This is the thread for discussing startup for N. America
Map of N. America to work from:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/namerica-guinness-v1.png
For those in on this map so far: I made some tweaks here and there, mostly to move borders from their arbitrary lines to rivers, etc. when possible, and to balance out some territory. The Red country lost parts of Georgia and Florida, for instance, but gained near the Yucatan.
Btw: here's who we have where now:
Guinness - California (which must always be pronounced using Arnold Schwarzenegger's accent)
Charles - English Speaking America (south)
DesertFox - Mexico (presumed first choice)
Logi - South Florida and Various Islands + Yucatan
Tex - Tex
Snip - Pacific Northwest
Darman - English Speaking America (north)
Well, a few comments. I would really like Oregon to be included with my claim, with not quite as much in the north. I know that Darman was working on a map (link http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp353/recon20011/NorthAmericaMk5.jpg (http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp353/recon20011/NorthAmericaMk5.jpg)) Its smiliare to what you have, but the rest of us have been tossing it around for a bit.
He used my map as a base. My theory is that because California is now a player-controlled nation it had to be made a little bigger than it was as an NPC nation.
Yeah, my map is a modified version of the one Darman sent me.
Are there specific bits of Oregon you are interested in? California is indeed both a player nation, and "Mod weight" nation, but I'm just now kicking around the idea of it getting a central American holding for gameplay mechanics reasons too, so some of Oregon could get swapped for that reason.
I suppose that means I don't get any part of Columbia?
ah, I see. would it be posible to cut the bigish province that is Western Oregon in half and spit it between me and Cali?
Quote from: Logi on June 07, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
I suppose that means I don't get any part of Columbia?
I had been asked to keep all starting territories out of South America. I tried to keep pretty well clear of anything south of the Yucatan.
I think that's reasonable. Say a line somewhere between Corvallis and Eugene?
Logi: yes, we want S. America "virgin" and have tried to compensate elsewhere. I'm still a little concerned about that nation effectively controlling access to the Gulf of Mexico as is, but I suppose if that's ok with Tex, it's ok with me. :)
Charles computed that the land area of that nation now is roughly a little larger than Japan.
Quote from: Guinness on June 07, 2011, 02:22:35 PM
Charles computed that the land area of that nation now is roughly a little larger than Japan.
I'm glad. The reason I had given Logi land in South America to begin with was because I wasn't certain he'd have land area roughly equal to the rest of us.
QuoteI think that's reasonable. Say a line somewhere between Corvallis and Eugene?
Ya that works. can you add that change, or do you want me to?
I think there ought to be one map, and one person making changes. I guess that is up to you guys though too.
We really need a way for the map to be edited by the group. A wiki or something. I'll look into it.
For the time being: I annoit Darman the editor of the N. America map. If you don't mind, please take the one I linked here, and apply the changes you made around the Mississippi in yours to it, and then add the change to Oregon too. If you email it back to me, I'll upload it and change the link near the top of this thread.
Just an experiment, but see if you can see this ok:
http://navalism.wikia.com/wiki/File:Namerica-guinness-v1.png
works for me
In addition, I have come up with a backstory that I would like to use. Below is a rough outline of what I would like to use.
QuoteGeneral outline, Oregon: The Bear, The Dragon and The Salmon
Early: A more unified culture of Natives comes into fruition in the Pacific Northwest. While not reaching the extent of unification necessary to form a traditional nation-state, the interdependence of the tribes slowly grows through the mid 1000s, becoming the most basic of proto-nation-states by the 1700's
1780's and 1790's: Grigory Shelikhov and others spearhead a much greater colonization effort of the future Oregon territory. When contact is made with the proto-nation-state of the natives, the Russians chose to attempt to integrate the native's society with that of the colonists instead of exterminating it. This eventually leads to the extent of colonies territory and population being much larger than originally thought possible.
1810's: By Imperial decree, most of the Jewish population of the Russian Empire is relocated to other areas. A large contingent ends up in the Oregon colony, greatly increasing its population.
1826: After the Decembrist Revolt, the conspirators are exiled to Oregon. At this time, the more radical military elements are purged from the exiles. Pavel Pestel (who is not executed as in OTL) emerges as the leader of a new political group geared amongst the Colonists that strives for liberty for the serfs.
1840's: Forward looking individuals and the Russian government begin the slow process of industrializing the colony, harnessing the ememce power of its natural waterways at first, and eventually the large reserves of coal, wood and iron that dot the colony. The Russian government subsidizes creation of large shipyards to facilitate the transport of these goods on Russian-made ships.
1842: Following the end of the Opium war (or its NTL equivalent) a large group of Chinese appeal to the Russian government to let them settle in the Oregon Colony. The Russians agree and give the Chinese access an island (OTL Victoria Island) and some territory north of the main colony to settle in.
1861: Coupled with the abolition of feudalism is the independence of the Oregon colony. Its continuing industrialization and the growing resistance under Pavel Pestel's Independence Party leads the Russian government to choose to part with its colony in good standing, rather than fight an apparently losing battle to hold onto it. Russian forces are to remain in the area until the new country is ready to defend itself.
1862: The new government of the Respublika Oregon (Republic of Oregon) is formed. Due to the amount of different cultures present and the origins of the movement in anti-serfdom, all men are granted equal participation in the government. Slavery is outlawed, but due to the relative lack of slaves this does not cause much fuss. Pavel Pestel lives just long enough to see the first meeting of the People's assembly before passing away. The Oregon Army is formed. In addition a few ships are purchased by the government for use in fishery protection.
1870: The Oregon navy is formed out of the fishery protection agency with the commissioning of its first coast defense monitor. The native shipbuilding industry is now one of the finest on the continent.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Removed Cryllic script
Interesting. This would have bearing on the founding of California too, since it stands to reason that something would have prevented Oregon expanding south. I suppose Gold might have been discovered earlier, but then all those Oregonians would have rapidly moved south I suspect. I might have to think of another back story for California then.
Where would we think the population centers of ~1810 Oregon might be?
For pure ease of finding things, I am going to use OTL cities with Russian names
I also added the changes that I requested to the map, as well as cleaning up a few boarders to make them less blocky (http://navalism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:NewFiles&image=North_America-png (http://navalism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:NewFiles&image=North_America-png))
Snip: I like that.
oh and just so people know, the Eskimo Conspiracy was a joke.... I just wanted more color on the map when I first made it. So I'm asking if everyone wants to remove it or keep it since it seems every map editor has kept it so far.
Is the Mississippi river the Border between Texas and My Confederation of American States ?????
If so should I have at least some territory in Louisiana and which of us controlls the New Orleans [Norleans in Creole]
Charles
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 07, 2011, 09:36:15 PM
Is the Mississippi river the Border between Texas and My Confederation of American States ?????
If so should I have at least some territory in Louisiana and which of us controlls the New Orleans [Norleans in Creole]
Charles
Yes.
I was wondering the same thing. I had kept it blank in one version of the map so people could negotiate.
Quote from: Darman on June 07, 2011, 09:03:04 PM
oh and just so people know, the Eskimo Conspiracy was a joke.... I just wanted more color on the map when I first made it. So I'm asking if everyone wants to remove it or keep it since it seems every map editor has kept it so far.
Ummmmm....maybe shrink it down a bit to leave some open land for colonization. Is it intended as a NPC of sorts?
Yes its likely to be open uncontrolled terrain at the start of the game.
Charles
Ahoj!
Quote from: snip on June 07, 2011, 07:08:22 PM
For pure ease of finding things, I am going to use OTL cities with Russian names
I know a little Russian, if you need help.
Borys
Charles and I are in discussion about me settling in the 'Quebec/Ontario' area.
I've tried to find a convenient river (the Nelson) to serve as a western boundary- following it from Hudson Bay down to lake Winnipeg. Still looking for a convenient landform to form the border between there and the 'nose' of Lake Superior- any ideas?
http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png (http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png)
EDIT: Would like it to be an Algonkian society and will try to play it as such if acceptable.
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 08, 2011, 12:38:12 AM
Yes its likely to be open uncontrolled terrain at the start of the game.
Charles
Ok, I can work with that (rubs hands evilly)
Quote from: Borys on June 08, 2011, 12:50:50 AM
Ahoj!
Quote from: snip on June 07, 2011, 07:08:22 PM
For pure ease of finding things, I am going to use OTL cities with Russian names
I know a little Russian, if you need help.
Borys
I might be calling on your assistance, but Google translate has been working so far.
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 08, 2011, 12:55:08 AM
Charles and I are in discussion about me settling in the 'Quebec/Ontario' area.
I've tried to find a convenient river (the Nelson) to serve as a western boundary- following it from Hudson Bay down to lake Winnipeg. Still looking for a convenient landform to form the border between there and the 'nose' of Lake Superior- any ideas?
http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png (http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png)
EDIT: Would like it to be an Algonkian society and will try to play it as such if acceptable.
YAY!!!!!!! HE IS BACK!!!!! I would be fine with native-based society, as I will be attempting to work natives into mine as much as possible.
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 08, 2011, 12:55:08 AM
Charles and I are in discussion about me settling in the 'Quebec/Ontario' area.
I've tried to find a convenient river (the Nelson) to serve as a western boundary- following it from Hudson Bay down to lake Winnipeg. Still looking for a convenient landform to form the border between there and the 'nose' of Lake Superior- any ideas?
http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png (http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png)
EDIT: Would like it to be an Algonkian society and will try to play it as such if acceptable.
How about the Winnipeg River between L. Winnipeg and Lake of the Woods, and then the Rainy River to L. Superior? The latter's part of the current international border.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 08, 2011, 09:46:15 AM
How about the Winnipeg River between L. Winnipeg and Lake of the Woods, and then the Rainy River to L. Superior? The latter's part of the current international border.
Awesome, Rock.
That'll be it, then. I'll fix the map tonight, and that should to it- till we decide to expand into the Plains. :D
Rivers won't work well for borders out there. You'll have to just keep going until you hit the Continental Divide.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 08, 2011, 10:51:42 AM
Rivers won't work well for borders out there. You'll have to just keep going until you hit the Continental Divide.
Well, we're having to do a bit of artificial limiting here- as Charles wanted the Plains to be open and uncontrolled (and I kinda like the idea myself) I just picked the largest natural formations in the area and decided that they mark 'Extent of Total Control' for my government. There might be some settlement beyond those landmarks, and some of it might be very loyal to my government... but like the 'American' colonists in western Kentucky in 1785, they are not officially a part of my nation.
Rest assured, the 'Drive on the Divide' will likely ensue soon after the beginning of the sim, and more permanent 'borders' will replace these somewhat arbitrary limits.
ah, the divide, lucky that I already have the other side locked up ;D
As for culture... WHEN, exactly, is the idea of a 'France' going to bite the dust?
If France survived until the Franco-Prussian war period, then the culture in the Algonkin Confederation will likely be heavily French-influenced. If France died at Waterloo, then there would be less influence and a more native society will survive.
Right at the moment it seems somewhere during/after the Franco-Prussian war, but what would you prefer?
Quote from: Guinness on June 08, 2011, 11:28:29 AM
Right at the moment it seems somewhere during/after the Franco-Prussian war, but what would you prefer?
LOL... I've been out so long, I feel I should let more consistent members work out the history, then work myself into it. I can see things either way: 1.) if France survives well into the 1800's, then the society will be more like 'Cajun' society- a French/Indian creole language, Catholic majority, and a republic government 2.) if France is eliminated in the early 1800's, there would be more Native elements- Algonkin language with some 'borrowed' words, the
Midewiwin is more dominant, and society remains a bit more oligarchical (centered on older warriors and 'medicine men').
I suspect that it would be easier to make the case that it's industrialized if it's more of a Cajun thing than an Algonkin thing. So there is that.
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 08, 2011, 11:53:04 AM
Quote from: Guinness on June 08, 2011, 11:28:29 AM
Right at the moment it seems somewhere during/after the Franco-Prussian war, but what would you prefer?
LOL... I've been out so long, I feel I should let more consistent members work out the history, then work myself into it. I can see things either way: 1.) if France survives well into the 1800's, then the society will be more like 'Cajun' society- a French/Indian creole language, Catholic majority, and a republic government 2.) if France is eliminated in the early 1800's, there would be more Native elements- Algonkin language with some 'borrowed' words, the Midewiwin is more dominant, and society remains a bit more oligarchical (centered on older warriors and 'medicine men').
My plan for the New England area is based roughly on the premise that the North American English-speaking colonies rebelled against England as OTL and then broke away from the CSA during the War of 1812 when the New England states had threatened to secede. One change I wanted was the England never took Canada, so the New England colonies and the Quebequois to the north kept exchanging land during the numerous border wars...
We have to be careful as I think our Player of Jolly Old England is going all the way back to the Bretons repulse the Saxons, Jutes, and latter the Normans as well. That does tend to leave those of us who wanted and Anglo Saxon [Anglish] Speaking nation in the lurch because his England still speaks, Galic.... ;D
ROFFL... Ireland conquered England- I love it!
Guinness - I'll run with the idea of a Cajun-like population, then. As France proper is missing, I will likely find myself serving as a Catholic-interest ally in France's stead. Will be interesting to see how this will all develop.
Darman - I like the constant 'border feud' idea. I'd have enjoyed a longer 'American' coastline along the Great Lakes- ample opportunities for some naval warfare on those lakes! I do think you and I should reach a 'rough consensus' on where we want our mutual border- I'd view the St. Lawrence River as a good place to set things.
Also... now I gotta learn how to design ICEBREAKERS!
*groan*
There is a reason why the US and Canada and the British who controlled it at the time decided after the war of 1812 that peace was the way to go. Throw a bunch of Diplomats into a smoke filled room give them more cigars the occasional Rum or Brandy ration and let them work out a compromise. It costs less and even with the odd casualty due to smoke or brandy less lives are spent.
Once the North East Player is smart and Builds the Erie Canal he can move troops and supplies from NYC to New Amsterdam [Albany] and from there to Buffalo right on Lake Erie. So unless you want to build a Naval Port at Buffalo and another at Rochester and another at say Detroit to be countered by ones in Quebec, Toronto and Hamilton a Naval Arms race on the Great Lakes could prove extremely expensive.
Not that it wouldnt prove highly amusing and entertaining to both play with and watch. But the cost of building shipyards, and stuff on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where the ships cant support each other well thats just expensive.
QuoteBut the cost of building shipyards, and stuff on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where the ships cant support each other well thats just expensive.
That's why I wish we had a greater frontage on the Lakes- if the two of us encircled the whole system, then Michigan/Huron would become a nice little playground.
I understand that it could become very expensive- but who cares about expense if you never planned to be a world power anyway? ;D
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 08, 2011, 10:27:00 PM
We have to be careful as I think our Player of Jolly Old England is going all the way back to the Bretons repulse the Saxons, Jutes, and latter the Normans as well. That does tend to leave those of us who wanted and Anglo Saxon [Anglish] Speaking nation in the lurch because his England still speaks, Galic.... ;D
With that POD you end up with Britain speaking a Celtic influenced Romance Language. British Romance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brythonic_languages#History_and_origins
The technical name for the Language was Brythonic.
The Anglo-Saxon invasions in effect resulted in a whole-sale linguistic make over of England. To be blunt the Celtic language and people of the Island were slaughtered and replaced by a West Germanic Language, Culture and People.
What would be here without that invasion is a again a Roman Influenced Celtic, Brythonic.
What is needed is to figure out a POD for Roman Britain to hold on its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain
My own suggestion is that the 3 Legions of the Roman Garrison (or whatever was there in late 300's) never leaves but instead sets up its own British Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain#383.E2.80.93388
The Roman Governor and his decedents instead declare themselves not Roman Emperors but rather Kings of Britain. The legions recruit local, maintain something of their tradition and can hold back the pirate attacks from the Picts, Ireland and Germany. In time they go on to take over Scotland and Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Maximus
So there would still be Britannia (latin name of the province) it would just be very different.
Michael
Since England doesn't speak England what if I figured the Dutch took over instead?
Well Albany New York was once called New Amsterdamn.
I think I'll reserve my history for when Iberia and the rest of North America get fleshed out.
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 09, 2011, 07:59:24 AM
Well Albany New York was once called New Amsterdamn.
Albany or New York City? And that is pretty much where I got the idea. Especially if the English didn't defeat the Dutch in the various Anglo-Dutch Wars, then the Dutch could have held on to their maritime supremacy and thus onto their colonies. The Dutch could easily be defeated in their homeland if some people don't wish there to be an independent Holland. That would work for me.
Hmmm... if no one here from the Great White North will take offense, I'm planning on using Muskogee as the 'native' language in my nation (in spite of it being about a thousand miles out of place) from one reason- I have a sizable amount of resources available for that language.
For native languages from the Canada area... not so much. ;)
I dont have much objection to what the other players are doing.... I didnt even really object to the the Language changes that would have been put into place by Kaiser Kirk ... Keltoi Britania... ;)
Because if his Britania was capable of repulsing the waves of settlement well then we know what happened to poor France ;) And then the Saxon, Angles, and Norse all Settle in France, Spain and historically in Sicily as well. And the English we know develops with a bit of France Romance thown in...
General outline of Northeast North American history....
*colonized by English/Dutch/Swedes as OTL.
*fought indian wars (there was talk of a more organized indian confederacy, could take the place of the French and Indian wars?)
*fights revolution against European masters (be they English or whoever) in conjunction with CSA (also still a colony perhaps?). Instead of winning complete independence as a whole nation (north south and middle colonies) the two extremes split because the populations and leaders of each dont think the others helped them enough. (Think of a southern campaign without Nathaniel Green and a Northern campaign without Washington).
Thats as far as I've got. And any and all comments are welcomed.
A revised New Russian timeline to account for Mike's 1848 date for dissolving Russia.
QuoteNovaya Rossiya: The Bear, The Dragon and The Salmon (modified for 1848 collapse of Russia)
Early-1780: A more unified culture of Natives comes into fruition in the Pacific Northwest. While not reaching the extent of unification necessary to form a traditional nation-state, the interdependence of the tribes slowly grows through the mid 1000s, becoming a proto-nation-state by the 1700's. During this time, several wayward explores bring the illnesses of the West to the region. The arrival of Russian colonists sees most of the population of remaining natives with a developed resistance to the illnesses that wrecked havoc with native populations in the East.
1780's and 1790's: Grigory Shelikhov and others spearhead a much greater colonization effort of the future lands of New Russia. When contact is made with the proto-nation-state of the natives, the Russians chose to attempt to integrate the native's society with that of the colonists instead of exterminating it. This eventually leads to the extent of colonies territory and population being much larger than originally thought possible.
1810's: By Imperial decree, most of the Jewish population of the Russian Empire is relocated to other areas. Most of the exiled Jews end up in the colony, greatly increasing its population.
1826: After the Decembrist Revolt, the conspirators are exiled to the colony. At this time, the more radical military elements are purged from the exiles. Pavel Pestel (who is not executed as in OTL) emerges as the leader of a new political group geared amongst the Colonists that strives for liberty for the serfs.
1840's: Forward looking individuals and the Russian government begin the slow process of industrializing the colony, harnessing the ememce power of its natural waterways at first, and eventually the large reserves of coal, wood and iron that dot the colony. The Russian government subsidizes creation of large shipyards to facilitate the transport of these goods on Russian-made ships.
1842: Following the end of the Opium war (or its NTL equivalent) a large group of Chinese appeal to the Russian government to let them settle in the colony. The Russians agree and give the Chinese access an island and some territory north of the main colony to settle in.
1848: As part of the sweeping reforms across Europe, the Russian Empire falls. Fleeing his once-oppressed subject's wrath, the Czar sets up shop again in the Pacific Northwest colonies. The new close imperial governmental control is not welcomed, as the Czar clamps down to prevent reform from spreading.
Early 1850's: The discovery of Gold to the south of the colonies, now dubbed New Russia, brings new trade opportunities as the land to the south greatly swells the demand for finished goods. Factories see increased productivity and numbers, at the expenses of workers. This new strain is added to the growing resentment against Czarist control over most aspects of everyday life. The foundations of rebellion begin to assemble.
1859-1861: Pavel Pestel ignites the long-smoldering resentment against the Czar and the monarchists into full rebellion. Pestel is killed early on, leading the rebellion to expand its scope from freeing the serfs, to disposing of the monarchist government. For two years the Czar attemps to squash the rebellion, but the clumsily handled attemps serve to give the rebellion more recrutes and more causes to rally behing. Eventually, the monarchists are forced to flee to Alaska to buy time to regroup, where the locals are less numerous and industry almost nonexistent. Due to this, there efforts to retake New Russia from Alaska fail and the last of the Czars is assassinated along with the remaining members of the royal family as they attempt to flee. The rebels are quick to fill the power vacuum and catch those responsible for the death of the royal family.
1862: A new government is formed out of the rebel factions. One of the first official acts is to execute the murders of the royal family, as it was never a goal to kill them. This act serves to appease the monarchist supporters and prevent a civil war, though the action and the politics surrounding it are debated for much longer. The new nation takes the title of Respublika Novaya Rossiya (Republic of New Russia). Due to the amount of different cultures present and the origins of the reble movement in anti-serfdom, all men are granted equal participation in the government. Freedom of religion is also granted to the population as a whole, owing to its great religious diversity. Slavery is outlawed, but due to the relative lack of slaves this does not cause much fuss. The government is a representative republic, with very advanced social policy owing to its origins as both an anti-serfdom and pro-labor movement. The Republican Army is formed with the elite groups of rebels forming the Republican Guards. The government buys many small vessels for fishery protection and patrol duties to form the Republican Navy.
1865: The Republican Navy finally commissions it first purpose-built warship. This heralds the start of an aggressive military buildup, with an accompanying general industrial buildup, to accomplish the goals of kick starting the economy out of its post-revolution slump and defending the young nation's interests.
1875: The last holds of Monarchist power in Alaska are crushed by the Republican Army. The power vacuum left by the monarchists is filled by local governments who remain on good terms with the New Russian government. These actions, along with treaties with California and native tribes to the east, see the solidification of the boarders of New Russia.
I want to check in on things here.
Is this the current version of the map?
http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/N-verse%204/?action=view¤t=Namerica-carth-1.png
Also I would like to add some smaller NPC for North America like Europe has.
I think this is the current version.
For NPCs: The blue nation that spans Alaska is to be an NPC. Since Blooded has inquired about Cali, that leaves the interior as the only real place for NPCs unless we start shaving coastal territory off player nations
The Mississippi needs to be the Border between the CSA and Texas. I think that puts the 2 small costal sections of Louisiana in the CSA area. Other then that the map looks good you can make some small confederations north in the center of the Map and maybe something in Central America.
Charles
- Florida to the CSA. Rest of red is NPC(s)
- I say keep Louisiana as is. There is no one Mississippi in the river delta, so it makes more sense to me if the Whole delta belongs to one or the other.
- I'd toss eastern Kansas back to the NPC
- Blue and Gray are, of course, actually any number of NPC territories.
I think that's all the changes I think there need to be to that map.
Quote from: Guinness on June 14, 2011, 10:35:52 AM
- Florida to the CSA. Rest of red is NPC(s)
Meh... I could see a 'Spanish Main' nation with St. Augustine as it's capital.
This is especially if there was no England, no Spanish Armada loss and little European expansion into old Spanish colonial territory.
Florida or most of Florida could start as an NPC, I suppose, but it would be natural for Charles's CSA to just take it. What's your thinking here Charles?
I thought Florida was supposed to be going to Logi in the Caribbean.
Thus far, we have been unable to come to an agreement with Logi on a nation in that region.
Quote from: Guinness on June 07, 2011, 02:22:35 PM
I think that's reasonable. Say a line somewhere between Corvallis and Eugene?
Logi: yes, we want S. America "virgin" and have tried to compensate elsewhere. I'm still a little concerned about that nation effectively controlling access to the Gulf of Mexico as is, but I suppose if that's ok with Tex, it's ok with me. :)
Charles computed that the land area of that nation now is roughly a little larger than Japan.
I'm not really happy about that at all. It's putting Texas in the classical Germany situation. (France being a major enemy to the south, Germany being Logi's nation).
I've tried asking for Key West, but Logi keeps refusing under grounds of "no reason" or something like that. I'd like some form of secure access to the Atlantic, so....
Requests: Thanks for the modification to the Arkansas: Me gusta. Everything else with the rivers looks :) to me. If anything, maybe you could cut out that most easterly part of Louisiana; it'd be more natural for that to be part of the new CSA.
For the Atlantic options, I see three:
Option numero uno: Texas controls Key West, and maybe a few of the northern Bahamas.
Option numero dos: Texas controls Cozumel, and from there a sea route to the Swan Islands and the Islands de la Bahia. From there, a sea route leads to the ABC islands, also controlled by Texas, which leads to the islands of Trinidad and Tobago, also controlled by Texas. I prefer this one.
Option numero tres: Canal across northern Florida, controlled by the "Seminole Nation", with independence guarenteed by Texas and a mod nation.
There is no in-game resason for you to hold Key West, but if we have to, I would allow Key West. Your options are now asking for getting more and more islands, I see.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 14, 2011, 01:24:07 PM
I'm not really happy about that at all. It's putting Texas in the classical Germany situation. (France being a major enemy to the south, Germany being Logi's nation).
When you say "Germany being Logi's nation" do you mean the UK and not Germany?
Even then you would have far better sea access then the Mediterranean states. But I might have missed something, would be interesting if you could explain the reasoning behind your argument for us who are less familiar with the situation.
Hello,
I am not sure if I am allowed to be California or not yet, but I have some possible alternatives for borders in the southwest. Most of my ideas have come from OTL departures around 1847ish with Mexican-American War resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo)
See map for Alta California and Republic of Texas borders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Territory)
This southern borderline would offer some nicer areas(better climate) of settlement for snip.
-------
The main idea I am working on for California is based on a more militant and better funded LDS (Mormon) move westward after the events in Illinios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret)
With the small European population (7,000ish) of California at this time, I propose that the Mormons push into California in far greater numbers(creating settlements in Utah/Nevada/New Mexico along the way). With the key control around Yerba Buena (San Francisco) by Samual Brannan. If Brannan had notified the LDS leaders of the 1848 discovery of Gold rather than publishing the find. Perhaps most of the gold would have found its way into LDS Church coffers(many ways this could have been done). Thus, further boosting control of California and perhaps paying the Mexican Government the $15,000,000 settlement offered to the USA from the Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_Buena_(town) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_Buena_(town))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brannan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brannan)
Whatcha think?
A canal across Florida makes zero economic or even military sense.
Sorry, UK being Logi's nation...
I'd just like a way to avoid being penned to the Gulf. If there's a way that this can be accomplished without islands, etc.....please tell me.
Most of those are islands that you wouldn't be holding on option number 2, Logi, and I'd be holding in "protectorite" form such as Zanzibar was.
I would be amendable to taking the whole of my home state back ;D. Remember, most of me population is going to be Russian. We done mind the cold ;D
Quote from: Blooded on June 14, 2011, 02:10:33 PM
I am not sure if I am allowed to be California or not yet.
I've created a locked and stickied thread so I can keep track: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5562
Blooded: you are penciled in to California. Fell free to discuss territory with Snip and whomever else.
Tex: Does S. Florida and Cuba being an NPC help your concerns?
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 14, 2011, 02:24:43 PM
Sorry, UK being Logi's nation...
I'd just like a way to avoid being penned to the Gulf. If there's a way that this can be accomplished without islands, etc.....please tell me.
Well, the first question would be to what extent you feel a need to have large forces outside the gulf in wartime? Any tiny island base around Florida would be cut of and most likely destroyed in a war in any case, and in peacetime the need for it would be minimal..
Guinness, it would help, a significant deal. I could live with it if the northern Bahamas were part of the same NPC as well.
BTW, would anyone mind if I had a "Zanzibar" style protectorate over Cozumel at the beginning of the game; say that they resisted colonization or something like that?
In other words you want me to be made of two parts with a odd wound in the middle as if someone grabbed the middle and forcibly pulled it out.
Well do what you want then, I won't be playing.
Quote from: Logi on June 14, 2011, 02:54:16 PM
In other words you want me to be made of two parts with a odd wound in the middle as if someone grabbed the middle and forcibly pulled it out.
Well do what you want then, I won't be playing.
I'm sorry, I thought the PM from a couple of days ago was definitive, so I've already been laboring under the assumption that you weren't playing. 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. If you are choosing to stick to the idea you simply must play a nation situated in the Caribbean or not at all, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 14, 2011, 02:52:27 PM
Guinness, it would help, a significant deal. I could live with it if the northern Bahamas were part of the same NPC as well.
BTW, would anyone mind if I had a "Zanzibar" style protectorate over Cozumel at the beginning of the game; say that they resisted colonization or something like that?
I am still asking the question, military any such forward bases would be of no sustained use in a armed conflict, just look at what happed to tsingtao.
I must play an island nation. Unless there is another one available, I would rather not play at all. I have absolutely no interest in the land portion of this sim anymore. After playing the RRC, I have really lost interest with land warfare.
Since the Carribean is the only place so far that was not decided NPC only, it is naturally the only place left for me. Since all other islands have been sealed off.
If you want, I can give a slice of the Yucatan.
Quote from: Guinness on June 14, 2011, 02:57:22 PM
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.
QuoteI'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.
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.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 14, 2011, 03:51:11 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 14, 2011, 04:17:23 PM
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 15, 2011, 02:10:51 PM
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.
Cause the Yucatan, although in an important region, doesn't control as critical an access point as Florida.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 15, 2011, 08:22:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Logi on June 15, 2011, 09:53:53 PM
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
Running with the Nameing thing here, I have been doing some brainstorming on mine. Most of the major waterways have new names:
Quoteo 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:
Quoteo 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:
QuoteSoyuz 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.
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.
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".
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?
Here we go, guys, the official Texican backstory; details about our individual nations will be filled in later.
Quote
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.
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
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.
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?
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 16, 2011, 10:03:59 PM
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.
Ugh.
Displaced Frenchmen, perhaps; or maybe I got Dar's share...
The First French Trading Fort at the Mouth of the Bayou was established in 1690 and the City in 1718 ???
The City was promptly whiped out by a Hurricane and then rebuilt.
After France lost the 7 Years War New Orleans and the Louisianna purchase were given to Spain in compensation for the loss of Florida and other territories East of the Mississippi to the British. Several Fires then destroyed large parts of the city and it was rebuilt with brick in the Spanish Style including the Cathederal which is how the City pretty much looks today.
As a note the last Yellow Fever Outbreak was finally suppresed in 1905 :o :'(
The City is a major trading port and realistically is as Important to the North East Players as it is to Me. All Commerce from the US North East west of the appalacian mountains until the building of the Erie Cannal traveled down the Ohio or Tennessee Rivers to the Mississippi and from there to the Sea.
Honestly... looking at Tex's time line he doesnt need to Hold the City of New Orleans he simply needs my nation not to deny his free booters the right to use it as a port. Considering many of those Free Booters were probably citizens of my Country at the time well I guess I owe Foxy an appology for them stealing half of his country. ;D
In 1870 New Orleans annexed the City of Algiers Louisiana which was on the opposite side of the River...:)
I Have New Orleans you have Algiers :)
Not...particularily. According to my more detailed naval timeline, it's the capital and one of the major port cities of the Republic du la Texas (Tejas?).
I'll offer a compromise. You get the parts to the north of the Mississippi, and I'll get the parts to the south. I'll then open up another major port, maybe New Bordeaux, at the location of Bell Chasse, in 1740 or so. We'll both get about equal traffic, and by the 1880's, a sense of interconnectedness between the cities should have arisen, but you still get the majority of Orleans.
The City of Algiers was directly across the Mississippi from New Orleans.... and was absorbed by New Orleans in 1870... so that should not be a problem.
The Problem I saw with your time line is that prior to 1817 and the establishment of Texas New Orleans would have belonged to Either my CSA or a Unified [United States] prior to a break up durring the Hartford Convention.
Speaking of the Hartford Convention- I have read some on the subject and the Federalists were quite careful to not push the radical agenda of some of their delegates. Of course the number of delegates was quite small and did not represent states such and New York, or PA. But then they also made sure nothing was ever written down and when it was all notes of the discussions leading up to the findings forwarded to the US Congress were kept. They were all burned prior to the end of the convention. So conspiracy theorists can have field day with this.
I think we need to sit down and discuss some things First with Guinness [England], Jefete [Iberia], and with France. The Major Colonial Powers of the America's. Because I think that there squables and colonial efforts directly lead to the Formation of at least 4 of the Powers on the Continent of North America.
French North America, Mexico, North East US, South East US...
Texas is logically an out cropping of Expansion possibly by both the US North East and South East. A bunch of land speculators and Free Booters that we ran out of our country that ran off and became Mexican Citizens only to later revolt and form their own country. That would make at least three of our Countrys and England nations seperated by a common Language.
Charles
Hello,
Here are some of my ideas for SW map borders as proposed before. This time with a map. I am not aware of why the borders had been placed where they were. These make more sense based in recent events(OTL 1847ish timeframe) Almost completely based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Tried to incorporate the older Republic of Texas map as well.
Texas-California border is at 108 parallel. California-Mexico border as treaty(looks like I messed up the arizona area border-based on wrong river-I'll get it back if this gets used). New Russia eastern border would be moved back to the Rocky Mtn divide(would need to move it west a bit more), gaining better land to the south and more coastal turf. ROT north border follows arkansas River, the 106 parallel, and then north platt river. Indian confed would probably get pushed north a bit as well.
http://home.comcast.net/~navalism_blooded/Navalism/Namerica-carth-1d.PNG (http://home.comcast.net/~navalism_blooded/Navalism/Namerica-carth-1d.PNG)
Indian Confed gained most. New Russia, California and Texas remain about the same. Mexico lost most(though it is still very large).
Whatcha think?
I don't like the straight-line borders.
Better to use landforms and terrain features so as to give something 'concrete' to recognize.
Noted and I agree to a point. But with a lack of Rivers in some areas, using latitude or longitude makes it easy. plus most western US states used this method in OTL. This helps us figure out where we are on modern maps(Google Earth/Maps).
The New Russia/California border really existed(well it did have tiny bumps and dips). The only one I made up was the Cali-Texas one(108* longitude).
I tried very hard to figure out what the original map lines(provinces as well as main borders) were based on and couldn't some/much of the time(depending where). So how do I KNOW where California's border lay EXACTLY.
I spent most of the time and work on Cali borders. It would still need work, as I dont want to waste time on something not to be used.
Part of the original map, Blooded, was to remove most recognizable 'modern/historical' boundaries and create new, but believable ones. That was part of why I sacrificed Acadia proper when I constructed the boundaries for Acadia.
Son of a.... I just deleted a 20 minute response somehow... >:( I hate that!
Anywho... the basics...
QuotePart of the original map, Blooded, was to remove most recognizable 'modern/historical' boundaries and create new, but believable ones.
I have not been able to find any reasoning for the borders out west. If it is around please show me. Why does mexico have that bulge to the north? why does Texas have one up and over that?
I thought we did not want a fantasy map so we could use Google Earth/Maps? I also thought I saw that our maps were based on Victoria(the game) or somesuch then modified by miketr. I cannot properly define my borders using real maps as these one seem random.
QuoteI tried very hard to figure out what the original map lines(provinces as well as main borders) were based on and couldn't some/much of the time(depending where). So how do I KNOW where California's border lay EXACTLY.
I cant see any rivers/mtns/features that most of MY borders(interior or exterior) are based on. perhaps in your area it is easy to tell, but that is simply not the case in the SW. For me at least, it is important to know if 'Bobstown, Utah' is located in Cali or Mexico. I dealt with too many vague border issues in N3.
My borders have some reasoning and provide a OTL POD to help make things easier. I still cant reconcile too much since the US/CSA history is still vague or nonexistant.
I think that the issue of finding boarders has some merit to it. You have no idea how long it took me to find a sutable list of canadates for a northern base for my navy. That being said, I like the changes to the map that you made. My only request for New Russia is the restoration of the two provences in west Montana and the one that is north of the boarders of the Jeuno Alaska area. Just to make things look more natural. I will take a crack at it when I return from lunch. *runs away and holds onto Juno and/or Sitka for northern Naval bases*
Ok, here we go (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/sversionmodifide.png/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/sversionmodifide.png/))
Changes.
Made the New Russian boarder follow what i think to be the Rockies
Fixed/moved a few province boarders in New Russia, Cali and Mexico that were distorted or made very small by Blooded's and my changes.
Made all the province boarders black (that had been bugging me for a while).
Thoughts?
*Texan casts spell of angry disapproval upon the new map...ok, maybe disgruntaled disapproval*
Ok, it's messing up a couply of things I want with my nation. First, you're giving me that land to the West of the Rio Grande, which is a biggggg no-no. All that stuff in New Mexico on the West part should belong to Foxy, or someone else, cause I don't want it.
Same problem with Colorado. I want that part to the east of the Rio Grande, not to the West. I don't care who that part belongs to, but it's not going to me. On a similar note, I want that part to the east of the Rio Grande back, all the way to the Colorado border, and I want those parts back in Wyoming.
Personally, I prefer the older map MUCH more than this new one; on a somewhat related note, we need someone to remove that New Orleans providence from me and give it to Charles.
(http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad45/TexanCowboy/Untitled.jpg)
As you can see on this new map above, I've restored Texas to my "ideal" view of it, and gave it a more appropriate color. :)
I adjusted the borders on my eastern front a bit, so that Charles gets New Orleans; and I cut a little bit off of his dominance of Missouri for a more logical river boundary then the flat-lined 21st parallel one we had going there.
The West is back to where it was; I don't mind adjusting, but I'm not at all in favor of the straight-lined boundaries. I'm getting the impression that Foxy absolutely has to have Arizona, in the same way that I would "absolutely" have to have parts of Texas.
The simple matter is that I don't think that me and Foxy find the new "California" boundaries acceptable. It screws up a bunch of our storyline for our nations creation; and beyond that, they just look funky...
Oh, and Blooded. Foxy has that bulge there because Mexico historically had it, and didn't have a "SUPA AMERICA SWARM ASSAULT" to defend it against. Texas has that bulge over it because it's what it sorta had as an independent nation, except we pushed that to the Rockies for a natural boundary.
Well...I will wait on seeing what does get the final nod until I fiddle with my boarders again. The only changes I am going to make is to make the eastern boundary follow the Rockies and to poach the island that Sitka is on for a northern base that has a good harbor (as it is one that I have been to and Jeuno is way out of my reach at the start of things). As the only PC nation that shares a direct boarder with me is Cali to the south, I dont think these should cause to much greif. Blooded and I can horse-trade over the New Russia-Cali boundary. Thoughts?
Quotem getting the impression that Foxy absolutely has to have Arizona, in the same way that I would "absolutely" have to have parts of Texas.
And the reason why I must have the Willamette river vally
Hello,
So sorry you are taking massive offense to my suggestion... ::)
What is with all the attitude with most everyone lately... this 'game' is starting to sour fast...
As asked twice before... Where are these discusions stating the 'must have' reasonings? I have not been present the entire time haven't caught up with it all and have honestly not seen them.
QuoteOh, and Blooded. Foxy has that bulge there because Mexico historically had it, and didn't have a "SUPA AMERICA SWARM ASSAULT" to defend it against.
Mexico had alot of the western US... until it didn't. Considering that the Mex-American War dealt with small units out west(in total around 3,000 men on both sides-?- and under a half dozen ships), 'supa-swarm' seems to be overstating it a bit.
QuoteTexas has that bulge over it because it's what it sorta had as an independent nation, except we pushed that to the Rockies for a natural boundary.
The loop over the top goes far past the rockies, continuing the rio grande line up is in line with the rockies. The OTL ROT border is hard to discern but was a tiny sliver in comparison. Barely passing into wyoming.
QuoteThe simple matter is that I don't think that me and Foxy find the new "California" boundaries acceptable. It screws up a bunch of our storyline for our nations creation; and beyond that, they just look funky...
Where are these stories?
QuoteI'm getting the impression that Foxy absolutely has to have Arizona
I thought Foxy had to have Mexico... ::)
I didn't get the impression of any particular 'real' irritation on Fox and Tex's parts, just disagreement. Even Tex's comment seemed more snarky than irritated.
That said, and recognizing that as someone who's not playing an American state I am at best kibitzing, my understanding is that California's origin is not colonial. That being the case, and not giving a damn about the relative square mileage or particular areas involved, I favor TexanCowboy's map precisely because it has only the bare minimum number of 'straight lines drawn on a map in Europe' borders.
An important point here: a nation could be 500 sq miles or 5 million, the GDP at startup will be the same. So from a perspective of resources, territory won't matter.
Now of course, borders do matter. Terrain has great influence on overall defensibility.
Much of the shape of the California/Mexico/Texas map as being argued about now is likely my fault, as I tinkered with a previous draft to try to get those borders to follow rivers where they could, especially the Colorado. I think that's still a good idea.
The history of N. America is there for those who are playing in N. America to define. I realize there are interdependencies with Europe and (probably/hopefully) Asia. What we need to do cooperatively is discover and define what those interdependencies are or need to be. I've tried to put my stake in the ground that I like the idea of Britain's PoD resulting in a long-lived Tudor dynasty, but that certainly could not be the case as well.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to drive the "worldbuilding" process to be bottom-up. We are actively trying to avoid directing top-down story lines, or even top-down borders, unless we have to. This is by necessity a somewhat adversarial process I suppose, but let's please try to do it as cooperatively as possible. There's a new thread and a new post on the process in general coming.
Sorry for the attitude, Blooded; really didn't mean it as such.
Foxy lives in Arizona ATM, IIRC; I believe that's why he wanted Arizona.
Anyways...I think having the Mexican lump there settles some stuff up; if California wants the land, that's what wars for. I don't think that a Morman Empire busy settling California is going to find a way to take over that land from Mexico, esp. a Mexico with a large military rebuilding from a recent defeat from Texas (1849 or so).
Stories can be found in this thread and in the "Armada du la Texas" thread.
The line was basically "Hey, Texas has Cheyenne. Let's stretch that until we get to the continental divide, and to stop Mexican expansion!"
Hello,
QuoteSorry for the attitude
Sorry for mine as well- if it comes across that way- it is not meant. :)
I think have reread everything in the obvious areas especially those pointed out by Tex and can find nothing posted by DF concerning Mexicos history or claims. BTW, I am not really interested in giving up San Diego. 60 miles to the south lies Ensenada would that work?
Tex's 'official' history was posted only 2 days ago.. AFTER I had posted my own suggestions for different borders, so I see no particular reason to see it as a MORE valid construct. It has little to do with the areas in question other than..
Quote1817......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)
Points in particular I have issue with are an OTL ROT claim when the Louisana Purchase never occured and the great central plains are still under native control.
Mexicos claims in the west ran all the way through snips territory for what it is worth, it simply did not/does not have the power to hold it all.
QuoteMuch of the shape of the California/Mexico/Texas map as being argued about now is likely my fault, as I tinkered with a previous draft to try to get those borders to follow rivers where they could, especially the Colorado. I think that's still a good idea.
Along other borders i cant locate rivers(Cali/Oregon and such). ???
OK, OK, I get it.. no straightline borders... the aversion seems silly to me though... one mans.. 'whatever' is another mans.. 'whatever'.... ;D
Mexico proper is around 760,000 miles today
Very rough estimates for N4(based on carth1 map)
N4 California is around 450,000 miles
N4 Mexico is around 860,000 miles(I removed around 120,000 for texas' small chunk and Logis domain.
N4 Texas is around 660,000 miles
My proposed roughly OTL northern border(plus gasden purchase) gives mexico around 660,000 and brings California up to around 650,000(if I take ALL of Mexicos stuff north of the border-some of which was offered to Tex in my last proposal). Heck! that makes us all pretty much equal! ;D
So... are we getting a clearer picture now? Mexico has far too much space that can be traded off in a conflict without any real strategic consequences(it is almost all desert at this time).
Quoteif California wants the land, that's what wars for.
I really have NO desires for wars this time around, Why should I be forced into one based on poor starting allocations? ???
QuoteI don't think that a Morman Empire busy settling California is going to find a way to take over that land from Mexico, esp. a Mexico with a large military rebuilding from a recent defeat from Texas (1849 or so).
Disagree completely. What better time than when Mexico is down and out after a tough war?
I would actually like to propose a slight timechange for your 3rd Texican War. This would allow a better opportunity for a California breakaway BEFORE the Gold Rush(as I would like that to be the event that secures California Independence)
Armies are still pretty small at this stage(pre ACW). In fact I am hoping to alter the N3 Army system alot(Regiment or brigade based? Or at least higher 'value' Corps so breaking them down still gives whole values-ie. Dated Inf Corps attack value equals 20 instead of 3... or whatever seems best) among other things.
Whew, lot of response work to do today :)
Foxy's home is in Pheonix, that's the major reason why he wants it, IIRC.
I think one of the major factors here to realize is that Texas hasn't really civilized most of that land yet. A goodly percentage of that land is controlled by Indians who are being bribed by Texas to submit to the protection of the Texan government, and claim their land in the name of Texas, so a good percentage of those northern borders are flexible. Where California will most likely have effective control over all of its land, Texas has a good bit left to civilize.
A bit less than 860,000, he gave up some of the Central American providences. Maybe...800,000?
Nonetheless, I think we should be getting Foxy's opinion on this before you take the territory from him. If he says "Hey, guise, that's fine", I'd be more amendable to altering the time line and map.
Ok, on the 1817 point; it can claim the territory; the point here is that Texas got really good at bribing tribes to claim their land in the name of Texas before it civilized it, making it de jure Texan territory, and somewhat de facto Texan territory. There aren't many good river boundaries in the region, making it somewhat impractical to cut parts off without cutting a lot off.
QuoteAlong other borders i cant locate rivers(Cali/Oregon and such)
This would be my doing, as I would like the Willamette Vally as part of my territory. As long as I get to hang onto that, then I am amendable to sticking our boarder anywhere. (45th parallel is the highest I am willing to go)
Actually I have never lived in Phoenix. Thought of Mexican decent, I have lived all my life in Arizona. So yes, Arizona is pretty important. Also the reason Mexico lost Arizona in OTL was that the US needed passage from Texas to California, since that is no a problem here, I don't see any real reason as to why Mexico would lose it.
As for San Diego, Ensenada is not really a decent port. The only decent one I have is La Paz and that one is pretty far south. I can live without San Diego, but it would be nice to have. Especially if you don't want to fight wars over it.
Hello,
Carth...
I think it was in 'Germs and Steel' that I read that the major reason for the Native American population dieing out was that Europeans had been living in the muck with their animals(goats, pigs, chickens and whatnot) and had built up tolerences to many diseases which the natives did not have. To allow the Native Americans a better shot my 'Vinland' plan was going to be that the Vikings settled more profusely and for a much greater period. This would acclimatize the natives better and give them access to better tech earlier. They proved as adept at utilizing tech as the Japanese did, too bad they did not have the metallurgy backgrounds to help them out. Anyhow... perhaps this will help in a background idea.
Snip..
I had no issues at all with the northern border claims. The Willamette Valley is yours on ALL the maps devised thus far(well.. after the oregon split- 2nd Map maybe?). I had thought that New Russia could use some better farming land, after adding up mileage I dont think I would want to be giving up half of oregon or Idaho any longer anyway(you will still have the northern halves though).
Texan...
QuoteA bit less than 860,000, he gave up some of the Central American providences. Maybe...800,000?
Already accounted for if you properly read my statement.
QuoteN4 Mexico is around 860,000 miles(I removed around 120,000 for texas' small chunk and Logis domain.
I counted it as 100,000 miles or so.
Fox...
Do you honestly think you are being reasonable? Or is it more like Valles where no one is allowed to alter your vision of the game/reality?
I get sooo damn tired of the short answers which ignore most of my questions or points being made. I spend alot of what little free time I have coming up with my questions and replies only to have you pop in and answer with a few short lines that address very little, ignores most, and ends up basically dismissing all I have tried to contribute. It is damn rude! You need to learn some basic etiquette.
With that said.. I really don't see the point in continuing this nonsense. Too many folks around here act like this and it is just too much frustration. Wish I had the ability to state it more eloquently.
I wish the more reasonable of you to have a good gaming experience and hope to see you around the various Warship boards. Also Happy Fathers Day!
Ok folks we all need to talk slowly and compromise.
If worse comes to worse I can have everyone submit why they want what they want and then the Mods will draw the Maps.
...What the hell just happened?
QuoteI had no issues at all with the northern border claims. The Willamette Valley is yours on ALL the maps devised thus far(well.. after the oregon split- 2nd Map maybe?). I had thought that New Russia could use some better farming land, after adding up mileage I dont think I would want to be giving up half of oregon or Idaho any longer anyway(you will still have the northern halves though).
I was trying to clear up why that boarder followed almost no discernible geographic feature whatsoever
QuoteFox...
Do you honestly think you are being reasonable? Or is it more like Valles where no one is allowed to alter your vision of the game/reality?
I get sooo damn tired of the short answers which ignore most of my questions or points being made. I spend alot of what little free time I have coming up with my questions and replies only to have you pop in and answer with a few short lines that address very little, ignores most, and ends up basically dismissing all I have tried to contribute. It is damn rude! You need to learn some basic etiquett
What? ??? ???
I have been completely out of the loop for a whole month, and have been traveling some more the past few days. My answers have been short cause I have not had much free time. I'd be glad to discuss my reasons, but I'm not sure what the contention points are.
Do you want Arizona? Not much there really, not even today.
Or is it San Diego? I did say I could do without, but it would be very nice to have. I don't have much in the way of Pacific ports.
Sooo... on the East Coast, I see a very traditional French culture- possibly even a bastion of Imperial support for Napoleon Eugene Louis Jean Joseph Bonaparte (Napoleon IV) after his father's death. If England exists in a form that we might recognize- with H.R.H. Queen Victoria as it's head of state- I might even try to, with Guinness's permission, play up the hinted-at relationship between Napoleon IV and Princess Beatrice.
DRAFT HISTORY OF ACADIEQuoteAfter preventing the British takeover of French colonial territories in the Seven Years War, the French colonists and their Native allies began the task of industrializing New France for the benefit of the Empire and it's Subjects. Several shipyards were built along the Atlantic coast, and canals were begun at Sault Ste. Marie to enable transport between Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie... though not to the sea.
*During the interim, France looses all land south of the St. Lawrence River to the British Colonies- not sure about details, will work with Darmon on this one. The Acadians will complete the Welland Canal and the Lachine Canal as well, allowing ships of up to 150'x26'x9' to transit from Lake Superior all the way to the sea... though no 'ocean-going' vessels will be able to make the trip until much later (probably after the Sim ends).
The refugees from the Southern part of New France- largely Acadain- were forced to move inland, settling along the coasts of the Lakes, resuming the fishing and lumber-oriented economic activities that had dominated their culture on the Atlantic coast. When France was defeated by Prussia/the German Empire in the war of 1870-71, the terms of cease-fire included France relinquishing control of New France, granting it independence from the new French Republic. The now separate nation styled itself 'Acadie' in honor of the original name of the French territorial claim in the New World.
*Emperor Napoleon III's eldest son also escapes to Acadia and, while not welcomed as the all-powerful monarch his father had been, is crowned Head of State of what becomes in the next 10 years a constitutional monarchy with powers similar to the Hanoverian line of England.
That's the rough draft... very rough.
Questions, comments, hurled fireballs?
Sadly, Queen Victoria does not in fact exist. I need to dream up who the King or Queen is at startup. I had in mind no Hanovers on the English throne at all.
Whomever your extremely talented imagination concocts has some very large slippers to fill, Guinness.
I hope they are equal to the task!
So, I guess that Napoleon IV will have to search abroad for a new love interest- or remain a swinging bachelor, with all the attending power games that a king without legitimate issue would produce. His other OTL love interest was the daughter of Infanta Isabella II... er, well, down home, she is what we would term the "result of a night spent huntin' hogs."
Picture of her and her pet... er, husband, is below. "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON"
*WARNING: GO LOOK AT A FRENCH BATTLESHIP, THEY ARE PRETTIER AND HAVE SLIMMER LINES*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isabella_II_and_Consort.png
Darman, do you and the Mods find the rest of the history acceptable?
Guys, I think we need to declare war on Carth if THAT's his queen.
I agree, let's ally and declare war on him post haste ;D
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 20, 2011, 08:55:10 PM
Guys, I think we need to declare war on Carth if THAT's his queen.
That is actually the chick's mother- but, you know, if ya wanna know what she's gonna look like in 30 years, look at her momma.
I can assure you that His Majesty will be looking elsewhere for his, er... 'entertainment.'
He needs a better half, not a better 'two-thirds.'
*Wow... someone claw out my Eyes*...
No Heir and a spare for for this Empire so once the Royal Family dies out who is the cadet branch that inherits...
Ahoj!
The dress does not do her justice ....
Borys
Blooded, Foxy and Tex: are the borders in the vicinity of Arizona worked out, or do we need to keep working on it?
I... am not really sure what's going on...
Working good for me, G.
I kinda like the idea of the wiki.
Well as I had an *ahem*
opportunity to redo things...
QuoteEarly-1780: A more unified culture of Natives comes into fruition in the Pacific Northwest. While not reaching the extent of unification necessary to form a traditional nation-state, the interdependence of the tribes slowly grows through the mid 1000s, becoming a proto-nation-state by the 1700's. During this time, several wayward explores bring the illnesses of the West to the region. The arrival of Russian colonists sees most of the population of remaining natives with a developed resistance to the illnesses that wrecked havoc with native populations in the East.
1780's and 1790's: Grigory Shelikhov and others spearhead a much greater colonization effort of the future lands of New Russia. When contact is made with the proto-nation-state of the natives, the Russians chose to attempt to integrate the native's society with that of the colonists instead of exterminating it. This eventually leads to the extent of colonies territory and population being much larger than originally thought possible.
1810's: By Imperial decree, most of the Jewish population of the Russian Empire is relocated to other areas. Most of the exiled Jews end up in the colony, greatly increasing its population.
1826: After a Decembrist Revolt with a very different outcome, Constantine Pavlovich becomes the Grand Duke of New Russia. His control is harsh, but his passing in 1831 ushers in a long line of fair and just rulers.
1840's: Forward looking individuals and the Russian and colonial governments begin the slow process of industrializing the colony, harnessing the ememce power of its natural waterways at first, and eventually the large reserves of coal, wood and iron that dot the colony. Both the Russian and colonial governments subsidizes creation of large shipyards to facilitate the transport of these goods on Russian-made ships.
1842: Following the end of the Opium war (or its NTL equivalent) a large group of Chinese appeal to the Russian government to let them settle in the colony. The Russians agree and give the Chinese access an island and some territory north of the main colony to settle in.
1848: As part of the sweeping reforms across Europe, the Russian Empire falls. At this time, New Russia officially declares it independence as one of the states that emerges from the implosion of the Russian state.
Early 1850's: The discovery of Gold to the south of the new nation, brings new trade opportunities as the land to the south greatly swells the demand for finished goods. Factories see increased productivity and numbers. The previous efforts at industrialization serve to provide a exilent base and soon the country is able to meet not only its own needs, but have a significant export market in California as well.
1862: A reform movement that had been building in momentum finally succeeds in pushing through a constitution. This is coupled with the transfer of many executive powers from the monarchy to the new representative government. The nation finally shakes the last bonds of colonialism and takes the title of Respublika Novaya Rossiya (Republic of New Russia). Due to the amount of different cultures present and the origins of the reform movement in anti-serfdom, all men are granted equal participation in the government. Freedom of religion is also granted to the population as a whole, owing to its great religious diversity. Slavery is outlawed, but due to the relative lack of slaves this does not cause much fuss. The government is a representative republic, with very advanced social policy owing to its origins as both an anti-serfdom and pro-labor movement. The monarchy remains intact and is still the holder of several important diplomatic and political positions. The Republican Army is formed with the elite groups forming the Republican Guards who are responsible for protecting both the government and the royal family. The government buys many small vessels for fishery protection and patrol duties to form the Republican Navy.
1865: The Republican Navy finally commissions it first purpose-built warship. This heralds the start of an aggressive military buildup, with an accompanying general industrial buildup, to accomplish the goals of kick starting the economy out of its post-revolution slump and defending the young nation's interests.
Im working on a royal liniage, may post it tonight even.
Hello,
I have had some supportive PMs and I am going to do my best to stick around.
Guinness:
QuoteBlooded, Foxy and Tex: are the borders in the vicinity of Arizona worked out, or do we need to keep working on it?
Is there a reason you want the Map wrapped up so soon? Is something else waiting on it? You had stated that the histories AND Map are subject to change, and that is what I am trying to do.
What were your reasons for having Mexico hold Arizona and parts of Utah, Colorado and New Mexico on the original map?
As I have shown( with rough calculations) Mexico is almost twice the size of California. The way I see it, DesertFox and i will be going to war immediately upon gamestart. That leaves me NO manuevering room and if I have to give something up or have something occupied it will hurt my economy more than would be the case if a similar amount of territory is lost by DF. That is asinine, I will not volunteer to be in that situation.
So I think the border still needs modification.
BTW, Somebody had stated a possibility for 2 native nations(I would suggest The Iroquois Confederacy-the Eastern Natives and The Lakota Lands(or somesuch) in the central plains.
DesertFox
QuoteI'd be glad to discuss my reasons, but I'm not sure what the contention points are.
Please do state your reasons... Then I guess you need to reread my posts.
here is the first on the subject.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5549.msg70945#msg70945 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5549.msg70945#msg70945)
QuoteDo you want Arizona? Not much there really, not even today.
I certainly do. Plus all of the area north of Mexicos OTL border(not incuding the Gasden purchase-ie you get that section of Arizona and New Mexico). You are correct, there is not much there even today(It does allow depth to a defense though).
Since we are obviously starting off as antagonists I would be crazy not to equalize our starting land. Trading that much land will do it nicely. About as equal as possible.
QuoteAlso the reason Mexico lost Arizona in OTL was that the US needed passage from Texas to California, since that is no a problem here, I don't see any real reason as to why Mexico would lose it.
We are making up our own histories here. For N4 basics... I propose that With the constant TexMex Wars, California sees the chance for Independence if it strikes while the 3rd war is on, populations and military units were small out west. Gold is offered to buy Alta California and the New Mex sliver at treaty time. This would give the Mexican government much desired $$! Perhaps that gold paid for new infrastructure, tech and shipwrites allowing you to create your monitors(from the texas navy section) perhaps he just made a solid gold tub, who knows? Obviously the details are poor at this stage but i see no point to invent details without your basic agreement.
QuoteOr is it San Diego? I did say I could do without, but it would be very nice to have.
QuoteI can live without San Diego, but it would be nice to have. Especially if you don't want to fight wars over it
.
San Diego is very nice soo I think I will keep it. Anyway.. it is too close to the border to make it your major military port. Especially if we are fighting over it.
QuoteI don't have much in the way of Pacific ports.
QuoteThe only decent one I have is La Paz and that one is pretty far south
Exaggerating a bit? I can see another 4 Good areas down western baja if you add some breakwaters and perhaps dredge. If you look along the entire Pacific coast you have many great locations.
There are other possibilites to equalize. Mexico could give up 400,000 miles to the natives. ;D
For DF to keep Arizona I would except the Baja Peninsula(55,000 square miles) plus the Utah(20K), colorado(30K), new mexico(50K) parts(with another 50k or so to Logi down south). ;D
Either would help even things up.
QuoteWhat were your reasons for having Mexico hold Arizona and parts of Utah, Colorado and New Mexico on the original map?
Its pretty simple. Mexico lost them in OTL simply because they where in between Texas and California. The US needed land to build a railroad through. Other than that the US had zero need for those lands.
QuoteAs I have shown( with rough calculations) Mexico is almost twice the size of California. The way I see it, DesertFox and i will be going to war immediately upon gamestart. That leaves me NO manuevering room and if I have to give something up or have something occupied it will hurt my economy more than would be the case if a similar amount of territory is lost by DF. That is asinine, I will not volunteer to be in that situation.
And yet you have the better lands. Canada is the second largest nation in terms of land area, but it doesn't make them a global power. Today California is the 5th largest economy in the world, Mexico is 13th.
Why would we be at war immediately?
And all of your important parts are behind a river, several hundred miles of desert, and a pretty significant mountain range. On top of very long LOC on my part. The only invasion route on my part is up the coast and the terrain is not any better there.
QuoteI certainly do. Plus all of the area north of Mexicos OTL border(not incuding the Gasden purchase-ie you get that section of Arizona and New Mexico). You are correct, there is not much there even today(It does allow depth to a defense though).
Since we are obviously starting off as antagonists I would be crazy not to equalize our starting land. Trading that much land will do it nicely. About as equal as possible.
In
that case your nation would be behind hundreds of miles of desert, while my Northern states would be quite vulnerable.
QuoteExaggerating a bit? I can see another 4 Good areas down western baja if you add some breakwaters and perhaps dredge. If you look along the entire Pacific coast you have many great locations.
None of which have easy rail access to the rest of the country. The Baja peninsula in general is a pretty bad place to place stuff. Lots of mountains and very poor infrastructure even today. I got some decent locations in the Pacific coast, but all are on the mainland. And its pretty easy for you to cut off Baja in a war.
QuoteSan Diego is very nice soo I think I will keep it. Anyway.. it is too close to the border to make it your major military port. Especially if we are fighting over it.
My biggest and most important port is Veracruz, and its right next to my Southern border.
I am surrounded by enemies and have two distinctly separate coasts to defend. Is Arizona too much to ask for? And as far as I understand it, we will all be starting equally.
Guys, I'm sure we can find a compromise position here. What if we don't do all of the land, but everything north of the San Juan, as well as those awkward chunks of Texan land, go to California?
DF
QuoteWhat were your reasons .... on the original map?
Its pretty simple. Mexico ..... zero need for those lands.
That was directed to Guinness.. unless you made the map?
QuoteAnd yet you have the better lands.
Er.. California, nevada, utah, and Idaho are mostly desert. Just like Mexico, not a whole lot happens there without water being provided. very little of that land was worth a damn without alot of blood, sweat and tears.
QuoteToday California is the 5th largest economy in the world, Mexico is 13th.
OTL and 130 years difference. Apples and Oranges. I fully believe that if Mexico had the 1849 Gold Rush, better leaders and the rest of the US backing it up that Mexico would be number 5 in the world economies.
QuoteAnd all of your important parts are behind a river, several hundred miles of desert, and a pretty significant mountain range. On top of very long LOC on my part. The only invasion route on my part is up the coast and the terrain is not any better there.
Go look at some maps. That applies perfectly to mexico as well. Behind a river(Rio or Colorado), Desert, Mountain ranges.
QuoteWhy would we be at war immediately?
Because you suggested that if I dont give you San Diego you will take it.
QuoteEspecially if you don't want to fight wars over it
And also because you seem to relish tipping the apple cart. So I guess it will be just on principle at this stage.
QuoteIn that case your nation would be behind hundreds of miles of desert, while my Northern states would be quite vulnerable.
Answered above. We are in the same boat.
QuoteNone of which have easy rail access to the rest of the country. The Baja peninsula in general is a pretty bad place to place stuff. Lots of mountains and very poor infrastructure even today... And its pretty easy for you to cut off Baja in a war.
I see the Baja Peninsula as a giant breakwater. Any small military bases could be supported from the water on the backside if you build some transports. Great for defense, It could act like Italys boot in WW2, drag things on without any major committment on your part.
QuoteI got some decent locations in the Pacific coast, but all are on the mainland.
Good excuse for extra range and speed on your ships! ;)
QuoteMy biggest and most important port is Veracruz, and its right next to my Southern border.
You chose your nation. Make someplace else your main port or better yet have several smaller ones. Too many eggs in the basket are bad.
QuoteI am surrounded by enemies
You chose your nation. You also choose whether those neighbors are enemies or friends. Perhaps it is time to stop being so atagonistic.
Quoteand have two distinctly separate coasts to defend.
You chose your nation. I dont feel much for you here.. Russia had 4 main fleets, two seperated by half a world. Build a canal.
QuoteIs Arizona too much to ask for?
No... but it is not just arizona is it, you want your cake as well. I suggested...
QuoteThere are other possibilites to equalize. Mexico could give up 400,000 miles to the natives.
For DF to keep Arizona I would except the Baja Peninsula(55,000 square miles) plus the Utah(20K), colorado(30K), new mexico(50K) parts(with another 50k or so to Logi down south).
Either would help even things up.
QuoteAnd as far as I understand it, we will all be starting equally.
Our economies will be equal... yes I gather that is true as well.
But... California currently shows as 18 provinces. Mexico has 40ish? If they go HOI style and assign a number to each province(say we start with 100 economy points) my provinces are worth 5 each yours 2.5. We go to war, We each capture 5 provinces before stalemate. I have lost 25% of my economy, you have lost 12.5%. So we really arent equal are we?
DF,
You really did pick your poison, choosing exactly what you wanted as a nation.
And you can make the nations on your borders allies or enemies- it is all up to you.
No one feels for you at all.
I especially don't as I will be lucky to have one port that doesn't require icebreakers and explosives to keep open more than 5 months out of 12. Deal with the anchorages you have; this is fictional you know... if something isn't perfect in the Real World, that don't mean you can't spread some BS around and MAKE it perfect.
Quote
You really did pick your poison, choosing exactly what you wanted as a nation.
And you can make the nations on your borders allies or enemies- it is all up to you.
I think this about sums it up
Ahoj!
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 22, 2011, 11:30:56 AM
I will be lucky to have one port that doesn't require icebreakers and explosives to keep open more than 5 months out of 12.
I feel blessed ...
Borys
The border in an about Arizona originally was drawn to follow the Colorado whenever possible. This was what I thought would be a good idea, nothing less and nothing more. I'd hoped it would mean that neither California nor Mexico could control the flow of the Colorado.
Well, uh, he didn't really have a choice for one of them as enemies.
Guys, I still believe the San Juan would be a good boundary. Gives Blooded about half of the disputed territory.
Boundry Disputes Aside.....
Ok,
For the History of most of the Eastern North America and Even Texas we need to look for our Point of teparture most likely around the Time of the 7 Years Wars and the Napoleonic Wars.
Texas is formed by the "rejects" most likely of either the NER or the UCAS drive to move west. The Sad part is Texas and several other parts of Mexico were good Cotton territory in several places and as such the Southern US states wanted to seize all of this terriroty after the Mexican American War.
The Drive to expand King Cotton and Slavery to feed the Mills of England and the Northe East United states will probably remain the vector that controlls both UCAS and Texan Economy right up to the present day of 1880.
So we need to determine the following.
1. England is not totaly victorious in the 7 years wars leaving France with a Colonial Empire to become Acadia some time after the the Napoleonic Wars.
2. Do the 13 US Colonies fail in their bid for independence or only partially succeed. Do they form the United States and then fracture durring the War of 1812 ????
I have lots of useful information we can use such as the Aroostook War in the late 1830's to allow the NER and Acadia to adjust their boundry to the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence River boundries.
This might very well leave the players of England, NER, Texas, and the UCAS as nations seperated by a common language. ::)
Now quietly builds a flood way project to channel the Mississippi flood to the West and South durring the next 100 year flood.... Gonna was them Texans right out of my Hair.... 8)
Most of that sounds good to me.
I need some French people tho; Darman, would you be willing to exile some of your Acadians? Jef, could I take perhaps your Hugonauts, or some other exiled group from France?
New Orleans was French we can assume the British Managed to at least take the French Southern Colonies in North America. So with the British occupation of Louisianna that leaves at least some portion of the Creole and French Population of that area to migrate to Texas.
In addition there was a group of Former French Army officers and troops exiled by Napoleons defeat who came to New Orleans. Im trying to remember their names. Anyway they could move on to Texas and form the basis for French immigartion from France to Texas durring the 1820 and 1830's.
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 22, 2011, 10:49:29 PM
New Orleans was French we can assume the British Managed to at least take the French Southern Colonies in North America.
Just go for the historical thing if you want the least trouble... Spain got the colony of New Orleans after the 7 Years War; then the some time later, the colony is purchased- though rather than having France buy it back, it could be bought by the UCAS and then have part secede and join Texas.
QuoteEr.. California, nevada, utah, and Idaho are mostly desert. Just like Mexico, not a whole lot happens there without water being provided. very little of that land was worth a damn without alot of blood, sweat and tears.
But the California coast and central valley is prime real estate.
Quote
OTL and 130 years difference. Apples and Oranges. I fully believe that if Mexico had the 1849 Gold Rush, better leaders and the rest of the US backing it up that Mexico would be number 5 in the world economies.
Maybe so, but Mexico doesn't have California. And you still have the greater potential and the gold...
QuoteGo look at some maps. That applies perfectly to mexico as well. Behind a river(Rio or Colorado), Desert, Mountain ranges.
Mountain range splits the country. Invaders can move down either coast without worrying about mountains. Your mountains are perfectly placed to defend your heartland. Mine make it difficult for me to move troops east and west.
QuoteI see the Baja Peninsula as a giant breakwater. Any small military bases could be supported from the water on the backside if you build some transports. Great for defense, It could act like Italys boot in WW2, drag things on without any major committment on your part.
Not really, east west movement is very difficult. La Paz works cause it can be resupplied from the mainland after a short boat ride.
QuoteYou chose your nation. Make someplace else your main port or better yet have several smaller ones. Too many eggs in the basket are bad.
Maybe but thats where it was in OTL, and the new history hasn't caused any changes that would require moving it.
QuoteNo... but it is not just arizona is it, you want your cake as well. I suggested...
So in exchange for getting a bunch of worthless desert, you want me to completely screw myself over?
QuoteOur economies will be equal... yes I gather that is true as well.
But... California currently shows as 18 provinces. Mexico has 40ish? If they go HOI style and assign a number to each province(say we start with 100 economy points) my provinces are worth 5 each yours 2.5. We go to war, We each capture 5 provinces before stalemate. I have lost 25% of my economy, you have lost 12.5%. So we really arent equal are we?
Are we having each province be worth the same? That sounds weird and stupid. Again I can't see an easy way for me to get any of your critical provinces. Meanwhile losing Sonora or Nuevo Leon (Monterrey) would be significant for Mexico. No we are not equal, you hold the better position.
QuoteYou really did pick your poison, choosing exactly what you wanted as a nation.
And you can make the nations on your borders allies or enemies- it is all up to you.
No one feels for you at all.
I know. I like having two separate oceans. I'm not complaining. Just pointing out that any slight advantage I would have from having Arizona, is more than outweighed by my overall strategic position.
Quote
Deal with the anchorages you have; this is fictional you know... if something isn't perfect in the Real World, that don't mean you can't spread some BS around and MAKE it perfect.
That's cheating. Makes it too easy. I'm not doing it.
I just can't see why California would want or be able to get anything east of the Colorado.
Quote from: Desertfox on June 23, 2011, 12:21:05 AM
I just can't see why California would want or be able to get anything east of the Colorado.
For the same reason that you feel you should get everything you want, Desertfox...
HE WANTS IT.
Dude, you picked Mexico as your nation.
You chose to have it set up in such a way as to have two large, open coastlines which had to be defended; as this is fictional, you could have allowed Texas to have some of the Gulf Coast or anything else that reduced your commitment.
You decided that you wanted some of Arizona- and now are loath to turn loose of something that is "worthless desert" which you "can't understand why anyone would want." At the same time, you are defending your own 'makes perfect sense' claim to it to the death!
And:
1.) You ARE complaining- there is no other name for what's going on.
2.) 'Changing' is not 'Cheating'- my CSA dredged a ship canal in Mobile Bay 40 years early... SO WHAT! I WANTED a naval base there, and saying that I had dredged a channel in a bay where the average depth is about 6-8' depending on tides was the only way I could get it.
Actually I wasn't around when the picking was made. I was placed in Mexico, thought I do agree with that decision and would have made the same (only change would have been southern Mexico for southern California).
There is one reason why I want Arizona. It's where I'm from, I've lived there my whole life and not just in one part of it. I grew up in the Southern Part of it, went to high school in the NE corner, and now live in the central-north region. At the moment I will be two months in Albuquerque, which will be the only other place outside Arizona I have reside in.
Are we at an impasse here? IE is it time for a lightening bolt to crash down to earth from Mount Olympus and the Gods to make their will known?
Michael
Quote from: ctwaterman on June 22, 2011, 10:49:29 PM
New Orleans was French
-snip-
New Orleans was French because the dreaded New England militia captured Novia Scotia from the French during a war (forget which) and basically ethnically cleansed it of the French colonists (the Acadians) who moved down the Mississippi. At least that is what I learned in French class....(and my history class, and from my own personal family history where an English ancestor living in RI joined the militia and went up north and kicked the French out then settled up that way).
New Orleans was officially founded in 1718 by a French Charter. It was Ceded to Spain in 1763 and reverted to French Control in 1801. Prior to this the French had been in the area since the 1690 and built the first fort in the area in 1701. So New Orleans was French prior to the French and Indian Wars and the treaty ending those wars in 1763 giving the Louisiana territory to Spain.
Part of my Family moved to Nova Scotia after the American Revoloution. That would be the Torry side of the Family. ;D who reamined loyal to the crown. Eventually they moved back to Mass area once some of the Ill will and several generations had passed.
Howdy,
QuoteAre we at an impasse here?
OK, since DF will not suggest any alternatives, and is incapable of seeing anothers POV then I guess it will go to the MODS. I will not continue a pointless conversation. It takes two to tango. ::)
Unfortunately, I believe all conversations with DF end up this way. I honestly can't recall his ever conceding any point in any debate, but compromise does not exist here. It is a miserable process to rediscover his inflexibility. I keep thinking a rational spark must be in there somewhere.
DFs reasoning lacks substance and he avoids the basic issue. It boils down to Guinness mistakenly gave a bigger slice of the North American Pie to the wrong guy(anyone else could have come to a solution by now). I don't have it in me to let DF just have it anymore. DF gets away with too much.. too often.
Perhaps the best solution at this point is not to split the offending pie piece between us(it has his cooties all over it now! ;D ) but to create an Apache Nation in the offending area(200,000 miles)? Perhaps a breakaway Mexican Nation(Loyalists?) of around 400,000 miles in the southern Mexico area(or confining DFs Mexico to one side of the peninsula). Making the Baja Peninsula neutral would be nice as well(since he apparently does not care for it ;) ).
That could buffer our states reasonably(or better yet keep us from touching at all), And whittle his national size down to a fair level(Since he feels my nation is plenty large @ 450,000 miles).
My ancestor fought under Captain* Benjamin Church during King Phillip's War and later at Acadia. My apologies, he was with Church in 1690, during the first attacks on Acadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Royal_%281690%29). I don't believe there was a mass exodus in 1690 but I know it provided an incentive for the Acadians to leave.
*In the family history I have he is marked as a "captain". I guess that was what he was during King Phillip's War.
Dar, you object to me taking a few of the Acadians who were in your territory?
Blooded + Foxy: Buffer state might work, yes. Also the San Juan idea, which ya'll seem to have ignored....
Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 23, 2011, 07:26:58 PM
Dar, you object to me taking a few of the Acadians who were in your territory?
Not at all. Displaced persons and all that. Happens in war, some traveled down the Mississippi, others volunteered for irregular regiments being formed to fight for the Texan revolution and ended up bringing their families. However you want to do it is fine by me.
Tex..
QuoteAlso the San Juan idea, which ya'll seem to have ignored....
And rightfully so... ;) That only accounts for around 50,000 miles-25%(Utah portion and Colorado portion of DFs 200,000 excess mileage). You need to try harder than that. ;D But at least your proposal is far better than DFs.. ;)
Ok Have crayon Mods will fix borders.
Now lets talk immigration patterns and why Lt. Freemont sided with the Local California authorities to form their own government instead of joining the UCAS ???
I am so not funding a Transcontinental Railroad.... *Grumbles* about ungracious Texans and Californians....
;) ;D
Yes I figure the Pro Cotton, Pro Slavery movement in the 1820 thru the 1850 drove westward exansion and resulted in two seperate Governments that did not want to join the UCAS once decision time came.
You aren't muttering about the French, the Mexicans, the Italians, and the Indians that said "HELL NA, NO INTEGRATION?"
You won't? This calls for more blam, and more Sergeant Schlock.
That would work, but my independence is in 1817, so....
QuoteThat would work, but my independence is in 1817, so....
Per my PM...
Independence from Whom you are 10 guys in a building screaming we are independent while at the same time praying the Komancharo tribes dont burn your fort down around you. You need a full generation or two to build up a population base before you can declare your independence from anyone.
Beware lest Foxy send a Company of Cavalry on a 2 month patrol to round you all up and ship you off to a penal colony some where.
LOL... aren't I fortunate I have a Motherland which is located safely across an ocean!
Yeah, but I have Sergeant Schlock and Tagon's Toughs as my Foreign Legion, so, uh *ominous hummmm*
Hiya,
QuoteI am so not funding a Transcontinental Railroad....
I was wondering about that one.. It was a game changer! :'(
The ol' West will be quite different.
I guess the 'natives' are still below that stage(better organized but not citified? Well... maybe the Iroquois are in longhouse villages or more permanent? The Lakota/Sioux still in teepees with horse culture?). The Buffalo would still roam... what a majestic sight that would be! :o
Carth...
I think I missed some stuff. Is Acadia a French Influenced Native Culture or a Native Influenced French colony?
Quote from: Blooded on June 23, 2011, 11:33:45 PM
Carth...
I think I missed some stuff. Is Acadia a French Influenced Native Culture or a Native Influenced French colony?
Well, as I eventually got the word that it would be best that it were more 'civilized,' it will be a mixed culture State similar to OTL Louisiana. There will be a large ethnic French minority, a strongly French-influenced Native majority, and a minority of Natives- mostly in the far west, along the coast of Lake Superior and around Lake Winnipeg- who have a Creole language and some rather 'quaint' traditions, and who possibly retain the 'Old Faith'.
I will admit to a bit of 'transporting' when it comes to some things simply because I understand them better. For instance, the French population of Acadia will be more like OTL Louisiana's 'Upper Crust' than they will real Frenchmen. Also, I will be using the Muskogee language instead of one native to Canada because I already have some collected resources on Muskogee.
Look at the Northwest Revolt or the Metis Uprising for your Native Culture.... Ask and you shall receive free at no charge from history...
Interesting... worth taking a longer look at tomorrow.
Thanks. Mixing this with the Creek traditions I know about will likely give me a good base.
As for the Transcontinental Railway well... to be honest their is no Economic Reason for either Myself or the NER to build such a huge expensive thing. At least not by funding it with huge land grants to the builders.
California, its Gold and its riches do not belong to me so I will concentrate on improving the railroad lines within my own borders instead of building a single narrow rail off into Indian Country. Same with the transcontinental Telegraph Cable.
The need to facilitate communication from coast to coast does not exist here. I might have telegraph lines connecting the UCAS with the NER and Texas the same with a few railway links across the Mississippi and along the East Coast. I mean Washington DC and Baltimore to New York and Philadelphia are good railway connections even with cheap costal shipping available.
But what we are going to be missing here is the Great vector of a push across the Great Planes. What was once called the Great American Desert will remain the domain of the Buffalo and the Nomadic Tribes and to be honest the UCAS see's no Economic Reason to change that. Only in Hind sight would we realize the value of Irrigating Grain crops on those areas. And to be honest once my UCAS stop doing strait cash crops and I have a huge amount of fertile farm land. I see Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and the States East of the Mississippi becoming the bread basket of the UCAS and NER.
Do we want to work on a comprehensive Time Line of the Settlement of North America?
I figure we need to start with the 7 Years of French and Indian Wars in effect.
France does not lose all their colonies, and then we have the US Revolution. For some reason either a failure to compromise during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 lots of things could have gone wrong. A Failure to compromise on the Big vs. Small states Issues or on Slavery and representation all could have led to a failure of the Constitution either being written or failure in ratification. All this could lead to a break up into 2 factions the Federalist [John Addams] in the North and the Democratic-Republicans under [Jefferson] in the South. This could lead to a weaker government that fractures during the war of 1812.
To the North we have a Métis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_people_(Canada) based society forming in parallel with a French one in Canada with border disputes with the North East Republic [NER] The conflict based around the Aroostook War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War makes a perfect background to establish a border.
As for Texas there really is not much need to change in Texas accept a few dates, names of battles and such. Possibly Texas revolts a little earlier over the Issue of Slavery in 1829/30 but the historical factor is Santa Anna and his transformation of the Mexican Government into a Centralist State under his control. As an example in 1829 all slave owner were given a 1 year exception to the Mexican Edict of 1829 outlawing slavery in Mexico. By 1830 over 5000 Texas owned slaves had been converted to indentured servants for Life?
The Republic of California [ROC] or whatever Blooded wants to Call California can revolt during well any of the many wars that are going to be fought between Texas and Mexico. In this time Frame there is more trade between St. Louis Missouri and Santa Fe New Mexico then between Santa Fe and Mexico City. The Gold Rush of 1849 no matter what will provide all the Immigration that California needs to reach Nation hood.
I'm toying around with the idea that Acadian refugees, sailing down the Ohio and Mississippi from Darman's land, along with invited royalist French immigrants, revolt in 1824; much more extensive French colonization than OTL, and Fort Saint Louis survives as an independent colony until the end of the 7 Year War, when it is taken over by Spain along with Arkansas and Louisiana, which provides more momentum against the "evil Neo-Spanish overlords, with their concept of Catholic Monarchy". The Confederates, streaming west, would come later. This would lead to more of a French based state, but I like the idea....
So the French Refugees float down the Allegeny River till it merges with the Ohio and from their down to the Mississippi. The Question in 1820 till around 1830 is why dont they settle in New Orleans?
But I guess if Mexico after 1821 offers them enough land grants I guess they can go to Fort Saint Louis and settle there. And then revolt latter....
;) You know this makes Texans Revolting dont you... 8)
Well, New Bordeaux, rather, is to be part of Mexico at the time. I'm figuring that whoever controls Orleans says "no", while Mexico says "yes" to immigration, leading to dispersal through the Lousiana swamp country and the Fort Saint Louis region.
Hm, the UCAS might have a Revolt if you keep using such Revolting puns. ;D ;D ;D
is my Russian Pacific Northwest idea a go?
I dont see any reason why not the US, Russia, and GB all had historical claims on that region. With a weaker GB I dont see why Russia wouldnt send say all its political disidents their instead of Siberia. They can get more work and more use out of them for longer in Siberia. Plus add in less forced Immigration and you end up with a mini Russia state.
To bring it up again, where we at with the whole Carribean-Texas thing?
I abandoned all claims except maybe the one at Key West.
Howdy Pardners!
So what is up with the North American Southwest! I asked for a Mod ruling on DFs 'Massive Domain' TM on June 23rd.
I have not heard word one... Would it not be best to discuss options or will you spend hours making a map that may be entirely pointless?
I am a firm believer in not wasting time....
I'm sorry, I've been recovering from a crash crunch effort to roll out a business circumstances driven update to a certain pro-basketball website which resulted in my pulling off a 36 hour day Thursday-Friday. I'll put on my to-do list to have a look a the maps again, but at this point the best case scenario is a geographic splitting of the baby that is unlikely to make anyone happy.
Here's a modified map. Hightlights:
- Cleaned up NPCs and whitespace
- Fiddled with the Maine/Nova Scotia/etc. region. I'm not really 100% happy with how New England (or whatever it's called) has come out. Input from nations in that vicinity would be helpful and welcome.
- Fiddled with Borders in the Southwest. I'm sure all nations in the vicinity will be unhappy, in which case this is probably a victory. This is the aforementioned baby splitting.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4.png) (http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4.png)
Uh, what happened to Logi's nation, and all the adjustments me and charles made in regards to Louisiana?
EDIT: This was the last officialish map; maybe we should modify based off of that?
(http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad45/TexanCowboy/Untitled.jpg)
13 pages of comments mean I probably missed something. It also means you probably missed something regarding the Caribbean. I'd prefer not to rehash that matter.
Well, I voluntarily relinquished claims to everything on the south side of the St. Lawrence River to New England... that's why New England looked the way it did. Darman and I are going to work out a small-scale border war that will result in the change of hands. I thought sticking to the OTL boundaries was- honestly- a bit silly when such a small change could cause such a big sense of 'difference' in our world.
We want this to be as unique as possible... that was a very easy way to establish the difference.
Ok, I'll give that stuff back.
OH... np, and this IS a VERY long and confusing thread.
Just wanted to update you and present the reasoning so you'd know the change was mutual.
(http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad45/TexanCowboy/Untitled-2.jpg)
Here's "my" fixed up version.
Gave that stuff back to New England, and gave up territory on the east bank of the Mississippi to Charles. I gave up everything south of the Rio Grande to Foxy, and gave up a little bit of territory up north to make it more in line with rivers.
Guinness, if you're doing the official map, can you make these changes to Texas, Mexico, and the UCAS? (Resulting in more territory for everyone but Texas).
Can someone post the map in the wikipedia page or include a link? I can't see it atm.
hmmm will you name it the Texico Line? I only ask because that has the potential to be one hell of a fortified line
do I still have the go-ahead for modifying my boarders to folow the Rockies?
Quote from: snip on July 04, 2011, 04:55:53 PM
do I still have the go-ahead for modifying my boarders to folow the Rockies?
NUUU Utah er whatever its called gets Jellystone and Yogi (secret weapon of DOOM)
I am more refering to the parts of Northern BC that I have, I just dont like the squareness of some of that
LOL snip you already have NW Wyoming I was just messin with ya (although im trying to convince blooded to invade it at the first opertunity)
*squints at map*
Well guess I do :D
Texico Line? Pecos Line just has a better ring to it... ;D
Blooded has my House though... and since its been in my family literaly forever (like before Wyoming was a State) I would say my ancestors would proly be there (Mormon Pionears)
Blooded also has my house (Prescott) and my current location (Albuquerque). That will have to be remedied...
Quote from: Guinness on July 04, 2011, 01:35:37 PM
13 pages of comments mean I probably missed something. It also means you probably missed something regarding the Caribbean. I'd prefer not to rehash that matter.
He hasn't missed anything. I've also just searched though the entire thread and I've also been keeping close tabs on it. We've basically agreed on everything but Key West. No further discussion was made.
Lots of Changes from the last map alot...?????
Charles
Yes, Logi, that's why I'm confused as to why you aren't on the map.
Tan, you're kidding me. Do you know how much of a PITA that would be to fortify that entire border? Remember how much the Line DeCreme cost in N3, multiply that by 3 or 4. It's just not economically viable. I'd expect to see major fortications by the coast, and at key river crossings, and maybe some lines down by the coast, but inland it'll be a war of Texas Rangers, Calvary, etc. It might be fortified to the level of the Italian-French border pre-WWI.
Charles, I changed my map to give you Orleans, you ok with that?
Foxy, I'll be guarding the line Romanian style. To sum up the modifications I did on my varient, you got everything on your side of the Rio Grande that I had back. Seems only fair.
I was talking about the Extenstion of the NER Westward to the Mississippi and the very narrow gap left between the NER and Texas.
The Old Map had the NER currently some where in Indiana.
Based on the Slavery Issue my Country is going to expand up the Mississippi or would have Slavery will be in the final stages of being Abolished when the Game Starts.
Anyway..... the New Map has Texas expanded into the Colorado probably to far north you might claim the land but honestly it is populated by Native Nomadic Tribes. The NER appears to have spread down from Ohio along a very unlikely route.
If we are basing My UCS and the NER on the historic 13 Colonies then the 13 Colonies had established claims that in many cases ran all the way to the Mississippi or acording to King George the Pacific Ocean. These territories were given by the States to the US Central Government under Washington the sale of which would be to help pay the National Debt.
Yea I know I have been watching how the states go their shapes show recently :)
Anyway the NER cant spread down the Ohio River because eventually the River Flows into Kentucky which is territory claimed by my State of Virgina. I would expect the NER to fill in the State of Ohio, Indiana, and even Michicagan based on ease of travel on the Great Lakes before they started to flow South into Southern Indiana and Illinois.
We can work on the clash of titles to the land of the Louisiana Purchase and or Conflicting Claims between the UK, France, and Spanish New World claims. But Honestly many of the lines on this map outline areas with miniscule population levels and possibly due to the lack of a Trans Continental Railroad are still unexplored Wilderness.
You and I have limited Access up the Arkansas and Missouri Rivers since about the 1840 or the Founding of Texas. But realistically that leaves those areas under my control until the 1860's when you are dont fighting Foxy. In effect they need to be returned to the Grey Zone. We can then proceed to fight over them durring the Game :)
Charles
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.
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 )
I think we have already shot down the Idea for a nation in the Carribean.
Charles
I'm confused, is Logi still playing? I get the impression from him that he is.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 05, 2011, 12:31:50 AM
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
I believe the Mod Vote was for NO Caribbean Empire or Player State.
Charles
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 05, 2011, 12:53:24 AM
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? ;)
Quote from: Korpen on July 05, 2011, 12:58:59 AM
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 05, 2011, 12:53:24 AM
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.
Ok, here's this:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-2.png) (http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-2.png)
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.
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. ;)
QuoteMy 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.
QuoteIf 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... :'(
Quote from: Blooded on July 05, 2011, 10:50:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Blooded on July 05, 2011, 10:50:49 AMIn 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.
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.
Hello,
QuoteTexas 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...
Quote from: Blooded on July 05, 2011, 12:37:19 PM
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.
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.
Can you guys please stop blaming me for everything? I understand IC but OOC? Yeah I was in a bunch of wars but I didn't start a single one of them. 1st Chinese War, the Chinese decide they want Hong Kong and Shanghai back, Austria and Spain decide to jump in just for fun. 2nd Pacific War, a storyline between me and maddox is derailed by the Dutch deciding they feel like attacking NS, everyone then decided to help them out. Rift War, Charles has a premeditated plan and uses one of my minor stories as an excuse to invade. Maori war, well no explanation needed...
Yeah I might have more land BUT I still have to defend said land with the same exact amount of resources as anyone else. If anything I would say the smaller countries have an advantage here.
@ Blooded, where you from?
Guys, settle down.
After a discussion about it, me and charles decided to loop off everything north of the Arkansas River that was part of Texas that isn't part of Arkansas. This will allow for a more balanced map for all, in both of our opinions. It's still sizable, just less so, more on the size range of California then what it was, and I'm ok with that. Realistically speaking, it'll be about the amount of land that was possible to colonize with the fact that less people from the US are coming, and there are more Frenchies and Germans about.
Blooded, I'll be losing the land west to the north of the Arkansas in all but Arkansas. Seems reasonable to you?
Charles, I'd like to ask that you cut off your Missouri claim on the latest map, and part of the Illinois part. It just extends too far north for my comfort, and I'd like to give up some of that land in Arkansas and Missouri that I can't because of that claim.
I'm envisioning this.
(http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad45/TexanCowboy/Untitled-3.png)
Charles, you loose that chunk of Missouri and a bit of northern Illinois, is that ok? It won't be your heartland or anything, King cotton! :D
I loose a good chunk, I'm down to about 550,000 square miles, I think. Which I think is ok when you realize my economy is going to be more like Argentina, based on cattle (a good chunk of it), and other land intensive agriculture as compared to say, New England, which is more based on shipbuilding and fishing, much less land intensive. Blooded, can you work with this?
I think New England is ok being smaller. I'm actually worried Acadia may be a little large, but since it might be due to map distortion, I'm somwhat ok with it. I might prefer it a bit more if we pushed it back to the edge of Superior?
Guinness...
Please, I'm VERY unhappy with the shape of Texas at the moment, it's too big. I don't want to be stuck in a version that's too big for me....and as thus, I don't want to accept your map as final untill Texas is reduced in size, as well as parts of the CSA, and maybe Acadia. BTW, you're the one sounding snippy at the moment, and for some reason it seems to be directed at me??? I've tried to be fairly amniable here, there hasn't really been a situation yet where I haven't been able to compromise with the person taking issue to Texas.
Blooded: That's not really the point there. I'm going for SUPA Argentina in the way I start; without some of that land, to raise cattle on so I can get the money to do ISI (Import Substitution Industry), my nation realistically couldn't afford to buy jack navally, maybe a frigate or two.
Guys, I want to know, is the above map (With the exception of snips issues up north, which I trust can be easily fixed by him), almost ready?
I know the mods have already settled this, but im trying to get my head around whats disputed and maybee offer a solution that makes everyone happy, and also everyone unhappy (my opinion is that is what makes for a proper and equitable solution)
I have run lines through what I understand to be the disputed teritory, and wonder if perhaps it shouldnt be declared just that Disputed Teritory. The Idea isnt realy mine I just cant find the map I remember seeing in the past with things like this on it.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/RandalthorPK/N-America-N4-2-disputed.png) (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/RandalthorPK/N-America-N4-2-disputed.png)
Hello,
QuoteCan you guys please stop blaming me for everything? I understand IC but OOC?
Everything... is an exaggeration, but Pointing out the obvious is necessary at times. Your moniker used to be 'troublemaker'. You start shit. Both here and at Westworld. Embrace it or change it... but do not deny it. ;)
QuoteEspecially 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.
As stated... I am thinking defensively not economically. Realistically for this timeperiod, Central California and southern Oregon are my primary regions. So I could even go down to 200,000 miles and economically it would still make sense. That would be true for New Russsia, Texas and Mexico as well(lots of poor area). So that space is mostly just of strategic value.
QuoteAlso, none of the NA countries are small compared European countries, in fact most are huge in pure land.
Agreed. I have already stated I would prefer smaller nations in NA. I had no issues with California starting with 450,000 miles. As above I could go smaller. My problem came in due to DF having 850,000 and Tex having 650,000 with no reasonable reasons for it. It just was... and they will hang on to it tooth and nail. If it is of no import then why the reticence of letting go.
QuoteAnd 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.
Funny you don't act that way... ::) The Mods have almost always been very lighthanded ... too much so. Appeasement will no longer be my policy.
I have asked for justifications to many questions and have just not gotten them. Not the end of the world.
Thanks for the post Guinness. It solves many problems. I only wish it had been stated a week ago.
QuoteSo 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.
If that is the case then I will remove myself from the problem and save some time and effort since I am the only dissenting opinion.
I have felt my concerns to be valid and I approached the planning for N4 with far more assertiveness than the norm because i have felt other more vocal players were the only ones whose views are listened to. Since the beginning of my time here I have had many PMs from folks feeling they get run over by other players, but they did not want to start problems.
That is generally how I played for a long while. In the past half year or more, I stopped being so silent. It cost me much of my freetime and tons of patience(which I didn't have and lost it at times) and apparently the animosity of many players. It has sapped the fun out of the game. Maybe silence was the best solution afterall. C'est La Vie. At least I don't feel stepped on any longer. No regrets. ;D
Tanthalus... Tex... thanks for the effort. It was a good one, the most genuine so far. but it is the tremendous effort that these debates take that I can no longer deal with. I have been on the verge for sooo long now, I just gotta jump! ;D The blood pressure is gonna kill me! ;D
I will be more than happy to pass the torch to Tanthalus since he is in need of a nation. And I'll let Carth or P3D be the resident grump! ;)
Remember folks... It is not MY Game. It is not YOUR game. It is OUR game.
Good luck on N4! ;D
Bummer... 4 years and I did not make it to 1000 posts. ;D
Wait, I stated willingness to give up about a 1/6th of the land, all that was in question....isn't that what you wanted, Blooded?
QuoteOK, since DF will not suggest any alternatives, and is incapable of seeing anothers POV then I guess it will go to the MODS. I will not continue a pointless conversation. It takes two to tango. Roll Eyes
Unfortunately, I believe all conversations with DF end up this way. I honestly can't recall his ever conceding any point in any debate, but compromise does not exist here. It is a miserable process to rediscover his inflexibility. I keep thinking a rational spark must be in there somewhere.
DFs reasoning lacks substance and he avoids the basic issue. It boils down to Guinness mistakenly gave a bigger slice of the North American Pie to the wrong guy(anyone else could have come to a solution by now). I don't have it in me to let DF just have it anymore. DF gets away with too much.. too often.
@ Blooded
You obviously have an axe to grind against me. May I ask why?
QuoteEverything... is an exaggeration, but Pointing out the obvious is necessary at times. Your moniker used to be 'troublemaker'. You start shit. Both here and at Westworld. Embrace it or change it... but do not deny it.
The only war I ever started in Wesworld was against MYSELF! Heck, the only wars I started in N-verse where against myself...
You accuse me of all this stuff, when I didn't even have ANY input in it. I was basically handed Mexico after everyone had already discussed stuff. I then ASKED if I could potentially have San Diego. Whether I got it or not, was never up to me. At that point I didn't even know California had a player.
Ok.....
I like Texas last Map..... its sort of balanced and I have no problem giving up the colored in sections.
What we really want here guys is what territory do we actually control not what territory do we actually claim....??????
As a note from my Discussion with Texan Cowboy... the Colonly of Virgina was a land grand that ran from it OTL Map Borders but extended by Royal Charter all the Way to the Pacific Ocean.... :o So technically by that Logic the King of England was giving Virgina parts of California.....
The Fact that France and Spain at the time had conflicting land claims both along the Mississippi river and in the Far West is imiaterial to our discussion.
Mexico, California, and Texas probably all claim part of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona but how many of your Citizens actually live in those territories. With out the Trans Continental Railroad to drive settlement in the Great American Desert and East of the Continetal Devide what is in all this disputed territory.
I have a proposal... Its called Deserit I believe it will be centered around Salt Lake City and be a religious Government built by the Mormons and while it will want trade with all our nations really really does not want to belong in any one of them. ???
Blooded I agree size of land claims here are very large. And even today most of the US is sparcely populated by the standards of Europe and Asia.
It doesnt matter how big your land claims are here your income is determined by your starting GDP population and size of terrirory will not get you more all starting Income are the same. Besides which California itslef is a huge rich territory.
Whats the Joke... I heard Alaska was going to devide itself in half and make Texas the third largest state in the Union. ::)
What we have here is a situation where many of us have conflicting claims of ownership to huge swaths of land from the Mississippi to the Continental Devide. What is required here is either a series of treaties to establish by treaty ownership of land that is considered waste and over run with Natives. For Futrue expansion or a series of nice little wars to determine control of said territories after the game starts.
I think we can work this out both as a roleplaying and intellectual exercise.
Charles
Acadia is most certainly a victim of 'Northern Latitude Distortion.'
http://matplotlib.github.com/plot_directive/pyplots/plotmap.hires.png (http://matplotlib.github.com/plot_directive/pyplots/plotmap.hires.png)
Acadia will be a bit larger in land area than the CSA, but not drastically so. Additionally, Acadia will be more of an 'empty space' nation; a large portion of what is 'Acadia' on the map is a lot like the OTL U.S., Australia or Canada at the time- civilization on both ends with some very sparsely settled land in between.
The 'southern civilization line' follows the Great Lakes and the chain of smaller rivers and lakes up to Lake Winnipeg, then up the Nelson River to Hudson Bay; the 'northern civilization line' follows the coast of Labrador, around the northern coast of Ontario and along the shore of Hudson Bay. Most of the 'northern civilization line' is actually 'itinerant tribesmen' who migrate after the game they subsist upon. There are some semi-permanent outposts for seal hunters and whalers along this coast, but these are few and far between- mostly they serve as 'stopovers' for the small 'mobile capital ships' that service the Inuit tribes.
I wouldn't have a real problem with loosing territory, but I do remind folks that like all the nations fighting over 'empty space' in the desert southwest, most of my territory isn't all that useful... and the claim on much of it is as much a product of 'nobody else wanted this' as it is a product of 'we have to have this.' Basically, it's just 'gray area' land that was recently absorbed by my nation- much of which is really not really accurately mapped. No one else wanted that sub-arctic tundra, so my nation simply enveloped it as the northern sea was explored.
I was actually thinking more of the land in western Ontario, to tell the truth.
Honestly, although I think it could be adjusted, I'm fine with it as is. I know ctwaterman is as well, I think snip is too except for his little issue with the Rockies.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 05, 2011, 11:02:25 PM
I was actually thinking more of the land in western Ontario, to tell the truth.
Like I said- those are rivers and lakes that my people use to transport items east to west. The land in Western Ontario is the only real 'civilized' part of the land that far west... the land along the coast of Hudson's Bay is FAR less heavily populated than it. Basically, you're worrying about the wrong part of the nation!
QuoteUhm...
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.
Ok lets dispel and confirm a few things.
All the Starting Player Nations are going to be the same. There were discussions of larger Mod Nations much larger. But most of us did not really like the way having a Huge China and a huge France worked out so after arguements its was decided that the moderator nations would have a slight Income Edge over the players. I am pretty sure that it has been argued down to around 20% or so.
Now player conflicts about Ideas and such please remain calm and talk to each other and if that doesnt work talk to mods. This is a game and we are in the hardest part world building.
I have stated I think many of the territories claimed in North America would be basically that Land Claims. Territory claimed by a nation but not actually controlled by that nation. As such I think the final map would have more Grey in the Center and some White.
I was going to create a NPC [Non Player Country] and name is Deseret until I discoverd Blooded was using the Mormon Migrations to create his country.
People have been throwing out maps and more maps but when it all comes right down to it the Mods were going to have to look at the arguements make some judgements and well Wing it....
And yes the Native Tribes on the Great Planes and the Souix on the Northern Planes will be more powerful entites trading for small arms and possibly encouraging some technical transfers to atleast make their own munitions. But they are still nomadic in nature so while it will take more then a regement of Cavalry to get occupy them it probably wont take a Corp.... Remember the US Army in the 1880 did not have a full Corp to deploy against either the Souix or the Apache wars. I think General CooK against the Apache deployed roughly a full Regiment or 5000 Regular and scouts against the Apache and that was a large deployment to corner and wear down what maybe 500 irregular troops.
Charles
Quote from: Carthaginian on July 05, 2011, 11:11:41 PM
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 05, 2011, 11:02:25 PM
I was actually thinking more of the land in western Ontario, to tell the truth.
Basically, you're worrying about the wrong part of the nation!
Hey thats my job (Worrying about the wrong things that is). I will provisionaly accept for Deseret, contingant on Moderator aproval of me as the "new" head of that state. Can anyone tell me when all this spliting happend to the NA? I just need a year so I can figure out a few things for the timeline
We were still working on a timeline....
It appears the US Split either with the failure of the Constitutional Convention or with the Hartford Convention at or durring the Napoleonic Wars. The 7 Years wars were not as successful for the British leaving France with many of its former colonies intact.
Charles
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 06, 2011, 01:43:23 AM
We were still working on a timeline....
It appears the US Split either with the failure of the Constitutional Convention or with the Hartford Convention at or durring the Napoleonic Wars. The 7 Years wars were not as successful for the British leaving France with many of its former colonies intact.
Charles
Pre Civil War works for me, im just trying to write a timeline for Deseret that had to take into account 2 nations on the east coast. but it didnt realy matter since I started in 1844.
timeline 1844-1847 Please dont ask me to change to much this thing was a terror to construct (atleast it gets easier after this point) up to this point I havnt realy made any major changes to what happend OTL (I just had to collect it all from several diferent sources)
06 25, 1844 Joseph and Hyrum Smith are imprisond in Carthage Ill. Jail
06 27, 1844 200 armed men, their faces painted black storm the jail in the late aafternoon and fire
multiple musket shots into the cell the brothers are ocupying. Both men are killed,
inspite of the fact that 4 men are injured storming the Jail and later aprehended noone
would ever be convicted of this crime
09 08, 1844 The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles anounces that after much prayer God has reveald
that Joseph Smith III will be the next leader of the church, due however to him only
being 12 years of age Brigham Young is apointed Guardian of the Faith.
11 11, 1845 Brigham Young in his Role as Guardian of the Faith instructs Samuel Brannan to
Charter ships for the purpose of moving Mormons living in the Eastern New England
States to California.
02 04, 1846 Thousands of Saints are forced to flee Nauvoo Ill by Local Militia crossing the border
Into Kansas a crossed the Mississippi river and traveling to the Missouri River where
they establish the temporary camp of Winter Quarters.
02 04, 1846 The ships Brooklyn, Philidelphia, Two Sisters, and Orleans under Charter to Samuel
Brannan with 958 souls onboard depart New York Harbor bound for San Francisco.
06 04, 1846 The Saints arrive at Winter Quarters and begin making plans for the departure of The
Saints to Deseret a new Nation they intend to found in The Great Basin.
07 29, 1846 The ships Chartered by Samuel Brannan arrive in San Francisco.
04 05, 1847 Vanguard Company under the Command of Brigham Young Departs Winter Quarters
breaking trail and establishing a route for the main migration to follow.
06 01, 1847 Vanguard Company reaches Fort Laramie a Trading post for The Hudson's Bay
Company. They stop there for several days to effect repairs on several waggons and
get many draft animals reshod.
07 24, 1847 Vanguard Company reaches the Great Basin and is met by Sam Brannan who tells
Brigham Young of the establishment of the settelment near San Francisco.
07 28, 1847 Brigham Young established a location for the Salt Lake City Temple and presented a
city plan to the larger group for their approval.
09 17, 1847 Brigham Young and other selected members of the vanguard company returned to
Winter Quarters.
12 16, 1847 More than two thousand Saints had completed the journey to the Salt Lake Valley as it
was now known. Several hundred, including Young, returned east to gather and
organize the companies scheduled for following year.
Opinions are however as always welcome.
Other then the fact that Illinois is probably very sparcely settled in our Time Line as its not yet a part of any country you might simply want to move the Migration back to where the Mormon Church was located I believe in Ohio or PA.
Yeah, I gotta agree with Charles here. Move the starting point back; only thing I see that needs to be done.
On the map issue, does anyone have any objections to the last one? (Besides snip and his Rocky Mountain issue).
The problem I see, if Illinois is very sparsely settled, then the Mormons never leave there. There has to be a reason for them to leave Illinois, or else Deseret would be in the Great Lakes area.
Hostile Indians works well enough for me.
If the Great Plains tribes have survived into the modern era, then it's likely that they have something going for them that they didn't OTL - beyond the absence of an actual United States.
Combine the known military virtues of the 'barbarian' nomadic tribesman - case in point, the largest single empire ever - with any of the various 'unification' or 'mutual defense' efforts that never quite got off the ground OTL, and it's quite possible that they could've been the terror of the plains even up to 'the current day'.
After all, I sincerely doubt that the confederated tribes are going to be any less flexible, accurate, or woodswise than the Boers were, and look at the time the British had dealing with them.
Valles; the only reason they collasped is BECAUSE of the United States and people and railroads pushing into tribal lands. None of us (well, besides Texas and the Comanche/Apache) have had to deal with Great Plains tribes yet; due to slower population growths across the board, and nobody wanting to push west/north/south into the plains yet, the "Vast American Desert" that nobody has discovered can produce crops yet. Where are those that want the plains for themselves? They don't exist, or if so, they're populating our own frontiers such as Oklahoma, Kentucky, Ohio/Indian, Ontario.
There still is a vast amount of infighting amongst them, and it's called the "Indian Confederation" for filler; in reality it's 6-7 tribes, with no set borders, fighting against each other.
1834 Ohio how is it for settled at that point?
1838 Missouri isnt any more settled is it? As to the Natives, OTL Mormons generaly got along with them remember we belive they are the Decedants of the people in the book of Mormon. They ar our Little Brown Brothers and Sisters to be loved, Cherished and brought to the true Faith not exploited and conqoured. Im dealing with 20K+ people in 1846 (membership in the church so that would only be everyone over 12 years old.)
Im more than willing to change my jump off point if someone can offer me a location that will work. However interesting tidbit, Chicago in 1846 OTL had a population of 14K Navuoo had a Population of 11K with surounding Mormon Comunitiws almost as large. Mormons were actualy the bulk of Illinois population LOL
as to the map im working on my timeline but I may need a minor change to the north of the map ill make it once I finish the timeline up to 1880 (ill post the whole thing today) and post the changed map for aproval.
Missouri won't be settled at this point in time, and neither will Ohio.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 06, 2011, 01:49:10 PM
Missouri won't be settled at this point in time, and neither will Ohio.
... which leaves me wondering why my mormons are moving, I have to get Joseph Smith Murderd, its critical both to my timeline and the development of the church OTL (People like a Martyr makes em all determind). So what is the furthest west state that would have a population equivilant to Illinois in 1844? say 40K people (so my 20K mormons in the state are at best on Parity with everyone else)
Ask Dar, but I would assume someplace like Ohio/Western Pennsylvania?
*Hokus Pokus Magicus* Navuoo and Carthage vanish from Ill. and reconstitute in Ohio (im blaming the alien space bats).
That works....
The Ohio River Valley is probably well settled Honestly I expect the NER to make Indiana a terretory assign it a governer and start the process for turning it into his next state at the start of the Game. Possibly Lower Michigan as well... due to the ease of Lake travel and the huge amounts of Timber to be gathered.
Im trying to remember the historical Mormon settlements in PA and Ohio before they moved further west ????
Charles
Palmira New York, Kirtland Ohio, Jackson County Missouri (site of the Jackson County war first time the saints are expelled from a state), Nauvoo Illinois (second expulsion and death of Joseph smith in Carthage Jail OTL) are the places that I have available
Palmira: Where the Church was born, Smith family moves when he is like 16
Kirtland: True Begining of the church, some sort of finance thing causes them to pull a Hotel Alpha.
Jackson County: Not realy sure what brought about the expulsion but the state milita ran them out at gun point.
Nauvoo already coverd this one LOL
Naboo.... have we been watching Star Wars again.... ::) ;) ;D
Joking aside I think you have all locations.
Charles
Guys, my latest map; is that ok?
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 06, 2011, 09:36:51 PM
Guys, my latest map; is that ok?
im runing into problems with a few fairly substantial setelments in the 1850s. Most of them are coverd under the map but at the north eastern edge of my teritory I kinda need to expand to the next river to take in the town of Shoshoni Wyoming which was established by a settlement mission (aka the church said go here build a town convert the natives) im willing to give up the teritory but it will be in my time line, along with Las Vegas, and several other Comunities (Vegas wasnt called Vagas but the settlement was near the location of Modern Las Vegas)
KK, we've got that and snip's rockies problem. Dar, Carth, Foxy, any problems ya'll have with the map?
I'm happy I can be. No problems with any of it.
I would like the Four Corners area, but can live without it for now.
Hmmmm...
Mexicans and Texans.... cant live with them cant run a decent arms dealership without them....
Ok....
1..2...3.... game on you may now freely attempt to send small numbers of troops into 4 corners regions I would only recomend you try it durring a rainy spring....
Large numbers will require huge logistical support. You can also shell each others costal towns and generally steal cattal and sheep from each other.
Quote1..2...3.... game on you may now freely attempt to send small numbers of troops into 4 corners regions I would only recomend you try it durring a rainy spring....
I don't understand what you are trying to say... ;D
Actually spring is a bad time, still too cold and chance of snow. Early summer or fall is a much better time, don't want to get caught in monsoon season either.
But yeah no way to send anything larger than a brigade through, except up the Rio Grande.
Wait, that's Mexico and California. I don't want to be that far out west. :P
Seriously, ATM Texas doesn't really gain anything from war with Mexico, at all. No point for me.
EDIT: Foxy's right, the terrain out there is a killer. Based on my expieriance in Philmont, NM, troops would be lucky to be making 14 miles a day, and most days would be closer to 9-10.
Sweet!
So is North America 'stabilized?'
I believe so, except for the minor issues. Good.
One of the mods want to make my last map into a high-res one?
[zombie mode on] Pecos River... Pecos River... Pecos River... [zombie mode off]
:-p
Actually the terrain is not bad, just a giant flat plateau, a high altitude mini great plains. The problem is there is just... ...out there. And no railroads either. Its the perfect terrain for small cavalry units, but that's it. You simply can't supply an army out there. Tex, you are actually talking about the mountains which pretty much surround the Colorado Plateau. Those are bad and you hold the ones to the East *grumble*.
[zombie mode on]Panama Canal...panama canal...panama canal[/zombie mode]
Hops the River... Im on the left bank now Im on the right bank.
It seems someones cavalry patrol into Arizona seems to have not come back.....
Was it the Yuma or the Apache or did someone elses patrol ambush it...?????
Charles
Navajo, Apache, and Yaqui on my side, Comanche on Tex's side, and Ute on Tan's...
(http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb296/triked-d/HomelandSecurity1492.jpg)
;D
Quote from: Desertfox on July 06, 2011, 10:34:19 PM
I would like the Four Corners area, but can live without it for now.
I offerd to Negotiate on San Dog if it wasnt already settled DF, and like I said just the one change I asked about. oh and DF I have Utes, Shoshone, possibly Arapaho (if I can ge tthem and the Shoshone to get along) possibly even Cheyenne and Lakota (im iffy on the Lakota), and Bannok I definetly have them.
*compiles list of natives*
Here you go:
http://thomaslegion.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/indian_tribes.jpg (http://thomaslegion.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/indian_tribes.jpg)
I also have Papagos, Pueblo, Pima, and Yavapai, but those are not as fun. Without the US Army's presence, the Southwest is going to be a crazy place...
Yes... and honestly do not expect them to be Friendly.....
Charles
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 07, 2011, 02:21:33 AM
Yes... and honestly do not expect them to be Friendly.....
Charles
in some cases absolutly dont expect them to be friendly im not even sure the British could have negotiated with the Comanchee for example. However most of my Natives got along fairly well OTL with the Mormons, and I intend to follow the british practice of making a treaty and STICKING TO IT as practiced in Canada (ofcourse I also intend to follow a few other british practices for dealing with Natives to)
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 06, 2011, 11:12:37 PM
I believe so, except for the minor issues. Good.
One of the mods want to make my last map into a high-res one?
Confirm for me what's changing:
1. Snip wants a little more coast at the cost of a little less inland territory.
2. Move the eastern border of California a little bit further east in Wyoming
anything else?
If you look at Tex's last map... he had it close, plus the changes you mentioned.
Quotein some cases absolutly dont expect them to be friendly im not even sure the British could have negotiated with the Comanchee for example. However most of my Natives got along fairly well OTL with the Mormons, and I intend to follow the british practice of making a treaty and STICKING TO IT as practiced in Canada (ofcourse I also intend to follow a few other british practices for dealing with Natives to)
I fully intend to follow the British practice instituted by Lord Amherst. I will take blankets from a recent outbreak of I believe it was Small Pox or Cholera out of storage and give them to the natives. :'(
Lets not set the British up as some saints here they wanted to utilize the natives to stop the Westward spread of the US and after 1814 when that was no longer economicaly feasable and the US had seized control of Lake Champlain and Lake Erie blocking British resupply they basically thru their Indian Allies under the Bus. The US continued its war against the tribes in Illinois and Indiana until 1817, free from British interference or supply to the natives.
I think I have Apaphro too, maybe even a few Cheyenne. Plus a bunch of the "civilized" tribes.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-3.png) (http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-3.png)
and
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/navalism/images/a/a3/Namerica-guinness-v1.png
Looks good to me.
all good for me
Also looking good to me. Yay!
*scurries off to write extensive backstory*
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 07, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
Also looking good to me. Yay!
*scurries off to write extensive backstory*
I have been working on an extensive backstory for 2 days... I kind of got sidetracked with a Constitution like Document though.
The Colorado Plateau up to the Colorado River should be Mexican pink. Other than that looks good. Just got done checking whats in that area, other than Albuquerque, Soccoro, and a couple more towns along the Rio Grande, there is nothing but Indians there. All of the current towns in that area where a product of the railroad, which doesn't exist here.
the current border in Arizona was the product of my baby-splitting operation. As noted before, I didn't expect it would make anyone happy.
So I got Comanche, Kiowa, Arapaho, Mescalero Apache, and then the civilized tribes if Charles doesn't want them; I can set aside part of Arkansas for them.
Wooboy, those tribes and the Texas Rangers....the border's gonna be fun! :D
oh im fine with it, I have to explain how/when it was established in my timeline but thats no biggy to me, well other than I aparently own part of the land of Entrapment (New Mexico Come on Vacation Leave on Probation)
Tex You have the Rangers, I have Porter Rockwell, Ephe Hanks, and William Adams all of who were leaders/members of the Destroying Angels/Avenging Angels ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danites ) although they all die before actual startup im sure their multipule children can produce a sufficiant sucessor for them.
*grumble's about "A Study in Scarlet" not being published till 1887...*
You forgot Issac Haight, John D Lee, and John Higbee.
I see your Indians an Angels, and raise you some Navajo, Chiricahua, and Pancho Villa (ok so he's still a boy...).
Villa's got to get his pleasant attitude somehow. He was a favorite character for me in N3, though most of the credit for that goes to Carthaginian.
I'm hoping Charles eventually figures out how to throw me some Percy LeVille fan service at some point. ;D
Issac Haight, John D Lee, and John Higbee are mostly famous for Mountin Medows and since it wont happen in our timeline im not sure they realy matter. Porter Rockwell, Ephe Hanks, and William Adams were all famous as far back as Ohio, and I can avoid excomunicating Adams in my timeline (especialy since I cant find out what he was Excomunicated for)
as for "A Study in Scarlet" he and his sidekick would belong to England anyway. I want to avoid the mass claimings of people that would technicly belong to someone else we had going on in N3. So as an example baring anything wierd (like all the Uranium under Utah blowing up) John Browning is MINE (he was born in Utah after all).
Well they where still important members of the Mormon Militia.
Oh I don't want Sherlock Holmes, but that story could be very handy for propaganda purposes. But we have to wait 7 years for it to come out.
important but not exactly famous, realy anyone but a Mormon Historian proly wouldnt remember their names today if not for Mountain Meadows. as for the book its a possibility that it wont even get written in our time line. Scary isnt it Doyle could already be dead before he writes it for all we know (sadly it will be up to the various players to decide things like that likley in negotiation with players that want to use famous works)
QuoteIssac Haight, John D Lee, and John Higbee are mostly famous for ...
Isaac Hayes , Tennessee
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Hayes
SHAFT- a famous music
Jef ;)
Sorry for being quiet guys, been a bit busy lately.
A couple of things (I know I'm missing some things but you can remind me later):
The map looks fine to me. I always expected my NER to be small (but a larger concentration of wealth, especially along the coast). My main agricultural areas will be PA and Ohio probably, with oil and coal coming from PA and WV. For my government and timeline, they're still under construction atm but I'd like the split of the US to be either a disagreement over the ratification of the Constitution (MA wanted the 10 amendments that became the Bill of Rights and that could be a starting point) or the secession of the northeastern states during the War of 1812 (if there was one) so the NER would become more of a federal republic with more power in the hands of the states. (I think thats how Germany works, that how it used to work at any rate back in the 1870s-1910s).
Edit: Apparently I can't count... that was ONE thing, not a couple...
so I decided to make a post with the timeline (1844-1850) and my loose fleet idea (its subject to change)
so first the timeline
06 25, 1844 Joseph and Hyrum Smith are imprisond in Carthage Ohio Jail
06 27, 1844 200 armed men, their faces painted black storm the jail in the late aafternoon and fire
multiple musket shots into the cell the brothers are ocupying. Both men are killed,
inspite of the fact that 4 men are injured storming the Jail and later aprehended noone
would ever be convicted of this crime
09 08, 1844 The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles anounces that after much prayer God has reveald
that Joseph Smith III will be the next leader of the church, due however to him only
being 12 years of age Brigham Young is apointed Guardian of the Faith.
11 11, 1845 Brigham Young in his Role as Guardian of the Faith instructs Samuel Brannan to
Charter ships for the purpose of moving Mormons living in the Eastern New England
States to California.
02 04, 1846 Thousands of Saints are forced to flee Nauvoo Ohio by Local Militia crossing the
border Into Indiana crossing the Mississippi river into Illinois and traveling to the
Missouri River where they establish the temporary camp of Winter Quarters.
02 04, 1846 The ships Brooklyn, Philidelphia, Two Sisters, and Orleans under Charter to Samuel
Brannan with 958 souls onboard depart New York Harbor bound for San Francisco.
06 04, 1846 The Saints arrive at Winter Quarters and begin making plans for the departure of The
Saints to Deseret a new Nation they intend to found in The Great Basin.
07 29, 1846 The ships Chartered by Samuel Brannan arrive in San Francisco.
04 05, 1847 Vanguard Company under the Command of Brigham Young Departs Winter Quarters
breaking trail and establishing a route for the main migration to follow.
06 01, 1847 Vanguard Company reaches Fort Laramie a Trading post for The Hudson's Bay
Company. They stop there for several days to effect repairs on several waggons and
get many draft animals reshod.
07 24, 1847 Vanguard Company reaches the Great Basin and is met by Sam Brannan who tells
Brigham Young of the establishment of the settelment near San Francisco.
07 28, 1847 Brigham Young established a location for the Salt Lake City Temple and presented a
city plan to the larger group for their approval.
09 17, 1847 Brigham Young and other selected members of the vanguard company returned to
Winter Quarters.
12 16, 1847 More than two thousand Saints had completed the journey to the Salt Lake Valley as it
was now known. Several hundred, including Young, returned east to gather and
organize the companies scheduled for following year.
12 16, 1849 Although numbers will double over the next two years the primary Saint migration is
completed Totals are 9,000 in California, and 34,000 in the Salt Lake Valley.
04 01, 1850 the Council of the 12, the First Presidency, and Guardian of the Faith Brigham Young
produce the Document they have spent the last 5 months writing in very plain laguage
it lays out the rights of all Citizens and resident Noncitizens of the Dominion of Deseret.
This Document borrows heavily from the Original Constitution of the United States, It
however changes many things that the saints viewd as nonfunctional from their
experiances in Ohio. Sets forth requirements for full Citizanship, establishes the
Morman faith as the Church of Deseret, and Names Joseph Smith III First
Protector of Deseret, Defender of the Faith, and Prophet of the church. (ill post the
constitution later for anyone interested)
and the loose fleet Idea basicly im trying to figure out why at this point I would need a Navy, but I came up with a general layout
1864 2 CDBBS layed down (4X10" or so)
1865 2 Large CDBBs layed down (4X11" or so) technicly capable of ocean operations (Although I dont want to ride on em at sea)
1869 2 CDBBs layed down (basicly improved versions of the first type)
1870 2 Large CDBBs layed down (improved versions of previous large CDBBs)
1874 2 CDBBs (6X10" AQY)
1875 2 Large CDBBs layed down (final improvement on Large CDBBS)
1879 not sure yet
1880 2 Large CDBBS AQY Breach Loading guns (6X11" likley) switch to Barbettes
like I said thats realy rough on the fleet, and I may decide to change it based on what the rules say, I havnt figured out what to do about Cruisers and light ships just yet (I have several simmed but IDK if I would build them)
Looks like Charles lost a lot of turf in the Mississippi Valley there.
Might need another NA map.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/RandalthorPK/N-America-N4-2-disputed.png
This one reflects a lot of the discussions we were having.
sadly it was regected out of hand by several people. atleast for Deseret and Mexicos Border the last one guinness posted was to be considerd Final (DF and I negotiated a little on it but there was no reason to change the border)
Quote from: Nobody on July 27, 2011, 11:01:48 AM
mike, which map of Europe did you use? At least concerning my (German) borders you should take a look here (http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5550.msg71416.html#msg71416) (or that, so far unanswered, PM I sent you some time ago).
I can put that in easy enough.
Michael
Quote from: Tanthalas on July 27, 2011, 11:28:20 AM
sadly it was regected out of hand by several people. atleast for Deseret and Mexicos Border the last one guinness posted was to be considerd Final (DF and I negotiated a little on it but there was no reason to change the border)
Anyone have a link to the one Guinness posted?
I will work more on the maps tonight.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on July 27, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: Tanthalas on July 27, 2011, 11:28:20 AM
sadly it was regected out of hand by several people. atleast for Deseret and Mexicos Border the last one guinness posted was to be considerd Final (DF and I negotiated a little on it but there was no reason to change the border)
Anyone have a link to the one Guinness posted?
I will work more on the maps tonight.
Michael
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-3.png
thats the last version he posted in the Thread, there apears to be some disagreement over the Texas, CSA, and USA borders however (even though noone botherd to post their complaints in the thread)
Are the objection such that people can't deal with the map as is? Its ALT / Fantasy setup. Minerals, Oil, etc do not really matter where they were historically and you all have the same pop / economy?
I am going to go with this map unless I get agreements from both parties that they accept movement of borders.
Michael
I belive many of the objections have been worked out, and there will not be any changes to the map.
On the NA map, the "disputed" sections are no longer disputed and should be Mexican pink. The region to the north (between the Colorado, Rio Grande, and Salt River) is the "disputed one", as Mexico will not be recognizing it as anyone else's.
Mexico may not recognize it, but New Russia does not recognize Mexicos claim to the territory and supports Desert's claim.
Foxy, this is getting ridiculous. Knock it off.
Quote from: Desertfox on July 27, 2011, 03:57:37 PM
On the NA map, the "disputed" sections are no longer disputed and should be Mexican pink. The region to the north (between the Colorado, Rio Grande, and Salt River) is the "disputed one", as Mexico will not be recognizing it as anyone else's.
Ofcourse we should all roll over and let you have what you want for nothing right. That Teritory belongs to The Dominion of Deseret DF and it will stay that way. I offerd a peacefull method for you to get it and you REFUSED to make me an equivilant teritory offer, I belive your exact words were Somthing to the effect of I should prepare for war very soon. I am still open to offers but your time is shrinking by the day, offer me somthing EQUIVILANT and ill consider it, otherwise *shrugs*. I wont say ill hold it in the end but I promise you this you amature Napoleon you will be very very bloody before you do.
I still have these for starters if that is needed (the old N2 maps)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/ithekro/navalismworld.gif)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/ithekro/navalismmap1.gif)
*Albert de Broglie, President of Tejas, puts on his glasses that NO ONE makes fun of*
Disputed area, disputed area you say? No, I see no disputed area here. I'll just be standing here in the corner waiting to chokehold you both once you've crippled each other. Have a nice day.
*Alber de Broglie, President of Tejas, takes off his glasses that NO ONE makes fun of*
OK death match over North America borders is ON... in this thread. Unless I see agreement the borders set by Guinness are the official ones.
Michael
my posistion is simple, I wont give up almost 1/5 of my country for nothing.
I've merged the offshoot "North America" topic with this one.
The map found in this post I consider definitive:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5549.msg71819.html#msg71819
You may also find it here:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm18/mmichael453/Navalism%204/N-America-N4-3.png
I prefer not to spend any more time refereeing this subject. Frankly, it's beyond me that we managed to settle the issues of Schleswig and Holstein and Alsace and Lorraine in the Europe thread without any histrionics, but this subject keeps coming up. So let's please knock off the saber rattling. For that matter, there shouldn't be any in-character play at this point as it is.
Guinness, that was an IC reference as a joke....
Besides, I STILL don't know why I'm being dragged into this; I own none of the disputed territory.
actualy my only reason for mentioning texas was Carth mentiond the CSA texas border being wrong. IDK what was wrong with it ever but there it is.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 27, 2011, 06:18:35 PM
Besides, I STILL don't know why I'm being dragged into this; I own none of the disputed territory.
I wasn't referring to you.
I was also pretty sure we had agreed on the MAP Guinness posted..... Above.
I think threats of war are well questionable given that nobody is going to be operating large numbers of troops in the disputed Area at all ??? No railroads, no navigable rivers, and hell no real population. Its hard to find water to supply a cavalry patrol let alone a regiment in that area.
So everyone Chill the rhetoric can begin later.
>:(
Well I was just pointing out problems with a different map than the Guinness one. OOC I have no problems with the Guinness one.
And didn't the mods want dissatisfied players? Just playing my part ;-)
Quote from: Desertfox on July 27, 2011, 09:50:47 PM
Well I was just pointing out problems with a different map than the Guinness one. OOC I have no problems with the Guinness one.
And didn't the mods want dissatisfied players? Just playing my part ;-)
The one Carth posted was the one I made before I was Deseret, and was trying to get you and Blooded to play nice with eachother ;) it was never even a quasi official map. it was more like me trying to figure out what was disputed.
I posted the one I did because of two details:
1.) It returned a lot of the CSA territory shaved off in the upper Mississippi valley.
2.) it had the boundaries for Acadia I proposed.
The CSA now to be known as the United Southern States or USS does not really miss having large swatches of Green territory that I do not yet control removed from the map.
They were at best hubris I have arguements as to why they legally belong to the USS but at best it is something for a future bunch of diplomats to argue over.
Now a foreign power controlling the territory the USS would probably object strenously too. But I look forward to diplomatic discussion with both Tejas, and NER in the future over territorial claims along the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers...
If people didnt notice in the last Game Italia loved to play at Diplomacy and negotiations politics is a fun roleplaying experience.
Note never take anything I say in a roleplaying event personally it always about the roleplaying never a personal attack.
Charles
The CSA territory shaved off was by mutual agreement between me and Charles. There's no reason to revise it.
Diplomacy... isnt that where people go talk talk talk talk talk... when do we get to the Charge ;)
*shhhh..* while your going when can we charge when can we charge... I was talking to distract you from me prepositioning my troops and more importantly the supplies needed to keep those troops in the field.
Leutenants and Amatures study Tactics.... General study Logistics.
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 27, 2011, 11:16:18 PM
*shhhh..* while your going when can we charge when can we charge... I was talking to distract you from me prepositioning my troops and more importantly the supplies needed to keep those troops in the field.
Leutenants and Amatures study Tactics.... General study Logistics.
Logistics... you dont even want to get me started on how to issue bottled watter... or Rounds per kill... Tactics may win battles but Logistics win wars. Even if S4 might be the most thankless job in any unit it is quite possibly the most important.(Dont belive me try marching acrossed a desert without bullets, food, or watter)
I know at one of my future bases (Cimarron, New Mexico, I'm thinking as a base for a mountain division or so); 3.5 liters of water storage ought to be find. Logistics, tho, bullets and whatnot, that's going to be hell on wheels; there's no way to resupply in that mess up there without basically bulldozing four or five mountains. Nice place for a battle, eh, Tan?
shit mate, its a god awful place for a battle in our time period... the whole desert Southwest is without railroads ima have to import Camels to efectivly patrol half my borders. Basicly our supply situation is going to be bad at best if any of us try and fight a war out there.
Depends. I figure it might be possible to supply maybe a brigade force if we keep them along the river; ALA Rio Grande/Salt/Colorado. Think the British Sudan Campaign...
Besides, that's what we have indians for. :P
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 28, 2011, 11:35:45 AM
Depends. I figure it might be possible to supply maybe a brigade force if we keep them along the river; ALA Rio Grande/Salt/Colorado. Think the British Sudan Campaign...
Besides, that's what we have indians for. :P
which gets right back to the majority of any of the 3 being non navigable (atleast by anything that can haul a decent load) Railroads are our only period answer. Course since its a fictional world I may just declare the southwest to be "the Breadbasket of Deseret" (think a climate somthing like Kansas and Oklahoma, what its a fictional world where there has to be basicly 18 million people in my teritory by 1880).
Not sure that would work. I think you'd be better off declaring the Sacromento Valley your breadbasket; maybe with minor irrigation advances down south...
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 28, 2011, 11:46:48 AM
Not sure that would work. I think you'd be better off declaring the Sacromento Valley your breadbasket; maybe with minor irrigation advances down south...
Irrigation you say, now thats somthing I know WAY more about than I wish I did... Sacramento Valley will be important, but like I said Transport is going to be a stone cold pain in the arse... Railroads Lots and Lots of Railroads
Now there is something we can discuss.....
The USS is willing to form a Corporation to build a Trans Continental railroad and back the loans made to this Corporation. It would need similar backing in Deseret and possible spur lines into Tejas could prove profitable for all :)
Hmmmm... Silver and Gold from Colorado, Nevada and California, for Tejas Beef, and Rice, Beans, Cotton, and manufactured goods from the USS.
You forgot about the Texas Buffalo, Sugar Cane, Cotton, and generic agricultural product. Oh, and alligator meat. :P
(Having major parts of Louisiana ought to help...)
The Lord Protector will take this under Consideration. and you left out important things like Lumber, Lumber, and Uranium for Deseret (ok so not much use for Uranium just yet I still have a crapload of it) OH and Guns John Browning has to have somthing to do...
*snickers*....
Remember the First Part of the US to be a large Cattle Farm was Florida.... ;D Disney had to hire drovers to get the wild cattle of the land he purchased to build Walt Disney World.
Anyway I am willing to build a Subsidized Railroad from Cairo Illinois Kentucky across the central Planes to say Salt Lake City Utah, a Spur Line would probably go South into Texas as well into the Minning territory in Colorado once it is discovered but those would be pure profit oriented lines built by the mine owners. But an East West Railroad well that would have to be financed by a Government or two... and possibly be the reason for building the a Multi-National Corporation.
Guys, it might be easier to build a line from Orleans through Texas to San Diego, with spurs north from Texas into Salt Lake City and Sacromento? Has the benefit of being on civilized, non-disputed land.
and anything to the rain-soaked north?
Depending on the rules the Tucson to San Diego part might already be built or under construction...
That would run through the spur to Sacromento, hopefully.
Quote from: snip on July 28, 2011, 11:47:39 PM
and anything to the rain-soaked north?
I am pretty Sure that the USS and NER Railroad Nets connect at several points along our border. Especially along the Maryland, PA, and Virgina Borders. The Pitsburg/Ohio RR probably connects to the Tennessee/Kentucky Railroad.
Uhm... who says there will only be ONE trans-continental railroad! :P
There will have to be a long rail line built to support the expansion of Acadie, and that will inevitably extend into New Russia and Deseret.
im fairly sure Deserets RRs will have to run from SLC to San Fran at a minimum. The distances are just to great with no viable transport alternative.
It makes total sense..... the Canadian Transcontential railroad was built originally to transport troops and equipment from the Vancover Region to Ontario and the East Coast. It also allowed grain shipments from the Canadian version of the Midwest.
I would be building my version well because givern our slightly latter history and lack of westward expansion I expect right about now that Deseret is discovering Silver in Nevada and possibly the latter Gold Strikes in Colorado... in addition to Gold in California.
All this leads one to think that if I could just get Beans, Bacon, Rice, Wheat, Picks, Shovel, and Cloth to the area I could take advantage of the inflated prices and be one of the people really getting rich.... So instead of paying the Mexicans, or Tejas I propose a more direct route across the Great Plains to Salt Lake City. Deseret would build the Sacremento to Salt Lake Spur. All this would be to avoid taking the stuff by Ship to Mexico or Panama loading it on to mules or a train taking it to the Pacific coast reloading it on a ship and sailing it up to Sacramento or San Fran to unload and be shipped to the Mines.
Even then this is going to have to be a railroad backed and funded by the Government. Its to risky for a strait private enterprise for profit railroad. After all their are hostile Indians, Texans, all sorts of rif raf in the way.. ;)
More reffering to New Russia...
Quote from: ctwaterman on July 29, 2011, 12:25:47 AM
Quote from: snip on July 28, 2011, 11:47:39 PM
and anything to the rain-soaked north?
I am pretty Sure that the USS and NER Railroad Nets connect at several points along our border. Especially along the Maryland, PA, and Virgina Borders. The Pitsburg/Ohio RR probably connects to the Tennessee/Kentucky Railroad.
Well considering the Lakota Souix probably still control the Bosman Trail that path is sort of limited. A Railroad from USS to New Russia well thats going to require conqueoring groups I hadnt even intended to ever meet. Of Course you could simply build a railroad to Northern California and work on some standardized track sizes with your southern neighbor.
Chalres
Yeap.
As I said; routing it south through Texas and Mexico should give it a bit more protection, making it a bit less risky (I'd rather face Apaches and Comanches away from their own turf than Siuox and Cheyenne on their turf). We can have spur lines connecting from Mexico to San Francisco and maybe Texas to Salt Lake City?
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 29, 2011, 11:10:52 AM
Yeap.
As I said; routing it south through Texas and Mexico should give it a bit more protection, making it a bit less risky (I'd rather face Apaches and Comanches away from their own turf than Siuox and Cheyenne on their turf). We can have spur lines connecting from Mexico to San Francisco and maybe Texas to Salt Lake City?
Nope, Deseret wont be involved in that case, so no need for the "spur" (which I would have to pay for anyway and would be over half the RR I would have to build anyway)
Just joined here after this being recommended to me by a friend, who is also here. So, Quick question. Is there anything left open in N.A.? Or am I pretty much restricted to trying to find some small, as yet unclaimed, island in the Caribbean?
OK...
Sorry Zephyr...
This is left over from the last attempt at a startup.
We're not using this thread, but we haven't cleaned up yet.