Europe Buildup

[miketr]

My objectives in having a Fractured France is the following.


1) A fractured France with the parts below PC level in power we can really ignore in terms of balance of power.

2) I want to provide the players with small NPC nations to interact with.


If we need one more player nation in Europe creating one out of France is no problem to me. 

Michael

[Darman]

Mexico's coastlines are a lot longer, yes.  I guess that serves to prevent a blockade but it also makes the coasts harder to protect from raids. 

[Korpen]

I don't think there's a problem. I suspect it's just a case of wanting to go the opposite direction from N3's gigantic nearly all powerful France.

We do like the idea of a few NPC "buffer states" in Europe, and fractured France sort of grew out of that. It would (theoretically) give the other Continental powers something to fight over without having to fight on each other's territory. In my mind it's optional.

Well, I second the optional part. To be honest I do not really see a need to throw in allot of "buffer" states just for the sake of it. Having a France of magnitude (well, same level of influence as the rest of the European powers) would be more interesting then a group of NPC to artificially vie for. 

[Delta Force]

We want to prevent what Republic of Orange did to a certain extent in N3.  P3D suggested the policy based on his experiences there.  The simple fact of the matter is directly connecting to colonization territory is a big advantage in terms of logistics and would make the conquest / expansion much easier.  So we want to reduce this.  Russia is to be a NPC buffer nation to force people to do things across the water.

Michael 

Very sound idea... and easily respectable.
Russia would also be almost impossible to defeat as a player nation, so I can see that as well.

Without a France, Russia would actually have a lot of issues with defense, unless Austria-Hungary and Russia had an emperors' league. The Far East would be an even larger problem unless Russia is on good terms with China.

So Russia probably is a good nation to keep NPC, since without allies it is quite vulnerable, and with allies it can steamroll other nations. That, and it is pretty much a coastal defense force navy wise.

Delta- Russia has two things that no army can defeat:
1.) time and space
2.) brutal winters

Russian tactics have always included drawing an enemy into their territory, stalling for time, then letting winter do most of the work. As long as Russia wasn't in a two front war, they would have a very good chance of defeating anyone simply by using the weather as a weapon.

Time and space works to Russia's disadvantage as well, but weather is indeed a problem for any enemy fighting at the end of their logistics inside of Russia. Depending on how strong Japan is at game start, the lack of a Trans-Siberian Railroad could make their influence in the Far East quite weak given that supplies and men must travel nearly 9,000 kilometers to the region (and on a single track in its earliest incarnation). During an Eastern war, Russia would also lose a lot of influence in Europe and allow other powers to do what they desire for some time in the region until the resolution of the war. It can beat any single great power arrayed against it, but against two of them or on two fronts it has a problem (although it can probably win through attrition in that case too).

[miketr]

I don't think there's a problem. I suspect it's just a case of wanting to go the opposite direction from N3's gigantic nearly all powerful France.

We do like the idea of a few NPC "buffer states" in Europe, and fractured France sort of grew out of that. It would (theoretically) give the other Continental powers something to fight over without having to fight on each other's territory. In my mind it's optional.

Well, I second the optional part. To be honest I do not really see a need to throw in allot of "buffer" states just for the sake of it. Having a France of magnitude (well, same level of influence as the rest of the European powers) would be more interesting then a group of NPC to artificially vie for. 

Again the view point on the NPC's is they are pawns in the game of international diplomacy.  They have fully formed national identities and would not go quietly into the night (accept for France which might want to re-unify)

Michael

[TexanCowboy]

I like the fractured France idea IF there are one/two major nations that just fit into the smaller end of the player nation catagory; the filler nations. Perhaps Burgendy and a nation built around Southwestern France?

[Valles]

Time and space works to Russia's disadvantage as well, but weather is indeed a problem for any enemy fighting at the end of their logistics inside of Russia. Depending on how strong Japan is at game start, the lack of a Trans-Siberian Railroad could make their influence in the Far East quite weak given that supplies and men must travel nearly 9,000 kilometers to the region (and on a single track in its earliest incarnation). During an Eastern war, Russia would also lose a lot of influence in Europe and allow other powers to do what they desire for some time in the region until the resolution of the war. It can beat any single great power arrayed against it, but against two of them or on two fronts it has a problem (although it can probably win through attrition in that case too).

My 'big project' for the day is sitting down and going over the history of east Asia OTL in detail to refresh my memory so that I can figure out how ours diverged. As Japan's player, I can say that they, at least, will be starting off with the Ainu as a 'subject kingdom', capable of fielding winter-condition specialists in their own right. I'll certainly be trying to take Kamchatka, Magadan, and Chukotka at some point, and, depending how things shake out, possibly Sakha, too.

[Jefgte]

Really sorry Modos but if I play France,
I do'nt like very much to have British country on the French Bretagne territory  >:(  >:(  >:(


If that is the last map, I could give Netherland to British.

http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/3585/europev6a.png


Jef

[Guinness]

Brittany as part of Britain is out. No one has drafted a new map is all.

The only question is which of the 4 chunks of what we know of as France goes into Nverse France.

[Jefgte]

Brittany as part of Britain is out

:D  :D  :D

[Jefgte]

I like the Great Germany.

Otto Von Bismarck  could be happy with this Germany map

[Jefgte]

Switzerland could be cut in 3 parts:
- South for Italy
- North to Germany
- West for France

France could take south of Belgium (Flamand zone)

North of Belgium (Wallonie) & Netherland... ?


Jef

[miketr]

This is the current version of the map

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1386/europev7.png

Do we want to give Jefgte all of France?  Any other changes to make in Europe?

Michael

[miketr]

I like the Great Germany.

Otto Von Bismarck  could be happy with this Germany map

To be technical its the Kleindeutsche Lösung, Großdeutsche Lösung would include Austria and Bohemia with perhaps Luxembourg and Parts of Netherlands.

Michael

[Nobody]

I'm still would like to see an independent Luxembourg. Just as Switzerland this could make a good place for international treaties. Also as mike mentioned it would likely be German otherwise.
Another question is whether we should split Belgium/Netherlands in two countries or have them united.

Also what is that blob east of Germany & Austria supposed to be?

And Jefgte, it's actually 1 province smaller than the original one from OTL 1871, which got Korpen for rpg reasons.