, Good Security, Aerial Reconnaissance, Hostile Neighborhood. 4 CP.
  • If not taken, swore to the new federal government along with everybody else.
[ ][BOSS] The Old Guard: You have fought in parts of the world most Americans haven't even seen. You unit returned home in the wake of the Collapse, and you've been wandering the country ever since. You fought for the New American Confederation, Cascadia, and the Pacific Republic in turn. Your commanding officer died in California, and you took command. Your unit has been fighting the Victorians ever since, striking from the shadows and desperately keeping their weaponry maintained. You were young when your war started...now you're old. So damn old. But the fight's just kicking up. You're not done yet. You cleared the southern tip of the Lake of Victorian eyes. Time to get ready to strike a stronger blow against the bastards.
  • Ron C. Burns.
  • Starts with Old World Equipment, Old World Soldiers, Professionals Study Logistics, and Victorian Attention. 4 CP.
  • If not taken, he and his unit died in the fall of the Pacific Republic, choosing to go out in a blaze of glory.
I think I'll vote for both these two. They're the ones with the most effective CP (7), and I'm ok with giving up the extra customization of Sarah for that extra cp. I'm also fine with both the narratives/strategies we can pursuit with these.

1)Springfield Schemer makes annexation wars harder, but we can still try to get other countries to join us with diplomacy and intrigue. And in this option we DO have a decent intelligence service to help us.

2)The Old Guard gives us a good military start. Depending on our preferences we can then double down on it, or concentrate mostly on defensive military and use the extra cp to build up our economy and population.

I'm definely against the corruption start. What was the point of taking the "Crush: None" option then?

Sarah is nice for the extra customizability, but i slightly prefer the extra cp + the narrative hook of the other options.

I'm slightly against the russian attention option, mostly for the lower cp (i don't really care for legitimacy enough to actually spend CP for it). Maybe if we had gone for the max legitimacy start, or at least if we kept the old constitution.

[ ][GOV] Form a coalition with the Socialists. Together with them, you will dominate the government.
-[ ][GOV] Cave in on the healthcare issue. You are worried about the state of healthcare, to be honest, you were only worried about the cost.

..well, I'm italian. We DO have (mostly) free healthcare here, with most medicines subsidized when prescripted by our family doctors, and i don't see anything wrong with the concept.

I actually was surprised when i saw on the web that Italian Healthcare is considered second in the world, just behind France. You wouldn't believe that from how many complain about it here(mostly about it being wastefull, or the waiting times). All in all though it works well enough.

If we're going to take the vaccination perk this synergizes pretty well too.
-[ ][GOV] Play the Socialists and the New Capitalists against each other in order to compromise on nothing. Roll a d100 with a DC of 70 to sell this to both parties; on a fail, one of them backs out. On a success, your government looks extremely competent.
I wouldn't be against this one as well. If we get that 70+ we get all the advantages of a strong majority with none of the compromises.

@PoptartProdigy what exactly happen if we fail though? Hit to our reputation? You simply decide which of the other two factions joins us? Do we still have to cave in on one of their requests (healthcare or unions)? Do we still get to decide which one? Or do we simply rule with a minority government?

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?

socdems and communists REALLY don't get along here, while socdems get along pretty well with both socialists and New capitalists.

A Socdem-soc-comm coalition really doesn't make sensein this situation.

If the one who won had been the soc, then maybe. In that case it would be the equivalent to us trying to form a coalition with both newcap and soc.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top