thread policyDiscussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.
Well, yeah, they lost men, material and know how, and their Waffen CMC got reduced by a third, so there is that, but they are considerably bigger than us, even if are hamstrung by retroculture, they might be able to get meat under arms relatively fast (at a lower quality level, obviously) specially if they do have sufficient stockpiles, but they might be able to get some terrorist flavors started, they do not take the same kinds of resources or the same intensity to set up training camps in the middle of nowhere, at least as far as I understand, then again no expert, so...
But with what men? Terrorist cells require on-the-ground, local fanatics to tap into or enough time/energy expended to start conscripting locals. Trying to 'ship in' special ops units to start raiding will be difficult- Victoria is feared and hated, which means any attempts to bury into the countryside around Chicago will be spotted and opposed.
For that matter, Victoria has less spare manpower on tap than they should; retroculture originally forced most of the population into subsistence farming, and that led to a massive population decrease. While I'm certain that many farmers have quietly used old/new technologies to survive, Victoria's territory isn't the best for farming. Without access to the American breadbasket or modern farming tech, I suspect that cutting into their population to rebuild anything approaching the size of their expeditionary force will be difficult without at least localized famines. Modern, projected wars require civilian food surpluses- which Victoria doesn't have. (Or didn't as far as the lore presents)
Edit: On considering our old 'National Spirits', I realized that there's possible Victorian sympathizers in our turf. They've lost legitimacy and power, but Victoria might try to recruit them... Maybe we should focus on dimplomacy and intrigue on the next turn.
Actually, now that I think about it, they might go for the low level "aid worker" terrorist groups like they have before, but I strongly suspect that Victoria needs to target their Intel actions closer to home, or else everyone closer to them rips them apart, including the Resistance.
ohh yeah
their homegrown resistance is going to smell blood in the water
wonder if we will have any way to help them - shipments of arms?
Maybe just running raids on Victorian ports and chewing at their diplomatic relations will be enough to give local Resistance cells some breathing room. We must not let off pressure on Vickies or lose our momentum.
ohh yeah
their homegrown resistance is going to smell blood in the water
wonder if we will have any way to help them - shipments of arms?
Maybe just running raids on Victorian ports and chewing at their diplomatic relations will be enough to give local Resistance cells some breathing room. We must not let off pressure on Vickies or lose our momentum.
To play devil's advocate against myself: the Vics are fascists with media control and most of the crazy leadership that really drank the cool-aid got axed along with Rumsford. If a bright spark in the right place does decide that military reform is required, they can just lie to the people 1984 style.
That said, I do think the path of least resistance for them would be to shift towards guerrilla warfare/terror tactics. Send small bands of raiders to infiltrate our territory sort of things.
If anything, it's harder for them to actually impose reforms because of the political and social environment that the Victorians grew up in. The (seemingly) complete control over internal matters was accomplished through fear, deprivation, and isolation of physical and intellectual matters. In other words, a reformer must not only make sure they don't cross the CMC and get backstabbed by friends and subordinates as well as the incredible deficiency of the material means to achieve it; they have a bigger obstacle in that it's harder to imagine and conceptualize what those reforms will be and how they will achieve it. They grew up in an environment where the rifleman is glorified above all and where 'wars' are just a quick month of bloodletting rather than a brutal, exhausting slugfest dragged out over years. Compounding all that of course is that any source of information that would be most helpful to overcoming this is strictly controlled or inaccessible.
That's not to say reform is impossible but it's also incredibly hard because of how the Victorian state and society are set up ultimately for repression and fulfilling a reactionary ideology. This set up works against any ideal of achieving a military worthy of a late 21st century regional power rather than enabling it.
- Looking at the map, the only way to do something like this would be to anchor in Toledo harbor and send the marines and /or light infantry upriver by motorboat. But yes, you're right that if there's anything like a battalion of Vic mechanized in-city, it will go badly.
Hence my insistence on only attempting if we are sure the last division is sent to the front.
-Victoria is their only ally in the North Atlantic, and the only one liable to afford them military basing,which is hugely valuable in the impending confrontation with the resurgent EU. But only if they aren't throwing disproportionate forces into keeping them alive. And they are already occupying a lot of unhappy people, from the Baltics to Central Asia.
-The Russians don't have any possible bases on the North Atlantic besides Victoria, given as the EU is intact and the Nordic nations kept their territory. Their closest basing to Victoria is Occupied Alaska, which is roughly 5400km from Elmendorf Air Base to Boston.
I doubt their ability to support a division, or even a brigade, over that sort of distance via airlift.
Sealift sure, but you'll see them stockpiling supplies well ahead of time.
And they'd have to declare war. With multiple enemies willing to bleed them at someone else's expense.
-Wild Weasel tactics are of limited utility against veteran or well trained troops who will only radiate at need, and displace once they do so.
Instead of Gulf War 1, you'd be better advised to look at the results of the NATO air campaign against the Serbian armed forces during the Kosovo intervention, where the Serbian fixed infrastructure got mauled but their armed forces came out largely untouched.
The only operators of OWE in our armed forces are Quality 5/5 troops who are veterans of Russian aerial bombardment.
Throwing VDV against that sort of opposition gets them mulched because of the firepower disparity.
And I think the Russians have enough respect for Burns not to send lightly armed paratroopers against his heavy armor. Or to aggressively employ combat helicopters in MANPAD saturated territory(thanks to Victoria for the laker)
-Argument against Harpoon-armed fighters:
The Russians make the best heavy SAMs on the market, and have since at least the 1970s. And they have not been shy about export to client states, most recently Syria. The latest version of the S300 heavy SAM has a max range of 400km, and all the components of an S300 battalion can be delivered by a couple Antonov 223 flights.
Compare to the latest version of the Harpoon SLAM-ER, which has a max range of 270km.
Which means that to attack a defended site, like a hypothetical airbase manned by Russian "volunteers", a strike mission would have to wander well inside heavy SAM range while piloting non-stealth aircraft of the F4, F15 and F16 vintage.
That seems to be a contra-survival, contra-force preservation strategy.
Which is why I'd hope to avoid it.
-Not a far-distant future.
Buy oldtech US cruise missiles from Cali or Australia. Much as we'd like to be self-sufficient, we aren't going to be able to build everything we need to wage war, and must needs import stuff. Some we'll import as assembled products, others we'll import disassembled and reassemble on site.
Some we'll build systems and install onto existing weapons platforms, like radar upgrades for our ships.
-Midget submarines weren't abandoned after WW2.
South Korea operated 3x Dolgorae-class 175 ton minisubs from 1985 until 2016. Russia operated two Losos-class 200 ton submarines until 1997. Yugoslavia operated the Una-class until the nation broke up. German shipbuilder Thyssen-Krupp is allegedly shopping around the Type 200 and Type 300, which mass 200 tons and 300 tons respectively.
-The maluses are ship design issues, not ship tonnage problems.
Ships of around the same size as our 400 ton Des Plaines operate in the Baltic, the Med and the North and South Atlantic.
The German Jaguar-class, Tiger-class, Gepard-class, and Albatros-class fast attack craft, the French La Combattante, and the Israeli Saar-3 and Saar-4 class, were all in the same weight class as the Des Plaines, were all designed around the 60s and 70s, and are much more heavily armed, with both surface to surface missiles and dual mode 76mm guns.
Just Western ships here.
Soviet ships got smaller, and operated in places as disparate as the Med, the Baltic and the Indian Ocean.
Once we get some serious diesel production going, we're on our way.
-An EU effort would have several options.
Lajes Air Force Base in the Azores, roughly 5100km from Chicago. US Air Force base on Portugese territory. North Atlantic/mid-America route.
Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland, currently a US navy air base, is roughly 4700km from Chicago. Canada route.
Thule Air Force Base, Greenland.Joint US base with Denmark on Danish territory. 3900 km to Chicago. Canada/polar route.
Sister Cali has options as well.
Edwards AFB, California to Chicago, IL is roughly 2700km.
Beale AFB, California to Chicago IL is roughly 2800km.
Nellis AFB Nevada to Chicago IL is roughly 2400km.
I assume that's where any California or Australian effort would base out of.
In the case of the Australians, quietly ship the munitions to Cali by sea, move by road or rail, then airlift from there.
-*checks*
The Skybolt wasnt operational though. And was shorter ranged. And required strategic bombers to carry.
I'll just assume whatever the fuck plot shields are in effect regarding strategic nuclear deterrents continues.
-The US has 18 Ohio-class SSBNs, 14 of which are armed with 20x D5 Trident ICBMs with 8x MIRVed warheads.
All it takes is one captain after Atlanta went away. And SSBN captains do retain a significant degree of autonomy even in the US Navy.
Ergo ROB/plot shields have to have intervened.
-Unless the GM says otherwise, I'll assume New Orleans survived just fine. Damaged, like everywhere else, but alive.
Mr Lind's penchant for destroying cities of Black cultural significance nothwithstanding.
I mean, Atlanta (>50% Black) got nuked, then Washington DC (>50% Black) got trashed.
And now he says New Orleans(>60% Black) got annihilated too?
The man has a distinctly racist problem, and I'm not inclined to indulge him.
/tangent
Anyway, New Orleans might not still be the mouth of the Mississipi.
But the existing infrastructure advantage means it would remain the major transhipment point for international trade, at where riverine vessels and coastal ones would show up to. Unless something like a Class 5 hurricane washed it into the Bay.
ohh yeah
their homegrown resistance is going to smell blood in the water
wonder if we will have any way to help them - shipments of arms?
Maybe just running raids on Victorian ports and chewing at their diplomatic relations will be enough to give local Resistance cells some breathing room. We must not let off pressure on Vickies or lose our momentum.
Regarding the POWs, we should denazify them, drill comrade Mao's Little Red Book into their heads and then give them a gun and unleash them on the Victorian countryside.
That's... um... that's big. I'd forgotten that the Army Corp of Engineers was keeping back Mighty Mo. New Orleans may be alive-ish, but the mouth of the Mississippi could well be 50 miles from the city
That's... um... that's big. I'd forgotten that the Army Corp of Engineers was keeping back Mighty Mo. New Orleans may be alive-ish, but the mouth of the Mississippi could well be 50 miles from the city
50 miles is four extra hours trip for a boat travelling at 10 knots an hour, that's all. Nawlins is still on the Gulf, still a seaport.
Replacing the transhhipment equipment and docks built by a peaceful prosperous United States by comparison is outright impossible at this time. Not with the geopolitical situation as it is.
By the same token, we don't need to negotiate with a warlord of New Orleans either, unless said warlord is willing to give up all the infrastructure a city the size of Nawlans provides to move
Completely off topic from here down:
My stepdad said he went to NO for a weekend in the 70s and was chased out by the mob 3 months later... decided he'd have better luck with his friend in Alaska. Helluva guy
50 miles is four extra hours trip for a boat travelling at 10 knots an hour, that's all. Nawlins is still on the Gulf, still a seaport.
Replacing the transhhipment equipment and docks built by a peaceful prosperous United States by comparison is outright impossible at this time. Not with the geopolitical situation as it is.
By the same token, we don't need to negotiate with a warlord of New Orleans either, unless said warlord is willing to give up all the infrastructure a city the size of Nawlans provides to move
An oceangoing ship doesn't have the draft to go up the Mississipi. So cargo has to be unloaded at a sea port to shallowdraft vessels
And New Orleans is the 7th largest port in the US; combined with Baton Rouge and South Louisiana, they account for 55-70% of US exports of corn, wheat and soy.
That trio of ports is really important to us, seeing as we sit on the Midwest's breadbasket.
So we need good relations of some sort.
My opinion.
Completely off topic from here down:
My stepdad said he went to NO for a weekend in the 70s and was chased out by the mob 3 months later... decided he'd have better luck with his friend in Alaska. Helluva guy
I believe that Poptart said that Climate Change would not be included in this quest, out of an inability to effectively predict what that would do if it was.
I believe that Poptart said that Climate Change would not be included in this quest, out of an inability to effectively predict what that would do if it was.
At least Miami isn't below sea level right now.
I believe that Poptart said that Climate Change would not be included in this quest, out of an inability to effectively predict what that would do if it was.
True.
But IIRC Miami is literally sinking away below the feet of it's residents; they're pumping out the water in the Biscayne aquifer, and seawater contamination is becoming an issue. Not to mention general groundwater contamination issues from chemical sites.
Not sure how much is pure climate change and how much is local Miami issues.
True.
But IIRC Miami is literally sinking away below the feet of it's residents; they're pumping out the water in the Biscayne aquifer, and seawater contamination is becoming an issue. Not to mention general groundwater contamination issues from chemical sites.
Not sure how much is pure climate change and how much is local Miami issues.
From what I understand, that's more to do with storm surge issues... technically. IE, climate change basically killed the barrier reef that used to be offshore from Miami (which protected it from the worst of undertow from major storms), but now that it's gone each major storm does a not insignificant effort of drawing the coast (and miami) into the sea.
From what I understand, that's more to do with storm surge issues... technically. IE, climate change basically killed the barrier reef that used to be offshore from Miami (which protected it from the worst of undertow from major storms), but now that it's gone each major storm does a not insignificant effort of drawing the coast (and miami) into the sea.
Well to be accurate, Miami is located on limestone which is porpous. So what it means is that the sea can "leak" through the rock and flood the city no matter what. Miami could build 1000 foot tall sea walls, and it would still end up under water because the sea would just percolate through the rock. That's why Miami is so desperate to install pumps.
For that matter, Victoria has less spare manpower on tap than they should; retroculture originally forced most of the population into subsistence farming, and that led to a massive population decrease. While I'm certain that many farmers have quietly used old/new technologies to survive, Victoria's territory isn't the best for farming. Without access to the American breadbasket or modern farming tech...
The Hudson river valley is actually pretty productive, and the Viks own almost all of it.
Edit: On considering our old 'National Spirits', I realized that there's possible Victorian sympathizers in our turf. They've lost legitimacy and power, but Victoria might try to recruit them... Maybe we should focus on dimplomacy and intrigue on the next turn.
Yeah. Internal security actions are a priority. Action economy is going to be REALLY tight next turn and we're still working on the aftermath of the war, but the turn
- Looking at the map, the only way to do something like this would be to anchor in Toledo harbor and send the marines and /or light infantry upriver by motorboat. But yes, you're right that if there's anything like a battalion of Vic mechanized in-city, it will go badly.
Hence my insistence on only attempting if we are sure the last division is sent to the front.
Again, realistically the Victorians can't entirely draw down their forces in Toledo. They have supply dumps and a headquarters there, and it's their only port. Without a significant force of soldiers in the city, the local Toledoans can just pillage their headquarters, and then the Viks are screwed.
Again, it's important to note that surprisingly, the Victorian tradition of generalship seems to be more 'chateau' than 'lead from the front.' Whoever is calling the shots for the southern army probably LIVES in Toledo at the moment; he's not going to send away his last bodyguard regiment while this deep into 'Indian Country.'
-Wild Weasel tactics are of limited utility against veteran or well trained troops who will only radiate at need, and displace once they do so.
Instead of Gulf War 1, you'd be better advised to look at the results of the NATO air campaign against the Serbian armed forces during the Kosovo intervention, where the Serbian fixed infrastructure got mauled but their armed forces came out largely untouched.
Suffice to say that our air defense units are not that professional or that well equipped. The only reason they're so effective against the Viks is that the Viks have no working standoff munitions with which to destroy a SAM site from outside its range, and their training and doctrine for avoiding air defense fire is actively counterproductive.
We will be lucky if our air defense performs as well against Russian jets as the North Vietnamese performed against American planes in the Vietnam War.
If the Russians come against us in earnest, I fully expect airstrikes to strip away our air defense and have a serious threat of damaging our Old World Equipment from the air with attack helicopters and standoff antitank missiles.
Please please PLEASE do not dismiss the threat the Russians can pose. Please.
-Argument against Harpoon-armed fighters:
The Russians make the best heavy SAMs on the market, and have since at least the 1970s. And they have not been shy about export to client states, most recently Syria. The latest version of the S300 heavy SAM has a max range of 400km, and all the components of an S300 battalion can be delivered by a couple Antonov 223 flights.
Compare to the latest version of the Harpoon SLAM-ER, which has a max range of 270km.
Which means that to attack a defended site, like a hypothetical airbase manned by Russian "volunteers", a strike mission would have to wander well inside heavy SAM range while piloting non-stealth aircraft of the F4, F15 and F16 vintage.
The thing is, cruise missiles can be engaged by air defenses too; if we're relying on home-built missiles, it's a problem either way.
Suffice to say that in real life the general consensus solution to enemy air defense networks is jets armed with standoff missiles. This approach has been successful over and over in many wars over a period of half a century. It would be... unwise... to assume that everyone has just been wasting their resources and time all this time.
South Korea operated 3x Dolgorae-class 175 ton minisubs from 1985 until 2016. Russia operated two Losos-class 200 ton submarines until 1997. Yugoslavia operated the Una-class until the nation broke up. German shipbuilder Thyssen-Krupp is allegedly shopping around the Type 200 and Type 300, which mass 200 tons and 300 tons respectively.
Operating one or two midget submarines out of a whole national navy is not indicative of "this is a super effective weapon system and everybody should use them."
-*checks*
The Skybolt wasnt operational though. And was shorter ranged. And required strategic bombers to carry.
I'll just assume whatever the fuck plot shields are in effect regarding strategic nuclear deterrents continues.
Uju, to a large extent the things you think are covered by plot shielding can reasonably be covered by other things.
You are prone to very absolutist reasoning in military affairs. Either a thing works 100%, or not at all. Either a thing blows the enemy away, or doesn't work and isn't worth it. Or at least that's how you present your reasoning.
I don't want to dig into this any farther right now, but it makes it very hard to convince you not to try weird wild One Neat Trick ideas, or to explain the reasons why things did or did not work in real life.
-The US has 18 Ohio-class SSBNs, 14 of which are armed with 20x D5 Trident ICBMs with 8x MIRVed warheads.
All it takes is one captain after Atlanta went away. And SSBN captains do retain a significant degree of autonomy even in the US Navy.
Ergo ROB/plot shields have to have intervened.
Alternatively, the ballistic missile submarine patrol force was reduced over the decades of economic collapse, and the handful of individual captains at sea hesitated to launch nuclear weapons and either attack US soil (Victoria) or start World War III (attacking Russia). And then the Russians themselves, who by this point had good access to much of the continental United States, seized or disabled the submarine bases.
-Unless the GM says otherwise, I'll assume New Orleans survived just fine. Damaged, like everywhere else, but alive.
Mr Lind's penchant for destroying cities of Black cultural significance nothwithstanding.
I mean, Atlanta (>50% Black) got nuked, then Washington DC (>50% Black) got trashed.
And now he says New Orleans(>60% Black) got annihilated too?
The man has a distinctly racist problem, and I'm not inclined to indulge him.
/tangent
That's fair and I respect that. At the same time, there's a good reason for New Orleans to have become fairly insignificant- the river moving, plus assorted disasters.
The Hudson river valley is actually pretty productive, and the Viks own almost all of it.
Yeah. Internal security actions are a priority. Action economy is going to be REALLY tight next turn and we're still working on the aftermath of the war, but the turn after that I want to start dealing with that nest of vipers we've pitched our tent over.
The Hudson river valley is actually pretty productive, and the Viks own almost all of it.
Yeah. Internal security actions are a priority. Action economy is going to be REALLY tight next turn and we're still working on the aftermath of the war, but the turn
The Hudson river valley is actually pretty productive, and the Viks own almost all of it.
Yeah. Internal security actions are a priority. Action economy is going to be REALLY tight next turn and we're still working on the aftermath of the war, but the turn after that I want to start dealing with that nest of vipers we've pitched our tent over.
The Hudson river valley is actually pretty productive, and the Viks own almost all of it.
Not only internal security, we need to make sure we do not have Economic downturns, people below poverty line are going to be more susceptible to Victorian BS, so we really need to make an effort economy wise.
Not saying we should nor prioritize internal security, we totaly should specially since we do have groups that, even though mostly defanged, could act as fifth columnists, but we need to be careful how much resources we put there tha won't be going to the economy
50 miles is four extra hours trip for a boat travelling at 10 knots an hour, that's all. Nawlins is still on the Gulf, still a seaport.
Replacing the transhhipment equipment and docks built by a peaceful prosperous United States by comparison is outright impossible at this time. Not with the geopolitical situation as it is.
One of the things I think you're missing is that New Orleans is, shall we say, high maintenance. The city is hurricane-prone. Large parts of it would flood and remain flooded indefinitely sooner or later, if not for a network of levees maintained by the federal government. It is precisely because of New Orleans' importance as a port that the US invests the time and effort to maintain a great city there. With a breakdown in trade along the Mississippi, a breakdown in federal authority, and any of the other shit mentioned in Lind's book (like the city being ground zero for a nasty plague)...
Well, without external support, the city might well lose a lot of prominence, and the port infrastructure might well effectively cease to exist for lack of maintenance and vulnerability to storm damage. Rebuilding would be a huge project.
I believe that Poptart said that Climate Change would not be included in this quest, out of an inability to effectively predict what that would do if it was.