North America Buildup

[Korpen]

The issues we're presently discussing here are examples of the several that Charles and I have foreseen for the nation you wanted to construct in the Caribbean. .

Indulge us, what are the issues? Lack of mineral wealth?
Size wise, Florida with Cuba and Hispaniola is larger then the UK.

I'm sorry, I thought the PM from a couple of days ago was definitive

definitely maybe? ;)

We are so few that I do feel we should try and accommodate the basic wishes for most potential players within reason.
So Logi;s main concern is that he (I assume Logi is a he) want an island nation, or rather, a nation that do not have significant land borders. Texas concerns seems to be about being able to send raiders into the Atlantic. It does not feel like it should be impossible to reach an agreement that works for everyone based on that.

[TexanCowboy]

It's not so much raiders as that I want a securish line that I can send merchants along. But yeah, a compromise should be possible.

If we could come up with rational for a canal, perhaps through Lake Okeechobee (its all mainly low-lying, flat, swamping country), that would solve my qualms.

[Korpen]

It's not so much raiders as that I want a securish line that I can send merchants along. But yeah, a compromise should be possible.
If we could come up with rational for a canal, perhaps through Lake Okeechobee (its all mainly low-lying, flat, swamping country), that would solve my qualms.

Ok, if I take the function of opposition: Is that really a realistic objective to have in an armed conflict? Bases or no, it would be much closer to Red's homeland bases (if that is still Florida) then your own, and far from support. But you have excellent interior waterways (the mouth of Mississippi if I read the map right) that should lessen the critical need for shipments over the gulf in case of a war with red. Having secure sea lines in promoxity to any enemy in a war is a scenario that is not realistic for any country; and not something I think is a realistic ambition.

[TexanCowboy]

I want secure access to the Atlantic or South America so that I can get colonies, which seems to be one of the main parts of this game.

[Korpen]

I want secure access to the Atlantic or South America so that I can get colonies, which seems to be one of the main parts of this game.

I fail to see the connection. Colonies in "new" (read: Africa) land was after all an effect of pretty much lone adventures followed by diplomatic negotiations (and recognitions) with other powers, any military efforts in the colony only came afterwards if needed. Colonial wars was after all not with other colonial powers, but rather subjections of peoples that other
Colonial powers already recognise as belonging to the power in question.

Unless at war with read there is no reason why your lines of communications trough the Caribbean should not be crystal clear. If at war I suspect that the colonies would not be the main consideration in any case as they would most likely go to the winner in the home front war.

So in what way do you feel some Atlantic bases would make any difference in colonial enterprises?

[ctwaterman]

Germany In N4 Europe might want secure access to the same locations but they are still constrained  by Geography.

Now a Nation located in the Carribean would be spread out over many Islands.  But its largest trading Partners in N4 would be CSA [Me] and Texas [Tex].   Yes it would have the ability to interdict Texas and CSA Commerce into and out of the Gulf.  To do so would be to be blunt a very bad Idea as the Largest Commercial Port in the CSA and in Texas are both Probably located at the Entrance to the Mississippi River.  This is going on the assumption that our border in Louisiana is the Mississippi river [Not yet shown on any of the Maps].

To Interdict our trade and prevent the use of the Carribean to one of us would probably have economic impact to all of us.  And to be blunt it would be down right rude.   Given the Proximity of all three nations to each other  in this region that probably is not a good Roleplaying Idea to make an enemy that close to home.

I see no reason In Character that such nations could form a very profitable costal trade with each other.  All trading for things that each have that the others do not.  Sugar for Cotton and Cattle and Beans, Rice and Corn from the CSA.  Iron Ore and Timber from Minnesota the US North East Shipped down the Ohio to the Mississippi and then on to the Carribean.

A War in the Carribean because any one nation tried to seize control of certain passages like the Straits of Florida would be bad for everyone.

Charles

[TexanCowboy]

Yes, it should be on the Mississippi. Maybe we should adjust for that...I don't really think I need all of Louisiana, just the parts to the west of the Mississippi.

[Carthaginian]

If Gran Colombia and the Confederacy could avoid going to blows in the Gulf, then anyone can.

Guinness, as far as I can see there is absolutely no reason that Logi shouldn't be able to have the claim that he has staked...  it'll be all about player interaction, but it should be workable.

[TexanCowboy]

It's just that...I feel I'd be perfectly content at this point if at least Florida was an NPC. I mean, Logi himself stated he doesn't want much to do with Land Warfare, and having Florida as an NPC will create a bit of a buffer in a very "PC" region.

[Korpen]

It's just that...I feel I'd be perfectly content at this point if at least Florida was an NPC. I mean, Logi himself stated he doesn't want much to do with Land Warfare, and having Florida as an NPC will create a bit of a buffer in a very "PC" region.

Why not the yucatan instead? It would have the same effect.

[TexanCowboy]

Cause the Yucatan, although in an important region, doesn't control as critical an access point as Florida.

[ctwaterman]

The issues we're presently discussing here are examples of the several that Charles and I have foreseen for the nation you wanted to construct in the Caribbean. .

Indulge us, what are the issues? Lack of mineral wealth?
Size wise, Florida with Cuba and Hispaniola is larger then the UK.

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.

As for Size and Mineral wealth well The Carribean probably has more the Japan does so that was not really a factor in my Consideration.

[Logi]

By that logic, England, Iberia, Scandinavia, Japan, Siam, and Quebec have distinct advantages. They all have minimal land borders with PC nations.

Of the lot, Iberia, Siam, and Quebec have advantages from being very closely positioned to areas open for Colonial Exploitation and Expansion.

They are all PC nations. Of that, the Carribean Islands, whilst also close to expansion and having minimal land borders, also have the distinct disadvantage of being very spread out over islands, much more so than the other PC nations, making it harder to defend.

If anything, the Carribean Islands have the least advantages of the close to colonial expansion countries.

[TexanCowboy]

No, the Caribbean has advantages; South America is wide open to colonization, and your basically the only person in a position to capitalize on it.

[Logi]

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.