(RFC) The Mongol Horde

[inohotep]

@ilduce: you mean arabia (i think their's is the largest stability map)
also, i've never really seen America go past the great plains

 

[ilduce349]

No, WIM said Russias was to small, I was disagreeing

 

[W|M]

Stability maps with not enough stuff on them:

(Russia)

russias is fine...

No, WIM said Russias was to small, I was disagreeing

Russia has no Central Asia, no Baltics, no Finland, no Belarus, and only a tiny part of Alaska. It should have those, it historically controlled them

EDIT: Also no Manchuria or Northern Siberia.

 

[ilduce349]

So its still a massive stability map...

 

[inohotep]

you can never have too big a stability map...
also no Ukraine or Poland (pre-WWI empire)

 

[NinjaCow64]

I think that Mongolia has such a small map because it is intended for them to collapse. Because that’s what happened in real life. It expanded too much then it collapsed. Another way RFC parallels life life parallels RFC.

 

[Chieron]

Same holds for Russia, methinks. Poland, the Baltic states and Central Asia usually were unruly provinces that destabilized Russia, but not to the brink of collapse.
The American plots in Europe are probably there to make a WWII-like invasion possible

 

[Duke of Britain]

Same holds for Russia, methinks. Poland, the Baltic states and Central Asia usually were unruly provinces that destabilized Russia, but not to the brink of collapse.
The American plots in Europe are probably there to make a WWII-like invasion possible

lol. they won't attack like France or Germany because it is yellow in their stability map. if they enter a war with them then it's another history.
Also, the USA wasn't fighting alone in D-Day and etc
(if it had something to do with invasions, then england would have a lot of Africa, France and maybe some of Italy?)

 

[W|M]

you can never have too big a stability map...
also no Ukraine or Poland (pre-WWI empire)

At least Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is covered.

 

[ilduce349]

I think that Mongolia has such a small map because it is intended for them to collapse. Because that’s what happened in real life. It expanded too much then it collapsed. Another way RFC parallels life life parallels RFC.

It didn't collapse like so, it held its land for hundreds of years, just under different names (Golden Horde was very much Mongolia)

The American plots in Europe are probably there to make a WWII-like invasion possible

lol. they won't attack like France or Germany because it is yellow in their stability map. if they enter a war with them then it's another history.
Also, the USA wasn't fighting alone in D-Day and etc
(if it had something to do with invasions, then england would have a lot of Africa, France and maybe some of Italy?)

Canada contributed more then America on D-Day... (Our beach was considered the toughest beach to storm, and we were the only ones to complete our objectives on time...)

England should have green in France, to represent the hundred years war...

 

[Chieron]

The Hundred Year's War did destabilize England, though, at least far less than the invasion in Europe did to the US.
The continental possessions of England were a rest of the lands of the royal family, not a real English territory (part of France for most of the time, though ruled by the English king)

 

[ilduce349]

Still, I would like it if RFC incorporated a possible victory for the Dual Kingdoms over France, considering that they were 2 months from victory in 1421

 

[Duke of Britain]

Yea, England had claims in France, if they had won, then they wouldn't be England and France, it would be just one country (probably Angevin Empire)


What destabilized England at the time was the war of the Roses, if Henry V hadn't died that early :
1. England would've crushed France with almost no trouble
2. the War of the roses wouldn't have happened, allowing England to keep its advances in France

 

[ilduce349]

actually it already had a name.

During the 100 years rule the King of England was also known as the Dual Monarch, as he claimed to be King of Both England and France.

During the war England was known as the Dual Kingdoms of England and France.

In 1421, Charles V of France, announced that his heir was Henry V, and that if England was winning the war when he died, then Henry would be crowned Henry II of France.

However 2 months before Charles died, Henry got dysentery and passed away from the disease. And as a result, there would be no surrender from France.

 

[W|M]

Dual Kingdoms?

Firstly, English kings had claimed to be King of England, King of France and some other titles, but never dual monarch of England and France.

Secondly, it was Charles VI (known as The Mad) who signed the Treaty of Troyes. Also, Henry V didn't get the French crown under the Treaty, it was his heir, Henry VI.

Thirdly, the main reason Henry VI didn't get the throne was because the nobles in the South (many from Armagnac) would not accept Henry VI, and continued to support Charles VI's son as the heir to the French throne.

 

[ilduce349]

Oh really:
Firstly, England under Henry VI did claim dual monarchies of England and France

Secondly it was Henry V who signed the Treaty of Troyes, not Henry VI

Thirdly, the main reason France refused to accept Henry VI as their king was because of his age.
You'll note the war of the roses started shortly afterwards, as people regarded Henry VI to be rather incompetent

 

[Chieron]

The Angevin Empire was still merely two crowns on the same head, the kings were bound to (and did) neglect one part of the empire (mostly England until France was lost finally) all the time. It was more the Anjous trying to become king of France while being kings of England in their spare time than a real unification movement. I doubt that this would've worked out to the point of Frengland existing today, had they won, one country would've rebelled after some time.

Point is, the Angevin Empire is not intended in RFC, at least not for a long time without investment into stability.
Same for the Mongols, which should collapse (as they did).
Russia lacks the troubling areas, because they are also contested with other nations (the German-Poland-Austria amalgam) and because they were mostly occupied, not part of the empire proper.
America can have and needs the European areas, as stability later would be a really big issue.
All my views, but there is meaning to most stability maps, methinks. Last Offtopic post for me.

 

[ilduce349]

America in Europe still makes little sense...

 

[trexeric]

America in Europe still makes little sense...

In my opinion, I think it is because of the Revolutionary War.

If America continued on into Europe after the Revolution, with a large amount of troops, they might have been able to capture parts of Europe. But that's just a possibility. Maybe it was just a mistake?

I don't think it would be because of WWII invasions, because then Morocco (Operation Torch) would be on there, and many other places (and why would England be on there?)

 

[ilduce349]

NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!!!!!!!
England=World power
America=insignificant nation that wasn't even the regional power until the 1840s