North America Buildup

[TexanCowboy]

Ok, on the things I can effect....

You're right. Pretty much everything north of Oklahoma is controlled by native tribes friendly to Texas, and that have been paid off in order to claim the land for Texas. :) The Cheyenne and the Apharo were the tribes I were going for. Of course, this is going to make expanding into Kansas a PITA with the Sioux and the Pawnee.

I gave up some land in Arkansas and Missouri. Maybe this would all work out better if we cut some of the NEUSA off, and gave you back parts of Missouri.

On the Arkansas issue...not really. I was going to have significant French settlement in the region, and refugees, etc. Basically, the area is controlled by your outlaws, ruffians, but with jurisdiction over by Texas. I also envision massive immigration due to free land grants to all immigrants (640 acres minimum, it worked OTL) populating that area.

My view is that Arkansas, Lousiana, Texas, New Mexico, parts of Eastern Oklahoma, and everything south of the Red River/Arkansas is "settled", even if it's in the style of the gancho's. Everything else is paid off tribes. The St. Louis colony being more successful then OTL, leading to large amounts of immigration which settles Southeast Texas faster, and immigration from your ruffians, the Med, and other places, and Sante Fe being a tad bit more aggressive than OTL will help with that. It'll turn out much more like snip's native Russia thing than the UCAS; maybe Argentina's a good way to describe it, with more native involvement?

If I go with your suggestion, you're looking at a Texas that doesn't have the land for cattle raising on the massive scale that will allow for ISI to occur, shipyards busy with cattle transports and refrigirator ships; stuff that will allow me to start out on a equal setting to you. Think Latin American colonization, agressive Argentianian expansion style with more individuals and less caudillos.

And yes, I have been reading "The Penguin History of Latin America" recently. Fasinating book.

[Tanthalas]

Oh Oh Oh I just noticed somthing, can I have all that preaty white space in the Caribian  ;) it would make a great place for a country (especialy if the owner got to grab a few little chunks of central America like say the Yucutan  ;D.  Seriously looks like a bang up place for a nation ( y e s i k n o w i t s y o u r s L o g i i t w a s j u s t t o g o o d t o r e s i s t )

[ctwaterman]

I think we have already shot down the Idea for a nation in the Carribean.

Charles

[TexanCowboy]

I'm confused, is Logi still playing? I get the impression from him that he is.

[Tanthalas]

I'm confused, is Logi still playing? I get the impression from him that he is.

How would I know I was just randomly agitating out of insane ammounts of boredom and WAY to much Caffeine. although the previous map I saw had the Carribean all red and stuff (atleast I think it was red I cant remember and im to Lazy to go look) =P

[ctwaterman]

I believe the Mod Vote was for NO Caribbean Empire or Player State.

Charles

[Korpen]

I believe the Mod Vote was for NO Caribbean Empire or Player State.

Charles

And for those of us that are curious and nosy; why? ;)

[Tanthalas]

I believe the Mod Vote was for NO Caribbean Empire or Player State.

Charles

And for those of us that are curious and nosy; why? ;)

if I had to take a stab at it (which im doing even though I dont have to) id say it had somthing to do with the way a player in that posistion could bottle up the gulf states that have been expressed other places in this thread.

[Guinness]

Ok, here's this:



also put it in wikia here:

http://navalism.wikia.com/wiki/File:N-America-N4-2.png

With this I restored all of the territory south of the St. Lawrence to "New England", and I restored the borders along the Mississippi along the lines of of the low-res map Tex posted.

On Logi and the Caribbean: Charles and I do not agree with the idea that there should be a player nation in the Caribbean. We've told Logi that and asked him if he'd like to play somewhere else. Logi has told us that is the only place he wants to play, so sadly that conversation has ended in an impasse. I'd prefer to not hash that our in this thread. If Logi or anyone else wants to talk about it, feel free to PM Charles or I.

[Blooded]

Howdy,

Yeah.... those maps are not going to work for me...  ;D

Here is a great idea for reducing Mexicos size AND it creates another viable Player Nation... introducing The Republic of the Rio Grande.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande
It allows for a possible southern and northern Mexico.

Without closer national sizes I won't be offering up San Diego.  :P

I would prefer to see smaller player nations and more Native lands honestly.

I see the Native American populations being MUCH larger in this timeline. And while they were forced out it did not come at their decimation. At this point they CAN resist on a more equal status(or at least closer than OTL) with the player nations(Horse Artillery and Gatlings?). And don't assume that you will be able to march over them easily... as Deseret will be providing more weapons and better training.  ;)

My view is that Arkansas, Lousiana, Texas, New Mexico, parts of Eastern Oklahoma, and everything south of the Red River/Arkansas is "settled", even if it's in the style of the gancho's. Everything else is paid off tribes.

In my view Texas is still too big, especially if Mexico is split. And the 'bribed land' theory or offering 640 acres of Nativeland is silly if they are more powerful and able to resist assimilation. I see a northern Texas Border along the Arkansas river(from central Colorado over to the mississippi) it would be better. The northern 1/3 of the nation being very sparsely populated and home to cattle barons.

If I go with your suggestion, you're looking at a Texas that doesn't have the land for cattle raising on the massive scale that will allow for ISI to occur, shipyards busy with cattle transports and refrigirator ships; stuff that will allow me to start out on a equal setting to you.

You are not supposed to be on EQUAL footing with ctwaterman, he has a Mod nation. In North America, he will be the Gorilla in the room to quiet the sabrerattling.

Another major thing to consider is that New Russia(founded 1848?), California(founded 1848ish),  and Texas(founded 1835?),  are all young nations and sparsely settled for the most part. The CSA is the local powerhouse(providing tech, armaments and ships until our nations got a start on our own largescale shipyards(I would suggest at least a 30 year process for this-perhaps a little quicker if properly stimulated).

I am trying to calculate how large everyone is based on the latest maps...(including New England etc.) it will take awhile as I cannot focus my full attentions on it. I would guesstimate that texas has grown to 720,000 miles(from 660,000) Mexico around 800,000(from 860,000) and Deseret 510,000 (from 450,000). Not much better than before really... :'(

[Carthaginian]

You are not supposed to be on EQUAL footing with ctwaterman, he has a Mod nation. In North America, he will be the Gorilla in the room to quiet the sabrerattling.

Uhm...
NO. According to EVERYTHING that N4 is about, we are supposed to be starting COMPLETELY EQUAL.
This includes Mods, and nothing has been said to the contrary to indicate that your view is correct.

Any saber-rattling has to be backed up by balls, not bonuses to the Mods.

In my view Texas is still too big, especially if Mexico is split.

Texas isn't any bigger than anyone else in North America. And no one needs to shrink, grow or trade anything else.
It seems its time for the Mods to use the Modhammer to settle things- as friendly debate doesn't seem to be handling things.

[Guinness]

Gang: I want you to negotiate this yourselves. Since it seems no one is negotiating in good faith, and there seems to be a extra amount of snippiness to boot, I've felt the need to step in.

This isn't an argument to be won. I have to say that I see no reason for this process to be so contentious and I'd like the contentious behavior to cease. That goes for everyone involved.

So consider the map above to be the very nearly final draft. The only thing preventing it being the final draft is Charles, who hasn't yet had a chance to weigh in on it.

To restate and clarify a couple of things: Mod nations will not be substantially larger than the others, but the plan is for them to be slightly bigger. The working number at the moment is 10-15% bigger. There is a lot of reasoning behind this: we want them to have sufficient influence to clean up player caused diplomatic messes on a regional basis if we decide it's necessary, and when they are positioned as geographic blocks, we want them to be sufficiently powerful to deter "bulldozing" by their neighbors. We feel that +10-15% is enough for either of those needs without making them so big as to negatively affect gameplay.

[Blooded]

Hello,

Texas isn't any bigger than anyone else in North America. And no one needs to shrink, grow or trade anything else.

Please go back to page 9 and read what I posted about nation sizes in the SW of NA. and the other posts since then. Better yet spend the time and do it yourself since you dont seem to believe anything I am saying. Please post your calculated numbers so we have multiple POVs.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5549.120

I am spending the time to do this because the player nations ARE supposed to be equal(as you just stated). Equal economy size is assured. Equal territory has not been even close. Defensively a nations size can be key to withstanding an assault. In N4 Wars are supposed to be short. A lack of strategic depth could cripple a nation before they can recover. That would force concessions at the table every time.

New England is tiny compared to the others thusfar and is only 250-300 miles wide as well. Mexico is over 3 times larger! Thats one place I would definately not want to play. If darman does not care that is fine by me. My main concern is that my southern neighbor is a major instigator in most every war in N3. I see that continuing into N4, why should I not? If his nation is twice my size then it would take 2 or 3 wars before the size discrepacy could even be equal. That is assuming I win each and remove a state sized chunk each time at the peace conference-which would never happen because DF concedes NOTHING without Mod involvement!.

Thus... DF can have his blessed Arizona, I just request he is reduced to 500,000 square miles or so in total territory. I don't care where they are. Defensively The NorthAmerican SW and Mexico are very similar(contrary to DFs views). Just look at some maps. I live in the area as well and have travelled it extensively. If our nations are similar in size neither will have any major advantage.

I am just trying to get the national sizes closer, so the game wont be a miserable experience. If you cant understand the principle... I dont know what to say?  ???

I had the impression the Mods were to be stronger... perhaps not.  :-\

And based on what I have been calculating... based on the N4-2 map. These are very rough.
New England is around 240,000 miles
CSA is at around 540,000 miles
Texas is around 652,000 miles
    if Texas looses the turf s of the Rio grande (which he has said he wanted to do but it was not on the newmap) he is at 632,000ish
    if Texas looses the above PLUS north of the Arkansas River in Wyoming and Colorado he is at 573,000
    if Texas looses the above PLUS north of the Arkansas River in Missouri and Arkansas he is at 527,000

I still am working on the others...

[Korpen]

New England is tiny compared to the others thusfar and is only 250-300 miles wide as well. Mexico is over 3 times larger!

I think you are seriously overestimating the value of land in itself, just the amount of have very marginal effect. Especially as most of the land in question are deserts of marginal value and whose loss or gain has very little effect on the country as a whole.

Also, none of the NA countries are small compared European countries, in fact most are huge in pure land.

[Valles]

The thing is, Blooded, that not all land is created equal. In terms of agriculture and general suitability to be keeping people on, much of Texas's marked territory - particularly the southwestern areas - are not what I'd call 'prime real estate'. Even if it were all of the same quality, the 'youth' of the various North American nations means that it's not all necessarily improved to the same degree. Japan has a total area well short of two hundred thousand square miles and is most mountain besides - yet, with more than a thousand years of historical improvement, agriculture, and population growth, it's hardly difficult to see it as a state powerful enough to contend with any power in its theater - or in North America, for that matter.

And as to Desertfox, well, we do have mods. I say we'll get farther and have more fun by trusting them than by arguing with rulings they've already made.