Remove ads

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

Voting is open
Reader mode
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Could I have a citation for that? From what I'm seeing, the vehicle still has possible contracts for new production runs in the near future with both Croatia and Bulgaria, not to mention producing spare components for maintaining the vehicles currently in service with the Finnish Army.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm talking about the future in the quest. There is little reason for the Patria to still be constructed by the Finns, considering they can make much better equipment with newer tech and the ton of money they're getting. Of course, this is speculation, but I see little reason for them to keep making them.
I really don't see what the point of this argument is anymore. It's redundant by this point.
 
Tactitron said:
I'm talking about the future in the quest. There is little reason for the Patria to still be constructed by the Finns, considering they can make much better equipment with newer tech and the ton of money they're getting. Of course, this is speculation, but I see little reason for them to keep making them.
I really don't see what the point of this argument is anymore. It's redundant by this point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, fair enough. From the way your previous post was phrased, it came across like you were saying the Patria AMV wasn't being produced anymore at this point in time, OTL.

Moving on, it shouldn't be presumed that just because time has moved forward that the Patria would be pointless or hopelessly obsolete for Finland (or any other country) to keep in stock. Because there are points in time that technology plateaus, to put it concisely. Where the improvements of a new, cutting-edge vehicle are so marginal compared to the previous model that they cannot justify the cost of switching over to it, be it monetary or the amount of time and labour it would take to rework the logistical chain.

Now, I don't doubt for an instant that upgrade kits would have been made for the thing, but there is a reason that the M113 has stayed in service for over 60 years in a military that has made a doctrinal point of always being equipped with the latest and greatest high-tech force multipliers.
 
While in a lot of ways technological advance has plateaued or slowed greatly from 2017 to the present day in this setting, there have been some significant changes in, for example, vehicle engine and fuel choice philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised if we see military vehicles running off high density batteries or something, which would have been almost unthinkable in the 2010s.

However, the real point here is that there is no way to know whether any specific individual fighting vehicle design from the 2010s is still in production in any relevant form in the 2070s. Poptart doesn't model the world at that level of resolution and almost certainly wouldn't be much interested in such an arcane question.

There is little to be gained from debating the specific merits of individual vehicles, as opposed to the categorical merits of types of vehicles.
 
Simon_Jester said:
Yeah, but we won't necessarily be getting our weapons from a European nation. It's one possible source, but far from the only one, especially since some of the European nations are in quite bad shape themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While this is true, the reason I am focusing on Western Europe is that they are strongly opposed to Russia, and by extension Victoria. With Germany having the confidence to draw a line in the sand, and France's current state of disarray being noted as an outlier, we have decent evidence of a resurgent Europe.

Germany has enough tanks that it can spare 4 entire divisions of them to make a statement on the Russia/Poland border. This means that they have recovered enough to field a substantial military, which implies a military industrial complex.

Germany appears to have taken a leadership role in Europe, and either is about to or just has appointed a strong anti-fascist and anti-russian Prime Minister, which sounds like exactly the type of person would be eager to see Victoria fall.

Given all that, Europe is the only option we currently know of that is likely to have both the capability and motivation to sell us the weapons we need. We may find other places to get them from, but it is almost certain that Europe will be available.
 
Introvert said:
While this is true, the reason I am focusing on Western Europe is that they are strongly opposed to Russia, and by extension Victoria. With Germany having the confidence to draw a line in the sand, and France's current state of disarray being noted as an outlier, we have decent evidence of a resurgent Europe.

Germany has enough tanks that it can spare 4 entire divisions of them to make a statement on the Russia/Poland border. This means that they have recovered enough to field a substantial military, which implies a military industrial complex.

Germany appears to have taken a leadership role in Europe, and either is about to or just has appointed a strong anti-fascist and anti-russian Prime Minister, which sounds like exactly the type of person would be eager to see Victoria fall.

Given all that, Europe is the only option we currently know of that is likely to have both the capability and motivation to sell us the weapons we need. We may find other places to get them from, but it is almost certain that Europe will be available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not saying Europe is UN-available, but I could also easily see scenarios like "Europe, desperately trying to concentrate its domestic arms production on building up European militaries, instead pays a third party to make the Commonwealth weapons."

Shit gets complicated. And when we are getting so far down into the weeds that we're talking about individual gun calibers or vehicle models on the basis that we "know" what countries will be supplying the weapons we haven't even begun making efforts to import...

We're making way too much soup out of way too few oysters.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I'm not saying Europe is UN-available, but I could also easily see scenarios like "Europe, desperately trying to concentrate its domestic arms production on building up European militaries, instead pays a third party to make the Commonwealth weapons."

Shit gets complicated. And when we are getting so far down into the weeds that we're talking about individual gun calibers or vehicle models on the basis that we "know" what countries will be supplying the weapons we haven't even begun making efforts to import...

We're making way too much soup out of way too few oysters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While I would normally agree, the reason I suggested these calibers in the first place is because Europe is currently undergoing a military buildup, but not on an active war footing.

This means that their current limit to arms manufacture is not "how many can we physically produce," but instead "how many can we pay for without raising taxes so much that our economy is crippled." In this specific situation, foreign nations buying arms from you has a net effect of growing your military industrial complex, which is extremely important in the lead up to a major war.

Effectively, from the majority of Europe's perspective selling arms to us is a win on every possible level.

1. They can afford to grow their military industrial complex more than they could have otherwise (not much, but every bit helps).

2. They weaken one of Russia's puppets, either accelerating the return of the United States to the world stage or forcing Russia to divert resources from dealing with them towards propping up Victoria.

3. They what may well be the future United States will owe them one, making it easier for a future American government to sell the idea of intervention in Europe to its people.

4. They get to help kill fascists, which the soon to be Prime Minister of Germany (and likely many other heads of state as well) will view as a massive benefit.

5. They get combat data on how their weapons perform against Russian weapons. It may be some of their less advanced weapons against some of Russia's least advanced weapons, but some of the design philosophy will be constant between technological generations.
 
Ehhh, you have a fair point.

Still. What I'm really getting at is that to even evaluate stuff like this we are getting WAY far down into the weeds of the exact situation as we'll face it in several turns' time.
 
So would it cost any AP to send some diplomats to New York to pass along a proposal that if the CFC were to hypothetically beat and then annex Victoria, we could integrate New York in exchange for providing them generous spoils?
 
Ikacprzak said:
So realistically, what would we need in order to eventually march on Victoria as conquerors?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't know. Whichever side wins the civil war will almost certainly receive more up to date equipment from Russia, and if Blackwell wins they're going to revise their military doctrine to something at least passably functional. Right now our priority is to fix ourselves up into a functional economy, join in on global trade, and modernize both our industry and military beyond the Big Red One. If we can get all that done before the Victorian civil war ends, unlikely as it is, it'll be a cakewalk to march in.
Ikacprzak said:
So would it cost any AP to send some diplomats to New York to pass along a proposal that if the CFC were to hypothetically beat and then annex Victoria, we could integrate New York in exchange for providing them generous spoils?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Probably an AP to get in diplomatic contact with them, and then most likely a mini-turn to negotiate a formal treaty of such, assuming they even wanted to be integrated. But I doubt they would accept a treaty based on hypotheticals, and considering that they've been neighbours with Victoria for decades I'm going to state they probably wouldn't take being bribed with looted treasures very well at all.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
We don't know. Whichever side wins the civil war will almost certainly receive more up to date equipment from Russia, and if Blackwell wins they're going to revise their military doctrine to something at least passably functional. Right now our priority is to fix ourselves up into a functional economy, join in on global trade, and modernize both our industry and military beyond the Big Red One. If we can get all that done before the Victorian civil war ends, unlikely as it is, it'll be a cakewalk to march in.

Probably an AP to get in diplomatic contact with them, and then most likely a mini-turn to negotiate a formal treaty of such, assuming they even wanted to be integrated. But I doubt they would accept a treaty based on hypotheticals, and considering that they've been neighbours with Victoria for decades I'm going to state they probably wouldn't take being bribed with looted treasures very well at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Regarding Trade, what's the best trade route we have? Since We can't go through New York.
I'm not talking treasure, I'm talking parceling out land for living space and farming as well as a boosted military.
 
Ikacprzak said:
Regarding Trade, what's the best trade route we have? Since We can't go through New York.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The St. Lawrence Seaway, that's why Victoria having to open it up was such a big deal in the peace treaty negotiations. It connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic. And the Mississippi if it ever gets made consistently usable for river transport again.
Ikacprzak said:
I'm not talking treasure, I'm talking parceling out land for living space and farming as well as a boosted military.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Then I would suggest using a different word for them, or just calling them what they are. Because spoils, by definition, means treasures and physical goods taken by force.
 
So since Russia supplies the Victorians with obsolete vehicles and equipment, do you think the EU or some other countries have a similar surplus that's obsolete that they could pass onto us when they upgrade?
 
Last edited:
Ikacprzak said:
So since Russia supplies the Victorians with obsolete vehicles and equipment, do you think the EU or some other countries have a similar surplus that's obsolete that they could pass onto us when they upgrade?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well someone is sending equipment to the Revivalists in Louisiana.
 
Ikacprzak said:
1) What do you think speculative fiction is like in Victoria? I imagine fantasy would be freely allowed, low tech, populated purely by white people, orcs and other fantasy races as easy enemies, and more directly pro-monarchist. Sci-fi might be harder, maybe monsters and Cyberpunk designed to demonize advanced technology and anyone who uses it, meanwhile space opera would have to go because it depends on spaceships and wanting to adventure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Coming in weeks late for this I know, but I didn't see anyone note that Lind's book directly addresses this. Chapter 46 talks about the cultural development of the Northern Confederation after the war with California, and one of the things mentioned is a completely voluntary boom in Christian novels. Dorothy Sayers, Sally Wright, and Russel Kirk are namedropped. This entirely free choice is due to nobody wanting their literature to shock or horrify or have them escape too far, "beyond the borders of what was real and right."

So basically this:
Simon_Jester said:
I think the short answer is that speculative fiction isn't. Aside, possibly, from a handful of fantasy novels of the type you describe. Even that is likely suspect, because the escapist impulse in particular and the artistic impulse in general are both at odds with totalitarianism. And the more thought-controlling the form of totalitarianism, the more intense the conflict becomes.

See also George Orwell on the subject; I can recommend you a few of his nonfiction essays on the subject if you like- I'd link in thread, just don't want to dig them up right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
except I have citations!
 
rikalous said:
Coming in weeks late for this I know, but I didn't see anyone note that Lind's book directly addresses this. Chapter 46 talks about the cultural development of the Northern Confederation after the war with California, and one of the things mentioned is a completely voluntary boom in Christian novels. Dorothy Sayers, Sally Wright, and Russel Kirk are namedropped. This entirely free choice is due to nobody wanting their literature to shock or horrify or have them escape too far, "beyond the borders of what was real and right."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, this strongly lines up with a lot of other areas where supposedly the population of Victoria 'voluntarily' changes their culture and mode of living to what is 'right' in a fashion that realistically, no large human population would ever do without coercion.

So basically this:

except I have citations!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well so do I, it's just that my citations approach the problem from "how did real fascist totalitarian dictatorships approach literature, cite mid-20th century sources," while yours approaches the problem from "how do the fascist fantasists who invented Victoria want their fascist totalitarian dictatorship to approach literature, cite turn-of-millennium sources."

;)
 
Simon_Jester said:
Well so do I, it's just that my citations approach the problem from "how did real fascist totalitarian dictatorships approach literature, cite mid-20th century sources," while yours approaches the problem from "how do the fascist fantasists who invented Victoria want their fascist totalitarian dictatorship to approach literature, cite turn-of-millennium sources."

;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By Word of QM, the only true Victorian accomplishments are in the field of social engineering through secret police.

Their agriculture is backwards and their education is awful and their science is nonexistant, but secret police agencies look on the Inquisition as a role model of how to break a society's spine.
 
dptullos said:
By Word of QM, the only true Victorian accomplishments are in the field of social engineering through secret police.

Their agriculture is backwards and their education is awful and their science is nonexistant, but secret police agencies look on the Inquisition as a role model of how to break a society's spine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean yes. That's kind of my point.

Notably, Victoria is longer-lived than most if not all real life totalitarian fascist states, so it's unsurprising that the CMC-Inquisition has refined its techniques very thoroughly.
 
So if we ever get to bring the fight to the Victorians, how should we handle their militias? Because that's the sort of decentralized warfare Rumford favored.
 
Ikacprzak said:
how should we handle their militias?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hearts and Minds...give them a better deal for collaborating, give them freedom, give them food, give them safety...give them hope.

Because once you give them hope, a better way to see the world, a full belly and way to kill the neighbors that have sold them out in the past and sent their sons to die.

Nothing will stop them, save the Victorian Stasi and whatever new tools they have.

It's similar to the Give a Man a Fish, Teach a Man to Fish analogy.

The Job here is to teach the Men and Women to fish...and it will do the rest.
 
Ikacprzak said:
So if we ever get to bring the fight to the Victorians, how should we handle their militias? Because that's the sort of decentralized warfare Rumford favored.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, in an actual fight, they're poorly trained and they'll lose a lot.

Also... Like all totalitarian dictatorships, they do not have a lot of social cohesion or trust within the general population. Because such cohesion is an obstacle to the power of the government, and the Victorian ruling class had to break the population of New England to their will in order to implement their political agenda. As a result, the Victorians have spent decades conditioning their populace to sell each other out to the authorities for food, tax breaks, favors from the government, and so on.

This is very, very bad when you have a military strategy that in any way relies on your people's willingness to fight a protracted guerilla war on your behalf.

I suspect they played themselves there.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I suspect they played themselves there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They conditioned an entire population to sell each other out for food.

A foreign invading power only needs to give them bread, water and safety from their neighbor's who are die-hards, and they will likely collaborate so hard it will be studied in political science for how to turn a population against its government.

But I've already given my two cents on the matter, Hearts and Minds.

Hearts and Minds will help with a lot of things, including international diplomacy, good for optics.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top