I would put my name in for the United Kingdom. I wouldn't mind if it collapses around me due to my inefficient administration. :o
Imperial Russian Empire or the French Empire, depending on the answer to the question below.
May we change the socio-economic structure of our chosen countries? Opt for... Other economic systems, or choose to abolish monarchy... Or roll with certain historical events in our nations on the "other side", stuff like that?
Wow, honored to have my Oriental Republic of Uruguay present. Undoubtedly will be it. Are we playing with a specific map to delimit regions? If so, may I suggest Paradox Interactive Victoria II (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?490918-Victoria-II-Paintable-World-Maps)'s maps?
I'd be interested in the Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan.
What sort of time frame is expected for turns? Also, is there any resources we can check out for more information on the game or how it is played?
I would put my name in for the United Kingdom. I wouldn't mind if it collapses around me due to my inefficient administration. :o
Will it be possible for more than one player to run a nation? For example, with myself running the United Kingdom, appointing Governor Generals over Canada or India? Or whatever their respective administrator would be?
This looks kind of interesting. What kind of pace are we talking about here? (Sorry, I tl;dr'd some of that first post. :P )
And if anybody dares claim anything in southeast Asia... I will !@#$ your !@#$ up. And whoever plays Russia: I will be contesting you in central Asia.
History will be re-written as China is reborn.
Haven't you ever heard: Don't find a land war in Russia.
We'll see if you can really change history THAT much.
Okay, so Perth, you'll be the GM then, or the person determining how actions turn out and what happens?
Also, can nations fight and destroy each other? Take land, etc? I'm assuming so, but wasn't exactly sure after reading through.
Finally, we send orders to you, (GM) but we can also communicate with the other nations and discuss plans, treaties, etc...right? I mean I'm sure this is encouraged but just checking.
This is highly similar to another forum game which they called, "Qpawn", its found here: http://qpawn.beardedfool.com/forum/index.php.
Their entire forum seems to be devoted to running the game.
How many players will you be able to handle?
I am the Qing.
Where do we get stats for our country?
I'll take the Empire of Brasil.
And if anybody dares claim anything in southeast Asia... I will !@#$ your !@#$ up. And whoever plays Russia: I will be contesting you in central Asia.
History will be re-written as China is reborn.
Also, question:
How detailed will you be in looking up ongoing historical issues at the point that the game starts?
the Qing Empire was at the height of the Taiping rebellion in 1861. Do I need to resolve that, or will you not be looking at that stuff?
Also, question:
How detailed will you be in looking up ongoing historical issues at the point that the game starts?
the Qing Empire was at the height of the Taiping rebellion in 1861. Do I need to resolve that, or will you not be looking at that stuff?
Stay outa India!
I am also interested in this question.
Japan was just at the very beginnings of the fall of the Tokugawa regime. Can I begin the destruction of the Tokugawa regime right from the beginning or do I need to wait some time before doing it? (The reformation into the Imperial system again occurred in 1868, instead of 1861, but the stage was already well set in 1861 for the people to want a change. So I don't know how much backlash, would actually be expected.)
Will individual people affect the game much? Events that revolve around a certain person dying or enacting certain actions?
And on another note, those maps are from 1836, not 1861. 1861 is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-1861.png
I'll take Russia, then. France was interesting (for the Paris Commune) but I think I'll have more flexibility with Russia... Plus I can mess with the Narodnaya Volya ;D
And would be conquerors, beware. Russia doesn't take kindly to visitors. 8)
I'll take Russia, then. France was interesting (for the Paris Commune) but I think I'll have more flexibility with Russia... Plus I can mess with the Narodnaya Volya ;D
And would be conquerors, beware. Russia doesn't take kindly to visitors. 8)
If I were you, I would go for it. Just make sure to find some good RP reason's for it. Get the Meiji Restoration going. Hell, we all know we now need some Imperial Japanese to at least be annoying to Vellos' China.
I have added all countries currently on our list. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or missed territory that should belong to someone but doesn't on the map.
I believe Japan starts with all of Africa, and Australia. ;)
Hey geogr-idiot.
I think you mixed up your pair a' guays. You got'em backwards; you're a (g)way too dumb to make that map.
Hey geogr-idiot.
I think you mixed up your pair a' guays. You got'em backwards; you're a (g)way too dumb to make that map.
btw china stars in madagascar and that's it.
Hmmm...
I'll trade you noninterference in central asia for a quiet frontier?
(http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=27251&stc=1&d=1178543497)
That'll do nicely 8)
Why don't I have Alaska, Perth?
Why do you get alaska? Did Russia have it in 1861?
Found a Chinese propaganda map that shows the Sino/Russian border in 1860. The coloured regions are taken by Russia after the Peking Convention in 1860, and the border between the Korean Kingdom, Russia and China.
I'll play The Argentine Republic. :)
Here is another good map from the times: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1861_Johnson_Map_of_Asia_-_Geographicus_-_Asia-johnson-1861.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1861_Johnson_Map_of_Asia_-_Geographicus_-_Asia-johnson-1861.jpg)
Heh... Pretty sweet map, but a little confusing for borders due to that red line.
Keep in mind that Korea is an independent country, and this map doesn't account for the treaty of Aigun, which gave Russia full access to the sea of Japan.
Also, I'm going to put a tentative start date for Friday night. That's when I'll open an official thread for the game and everything.
I changed my mind, started playing as Uruguay in the thread from which this got the inspiration, and even with loads of players Uruguay was an odd choice, by its dimensions.
There are several large countries that should have priority, like the USA, France, Prussia, Austria and Turkey at least. Thinking about taking either the French or the Ottoman Empires (both in crisis, but meh).
Edit: I recommend to think about removing Uruguay, and perhaps Paraguay too, and adding Spain, and perhaps Sweden or Netherlands.
Hmm... well I'd be willing to play Prussia if it is empty at the end of the sign up time.
Yeah, add the Dutch! They were a considerable power even then, and you can't add Belgium but exclude the people they got independence from :)
Maybe adding the Joseon Dynasty in Korea would spice things up in Asia?
Maybe adding the Joseon Dynasty in Korea would spice things up in Asia?
Maybe adding the Joseon Dynasty in Korea would spice things up in Asia?
To spice up Asia and Africa, it would be nice to have Spain and Netherlands. Get the Spanish East Indies, Batavia, Mallacas, and Borneo in the picture, as well as Cuba and a few of Spain's African colonies.
Nah, we already have Russia, the UK, China, and Japan.
I assume Perth will GM the non-player countries as less than 100% static; at least follow approximate real history. But with China, the UK, Russia, and Japan, we have the big players already in place. What we need is for somebody to play France, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, Italy, etc. 2 players in South America (plus European interventions) makes sense, 4 players in East Asia... we need more in Europe. Or we need some folks to grab the USA and CSA.
What does the trade balance mean?
I dispute the Qing having zero infrastructure. Ever heard of the Grand Canal? Flood control projects? Numerous ports? Infrastructure wasn't fantastic, but not zero.
Trade balance is just an income modifier. Imports v. Exports, essentially. I am not sure what exactly they based those numbers on though... I think we should play it as basically you are either exporting resources or manufactured goods, or you're importing them. Alternatively, you can exploit them from territorial/colonial possessions to give you positive balances as well.
As for infrastructure, I agree. I think I'll give a couple nations a bump for this stat.
So... how do we all have a positive trade balance?
I guess NPCs are running deficits?
Also, how are you handling movement of armies? Can I launch my 2.5 million man army straight across the Himalayas into India?
I dispute the Qing having zero infrastructure. Ever heard of the Grand Canal? Flood control projects? Numerous ports? Infrastructure wasn't fantastic, but not zero.
I would think the larger nations would be more likely to have a negative trade balance.
Not at all.
...
Um, it definitely seems to me that Japan should have a higher infrastructure value. I mean up until just before this time they were heavily isolationist. What else would they be spending their money on if not infrastructure? If they have no infrastructure, and no industry then they are essentially eating any of their money. Which would also mean that their bank should be higher as they aren't using any money apparently.
At least those are my thoughts. And yes Japan would have a starting positive trade balance at this time from what I've read.
There is also the option of starting all Trade Balances at Zero and saying "have at it from here."
For now, I have:
1. Increased trade surpluses of China and Japan.
2. Increased Infrastructure levels across the board.
3. Increased Russian army size.
As for nations like United Kingdom and (to lesser extent) Belgium, it was my impression that they were some of the most industrialized nations in the world at the time and therefore producing a lot of manufactured goods for export. I could be wrong, however, perhaps these manufactured goods were not really exported but sold in country?
Also, should bringing in resources from colonies should count as negative trade balance? Opinions?
Also, how are you handling movement of armies? Can I launch my 2.5 million man army straight across the Himalayas into India?
The changes are good, however, your impression about the industrialized part of the world is somewhat wrong. At that time, those countries who were industrialized highly treasured their superiority over other nations. They would not have exported their industrialized produce as much as sell it within their own country so as not to give other nations advantages over them.
I could be wrong there, but I believe that was the way things were. No opinion on colonies, because I'd only be biased as I don't start with any, and also am not sure how that issue was actually addressed. My only thoughts were that I believe colonies existed for the purpose of imports to the home country, while minimal "exports" would go back to the colonies. Colonies would be one possible beneficiary though if a country were to export industrialized goods. Interpret that as you'd wish though.
Hm, yes, perhaps you are right about that. I am trying to think then what incentive you would have, in game, to colonize/expand/conquer stuff if colonies would only drag down your trade balance, and therefore, your income. Unless, owning more colonies/land simply helped your income on a base level.
I am also not opposed to doing away with the "Trade Balance" category. I brought all of these stats over from where I found this but am definitely wanting to perfect and change things where need be. Instead, for instance, if you sign a trade agreement with someone in game, it could merely positively affect your income? Perhaps unevenly between the partners depending upon what is being traded between which nations, but still both positively?
There is also the option of starting all Trade Balances at Zero and saying "have at it from here."
I think this might be the best idea.
It allows the player to decide how he wants to treat the colony, cash cow and region to export stuff to, place to loot for resources, or place to develop as an alternative base of operations.
Of course, you could always begin with the extra state territory as it was treated at that point of time, but this is at the risk of increasing complexity.
IIRC, Britain had a favourable balance of trade with India, largely thanks to what it did in the country. So owning a vassal state improved its trade balance, and it's income.
While I'm sure that's all fascinating to ... well ... someone (Yawn) , is it really necessary to have a huge debate on global socio-political economics in order to start playing the game? So what if we're using an export of 5 instead of 7? Come on! I need to start clear-cutting the rainforests!
I'll take the French Empire then.
Your map of the 1860s US is a colonialist lie. I want to play Comancheria! ;D
If you won't allow it I may settle for the Union. It would be a shame not to have players where the starting event occurs.
While I'm sure that's all fascinating to ... well ... someone (Yawn) , is it really necessary to have a huge debate on global socio-political economics in order to start playing the game? So what if we're using an export of 5 instead of 7? Come on! I need to start clear-cutting the rainforests!
Population: 29,100,000It is not important to know the exact population, what is important is to know the approximate population in each region. To know if there are ~8 millions in England, ~15 millions in India and so on (I am giving random values in here). The population vary with the years and the censuses, so we need to know approximate values that reflect the importance of each region. The exact values are unimportant, but what they speak of is.
Nation: United Kingdom
Bank: 600
Trade Balance: 50
British Isles
Income: 200
Stability: 10
Population: 10,000,000
Industry: 10
Infrastructure: Level 7
Army: 40,000 Regulars / 0 Conscripts
Navy: 10 Large Ships / 25 Small Ships
Canada
Income: 50
Stability: 8
Population: 2,000,000
Industry: 3
Infrastructure: Level 5
Army: 20,000 Regulars / 0 Conscripts
Navy: 5 Large Ships / 10 Small Ships
South Africa
Income: 25
Stability: 5
Population:1,000,000
Industry: 1
Infrastructure: Level 2
Army: 30,000 Regulars / 0 Conscripts
Navy: 5 Large Ships / 30 Small Ships
India
Income: 175
Stability: 5
Population: 15,000,000
Industry: 0
Infrastructure: Level 3
Army: 100,000 Regulars / 0 Conscripts
Navy: 10 Large Ships / 50 Small Ships
Oceania
Income: 50
Stability: 7
Population: 1,000,000
Industry: 1
Infrastructure: Level 2
Army: 10,000 Regulars / 0 Conscripts
Navy: 5 Large Ships / 10 Small Ships
Ok, as promised, here go some suggestions:
The data right now has some flaws in being too informative in the wrong places, and too little in where should be more.
It is not important to know the exact population, what is important is to know the approximate population in each region. To know if there are ~8 millions in England, ~15 millions in India and so on (I am giving random values in here). The population vary with the years and the censuses, so we need to know approximate values that reflect the importance of each region. The exact values are unimportant, but what they speak of is.
In the same way, how much the country makes, how stable it is, what's its industry level (though in the other game this number speaks about number of large industries), the level of infrastructure and the amount of soldiers follow the same logic. Perhaps something like this would be more interesting (using the largest Empire, in smaller nations it would be much simpler):
These are the concrete important values, I'd say, which players will want to manipulate. The income, population, army and navy are concrete variables for the players to measure their relative strengths, while the stability, number of industries (or industry level if you prefer) and infrastructure are abstract and more RP-oriented variables.
A "Trade Balance" would be interesting only if you introduce a system of resources (cotton, cattle, wheat, canned food, etc.), in the same way Paradox's Victoria did (and can even get the values from there), but it will complicate things a lot, giving you loads of work. It will bring an interesting economic warfare into play, but it will mean at least mapping the regions with their local products, as to then determine major effects, like strategical blockades would cause different kinds of economic crisis due to shortage of important raw materials, and economic-motivated conflicts would start. Up to you.
I'd like to play the Netherlands!
This is some insightful advice, and I actually really like what you have to say and you make some good points. I like your proposal, though I worry it could become to "nit picky" in some ways. Do I need to list separate regions for a nation like China or Russia? I think listing the distribution of troops and navies across the globe is perhaps the most important, and the income values of colonial possessions as well. I will think these over a bit and probably end up implementing them in some ways.
I thought of this too. However, if I'm going to go through that much trouble, we might as well just fire up a multi-player game of Vic II :P
Mmmmmm...... I would much prefer you play USA or CSA. I think it would prove a lot more fun for both you and everyone else. :)
That isn't to say you can't incorporate American Indians into your RP and the storyline of your nation heavily. Hell, turn Lincoln into an Indian-Sympathizer and create sovereign Indian nations out of the American South and West if you defeat the Confederates, etc.
Yes, I'll play the USA. I really wish someone will play the CSA though.
If you need help with anything know that I am available. Specially for South America, but also with anything else.
Till what year will we be playing? And how many days in between turns?
I'll take Prussia.
I support one week per turn.
As far as time of the game, couldn't we just play until people just don't want to anymore, or when you no longer have time to GM it? (or don't want to anymore?)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Hell, this may end up sucking and we all lose interest after three weeks.
Or it may be so awesome that you start writing programs to automate tasks for you.
To be honest, JPierreD sent me a link to here. I had no idea this game existed until 30 minuets ago.
And hey, by the way Perth, no pressure or anything, but the CREATOR OF THE GAME YOU'RE ABOUT TO GM is going to join as a player. :p
Act cool.
Seek75 wants Chile (yea, Chile).
Lets try and get a bigger page count than the Dave's Galaxy thread. ;)
Considering the main WiR thread has around 273 pages, that is a very possible goal.
Hey, you Paradoxian fellows should definitely give Battlemaster a try if you're going to be hanging out around here anyways. ;)
Hey, you Paradoxian fellows should definitely give Battlemaster a try if you're going to be hanging out around here anyways. ;)
Ditto.
Also, I wish to put in my two cents and disagree with myself for earlier.
In the name of enshrining neoliberalism into the game, I think you shouldn't count trade balances. They don't matter anyways, as capital balances and the free flow of gold will wholly adjust them. Ultimately all total net trade balances are and must be transient.
Don't listen to the mercantilo-racists who tell you otherwise!
I can give some of the maps being used for resources in the other game. Also, most Carribean islands were relatively unprofitable at this point (with slavery being abolished).
I would also group things as much as possible in the main stats but make more detailed reports available to the country that owns/controls it.
Kind of sucks for the Union player though. I mean what kind of pressure is it to be at war with the maker of the game you are playing? What if the CSA loses?
Crazy stuff.
Didn't mean that to be combative, just a note, and I like the idea. As I offered earlier I can help some resource maps if you like.
Challenge accepted! :D
So, Caribbean sugar islands will boost your income. Middle Asian opium fields will boost it. The Saharan desert will not boost it very much at all. This will be the simplest and I think most game-friendly way to do it.
I also come from the Paradoxian forums and would like to join as the Ottoman Empire if it is possible.
I also come from the Paradoxian forums and would like to join as the Ottoman Empire if it is possible.
All you folks should join Battlemaster too.
Great game.
So... how long until we start? I'm not impatient, just excited. ;D
Evening Chaps. As Fry said, I'll take the reigns of Mexico if nobody minds.
email issues...eventually got a working account.
Spain for me, in the other wir 1861 I am france...took over after the prior 2 players got france horribly smashed in a war with spain/italy/prussia/uk.
Hey can I join as Romania? I'm Belgium in the other WiR.
can i be Bavaria?
Im Colombia (formally Bavaria) on the other WiR
May i be Italy?
I'm Brazil on the other WiR :)
You forgot to put me as Italy on the list on the first page :p
May i be Italy?
can i be Bavaria?
Hey can I join as Romania?
Hey is Egypt independent?
I believe it is under Ottoman dominion, is it not?
i noticed that you forgot to give me dutch guiana!
i need it... for future plans :o
To all the folks from the Paradox forums:
You should totally start BM accounts. It's the best.
We're not just saying that. It really is an awesome game. At the least, you can try it out while this game takes a bit of time to get started. Or wait and get to know some of the players of BM, by playing this game with us. We're just a small pick of the playerbase but this game is great especially if you like the type of game which this WiR is.
I'd be willing to have a go at playing. Where can I get extra help?
Here in the forum. There is a helpline section. There is also the wiki available where you can gather more information. Also when joining the game, you'll meet a lot of players in your new "realm" who will almost always be greatly willing to answer any questions and to help you get a feel for what is going on.
You can also send private messages to any of us BM players here who have suggested the game. I'm sure we'd all be willing to help out with specifics if need be.
Another question, should we keep messages to other players in the main game thread or use PMs?
Hmmm, I can't help but feel Prussia and the US are too strong compared to UK and France.
In the interest of fun, let's use the forum unless you really feel the need to keep it secrete for some reason.
It might be helpful to have a separate thread for side discussions. Otherwise, the Official Game thread will get hard to follow.
Perth, I realized the Army and the Navy levels are missing as well. One can have a huge army, like Korea, but if they are armed only with swords they are really not worth that much. Same with Ironclads against Wooden Vessels, or Junks.
Request: When you post in the main game thread, can you preface your post with the country you are playing? Something like: "[CSA] The Union sucks eggs!" or whatever...
I suspect that it would be *very* helpful for everyone who, like me, can't keep this stuff straight, but who is too embarrassed to admit it. :-[
I figured I will just keep these things in mind when giving the updates about the battles and such. If Britain invades Korea, for instance, it will take a lot more for Korea to come out on top. Otherwise, I would need to implement even more stats. The ones I have for now are plenty work for the time being, lol.
1-3: Wooden Sailing Ships
4-6: Wooden Steam Ships
7-10: Early Ironclads
11-16: Ironclads
17 -20: Advanced Ironclads
21-26: Early Cruisers
27-30: Cruisers
31-36: Early Dreadnoughts
37-45: Dreadnoughts
46-50: Early Battleships
51-60: Battleships
60-70: Aircraft Carriers
70-100: Modern Navies
100+: TBD
Yes, but these stats are already fleshed out, you can ask Frymonmon for them. This is what he posted in the other thread about them, for example:
Nice. I didn't see that.A bit of historical knowledge and just using orders to expand it, open naval academy for behind nations, trading for technology, could probably loot a bit if the right nations fought etc. No one could issue an order to develop modern carriers atm but someone behind could issue an order to pay X money towards developing ironclads. If you feel they paid too little then for sure it fails, a huge amount and for sure it succeeds, a fair amount and toss a coin or roll a dice. If they fail but paid some towards it, next time it is that much easier to reach.
How do they use over there to determine when you get to move up?
So, can we send forum private messages for secret dealings between countries?
A bit of historical knowledge and just using orders to expand it, open naval academy for behind nations, trading for technology, could probably loot a bit if the right nations fought etc. No one could issue an order to develop modern carriers atm but someone behind could issue an order to pay X money towards developing ironclads. If you feel they paid too little then for sure it fails, a huge amount and for sure it succeeds, a fair amount and toss a coin or roll a dice. If they fail but paid some towards it, next time it is that much easier to reach.
OOC : Btw Perth, how are trade agreements working? Are you adding direcly to the income?
What all can be accomplished in one "order?" Can multiple treaties be signed in a single order, or would those require separate orders?
Hmm... I would say one TREATY per order. If are signing it with multiple nations (for instance a multinational alliance) I think that should be fine. But not multiple treaties in one order, I don't think. Does that sound fair?
So to sign a treaty nation A needs an order of the type
"Sign a trade agreement to supply arms to nation B"
and nation B sends an order of the type
"Sign a trade agreement to buy weapons from nation A"
and you handle the rest?
Could nations not at war use some of their war-orders for peaceful actions? I don't see how a nation at war can do MORE - real life seems to scream the opposite is true, with the war effort taking up resources that could be used elsewhere.
I have a question: Is all correspondence in the game topic public? I.e. do I need to send private letters through PM?
Well, on the original WiR the war-orders were used only for war-related issues, like movimentation of the armies and navies, propaganda, etc....
But, can a nation not at "war" per-say utilize "war orders" to move their military around and make military maneuvers? Even if they don't make an official declaration of war, I'd think such a system could still work.
One more question: At which point do I have to issue orders and what are things that simply happen without?
An example are the exchanges of ambassadors I'm proposing to everyone. If I need an order for ever delegation, it'll be 1862 before I can do anything else. :-)
One more question: At which point do I have to issue orders and what are things that simply happen without?
An example are the exchanges of ambassadors I'm proposing to everyone. If I need an order for ever delegation, it'll be 1862 before I can do anything else. :-)
Well, AFAIK that isn't needed, at the start of the war you juts "deploy" your current troops, and as you get more you "deploy" them as well. Tough i could see something related to movimentation of troops working and adding to the game...maybe the GM will want to change that if he doesn't likes the old system
Ok:
1) No, you don't need to utilize your orders for sending diplomats, etc. Since those kinds of things don't have many physical effects on your nation, just take care of it in the Game Thread with RP, etc. In fact, most diplomacy should be handled this war. Implementing a new treaty is about the only thing that needs an order diplomacy-wise and that only when it has been signed by all parties.
2) I think I will definitely allow the use of War Orders for troop movements strictly. Because in this version of the game I have provided everyone, especially the large empires, of more details of where there troops are roughly located then yes you can use war orders to shift them around. However, you cannot use them for general things.
That goes for countries at war too. War Orders are meant for troop movements and perhaps building troops, that's about it.
I think that is reasonable, yes? No?
That seems like a LOT more than just four orders. In fact, you're not giving four orders. You're giving a complete set of orders to four different groups. Not what I expected at all.
That seems like a LOT more than just four orders. In fact, you're not giving four orders. You're giving a complete set of orders to four different groups. Not what I expected at all.
Feel free to be detailed, I actually enjoyed the style of those orders, but if you write me a freaking book keep in mind that I have to read 20 of these things, write the update for all of them, and then crunch the corresponding numbers. I do have a good amount of free time for now, but maybe not that much.
Every Friday. I don't know if there is a specific hour that has been set.
Do war declarations have to be in one of the orders? Or can we just make a proclamation of war and not have to put it in the orders?
| Value | Old | New |
| Income | 245 | 70 |
| Infrastructure | 4 | 2 |
| Industry | 3 | 4 |
| Army | 900,000 | 300,000 |
| Small ships | 35 | 25 |
The income is I believe not a base number, it is the end result of various factors and after paying for the army.
Okay.
Troop numbers restored!
Incomes slightly readjusted.
I think we should be good now and everyone should be moderately content. *crosses fingers*
I just want to say the fact that the Swiss have a larger army than the CSA makes me giddy inside. lol.
But it's historically correct, AFAIK. The swiss had been fielding mercenary forces all over Europe for centuries.
I just want to say the fact that the Swiss have a larger army than the CSA makes me giddy inside. lol.
I will take giddy over baffled, annoyed and angry anyday.
Besides, the CSA is like 3 months old at this point.
Also, why not change history and have it NOT be the bloodiest war in American history and jsut only fight with 20k and 30k troops? Win or lose just go with that eh>?
Anyone else think the CSA should hire the Swiss to fight the USA for them?
Or Japanese Samurai? ;)
But it's historically correct, AFAIK. The swiss had been fielding mercenary forces all over Europe for centuries.
Not only that, but they were just out of a serious civil war.
I think we should be good now and everyone should be moderately content. *crosses fingers*
Would also die like flies against the American army. :P
The one at the end of the war, sure. At the beginning the american armies (both sides) was not very strong or organized.
Even then: Rifles > Swords and Bows...
Even then: Rifles > Swords and Bows...
Don't underestimate ninjas...
Rifles>Swords sure. Bows, meh, Rifles were pretty bad at times. A trained bowman could shoot more deadly arrows at longer range than a rifleman could in the same time frame.
Yes, but training is the important word. You take too long to train archers, and I'm not sure rifles were that bad by 1860.
Not only that, but they were just out of a serious civil war.
Alright a new war! So will the British allow Russia to reach warm waters or not? dundundun! 8)
*cough* well.. the Swiss civil war was a little bit different than the american civil war. Total casualties are estimated at about 100. That's one hundred, not one hundred thousand. :-)
Even then: Rifles > Swords and Bows...
Don't underestimate ninjas...Yeah, you better watch out for all those Swiss Ninjas. ::)
The american army was actually disbanded after the revolution, and had only 36'000 soldiers at the end of the war of 1812 (15'000 had died during the war).
Your claims that warfare in Europe in 1848 was done with bows and arrows is extraordinary enough that I must ask for some kind of reference.....
why have the channel on yet another network? The BattleMaster IRC channel is on quakenet, so that's where most BMers hang out.
So, I am finished with the update. But am going to bed.
It's coming, I promise.
So, I am finished with the update. But am going to bed.
I will post it tomorrow along with fancy photos to go along with it and make it look nice. Plus I need to update the map to put out at the same time. (dun dun dun!)
It's coming, I promise.
Japanese soldiers in the United States?
Does the USA player have a death wish?
This won't end well...not for the US, not for Japan...
You never know. Only time will tell. History can be changed, times can be different.
The lack of infrastructure to support 200,00 however can't be changed so easily :P
I am also skeptic about the capability of the Japanese navy to transport 200'000 soldiers across the pacific, to be honest.....
I am also skeptic about the capability of the Japanese navy to transport 200'000 soldiers across the pacific, to be honest.....
I'm skeptical about the need for 200,000 soldiers in California. The biggest battles out west had less than 20,000 soldiers on both sides combined.
But not 200,000 man transports, lol.
I'm trying to think of precedents for naval invasions. Nothing's really coming to mind.... but that's telling. This would have been the largest transoceanic movement of troops... in history.
The Opium Wars, for example, had only about 20,000 British troops. The entire British (non-Indian) garrison of India was only about 60,000 soldiers. Moving 200,000 soldiers across an ocean like that at those tech levels is at the minimum ultra-expensive, but might be impossible.
But not 200,000 man transports, lol.
I'm trying to think of precedents for naval invasions. Nothing's really coming to mind.... but that's telling. This would have been the largest transoceanic movement of troops... in history.
The Opium Wars, for example, had only about 20,000 British troops. The entire British (non-Indian) garrison of India was only about 60,000 soldiers. Moving 200,000 soldiers across an ocean like that at those tech levels is at the minimum ultra-expensive, but might be impossible.
Lefanis: Vladivostok is only an outpost, with a handful of men. Right now your centers of population in the far east are Nikolayevsk-on-Amur and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
To be fairly honest Japan did not have properly an army at this time, but a feudal system in which that large amount of Samurais were conscripted in times of war and gathered under banners. It would be like calling 200k knights for a crusade, in terms of organization and logistics.
But as said, they could arrive in waves and use the trains to move to more populated areas able to absorb their impact in the economy, and sustain them.
Transcontinental railroad wasn't even begun until 1863.
To be fairly honest Japan did not have properly an army at this time, but a feudal system in which that large amount of Samurais were conscripted in times of war and gathered under banners. It would be like calling 200k knights for a crusade, in terms of organization and logistics.
But as said, they could arrive in waves and use the trains to move to more populated areas able to absorb their impact in the economy, and sustain them.
Then it would be quite a journey...
With a lot of dead Japanese people...
Ever wondered if that was perhaps the point? ;)
Wait and react to what actually happens, instead of what just seems to be happening.
The point was to kill your own army?
How curious.
The Qing should be an isolationist country, shunning foreigners.
The United States would have a near revolt on its hands if, in 1861, randomly invited 200,000 Japanese soldiers to march through the West. The Japanese Government would be in turmoil too, as they were still hyper-sensitive of outsiders at this time.
The Qing should be an isolationist country, shunning foreigners.
I'm not saying you should have been couped because you are trying to reform, however Qing is acting too strangely and should behave more like China on 1861 instead of like in say, 2000.
Most Europeans of the time considered the Chinese nothing more than a bunch of barbarians...
Besides, Switzerland is landlocked, how would this treaty even work?
As for artisans, how, even with sea access, would you send them all the way to Europe? Historically this could provoke the europeans.
We have two different situations:
1) China acting the way it is, well, it's hardly orthodox, but not impossible. History would have likely seen the Empress as a very eccentric character who faced innumerable obstacles for trying "radical" reforms in a very conservative-minded scenario. Basically a woman way ahead of her time, with all the problems that carries. Perth was very nice in his first post to err on the side of caution, but he'll certainly get the grip of things and start portraying how it would have not been so easy, though still not impossible, to successfully pass those kinds of reforms and survive the consequences.
In any case China is betting very high, and its success will be largely dependent in if the other nations try to call her bluff or not. So let's keep this IC, now shall we?
2) It would be nice if the GM made some mini-updates commenting on some situations going on (I can help with that). If the Emperor called one third of all the samurais in the country to send them far abroad to the "west", right after having coup'd the Shogun, well, he'd have a large rebellion in his hands.
Part of the problem is that Japan started with 600.000 soldiers, which makes one think of a professional standing army, instead of a potential force of feudal warriors that would only be completely mobilized in cases of invasion. The Shogun did not have such large force immediately under his command, and could certainly not do whatever he pleased with it, for it was largely autonomous.
The mini-updates would hint the player about this kind of thing, about worried advisers and unrest based on rumors of such kinds of plans. Then the player can decide if he really wants to go through with it and face the consequences, or not. And even then, he might roll several 6 and get the political ability to send such large force, giving the GM the task of determining the problems of logistics and unrest in California and the USA because of the "invasion".
The point is that the dices should be cast, and say if it goes or not. It is /very/ unlikely to succeed, but it is also very unlikely for him to get all 6s. Simply shutting down crazy ideas makes the game quite boring. Lets let strange things happen, even if they turn into major disasters.
We have two different situations:
1) China acting the way it is, well, it's hardly orthodox, but not impossible. History would have likely seen the Empress as a very eccentric character who faced innumerable obstacles for trying "radical" reforms in a very conservative-minded scenario. Basically a woman way ahead of her time, with all the problems that carries. Perth was very nice in his first post to err on the side of caution, but he'll certainly get the grip of things and start portraying how it would have not been so easy, though still not impossible, to successfully pass those kinds of reforms and survive the consequences.
In any case China is betting very high, and its success will be largely dependent in if the other nations try to call her bluff or not. So let's keep this IC, now shall we?
2) It would be nice if the GM made some mini-updates commenting on some situations going on (I can help with that). If the Emperor called one third of all the samurais in the country to send them far abroad to the "west", right after having coup'd the Shogun, well, he'd have a large rebellion in his hands.
Part of the problem is that Japan started with 600.000 soldiers, which makes one think of a professional standing army, instead of a potential force of feudal warriors that would only be completely mobilized in cases of invasion. The Shogun did not have such large force immediately under his command, and could certainly not do whatever he pleased with it, for it was largely autonomous.
The mini-updates would hint the player about this kind of thing, about worried advisers and unrest based on rumors of such kinds of plans. Then the player can decide if he really wants to go through with it and face the consequences, or not. And even then, he might roll several 6 and get the political ability to send such large force, giving the GM the task of determining the problems of logistics and unrest in California and the USA because of the "invasion".
The point is that the dices should be cast, and say if it goes or not. It is /very/ unlikely to succeed, but it is also very unlikely for him to get all 6s. Simply shutting down crazy ideas makes the game quite boring. Lets let strange things happen, even if they turn into major disasters.
Also, I should note: my reforms were actually not as successful as they may look on the outside. Compared to how much I tried to do, I didn't accomplish that much. After all, I did wipe out half of my treasury just launching land and trade reforms. That's without even addressing tech, industry, and infrastructure.
Step-by-Step young padawan.
That's why you take just the first turn securing your position, before trying to implement public reforms beyond government takeover.
haha jk. Reforming China and Japan is gonna be hard...
And that's without possible European intervention.
And that's without possible European intervention.
Exactly, European intevention can also make it easier.
What????????????? European's shooting you I mean.
As long as you only shoot the rebels.
But Japan already has at least one European nation helping it.
Why not more?
Perhaps I misunderstand the way this game is supposed to work. I thought the point was that, while we should take actions that are realistic for our nations, we can also attempt to change the way history went. This would involve changing directly the personalities of the leaders of our nations. That should be allowable.
Actually, China was the only nation this turn who did not try to increase their Industry and/or Infrastructure stats. I think that says something.
The Qing should be an isolationist country, shunning foreigners.
Most Europeans of the time considered the Chinese nothing more than a bunch of barbarians...
Besides, Switzerland is landlocked, how would this treaty even work?
The United States would have a near revolt on its hands if, in 1861, randomly invited 200,000 Japanese soldiers to march through the West. The Japanese Government would be in turmoil too, as they were still hyper-sensitive of outsiders at this time.
+1
Hell, Aleksandr is already acting like a weird cross between Peter the Great and Peter Kropotkin... The point is alternate history, Lenin might end up smothered in his bed, and Bakunin may become the Internal affairs minister 8)
That was quite a bit of diplomacy on both our parts, and it was possible only because Switzerland is one of the few countries with no holdings whatsoever in asia. As I understood the chinese player, that set us apart from the other european nations and made her curious. Plus I made a few good offers, and approached as the underdog, not as a "we're europeans, we are superior".
China has always had trade relations with western countries, for centuries before our timeframe, through the silk road mostly. They just never made a big deal out of it.
Agreements with neighbours to use their ports, made in the first turn. Also note that we don't have a trade agreement that would require shipping tons of stuff around, we are mostly exchanging people.
And also, Switzerland and China exchanged diplomats, artisans, writers and philosophers in the first turn, to learn about each others culture. One important step of respect that made the chinese open to an exchange.
I'm not sure if this is entirely historically acurate for the swiss, but I do assume that a democracy would be more open to be simply curious about foreigners. Especially one with much experience in serving abroad as mercenaries, I can't fathom they would be isolationists. Also, as a small, landlocked nation, I have to be creative in what I do to make sure I'm not simply a small piece of land someone rolls over if he wants to.
But you have to keep in mind that not everyone will be willing to receive "savages" on their ports and land so that they can move to Switzerland. Even if the government did, there's no saying the local population would like it.
But you have to keep in mind that not everyone will be willing to receive "savages" on their ports and land so that they can move to Switzerland. Even if the government did, there's no saying the local population would like it.
You built infrastructure, industry, and 2 large ships last turn, so yeah, that probably cost about 340 gold.Well, yeah, I did start a lot. But I didn't know it would be "2yrs of GDP" a lot, nor that it would all be charged to me at the beginning. Is there any guide to costs, or do we just have to guess? I mean, Perth has to have some idea what this stuff costs in order to charge us. And I can't see any reason to keep that stuff secret. I mean, I'm buying it, I should have some basic idea of the estimated costs.
How did my "Bank" hit -290? I have no clue what any of this stuff costs... I don't remember what I had before... 50, I think. So I spent 340 bank on something? Did I really just spend almost two years worth of GDP in the first turn?!
I have a question on the turn reports we got:
"[+2 Large Ships under construction for Brazil ready in 4 turns, +1 Industry in 3 turns, (1/5) For New Infrastructure in 4 turns] "
Do I have to keep doing the same orders for the next four turns to get my ships? Or is the one turn's expenditure enough to finish them, and I don't have to keep ordering their build every turn? Are we assumed to have enough infrastructure to build more? What are our limits? Do we have to specify the types of ships we are building? I specified ironclads, but the reports just says "large ship". An ocean going battleship is a hell of a lot different than an ironclad river boat. If we're abstracting everything down to "large ship/small ship", that's fine with me. I just need to know.
Same for the industry. Will it just go up in three turns without further expenditure? Can I continue to build more before that is done?
1-3: Wooden Sailing Ships
4-6: Wooden Steam Ships
7-10: Early Ironclads
11-16: Ironclads
17 -20: Advanced Ironclads
21-26: Early Cruisers
27-30: Cruisers
31-36: Early Dreadnoughts
37-45: Dreadnoughts
46-50: Early Battleships
51-60: Battleships
60-70: Aircraft Carriers
70-100: Modern Navies
100+: TBD
What does "(1/5) For New Infrastructure in 4 turns" mean? Is that a 1/5 chance that it will go up? Or do I have to keep building for four more turns in order to complete it?
Can we specifically order research to increase our weapons technology, or technology level in general?
How did my "Bank" hit -290? I have no clue what any of this stuff costs... I don't remember what I had before... 50, I think. So I spent 340 bank on something? Did I really just spend almost two years worth of GDP in the first turn?!
I have gone back and forth on releasing the hard numbers for how much stuff costs, and I do see why it seems fair to let you know them. However, I also worry about people figuring out how best to game the formulas and increase their income fairly rapidly (which would be fairly easy to do). This would only give the rich nations an even greater advantage than they already had.
I say: Give numbers for specific questions. If we want to build the Gothard Tunnel (http://catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mrgoth.Html), for example (actual construction started 1871) it would be ok to give us an estimate of the costs in money units, with the usual caveat that actual costs may be higher. Or if I want to recruit 10,000 soldiers, I would have a fairly good idea of what it'll cost me, so I should be able to ask Perth.
The Update will not come this weekend.
Likely, it will come mid-week next week. (Wednesday or Thursday)
I'll be finishing up a large term paper this weekend.
When shall orders be due next turn?
This turn ought to be interesting...
So...when is the update coming?
Ok, update forthcoming!
If you have not sent me orders for July - September 1861, please do so!
Ok, update forthcoming!
If you have not sent me orders for July - September 1861, please do so!
Still waiting on Sacha.
Also, I'm leaving to go backpacking tomorrow for 3-4 days; so.. yeah.
lol...
Mind if I just kill Eston in that time?
Mmmmm, gonna have to say yeah I would mind to that one.
Here's a good idea: freaking bring the entire duchy of Barad Falas to Eston while I'm gone, that'll mess some !@#$ up.
You're right because the one person who may actually be okay with that will be backpacking...
Still waiting on Sacha.
Also, I'm leaving to go backpacking tomorrow for 3-4 days; so.. yeah.
I'm a terrible person and an even worse GM.
Either that or I'm writing a novel for an update (don't get excited, it's the former).
It is coming soon. Soon...
When Eston's Capital is overrun ;D
It will come when it comes.
Perth,
One thought I was thinking of, is have you considered adding on a second GM to help you with things? I don't know if this is just a temporary thing, but if its just an overall time issue, having another GM help you with writing updates and stuff or just whatever, may make it easier.
The update is coming, right ;_;