SKNES III: Bullets with Butterfly Wings

Imagine the difficulties you'd have trying to play a highly superstitious, 7-day Creationist who doesn't believe in science in modern times and you'll see how much of a problem I have though. It's merely recognising my limitations.

Just my 2 cents: As a atheist and a person of color having played two borderline-theocratic nations and now a nation that seceded to keep the right to own non-white people, I think knowing what you can and cannot play is quite important before choosing your nation.

EDIT: Oops, started this post before the previous two were posted. Apologies.
 
SK, you specifically said EXPERIENCED, not COMPETENT. It would be unfair of you to backtrack on that question now. Whether I am a competent NESer or not, I am very clearly an Experienced NESer.
 
lurker's comment: Yes but competency is sort of implied; an 'experienced' heart surgeon is presumably not somebody who hacks someone open with a butcher's cleaver and leaves them on the table to die.

Which is essentially what you've done with Austria-Hungary.

The best thing you could do would be to resign and take a nation that's more within your capability level.
 
I disagree. SK could have easily said competent, but he chose to say experienced. A reasonable man would say he meant experienced, not competent. Even if that isn't what he meant, it's not my fault if I misunderstood. Hence, it would be unfair to remove me now.

In the real world, specific qualifications would be asked after. Here, there weren't.
 
I think clearly the best possible solution is to give Austria-Hungary to arya.
 
SK never gave himself the right to kick out players. It would be unfair of him to claim it on an ex post facto basis.
 
Dear god, this is going to turn into stazNES II. Can we move this discussion elsewhere, please. Seriously, take it to WWW.
 
Out of curiosity, what happened there?
 
Ask again in WWW. Let's not continue the conversation here. Respectfully, if Birdjaguar sees this, could you delete some of these posts and clean up this thread? Let's stay on track and get back to the NES.
 
From Austria
To the New German Powers

Many of you have alliances with us. You would be going back on your word if your new pact takes precedence over your old agreement.

We would very much like to join this German pact on the terms discussed anyway. As we have said in the past, we seek strong alliances as a counterweight to France. This would give us them.

It is in the opinion of The Kingdom of Prussia that Austria-Hungary does not meet all the qualities necessary to join the German-Customs Union, and thus is disqualified from membership.
 
It is in the opinion of The Kingdom of Prussia that Austria-Hungary does not meet all the qualities necessary to join the German-Customs Union, and thus is disqualified from membership.

Why should Austria be disqualified from membership? Particularly given that several of the powers in the new union have effectively reneged upon alliances with Austria, you had better give us some actual reasoning.

If it is the fact Austria holds many non-German territories, we would point out that this has not stopped Austria from leading the Holy Roman Empire for centuries.
 
OOC:

Just for reference.

"In the German and Italian wars things seemed to be unraveling for the Coalition. George III, now solely Elector of Hanover, had withdrawn from the war after abdicating the British throne depriving the Coalition of an important ally and forever earning him the enmity of the reformist states and Prussia. The French had counter-attacked and were now across the Rhine in the north while slowly liberating Bavaria from the Austrians. The Prussian drive into Saxony was more successful however and was soon threatening Dresden. A huge defeat near Marburg in early 1797 by a combined Franco-Saxon force was a major setback for the Prussians. At Marburg the neglect of the Prussian army under Frederick William II was made obvious as the Prussian infantry lacked the precision and ferocity of the past and were outmatched by the more experienced French troops. The Austrians meanwhile were in a bad state. They were being driven back in Italy and South Germany, the Balkans were being gobbled up by the bear and the Poles were moving into the border having ended their Civil War. The aging Joseph II was now beginning to consider making peace with France and Bavaria to avoid total collapse. The Bavarians achieved a shock victory near Innsbruck in November and Frederick-Augusts took this moment to announce his new title of Frederick-Augusts I King of Saxony and Bavaria, and renouncing any obedience to the Holy Roman Empire or its emperor Joseph. France immediately backed this move and encouraged other allied German states to follow suit. Ironically this gave Joseph an opportunity to solve the Hungarian crisis. In late 1797 he, and his supporters, pushed through a new constitution which gave the Hungarians increased authority and a parliament at Budapest, subservient to Vienna. Abandoning the Imperial title, now bereft of any true meaning, he decided to unify the two halves of his realm completely and on November 10th 1797 declared the United Empire of Austria and Hungary (or the Austro-Hungarian Empire) claiming a new title of Emperor and renouncing the position of Holy Roman Emperor, a move that placated the Hungarians and seemed to win over the support of much of the nobility in both halves of the new Empire. Freed from the internal difficulty more troops could be sent to stem the enemy advance in the west. After over eight hundred years of existence the ancient Holy Roman Empire had ceased to exist. "

-Direwolf22
 
That's true. I knew perfectly well the HRE no longer exists. I was using it as an example of past history which is useful for my case.
 
Holy Roman Empire =\= Germany.
 
Why should Austria be disqualified from membership? Particularly given that several of the powers in the new union have effectively reneged upon alliances with Austria, you had better give us some actual reasoning.

If it is the fact Austria holds many non-German territories, we would point out that this has not stopped Austria from leading the Holy Roman Empire for centuries.

There are a plethora of reasons, certainly the fact you hold non-German lands being one of them.
 
Your Union is getting more and more irrationally nationalistic. Austria demands an assurance that the German states have no desire to fully unite Germany. As any attempt would involve invading our lands, if we get no such assurance we will consider it as good as a declaration of war.
 
The Kingdom of Prussia speaks alone in this matter, but we will not cower to Austrian threats, when such threats are unwarranted and frankly, unnecessary.
 
What say the other states of Germany? Given the nationalism of our era, unless you are willing to renounce any ambition to take lands off Austria then your declaration of a German union excluding us is as good as a declaration of war.
 
Lurker's comment: NWAG, as much as I want to help you out, I realize that any advice that I give to you will be ignored like so many others. Nevertheless, let me give you an advice.

You are looking at the word "Liberal," and deciding "eek bleeeh ignore," instead of considering all the wonderful ways that it can be used to devise new ways for oppression. I would personally start by making a new reform that makes private ownership of firearms illegal and study of German mandatory and move up from there.

So what if you don't understand the 'hypocrite' emperor. Screw that man. Think of new ways to subvert, not utterly smash the framework.
 
Also I would like to note that threatening an entire union of nation who combined can easily more than match your forces is usually hazardous to your health.
 
Top Bottom