North America Buildup

[Carthaginian]

Quebec/Acadia does have a LOT of advantages- a long, almost impenetrable coastline, access to 'open territory' and a good historical basis for shipbuilding and industrialization.
However, it's advantages are not as 'advantageous' as they appear.

Most of my coast is ice-bound a good portion of the year- meaning that I am easily blockaded.
Much of the 'easily conquered territory' has rather inclement weather- and that which does not, Snip and I are already having good-natured jousting matches over OoC. I am not the only player, after all, that looks upon that fertile farmland with covetous eyes. ;)
Again, with an ice-bound coast and very little internal infrastructure, I must spend a goodly amount of my initial effort on bringing my area's transportation and communication infrastructure up to par! I'm going to have to design icebreakers for my ports and refit old warships to serve as 'traveling capitals' to patrol the Hudson Bay area. I'm going to have to build canals to get around a myriad of falls on the Lakes, and on smaller rivers and lakes in my territory.

And I'll have to upgrade the communications of my western areas to something more efficient than "the next dogsled arrives at half-past February... SHARP!"

So, while it may look like I have a lot going for me, I'm really in no better position than anyone else.

That's pretty much the point of the map- every area has good and bad points- and most of us chose those for ourselves when we outlined out our personal area of operations.

[Logi]

That is part of my point, Carth. People seem to think the Carribean have this ungodly advantage when it has a huge number of drawbacks as well.

The Florida portion is mostly swamp territory. The Yucatan borders Mexico, a large land power and is hard to defend. The islands of the nation are very spread out and hard to defend, especially since all the nearby PC nations can pretty much strike at any portion. The Gulf is Hurricane zone, so there is a high chance of hurricanes causing losses (though I doubt the mods will simulate that).

There is a lack of mineral wealth, which although it might be more than Japan's still doesn't make it exactly sufficient.

I have to build a large navy, protect the extreme far-flings of the nation, protect against land invasion (which I will be undoubtedly weak against). It does not help that Florida and the Yucatan make up land portions of the island nation (which will undoubtedly make their losses more severe).

Sure I may be closer than Texas to South America, but at least Texas don't have to defend a whole gulf. Not to mention I can't even "control" the gulf by blockading Texas or Mexico, I think it would hurt both blockader and blockadee as bad.

[Carthaginian]

Yeah- every tactical and strategic situation a nation finds itself in will have good and bad points.

T.C.,
Texas will have good mineral wealth, lots of fertile farmland, a lot of inland waterways for trade... and a very short coastline to defend. That is a very good advantage- it can concentrate it's forces to mount a respectable defense while still having forces available for deployment abroad.

Sure, you are 'hemmed in' but that makes you a tough- if not impossible- nut to crack because your enemy has very few options on where and how to hit you, while you have nothing to do but circle the wagons and wait for him to walk into a neatly-constructed contingency plan. Meanwhile, your largely self-sufficient nation simply conducts overland trade with it's neighbors for it's few imported necessities and whittles down it's opponent.

Unless a coalition involving one of your adjacent PC neighbors attacks you, you are virtually guaranteed security.

I would call that a great advantage.

[Korpen]

I believe the Discussion revolved around starting position.  We are trying to make things as fair as we possibly can for the starting nations.   A Nation with no Land Borders to Guard has an advantage [See England]  But with The PI and the Carribean being very closely positioned to areas open for Colonial Exploitation and Expansion well we wanted to avoid this if at all possible.

In what way would remoteness or proximity matter much? The acquisition of colonies does after all have very little to do with events in the colony, it is all about what other states of substance recognise as belonging (colony, protectorate, possession, allied satrapy or what it might be called) to you. It is a diplomatic, not a military issue for and foremost.

[ctwaterman]

Ok...

Putting Aside where and when our Nations became established and such or even our languages.

Im thinking my Nation the Southern US States... will be called hmmmm

United Confederation of American States [UCAS] or Maybe
United Confederated States of America [UCSA] ??

It would be a loose Confederation of States with a weaker central Governement.
I would use the US Articles of Confederation as a model and insert a few more powers to the Central Government.

All told the States would have their own Militia and would spend a portion of that states Revenue within its own borders.  This would result in lots of Fortifications along the borders and a decent sized Militia Army in all the States [Reserves].  Some of the States will have their own Navys either Ocean going or Riverten.

[miketr]

Apparently Mexico doesn't count.

Siam can colonize the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Oceania.
Iberia can colonize almost all of Africa, and is in a good position to block other nations from expanding there.
Quebec can colonize all of the unsettled northern lands of NA as well as expand into the NPC Alaska and central plains.

I am not the only person in a position to capitalize. Me controlling the Carribean islands does not automatically make it so no one else can expand there. It does not mean automatically everyone is blocked from South America. For that matter, I never asked for the Yucatan, so Mexico could just have it.

If we use that sort of argument, I could argue the same for a whole variety of nations. But I don't and you single out the Carribean. It is in a position no more advantageous that a few other PC nations.

You seem to think as long as a nation exists it will block everyone from colonization. It doesn't, and nor do I have much interest in colonization.

North Africa is NOT wide open.  Its going its going to be two Muslim States (Barbary Coast & Sultanate of Egypt) and then the Sahara.  There is a barrier to just going south in Europe.

Mexico will be blocked by a NPC, etc.

Logi this next part is not just directed at you.

PEOPLE!  There are going to NPC's in the game and uncivilized lands.  Please pay attention to the difference.

If people want to you can blitz the NPC's but there will be a cost to this.  The game is not risk.  Territory from NPC's will resist conquest, they will continue to resist after conquest and if people do nothing but wipe the NPC's the I will spend the rest of the game writing revolt stories. 

If you want to try to carve off bits of civilized lands the rewards will be higher but so will be the costs.  Expect it to have problems for some time when you rip off provinces from such lands.  Player or NPC doesn't matter.  IE I expect stories from the players about how they are dealing with the on going problem of these conquered lands.

Uncivilized lands, white space are another matter.

That is all.

Michael

[snip]

Running with the Nameing thing here, I have been doing some brainstorming on mine. Most of the major waterways have new names:

o   Columbia -> Yekateriny reki (Catherine's River)
o   Willamette -> Novye Kama (New Kama)
o   Snake -> Vostochnoi? Dvina (Eastern Dvina)
o   Juan de Fuca Strait -> Novye Karskogo moray (New Kara Sea)
o   Puget Sound -> Novye Sankt-Peterburge zvuka (New St. Petersburg Sound)

As well as some cities:

o   Seattle -> Novye Sankt-Peterburge (New St. Petersburg)
o   Portland -> Novyi? Kiev (New Kiev)
o   Astoria-> Novyi? Sevastopol? (New Sevastopol)
o   Vancouver -> Novaya Moskva (New Moscow)
o   Victoria -> Yekaterina (Catherine)

And I am down to three choices on the name:

Soyuz novoi? Rossii [SNR] (Union of New Russia)
or
Soyuz kolonial?nym Rossii [SKR] (Union of Colonial Russia)
or
Soyuza Respublik kolonial?nym Rossiyu [SRKR] (Union of Colonial Russian Republics)

What do the rest of you think?

Also a request about the map: Would it be ok if I grabed the island that holds Sitka Alaska to give me a more well known option for a northern base? I would give up some territory to make this happen if need be.

[Desertfox]

Looking good guys. And yes I wanted Mexico. Any chance I could have San Diego?  Could use a decent port in the northern part of the country. The economic heart of California shouldn't be affected.  

[Walter]

Snip, I would think that your people would have some pride and probably not use anything 'Colonial' in the name, although Mother Russia itself might see it as and call it a colony. I would go for "Union of New Russia".

[Desertfox]

Just realized I am the only one with two distinctly separate coastlines. Any chance of adding all or part of Nicaragua? Or at least a very friendly and open to canal discussions NPC to the South?

[TexanCowboy]

Here we go, guys, the official Texican backstory; details about our individual nations will be filled in later.

1790: Catholic Monarchy collapses and is replaced by something else (or some other major event in the same vein occurs), causing Mexico to rebel.

1795: Mexican sovereignty and independence is recognized by many nations, including Iberia.

1805: Some series of events in the Caribbean forces Mexico to cede Florida and the Yucatan to another power (probably Logi's, although it could be someone elses), through the use of extensive military and economic pressure.

1817: Texas Revolution; supported by certain outside nations (preferably the CSA), with much more extensive white settlement having occured. Texan independence is sealed at the battle of San Jacinto; however, borders are not fully established (are set at the Mexican claimed OTL ones, but Texas claims the borders it did OTL)

1828: Due to supposed border violations by both sides, Texas and Mexico go to war. The war is a stalemate, however, due to a foreign army (preferably Confederate, Caribbean, Acadian, or North American) landing at Vera Cruz (but being stopped by Mexican forces there), Mexico recognizes the eastern part of New Mexico, the Big Bend region, and other territories to the north of that as Texan territory. Texas and Mexico still claim the region in between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.

1849: Texas and Mexico fight the 3rd Texican war. Results in a sound Texan victory, securing the border at the Rio Grande and the providence of Monterray. Mexican naval victories here cause the Texan navy to attempt to improve on a massive scale, through increases in size and technology; however, Texan land victories cause the same process to occur on land for Mexico, although not on quite the same level.

1864: Texas and Mexico go to war again. This war, with much more predominant naval action then the other three wars, leads to both sides realizing by 1867 that they desperately need ironclads, fast, after an equivelent of the Battle of Lissa (Texan victory). Mexico wins this war, with Monterry being returned to Mexican rule.

[ctwaterman]

The Question Tex is which of us Controls the City of New Orleans or is the City the Twin Citys of New Orleans with a West and East Bank in 2 different countries.

Honestly we need to work that out even if it is to create the Free City of New Orleans under both our protection.   

I can understand the Free Booters out of Louisiana and Mississippi creating a state in Texas.   They were always looking for Cheap and or Free Land :)

Charles

[TexanCowboy]

Yeah, that might be a problem, considering a bunch of my naval history relys on New Orleans.

I prefer the Twin Cities method; I mean, it's feasible, and its not much different then seperating some of those Mexican/Texan border towns, or Alexandria and D.C.

How's this sound, twin cities, but with the equivelent of a free city status; in which the city government is combined into one city government.

Heh, its gonna be that wierd mixture of Cajuns, Mexicans, Indians, freebooters, and probably some refugee Italians, Germans, Poles, etc.

[Desertfox]

Just noticed that Santa Fe and most of Albuquerque are on the wrong side of El Rio Grande, that is completely unacceptable. *begins planning their liberation*

So any chance of shifting the California-Mexico border north by 20 miles?

[Carthaginian]

Heh, its gonna be that wierd mixture of Cajuns, Mexicans, Indians, freebooters, and probably some refugee Italians, Germans, Poles, etc.

No Cajuns, Tex...

The Acadians are never forced out of Canada- in fact, they are the primary population group of both my country's southern half and Darman's northern half. They never wound up in Louisiana, never developed a taste for crustaceans, and never wrestled alligators for money.