Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[Luckymoose]

If you think Brazil is getting too uppity I will gladly remedy that for you.

From a purely OOC viewpoint, yes. Brazil is getting uppity, but there isn't a whole lot Britain can do about it at this point. The same goes for Japan. Britain could have stopped Japan from becoming what it is today by getting involved in the Pacific War. Britain could go to war with either of them, but there'd be nothing to gain and everything to lose as of 1938.

@TLJ: Yeah, they wouldn't have unconditional military support. Conditional, though...

@Luckymoose: Your tidbits were picked out from the first five samples of the issue that I could find since the update. I COULD go back and find ample examples from everyone including myself. The fact is, the main thread has been derailed one too many times, and I'm sick of dealing with complaints about it. I figure when you get to a point where you're sick of hearing complaints, the proper solution is to actually fix the problem. From here on out, going to have an iron hand on the issue, regardless of who the culprit may be.

That's fine, but I don't want to appear as the singled out party in all of this.

On the former oh yes indeed. The masters of Britain and Germany seemingly have voluntarily emasculated themselves in an absurd bid to pander to liberal opinion and doctrine (in the case of the former) or due to sheer inertia and lack of will (in the case of the latter). Both of them whatever the means of their failures seemingly don't realise that the struggle for dominion is an all in exercise, either you commit to it and actively propagate your interests or you let your competitors slowly strip away your strength (as we see with Russia's ever-increasing influence in Europe).

Saying this (and here I go to your second point lucky), if Britain and Germany awoke from their "sleep of reason" and actually started to assert authority, and actively defend their national interests publically. Well the broader (as compared to their natural regional) influence of Brazil and Japan would swiftly melt away.

I don't think Britain or Germany could do a whole lot about Brazil and Japan anymore. Germany tried economic sanctions, but that failed. They certainly won't be allowed to sail across the Atlantic to force anything on Brazil. The same goes for Britain, really. Attacks on the Americas would just shift politics out of their favor even more so than it already is. Both of them depend on Americans too much to risk burning bridges like that.

That said, the British navy is pretty good, but it isn't drastically superior to the Brazilian navy. It would be a definite slog on a scale far worse than the US-Japan of OTL. I must say it would be interesting to find out who'd win.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Well, treating it as a hypothetical situation isolated of all other worldly affairs: there was actually quite a lot Britain could have done to neutralize the current status of Brazil. Choosing to fully back Argentina in the recent Uruguayan Crisis would likely have led to a war which would have allowed Britain to destroy Brazil's navy, eliminating the primary naval competitor in the region. The British could have mustered more than enough force to destroy Brazil's navy and he wouldn't have had to get involved on land, as I suspect that Argentina plus any other supporters in South America would have been enough to win quickly enough against Brazil. With the order revision point passed and the issue resolved, I have to say, I think the Uruguayan situation was a missed chance for any number of powers interested in cutting Brazil down a bit. Of course, considering other global situations, it may have been a properly missed opportunity.

 

[Luckymoose]

Well, treating it as a hypothetical situation isolated of all other worldly affairs: there was actually quite a lot Britain could have done to neutralize the current status of Brazil. Choosing to fully back Argentina in the recent Uruguayan Crisis would likely have led to a war which would have allowed Britain to destroy Brazil's navy, eliminating the primary naval competitor in the region. The British could have mustered more than enough force to destroy Brazil's navy and he wouldn't have had to get involved on land, as I suspect that Argentina plus any other supporters in South America would have been enough to win quickly enough against Brazil. With the order revision point passed and the issue resolved, I have to say, I think the Uruguayan situation was a missed chance for any number of powers interested in cutting Brazil down a bit. Of course, considering other global situations, it may have been a properly missed opportunity.

I didn't get to where I am today without convincing great powers against their best interests. Besides, I think the power of the British navy is overstated. In a fair match up of carrier fleets the Brazilians have the quality edge in both flat tops and sailors.

On that point, what is the benefit of having 19 naval quality? Does it mean anything compared to Italy's 7? Does the use of actual carriers in combat give Japan and Brazil and edge over new carrier fleets like it did for those participants in OTL?

 

[Jehoshua]

From a purely OOC viewpoint, yes. Brazil is getting uppity, but there isn't a whole lot Britain can do about it at this point. The same goes for Japan. Britain could have stopped Japan from becoming what it is today by getting involved in the Pacific War. Britain could go to war with either of them, but there'd be nothing to gain and everything to lose as of 1938.

@TLJ: Yeah, they wouldn't have unconditional military support. Conditional, though...

Lucky I think is correct on the matter that Britain has few direct options with regards to "putting Brazil in its place". The whole "lets attack the ascendants" thing which has already been discussed, saw to that along with their failure to actively sustain their authority. EDIT: As to Germany, the failure of its embargo was due to the diminution of its authority due to its ultimately voluntary emasculation. I insist that if Circuit and Nintz started acting as great powers normally would, they could quickly regain influence and power.

On a related matter to the general point of influence though... Its something thats very hard to quantify, and if we disassociate it from hard power we see some very incongruous and interesting things. The Holy See for example is very influential, perhaps more so than any single other power (I do suggest things that I think are in the Church's interest to people, such as a certain Spanish dominion promise for instance; and Italy voluntarily relinquished the Holy Land to the Pope without me even asking.) because of the enormity of its Church, but its economic and military strength are mediocre. (although far superior to Chokwelands )

I think the Uruguayan situation was a missed chance for any number of powers interested in cutting Brazil down a bit. Of course, considering other global situations, it may have been a properly missed opportunity.

Quite so, but Britain I think rightly refrained from intervening since it had a NAP. If it had intervened and broke the pact it would of lost serious face, and forfeited all credibility with regards to international treaties, deals and so forth. Ergo Britain intervening may have put Brazil in its place, but it could of potentially been a killer blow to any prospects of a renaissance of British power, since it would of lost credibility and the ability to obtain (or regain) the strong allegiance of other states.

 

[christos200]

I corrected this, but added a note. Brazil was a supporter of Chowkeland. It is hard to know exactly what one is doing when dealing with Christos, however.

I would be willing to sign a military alliance. Also, because this turn I will gain access to the sea (because I bought Ovambo territory with just 5 EP's), I would be willing to buy Brazilian ships.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I did say all other elements aside, taken solely as an instance alone.

As I've discussed in the past, quality is just a number that is used when all other elements are equal. As this doesn't happen very often, quality is rarely a significant factor in battle. More important are the number of ships involved, the types of ships involves, and most significantly of all, the tactics the player uses leading up to the battle.

@Christos: As discussed in PM, the territory you bought is worthless, has no ports, natural harbors, or anything beyond the tiniest fishing villages. There is no infrastructure of any kind leading to the coast, and no facilities there to actually house or maintain a naval vessel. Keep that in mind before you start building a navy.

 

[christos200]

I know this. That's why I will begin a project to build a Port-city in that area.

 

[Jehoshua]

With money you neither have, or are likely to acquire in the future...

 

[Luckymoose]

I would be willing to sign a military alliance. Also, because this turn I will gain access to the sea (because I bought Ovambo territory with just 5 EP's), I would be willing to buy Brazilian ships.

There'd be little to gain from a direct alliance with you for a number of reasons. You should definitely be kowtowing to Brazilian international corporations, though.

@EQ: I think quality should definitely be considered when the superior force is outnumbered. It doesn't matter that the Italian fleet is larger than the Brazilian fleet, in a hypothetical encounter, when the sailors have no real world experience to build on in modern naval combat (as shown by having nearly 1/3rd the quality). Using carriers effectively isn't something you just have. Japanese and Brazilian naval aviators/sailors/officers should be some of the highest in demand in the world based entirely on the Pacific War.

 

[christos200]

With money you neither have, or are likely to acquire in the future...

So you think and in a few turns, you will be proved wrong.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Like I said, navy quality is used when there are no other considerations or when other conditions are not met. Let's say hypothetically that the Italian and Brazilian navies are entering into battle with roughly the same number/quality of ships. Here are the scenarios:

1. Neither of you include any detailed orders.

2. Only one of you includes detailed orders.

3. Both parties include detailed war plans and orders.

In situation 3, the superior plan would emerge triumphant. Superior of course is a word that could be argued about as objective, but in this case it means: If your enemy is able to correctly predict what you're up to, and his plans manage to put him in a far superior tactical position, he will most likely win. If neither plan is superior, then yes, it would come down to navy quality somewhat in how each side reacts and interacts.

In situation 1, this would be a circumstance in which the NPC Admirals would dictate planning and so forth for both sides, and yes, the navy quality will affect the quality of said NPC plans.

In situation 2, if say the Italians have an actual plan, and Brazil just says, "NPCs do whatever you need to" the advantage will be weighted towards the Italians, assuming the plans are at least decent, as the Italians will have the initiative.

 

[Luckymoose]

Strategic planning is fine and all, but on the tactical level that we can't control, the NPC's manning those ships/planes should be considered in how the course of the battle actually goes. A squad of insurgents in Afghanistan is no match for a squad of Marines, no matter what their commanders might think.

 

[Jehoshua]

So you think and in a few turns, you will be proved wrong.

The only way you'd get the 1 to 2 hundred EP (or more) required to finish the project quickly would be if someone gave that money to you. Now considering the whole suicidal lunacy that occurred in Burgundy (I do hope you learnt something from that, and no longer persist in vain self-justification) people are quite inclined one would think to consider carefully their engagements with you. After the investment is unlikely to outweigh the risk when any bond is with a potentially rogue actor, is it not?

 

[christos200]

I never said that I will complete it fast. I am ready to pay for the project for 12 or more turns.

 

[Shadowbound]

I never said that I will complete it fast. I am ready to pay for the project for 12 or more turns.

You're going to benefit more from building a giant statue in your capital than naval facilities, seeing as either way your country will still be riddled with warlords, have no functioning infrastructure or civil government, lack basic support facilities, a reliable tax base, etc etc.

At the very least a monument to your own greatness would look cool.

 

[Jehoshua]

So I am right in that you lack the money to adequately fund the project in a reasonable timeframe, and that in pursuing this white elephant you're consigning Chokweland to the likelihood of perpetual degeneracy. (for after the port comes the navy, and after the navy the airforce ). Oh and statues of idiotic leaders are made for toppling, he'd best start nation-building before he embarks on that voyage.

 

[TheLastJacobite]

I never said that I will complete it fast. I am ready to pay for the project for 12 or more turns.

Hello, I am the leader of an African nation. I have an exciting business opportunity for you! For $1 million, you can invest in our new port city! Please send the money in cash directly to:

Government
Chokweland
Africa
Thank you for your contribution!

EDIT: Aw, I can't do it in all caps

 

[Shadowbound]

Oh and statues of idiotic leaders are made for toppling, he'd best start nation-building before he embarks on that voyage.

Not if you make it big enough.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I must agree with Shadowbound: Go for awesome statues. The bigger the better! It'll put people to work, improve the amount of inputs and providing valuable engineering experience! It's a win-win.

 

[christos200]

I prefer to build Chokwe industry.