Pre-LizNES6: Fortune Favors the Brutal

To: Franco-Germanic Empire
From: Kingdom of Spain


We are glad to know that we are not the only ones that worry about the future of our planet. The Kingdom of Spain will send representatives to this meeting. We would love nothing more than an attempt to prevent outright war between human nations, but we guess that perhaps this might be the first step towards such an idea.
 
Also, the map with names is up, and I'm working on some possible stats for the actual NES, and would like to hear some opinions whenever I finish with them.
 
To: Franco-Germanic Empire
From: The United Irish Republic


We would also be present at such a conference, though we would like to make a suggestion instead on merely discussing the banning of WMDs, which should be done, we would like to make head ways to creating rules and conduct to any unfortunate outbreak of war similar to the Geneva convention of old.

And on that note

To: All of Europe
From: The United Irish Republic


Seeing how Europe has mostly stabilized itself and we have reached a level of develop mostly equal to the Pre-Collapse era we feel that now may be appropriate to discuss the economic and industrial future of Europe and to foster cooperation between our nations so that we may reach new heights. If there is significant interest we would be willing to hold an economic summit in Dublin.
 
To: Republic of Ezo, Republic of Korea, Japan, China, India
From: The Project


Greetings esteemed ladies and gentlemen, scientists and engineers. We are interested in completing the work of our collective ancestors, the ITER project for constructing commercially viable experimental thermonuclear powered reactors. In short fusion reactors for supplying all of our foreseeable energy needs in the conceivable future. Putting the power of the sun in a box that our nations can use for the good of our people. Are you interested in this joint R&D project over the next 30 years?

OOC: Is the next BT the last one TLK? Russians historically have a preference for strong hand governments especially after colossal disasters. I don't see the great revulsion, considering that the communist party is the second strongest in Russia today (lagging some 40-50 percent but it's still a sizable factor in Duma along with the other two opposition parties)
 
To: World
From: Franco-Germanic Empire


There seems to be enough interest in the idea, so we are announcing that a conference will be held in Berlin to discuss the possibility of a future in which no Weapons of Mass Destruction are used at all to kill innocent people. The goal of this conference is to get every nation to agree on a ban of the use of these weapons, and we are willing to hear others suggestions at this conference on exactly how this should be done and enforced.

To: United Irish Republic
From: Franco-Germanic Empire


That is a good idea and we will make sure it is brought up at the meeting. Also we'd like to ask what exactly is your goal for the economic summit? Is it general economic cooperation or something more akin to Pacific Union or the old past European Union?
 
To: Franco-Germanic Empire
From: United Irish Republic


While we would like to see a return to the old ways of cooperation like the EU we hold no illusions that there may be parties that have no desire to return to the old ways. As of now such a conference would be to promote basic cooperation and to perhaps steer our continent towards common economic goals, and then see where that goes. However if there is a large enough desire for an EU or Pacific Union type cooperation that may also be developed.
 
@Kozmos; Yup, this is the last BT, unless someone is really opposed to that. And while I do agree, the 100 or so years of stronger localized government has led to this Confederacy to make sense, at least for the people living in it. Daily life isn't changed too much, save for the fact that what would have been militias fighting for the local towns, are now fighting for the Confederacy as a whole. A growing sentiment in the Confederacy's government is just what you said, however, they are split between your camp, and the NRF's camp. And then their is the always influential 3rd party, who is looking at continued independence with a stronger central government.

@Everyone; In terms of normal game stats for this, I've been planning on using an economic and military model, similar to ABNW or SMW (which were, essentially the same.) A lot of possible money, essentially. Starting economies, and militarys will be low and basic, and you guys can branch out from there. In order to discourage pointless, annexationist wars, I'm hoping for some serious IC diplomacy, and I'm looking at some possible tables of rebellions, and the like.

However, the biggest thing I want to do, and I'd appreciate some input with this, would be how to handle nation's military qualities and the like. A nation such as Ossetia, or Daghestan, obviously shouldn't have a military comparable to the NRF. Smaller, presumably poorer nations, should rely more on localized militia, weaker navy's, etc. My question is, how to a define that? I had always used Military Experience, in the past, though that only really reflected the relative experience of the army. Military experience was never something you could buy, only earn. And I don't see why a nation should be penalized and forced to use Militia units simply because they're more peaceful than others.

So that rules out Military Experience as a base stat that would effect recruitment capabilities. I do rather like EQ's Training and Equiptment stats, in ABNW3, though I am hesitant to include and moderate both.

Another thing I was thinking about, would be some sort of stat, such as Quality, or equiptment. Dependent on that, a nation may or may not have cheaper recruiting costs for certain types of units. While it might cost Nation A 1 EP to recruit an Infantry Regiment, it might cost Nation B 3 EP. So for nation B, it might just make more sense to recruit Militia, or lower quality soldiers. I don't know how much I want to really juggle that around, but it is just a thought.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

To clarify, if it needs to be done, I feel like some nations should be backwards, and militarily inept, while others not so much.

Strong/Modern Military's

The Project
Dixie Confederacy
England
Siam
Korea

Mediocre Military's

Padania
Naples
Basque Republic
California
Kurdistan
Grand Papau

Poor, Low Quality Military's

Second Khiva Khanate
Acre
Albania
Buganda
Eritrea
 
To the former Missouri Confederacy territories
From the Dixie Republic

It is a disappointment to see your union collapse through the pressures of this New World. The Dixie Republic is here to help those that are most affected. Those that wish to join the Dixie Republic will be most welcome, and treated as equals in our great Republic.

To Virginia

What is the state of Richmond? How is its infrastructure and communications?

To Texas

It is disappointing that you do not wish to join us, seeing that unity brings strength to everyone. Our people share the same culture and ideology, and would make great brothers of the same Republic. With that said, however, we will be honored to consider you as friends, with more diplomatic treaties to be signed in the future.

Reposting
 
Sorry Dread.

To: The Dixie Confederacy
From: Virginia


Richmond is a shining beacon of light and hope to all of those who see it. We have trains, power, cars, everything your cities have. We request that it is one again the proper capital of your Confederacy, and we also have a hope that you don't drag us into an unnecessary wars with our neighbors.
 
@Kozmos; Yup, this is the last BT, unless someone is really opposed to that. And while I do agree, the 100 or so years of stronger localized government has led to this Confederacy to make sense, at least for the people living in it. Daily life isn't changed too much, save for the fact that what would have been militias fighting for the local towns, are now fighting for the Confederacy as a whole. A growing sentiment in the Confederacy's government is just what you said, however, they are split between your camp, and the NRF's camp. And then their is the always influential 3rd party, who is looking at continued independence with a stronger central government.

@Everyone; In terms of normal game stats for this, I've been planning on using an economic and military model, similar to ABNW or SMW (which were, essentially the same.) A lot of possible money, essentially. Starting economies, and militarys will be low and basic, and you guys can branch out from there. In order to discourage pointless, annexationist wars, I'm hoping for some serious IC diplomacy, and I'm looking at some possible tables of rebellions, and the like.

However, the biggest thing I want to do, and I'd appreciate some input with this, would be how to handle nation's military qualities and the like. A nation such as Ossetia, or Daghestan, obviously shouldn't have a military comparable to the NRF. Smaller, presumably poorer nations, should rely more on localized militia, weaker navy's, etc. My question is, how to a define that? I had always used Military Experience, in the past, though that only really reflected the relative experience of the army. Military experience was never something you could buy, only earn. And I don't see why a nation should be penalized and forced to use Militia units simply because they're more peaceful than others.

So that rules out Military Experience as a base stat that would effect recruitment capabilities. I do rather like EQ's Training and Equiptment stats, in ABNW3, though I am hesitant to include and moderate both.

Another thing I was thinking about, would be some sort of stat, such as Quality, or equiptment. Dependent on that, a nation may or may not have cheaper recruiting costs for certain types of units. While it might cost Nation A 1 EP to recruit an Infantry Regiment, it might cost Nation B 3 EP. So for nation B, it might just make more sense to recruit Militia, or lower quality soldiers. I don't know how much I want to really juggle that around, but it is just a thought.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

To clarify, if it needs to be done, I feel like some nations should be backwards, and militarily inept, while others not so much.

Strong/Modern Military's

The Project
Dixie Confederacy
England
Siam
Korea

Mediocre Military's

Padania
Naples
Basque Republic
California
Kurdistan
Grand Papau

Poor, Low Quality Military's

Second Khiva Khanate
Acre
Albania
Buganda
Eritrea

Well there is Military Experience and there is Military Training and those two could be somewhat interlinked. Military experienced can be somewhat partially taught via surrogates and instructors while military training is something that all can achieve with sufficient funding. A nation that has both is of course a tough enemy. Bottom line, let military experience be 'gained' while training & equipment can serve as a substitute (we assume that experience and T&E are equivalent in effects stat-wise) for those without experience.
 
I agree with Kozmos. Just call it 'quality' and let it go up passively with war (representing experience) or go up with spending (training, equipment, technology). Also, i think its worth having a stat each for airfroce, army, and navy.
 
A stat for each seems kind of excessive, yet makes sense considering some do specialize. I just think that sort of thing should just go off the books or perhaps have a stat for specialization. (Army, Navy, Airforce, Asymmetric Warfare & Secret Weapons) :mischief:
 
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts, TLK, on tech sharing and alliances.

EDIT: (responding to Kozmos below): Though i DID abuse tech-trading in the last game, my stance on tech trading is well known as i articulated at the beginning of LizNES 5. I too am against the idea of tech alliances and easy tech trade.
 
God, not another bloc-driven game >_>
 
Since tech is going to be expanded through projects, in order to receive the benefits of certain tech, you'll have to invest in the projects.
 
God, no tech trading, at least not automatic tech trading! An over-complicated tech system is what ruined the last game!
 
@TLK Alright. I will not dissapoint



The Final Frontier on Earth- An excrept from the history textbook of the same name

The Republic of Alaska was orgionally a colony of Russia, establised 1741. From there on, Alaska was never free once. In 1867, it was sold to the USA almost right after the devestating civil war it had. 1912, it became a territory, and in 1959, Alaska became a state. Of course, as we all know, none of that infomation is important anymore. The world, as we all know, has changed rapidilly from the 21st Century, and few political things before the plauge have meaning now.

Following the collaspe of the civilized world, Cascadia down south took it their mission to "civilize" Alaska yet again. But disagreements to those hippies down south reached a boilng point, and massive civil protests in 2150s called for the independence of Alaska. Those politicians down south tried to coax the population that the union would work. The will of the Alaskan people, however, are stronger than any words, and on March 12, 2164, Alaska formally declared independence.

Showing their hippie lifestlyle, Cascadia whined but ultimitilly did nothing. At first, the capitol was the largest city, Anchorage. However, on July 22nd of the same year of independence, the capitol was moved back to its histoical location of Juneau. From the moment of independence, Alaska's main policy was international reconition and the securement of our northern brethen....

To: North America
From: Republic of Alaska


We wish, after our securment of freedom, to establish diplomatic ties to your nations. Your ambassadors are welcome in Juneau, and we wish the same for you.
 
I too am against the idea of tech alliances and easy tech trade.

I don't particularly like them too, but I just cant see any common sense justification why it should be impossible so I don't like the idea of banning it or making it needlessly difficult either.
 
To the Atlantic States
From the Dixie Republic

We'd like to discuss the fate of the state of Missouri. As it stands, the populace have strong cultural and historic ties to Dixie, but we do also notice you have several settlements in the eastern portion of the state. We are willing to offer some compensation to those settlers if they were to transfer control of the areas to Dixie authorities.
 
To: Dixie Republic
From: England


Might I suggest working out a border about halfway in between the old Missouri borders? The populace has had rather split ties, with the north section being rather un-Southern I would say.
 
Top Bottom