NationStates Jolt Archive

Ooh, look at all those abbreviations. Language is ever so inefficient, usually. We ought to invent a family of terms to set context and then use abbreviations for the rest of the conversation, really, but I digress...

This is the result of a few posts recently placed in the AMW recruitment thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376859) as have made me realise the importance of the None Player Controlled states in A Modern World.

Specific issues have been Vietnam, once controlled the Sangun (SP?) and purportedly set to sign treaties with neighbouring Marimaia when the player vanished, leaving Marimaia with a big empty neighbour and a strategic issue hard to ignore, and, on my own part, the issue of from where BG's oil originates, sparked by United Elias' global oil market thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386795).

I'd like to propose that we here discuss just what to do with NPC nations until such time as they are claimed by newcomers to AMW, and how to deal with the transition from NPC to player-control.

I know that some players seem to hold the opinion that NPC nations ought to be utterly off-limits in all respects, so as to avoid confusion and argument, but, in all honesty, this is simply not workable. We are attempting to simulate an alternate real earth where in we really get to do what NS is, I think, all about- running the world our way. We can't very well do that to the exclusion of half of it, and there are nations such as Lavrageria, Strathdonia and Kanendru already land-locked, in some cases with no access to the outside world except by a single, hostile PC nation that could easily choose to ruin their interactive day, and by NPC nations, leaving them in no position to argue at the total collapse of their state should they not be allowed interaction with said NPC nations.

At the moment the global fuel economy is, if NPC nations are ignored, almost entirely dominated by United Elias with secondary roles played largely by probably friendly nations such as conservative Al Khals, a newly economic-right Russia, and the North American pair of a Christian near-theocracy and a lately tory-lead parliament. This right away means that economic left nations such as my own are basically out of the fuel economy. We operate an advanced large-scale need-oriented barter economy not highly compatible with the capitalist system, and, apart from that, aren't about to sit back having placed ourselves in an intensely vulnerable economic position at the mercy of the opposite economic viewpoint. As I see it, BG -one of the world's largest econimies and, according only to UN reports, the world's fastest growing- would surely have taken under its wing states with natural wealth and agreeable economic or political systems, which, to me, seems only in keeping with the imagined reality that we're building. Opponents, perhaps, should look at it this way- it is going to be hard to portray the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth as some sort of looming red spectre if we can't get puny Libya to give us the time of day.

I suggest that we agree some sort of run-down of NPC nations that are of special significance to AMW's active participants, and argue-out the very basic state of those nations. Using the Libyan example, I'd put it to you that the current Qaddafi government is basically in place, and that it has received years of Beddgelen backing since the Igovian Revolution, enabling it to come a [i]little closer to its true socialistic and direct-democratic ideals (as laid-out in the Colonel's semi-renowned Green Book (http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/GreenBook/), recently re-published in Drapoel, I believe!). I'd propose that BG be recognised as Libya's primary export partner for its oil, receiving in exchange mainly other raw materials and significant technical aid.

I'd then suggest that, before discussions are initiated over Libya, Vietnam, [insert countries of importance to other PC nations] and so forth, we agree basically what would be done when a new player joins AMW and wishes to play a nation listed as of significance to current member states. Probably we'd have to tell them its recent IC history and explain its significance, and then allow the new player either to continue in that established vein or to forge a new path, perhaps agreeing that their first RP ought to be related to the political or economic change, perhaps through revolution or whatever else. My own feeling is that, if the new player chooses to break with tradition (for example, running Libya from a conservative capitalist perspective) that, while the most deeply involved pre-existing AMW nations (in this case perhaps BG, if we get this all agreed) may be allowed to RP attempts to stop the change, if the new player has been accepted into AMW and has made clear his or her wishes for the nation, it should be agreed that they will be ultimately successful in establishing their new manner of governing in their chosen nation (that is to say, BG would have to fail in its effort to prevent right-wing take-over of Libya).

In light of that, I would like to say that I hope that nobody would create a puppet with the specific intention of, for example, ruining all of BG's fuel-economy ties, and would only play nations as they honestly wished to anyway, though I myself have nothing much against the use of multiple nations if they're all played properly, as a general rule.

Now, if you'll allow me to be so bossy, I hope that the next posts can see AMW discussing the very fundamentals of this idea, that is to say how much we agree with my basic propositions in terms of NPC status and the handover of (important) NPC nations to new players (if a nation has no stated interests in itself from AMW players then there's no issue at all), before we get involved in debating our own nation's interests (such as BG's own interest in Libya, or Marimaia's in Vietnam- we shouldn't bother getting into that until we've agreed the fundamentals anyway).

Well said BG. It is true on many levels as well. For example, what about pan world-NGO's, or more importantly religions? For example, my country is a strong Catholic power, and is very reactionary. Would it not follow suit that with the Restoration of the French Monarchy, the traditional defenders of the Papacy, the Papacy would grow more reactionary and wish again for their medieval prowess? I am sure many examples can be found in every religion in MW to suit very type of situation, from progressive Buddhism to fundmentalist communists.

The numbers of AMW nations exist in the teens, and there are hundreds of countries and thousands of entities in the world. It only makes sense that some of these NPC nations and entities (whethere religious, political, or economic) have connections with PC nations.

Therefore I purpose that certain NPC standards be adopted, in one fell swoop as it were. Each PC nation can claim relations they have with NPC entities (Countries, NGOs, Religions) in text. The text can be then placed for general approval (all subjects in one group to be adopted as a 'AMW' standard) and if found acceptable can be added to the AMW landscape 'just like that.' That way we avoid ongoing questions since the basic agreements are already acknowledged among all AMW players.

Just some thoughts.

Hm, makes sense to me, Elkazor.
I haven't absolutely decided, but it is possible that I may make the current war more or less the story of Lavrageria, and call it quits at the end. Like I say, I haven't decided, but in the event that I do, Lavrageria or Belarus would potentially be an NPC country in which the Estenlands especially has interests (and maybe others, depending on how it works out). Basically it seems to make sense that some sort of system like this would, in the event of my departure, enable effected nations to keep something of the result of this RP in their future composition and dealings, rather than just have it vanish into an immovable object of blank none-player control.

You guys have brought up some good sensible ideas. If I'm right in my recollection, most of Europe is currently NPC. It's hard to believe that the few PC European nations have no diplomatic relations whatsoever with states like Italy, Spain, etc.

If a new player (or old player, for that matter, as there are a couple who have been a part of AMW then left for reasons of inactivity or RL issues) turned up with a sincere desire to play as an 'already-aligned' NPC nation, I believe that BG's idea works best. It would be unfair for an already-established player to oppose a new player's arrival just because it would be unsettling for their MW nation. However, it would be equally unfair for the new player to just completely rewrite the previously NPC nation without allowing the established player a chance to maintain some form of the status quo.

I've had a couple of ideas about ground rules regarding relations with NPC nations:

1. An alliance does NOT mean that you get to use their troops as substitutes for your own. It wouldn't really happen in RL, so it shouldn't happen in AMW. Such things as basing rights and the like may be allowed (within reason), but the only time an established player would be allowed to control the forces of an NPC nation is when the NPC nation is attacked and their already-established ally comes to help (for example, China attacks Vietnam, Marimaia moves forces in to assist Vietnam and the two cooperate militarily until China is removed from Vietnamese soil).

2. Agreements between PC and NPC nations should be realistic. This would be a defence against 'NPC government signs document which allows PC nation to annex NPC nation'. Annexations and the like should only really be done between players (or a player and a state that their nation has puppeted with the clear approval of the rest of the community, but in that situation any annexations should be in the form of province transfer rather than outright annexation). Any agreements should be in the character of the NPC nation as we know it; for example, Vietnam might agree to a Southeast Asian ABM system due to concerns over China and the West, but it wouldn't agree to Marimaia establishing a Theravada Buddhist mission in Hanoi as the socialist regime doesn't care much for outside religious intrusion.

indeed an issue that needs looking at, i agree largely with what has come before (what Strathdonia not arguing with anyone!!!).

The SSA region has a bit of a history of using NPC areas as battlefeilds but i'm sure we coudls tick to some of the restrictions ie we (or as far as i can tell we do )pretty much already assume that south africa is a no go area abr a few arms sales which brings in strathdonia's interests.

We kind of depend on spain/germany (under the EADS/CASA concern) and brazil for our arms supplies basically due to thier RL tendency to be fairly free with who they sell to and i would recon that strathdonia like much of africa requires most of the west to be open to our agricultural produce.

We do have a bit of an issue with our relationship with united Simba (a rahter inactive SSA player who has been MW active at all) with whom we had developed a freindly relationship and biult a joint railway finally giving us a sea link...

Firstly, I would like to say that I had given this issue some thought prior to this thread, and also came to the same conclusions as BG, so I am indeed in complete agreement. (even if it means the right-wing no longer hasa petroleum monopoly!) Strathdonia has mentioned the role of NPC countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, where indeed we have used pretty much this concept for Angola, Zimbabwe and others, and it has always been dealt with in a realistic way. Given that we have each been handpicked for our RPing skills and reputation, I believe we can be trusted to RP relations with NPC countries and even to occasionally RP on behalf of NPC countries in a way that is not unfairly or unplausible beneficial to our nations.

The only country that does for my nation and the Middle East present somewhat of a problem, is the State of Israel. Firstly this country, in my opinion, is extremely difficult to RP, and I have yet to see anybody attempt this with success, and secondly the existence of Israel is a historical imperative for the Middle East Also unsually for a predonomantly Arab state, UE recognises Israel and our nations have a fairly strong trade relationship.
I ask therefore that it is an NPC country in its RL world form, and remains this way.

The other nation which I recommend be considered an NPC country in its current until such time as someone is prepared to RP it as BG suggested, is Iran as it is also one of the largest players in the world oil market.

How would we handle military aid for example? For example, let's say the US is an NPC nation. Mexico, a PC nation gets invaded by...Guatemala. Anyway, realistically, what would the US do? We don't want to simply slap the extra military onto the PC country, but I doubt such a close and powerful nation would sit by. (Hypothetical situation, of course)

Well, up in ol' Jharkhand, I'm rolling in natural resources!

I'm sure there's a fair number of railroad lines spiriting said raw materials into Hindustan's easterly neighbor...

It would be nice to get a third India.

In regard to NPC nations. Off the bat, myself I have questions about Spain (whose King IRL is in fact a Bourbon, not to mention the closest blood to the French Throne in the world, and is a very Catholic state) and the Papacy, interestingly enough. For I imagine if their were a Restored French monarch, which historically since Charlemagne was what defended the Papacy, the Papacy would be more reactionist.

The conditions and ties between those states and France would exist. Yet what could their dimensions be? I would imagine a general vote would be conducted on the validity of mine and others non-ivasive purposals for NPC states.

That is to say, is a military alliance between a PC and a NPC state possible? And is a nations claim to hegemony over doctrinal issues in various faiths and movements possible? Or more simply, would the Red Cross come to your country?

So, I imagine the democratic ;) thing to do would be each person maybe, such as UE has done, list their claims and ideas regarding NPC "things". Then, maybe like some sort of constitution, all the claims can be put on one glorified page, and yes or noed, or appended.

I see the value in this, and with my intensely religious nation, coupled with its highly militaristic foriegn policy, would have massive interest in several extra-national entities and nations. That would include the nation of Isreal, whom I have interest in for obvious reasons, Panama, as in RL. Germany, where I would have major military interests and bases, and porbably significant interset in Iran, as a major oil producer. I would probably have to assume some minor interests in Africa, though I am soft on that issue, and a few military bases in northern S. America, though that is to reprent the troops involved in the war on drugs, and probably would not be fully integrated military bases, but guerrilla affiars, with support from government troops and mercs.
As perhaps the most powerful Christian nation in MW, I have a major interest in the goings on of the Vatican, and probably have a VERY GOOD relationship with Germany,seeing as how we are the two largest predominanly Lutheran nations in the world.

In earlier posts, I also claim all the regular protectorates and territories of RL USA. You know, when I started this, I thought I would end up with Canada, having the USA means a lot of international meddling.

I am not trying to directly conflict with United Elias, but it seems as though we have some overlapping claims as to NPC relations, which doesn't necessarily mean that it can't work, but we should probably chat about it through TG.

With the Vatican thing, the Vatican may not be reactionary, it may find the idea of a world superpower where Catholics and Protestant and Orthodox nations work and live in harmony, would be an archetype for Vatican moderation.

WWJD
Amen.

An interesting question that does need serious consideration, IMO.

Roycelandia, as you know, used to have a pretty large Empire- I've never really explained how we lost most of it (I've made reference to previous Emperors dismantling it or acceding to Independence demands), which could change the dynamics of MW even more...

Well, it seems as if we're all basically thinking along the same lines, so that's good.

We should address outstanding issues before working out where each NPC country lies, I think. Military alliances, then, and examples we can already look at? I think that as Marimaia seemed to apply, some sort of defensive alliance capability makes sense, but should be carefully vetted.

The Sub Saharan African region is a pretty good place to look for ideas and problems, I think, since it was experimenting with a smaller scale AMW type environment before this really got off the ground. The region has seen use of NPC Gabon, and to a lesser degree Angola, and more recently Zimbabwe. I think that they've all been based upon their current real life equivalents, which is basically a good idea, because it prevents anyone claiming that their neighbour sees dead eye to eye with their government when they're a militant atheist society and their neighbour practices Islamic law in reality.

In SSA, United Elias and Roycelandia have created puppet regimes in two sections of Gabon, while Lusaka backs what remains of the real-world equivalent state. I think that normally we want to be careful about PC nations going round attacking NPC ones and taking them over, but in this case it was but one very small nation, no one nation took much out of it, and various PC nations banded together to provide a PC resistance to the PC invasion, so it wasn't just a case of the attackers saying they'd won without having to RP or anything. I think that this was reasonable enough, but that the community should come together to regulate abuse of such loose standards- for example, if BG invaded Pakistan and Iran and was -as would presumably happen- kicking the sugar out of their NPC militaries and about to expand its commonwealth by two and a half million square kilometres, I would expect people to say, "hang on a minute, you can't do that!" or something.

The odd imperialism RP now and then will keep AMW fluid, I suppose, so long as it doesn't become a standard feature, as such, you know?

In SSA, Lusaka's current regime has formed a treaty with Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the African National Pact, and I don't think anyone can argue that it doesn't make sense, given the nature of the ZANU-PF government of Zimbabwe. It's easier to be permissive in cases like that, because the nations involved -both PC and NPC- are small and in economic collapse, so it doesn't threaten anybody, and if someone came along wanting to play over Zimbabwe, it wouldn't be hard to justify a coup or such, thus ending the ANP.

I think that I've rambled enough, there.

I don't know if anyone remembers the Marimaian war against Myanmar/Burma, but that was a PC vs. NPC war.

Rather than simply claim victory, I asked around for someone to RP the Burmese (first it was Turkmeny, then Hudecia after Turkmeny encountered some RL issues). I think the key to any PC vs. NPC war would be getting an already-established player to RP as the NPC nation for the duration of the conflict; of course, the best situation would be getting a player who has no IC interest in the region.

The important thing to remember about the Gabon was was that it started as a PC v PC war. When the Gabonaise player vanished, we kept going anyway, as the RP was too involved to just back out of.

Interestingly, Roycelandia actually deployed military forces for the Gabon War (as opposed to simply training & arming a rebel army and seeing what happens), with relatively successful results.

FWIW, I think it's probably safest to say that "unclaimed" Nations in AMW are the same as their RL counterparts, unless there's a really good reason for this not to be the case.

The problem with SSA's setup is that we haven't really addressed what lies to the west of our Nations... presumably it's someone reasonably organised, or else Roycelandia probably would have expanded West from the Sudan. Hordes of armed Muslims are the best IC reason I've come up with at the moment.

(The OOC Reason is because that would simply be landgrabbing with no decent RP reason, and besides, it just seems n00bish to effectively say "OMG 1 pwn 4fr1<4!!!" ;) ).

Perhaps we could take turns RPing an NPC nation in some conflicts, Dungeons & Dragons style (With the selected Nation acting as "DM"), thus allowing for RPs involving NPC Nations?

Just my .02 Imperial Wibbles... :)

I just want to make sure that we have some kind of way to keep this from degenerating into, "Of course this nation would ally with me, " with several nations all speaking about a single entity. The idea of requiring someone to RP NPC nations is probably best, using their RL stats and governments.
For instance, I would claim that I have fairly good relations with most of my immdeiate nieghbours, including nations such as Moldova and Poland, but I have made massive overtures and threats, each when needed to Turkey, which is perhaps the most strategically important nation to mine. The CIA factbook says that foriegn investment in Turkey is less than 1 billion, I am assuming that in AMW, I have matched that, increasing the investment total to 2 billion USD, over 50% from Estenlands for the last 20 years. This, along with the fact that my entire navy and Elite military units are designed and over and over agian trained to invade Turkey. So, Turkey and I probably have a very good relationship, but with teeth, so that it is made clear that we are the senior power and there would always hang over them the possibility that we might come in and force them into line, should they ever step out of it.

I would have a probalem with having massive military alliances with NPC naions, as that would mean that NATO could just claim that all of Europe allies with them. Seeing as how NATO kind of expects that all member nations rush to defend eachother, that would make NATO by far the most dominant military allince in AMW, unbalancing the game in their favor in a major way.

So, I would ask that there is no military alliances that would require NPC players to rush to defend PC nations, as that would border on Godmodding. Perhaps we could just say that nations that aren't immediately affected by a conflict should stay out of it, at best showing a "benevolent nuetrality."

King Wingert I of The Village of Farrah.

Oh, well, I tend to think of the alliance thing being more about the NPC nations than the PC, for example, obligating BG to leap to Libya's defence and not expecting Libya to defend BG. Well, actually, that's a bad example, we'd defend them for our own reasons and probably wouldn't go so far as to make an official alliance, and besides, Libya couldn't exactly muster a force to go and defend BG anyway, but erm, you get the idea.

Well, Marimaia would defend Vietnam (probably), but Vietnam would only do so much to defend Marimaia... I mean, presumably it would completely deny hostile forces access to its territory and would defy embargos or something, but wouldn't send entire army groups in to effectivelly boost Marimaia's army size, or something? Obviously details like this can be worked out on a case by case basis. Some situations would merit the NPC nations doing a little more than would others. Blah blah. I think we'll be okay when it happens.

Hrm. Perhaps we should try working out what NPC nations are of importance, and defining what sort of relationships they maintain with others. If anyone has more to say on a fundamental level, don't let my moving on stop you.

-----

Let's see, NPC nations of importance, up for debate...


I'd say Libya and Venezuala are the first that spring to mind in BG's interest. Along with lesser contributions from domestic and other Indian wells, Marimaia, and North Yaman, most of BG's oil, I've imagined, originates in these two nations.

I expect that Igovian aid and technical assisstance has slightly lessened Libya's need to import manfucatured goods and machines from Europe and thus begun to diversify and strengthen their economy and improve the regime's position, as well as with Igovian pressure to do something socialistic about that rich poor divide. BG reluctantly turns a blind eye to the Colonel's regressive clutch on religion.

In Venezuala, I don't mean to dismiss possible Quinntonian influence out of hand, and, depending on Q's input, there may be something of an ideological tug of war going on over Venezuala and its oil. BG of course has backed Chavez and sent experts and aid to help put those admirable but poorly implemented reforms into practice, securing his traditional support base, which I would imagine is enough to secure his position though not without some on going upper class dissent.

Vietnam is important to Marimaia as already described, and though not a priority like Libya and Venezuala, is also on the Igovian radar. I'd suppose that BG generally just does its best to back up the Marimaian position, further strengthening their influence. That is considered easier than commiting major resources ourselves.

Zimbabwe is an NPC nation of importance to Lusaka, being a member of the African National Pact. It is presumably less safe against outside manipulation and internal unrest than is the case in the previously mentioned nations. I don't imagine that anyone else has significant interests in Zimbabwe, since it is in a bit of a useless condition.

Angola I'm not sure about. Whatever's going on here is known well enough to most of the involved nations- African Commonwealth, Roycelandia, and United Elias, at least? I'm sure that most of the rest of earth is largely accepting that the ship has sailed on meddling with Angola, with all the seats taken.

Turkey is an NPC nation of significance to the Estenlands, and to Sabir (I think) should that nation be confirmed as a member of AMW, since it actually includes a small portion of southern Turkey, I believe. Presumably United Elias too would have something to say on the matter of Estenlandic influence. Personally, I do not believe that Turkey would be terribly intimidated by the Estenlands, as its population, even if shrunk by Sabir, will be at least comparable, and its militarism is significant in reality, let alone with a large hostile neighbour. I think that Turkey would be quite confident in being able to survive an invasion from the Ukraine, and that the Estenlands would have almost as much to fear from Turkey as vice versa. I can't comment much more without hearing from UE and perhaps Sabir if he joins for sure. If UE chooses to be hostile to Turkey, then the Turks will probably have to fall into line with the Estenlands, and if UE is friendly with Turkey, then the Estenlands are going to be in a more difficult position.

Now, erm, I don't know where to start with the Catholic world. I can only imagine a major split in heavily Catholic European nations with much support for the French restoration, and as much opposition to its errosion of democracy. I don't really know what to say.

Erm, what else is of immediate importance? There are much lesser issues like Cuba, which would be crawling with Igovian agents and receiving heavy trade and indeed trade incentives. I don't know if Quinntonia is keeping up the US embargo, but if so, BG is doing what it can to compensate.

I think the issue of the remainder of India is a rather big one, at least for me and BG.

I mean, what's out there? Is it just a sea of puppet states or various feuding independent nations, or what?

This seems to be going very well so far, and most of all reasonable. Let me add another step to the argument, to make it fair for everybody, and indeed something like youd find out of Risk. How about, in the interests of clarity and fairness (to us all) every PC nation is limited to two NPC claims. Let me start out by listing France's --CAVEAT: of course, we are speaking in complete hypotheticals right now, I just wanted to see what we could all come up with--

Claim 1- Spain is a Catholic Monarchy again, as is France. The King, lets say Philip VIII, disbanded the Constitutional Assembly, a la France. This makes the two nations linked by steel, and by blood as well. For the Spanish Monarchy is a branch of the Bourbon family (IRL facts here). Indeed, where as Louis XX is refferred to as His Most Christian Majesty, the Spanish King is referred to as His Most Catholic Majesty. Thus the two nations would be bonded like glue. France and Spain have signed the "Concordat de Bourbon." This limits both nations to a defensive alliance, with very strong economic pacts. ((No offensive alliance could ever be possible with an NPC power)). Spain is a signatory of the Holy Leauge, but with the proviso that it will not engage in any war other than a defence of Spanish soil, buts its economy would be linked by necessity.

Claim 2- The Papacy is devoted to a strict interpretation of Catholicism. This is to say, an Ancien Regime variety, which would endorse monarchical government. ((In morality, of course no Inquisition)). With the accension of Pope John Paul III (Uncle to Frances Grand Almoner) the Papacy --needless to say, the upswing of Monarchy via France and Estenlands, and if this works Spain-- the Catholic Church ((From taxes flowing in from Catholic Kingdoms)) is richer than it has been in hundreds of years, and its bulls and edicts will carry much more gravitas. This effects France in particular, for the French Kings are the legal defenders of the Catholic Church, and if anybody wished to get to Rome, theyd have to go through Louis first.

Now, this is what I mean by two substantive claims into the NPC world. I would then take these claims to be judged by AMW members. I would not be entitled to make anymore personal claims into the AMW NPC world, these are my first and only two.

Once everybody drops in their claims, we all vote, and append these bills if you will into law. So, in my modus operandi, everybody ought to think of the two most critical NPC matters which effect them, and manumate those issues. Keeping in mind Offensive military alliances seem to be the only glaring no no.

I would suggest the two claims be articulatley phrased, in legalese and definite, so that everybody is aware of what is getting appended to AMW. Then, perhaps, after this truly prolific task is completed, we could do a AMW gazette or something, wherein we list the events of the world and its states and NGOs. Thus everybody has a complete understanding of what has happened.

In Venezuela's case, I think it's also fair to presume a fair degree of Roycelandian influence as well, just by virtue of proximity. You can bet that at least one Rebel Group in Venezuela is armed, funded, and possibly trained by Roycelandia. (In fact, the same would be true of all of Central America, Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay... you get the idea).

Cuba is part of Roycelandia, and I would be VERY worried if it was "Crawling with Igovian Agents" or being embargoed by Quinntonia...

New Zealand is a very important gateway to Antarctica, which might become important in the future. It's probably safest to assume AMW NZ's government is the same as the RL NZ Government- Pacifist Tree-Huggers, basically. They're unlikely to ally with anyone (except Australia) and are even less likely to commit combat troops to anything.

I have to disagree with Elkazor's idea... I really think it's safest to just assume that all NPC nations are the same as their RL counterparts, and are probably maintaining a form of Armed Neutrality with regards to military involvement in things.

Meddling in their affairs politically, however, is where it gets difficult, but I think we're all good enough RPers to work around that...

I agree, we should always assume that NPC nations are same as RL, with maybe minor differences die to influence by AMW nations.
WWJD
Amen.

In that case, I see problems arising. Of course I would be happy with such an idea, Im just coming along for the ride.

However, if we agree the leave all NPCs as is, that will lead to the aforesaid problems. What will we do? All of our, that is to say PC, governments for the great majority radically depart from the present IRL situation. For example, a Restored Monarchy in France, a hodepodge Theocracy in America, Socialist frutopias in India (please, no offence meant, but your govs would be called that by modern day leftists, in any case theyre always complaining), and a rising Empire vis a vis Marimaia, not to even mention Roycelandia ;).

These governments would cause untold changes to their, for the most part drastically less powerful, neighbors. I am not bitching, mind y'all. I just would like some rhyme and reason involved in this. If not done properly, I think this would be a profoundly detremental idea. However, being the paragons of RP we are, I am sure we can make do. I would just like, well, a clear methodology imposed on our NPC categorizations.

Woops, sorry, I totally forgot that Roycelandia included Cuba! Well, it's crawling with... two or three agents, anyway!

Anyway, yes, I suppose that the Roiks would have at least as much a hand in agitating the Venezualan upper classes as would the Quinntonians, if not more.

Right, I think that yes, out-right changing real world governments to make allies of them would lead to more problems than it would solve. The issue of Spain and the wider 'catholic world' (although I'm not sure it's right to refer to that as the 'catholic world' today isn't really a governmental thing as once it was, except in France) does have to be addressed, though. I think that it is safe to assume some sort of rising in Catholic circles, inspired by the French example, but likewise a counterweight would surely be seen in the democratic element. Most stable western governments wouldn't, I really think, turn to absolutist rule of any sort unless the French out right invaded and it looked like the best way to maintain power. Perhaps it would be fair to say that catholic majority nations near France would see much wider public acceptance of the anti-democratic revolution than would other nations like the UK, meaning that it is more acceptable for their elected governments to do business with the French, and over time potentially to begin using Catholicism as part of a campaign platform. Certainly one possibility is that Spain would drift slowly closer and closer to the French on religious grounds, but the opposition would presumably become polarised and a breeding ground for, well, Igovian influence. Mayhap we've not yet seen the last Spanish Civil war.

I don't know, what do folk think, do we assume that it is the more pro-French or at least pro-Catholic lobby that is in power in Spain, rather than the counter movement? As for the Vatican, I wouldn't put anything past them. In Igovian normalcy, the Holy See is regarded as one of the globe's epicentre's of wrongheadedness and outright evil akin to Shanghai, and Singapore before the war.

We do of course have difficulties in India. The existing NPC states in AMW aren't independent entities in reality, so it's harder to say which way they'd go. On the one hand, it'd be hard to deny Hindustani and Beddgelen influence over many states, but on the other, Beth Gellert's low regard for all things religious would put some minor governments in a very difficult position between Portmeirion and their own populations. I forget off hand, but at least one of the north eastern states has some of India's better inshore oil wells, and that area gives access to Marimaian territory and borders our principle local enemy, so I tend to assume that Igovian influence is directed most determinedly in that direction, leaving the already chaotic north west more likely to resent the Commonwealth. I'd be prepared to say that Kashmir really doesn't like Beth Gellert, for example.
Perhaps the Indian states are a minor issue until someone decides to RP something specific to the detriment of LRR or BG and wants to make use of the surrounding states. Maybe we should just let the confusing issue lie until then. I'm not sure.

I'd just like to say that it's pretty crucial for Al-Ahzad's history to have Israel exist as an independent nation with pretty much the same policies it has RL. Iran too would be nifty, if nobody comes along to play it.

Yeah, the Spain issue I think has to be carefullly done. Firstly, the Spanish were the herdetary arch-enemies of France for most of their history, including the line drawn from Phillip II, The Black Prince. This always led to problems, seeing as how even during say, the Spanish Armada, there was a massive Dutch Revolt going on, supported by the English. The problem was, France was blocking Spanish troops and agitating against Spain. Francis I even allied himself with the Turks against Charles V of Spain, he hated them so much. Louis XIV attacked Spain en masse, even Napolean and some of his descendants had the thorn of Spain in his side, they were competitors first.

Secondly, if we don't make sure to try and keep the rest of the NPC world as RL as possible, that is what will lead to problems. I mean, if France can claim control over Spain as a newly restored monarchy, with a new reactionary Vatican at its behest, then what is to stop Estenlands from claiming that the monarchial restoration is happening all over Europe, and he is allied with a restored Kaiser in Germany and Ceasar in Rome? That right there creates an unrealistic power bloc that would rival and directly threaten NATO, and with the Estenlands and Frances combative history, I can't assume that they wouldn't use that newfound power to reclaim the rest of Europe, and who would stop them, they would find NATO an implacable foe, but most of the rest of the major powers of AMW are Eastern ones.

WWJD
Amen.

This seems too much like a land grab to me.

The only territory that I claim to influence came from wars with PC nations (Drapol and Bonstock) and even there, I do not try to occupy and control the entire area. (note my development of Kalla).

For each nation to try to pick and choose what nations they want support from seems... a little self serving. Real world doesn't work that way all the time. Sometimes you get breaks (in AMW, North Yaman supporting Drapol with oil supplies was a lucky break for Drapol), sometimes you don't (Xiaguo not being friendly to Drapol)

why not just leave the NPC nations alone for now and see where things develop with them... if we want to open up a nation at a key juncture. (Ie, Marimaia decides to invade Vietnam sometime in the future would be something to discuss)

(That'd be e.g. (exempli gratia, for example), not i.e. (id est, that is), unless Marimaia is actually going to invade Vietnam and that is the only situation in which we have any interest, which it isn't. Sorry, that must be one of those pet peeves people talk about :) )

The point of this is that we can't leave NPC nations alone and still claim to be playing a realistic game. UE is trying to set up an AMW oil market, which can't be done without major states such as BG explaining their place in the fuel economy, which can't be done without NPC nations, because, by sheer coincidence of natural fossil fuel deposits in modern geographic terms, almost all major oil producing nations player controlled in AMW operate distinctly none-communist economies.

This isn't a land grab, the only thing that even came close was quickly railed against by the majority. No one can pick and choose anything without others agreeing that it makes sense in a real-world context, which is something that none of us can influence, unless you want to go out and, for example, assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.

To me, Hudecia's role in South Korea makes sense like the roles of Beth Gellert and Roycelandia in Venezuala. It just happens that Hudecia's part here occurred in RP history, and the other parties' prior to it. After all, AMW's history doesn't just begin a few weeks ago with the obliteration of 90% of the world's population, but must be considered, I believe, in a wider and further-reaching respect.

BG, I must admit your advice makes absolute sense, no pun. It sounds logical to me. Thats is to saying growing Catholic fundamentalism, slowly but surely. Of course, if France the First Estate has been restored, nuff said.

Im sure theres more hemmering to be done, though.

FYI Quinn, in Louis XIV's invasion of Spain, the so called War of the Spanish Succession, a Bourbon (I think Philip IV) was placed on the throne, and the Hapsburgs were psuhed out of Spain. Those are the relations I was speaking of. Indeed, the House of Bourbon remains in power in Spain even today. They fought Napoleon because his was a revolutionary. The 'Spanish Ulcer' was actually supported by pious Catholic peasants and their local Priests. Ergo, you will find that between 1715-1789 Spain and France worked closely together as allies on every issue.

If we were picking which NPC nations we wanted as support, I'd have picked Iran, Pakistan and all the other dictatorships who at some point have exported WMD or possess a lot of useful resources. However, that is extremely unrealistic; the idea of Vietnam choosing Marimaian friendship in the face of Chinese aggression and encroaching Western influence is a lot more likely.

As I have already stated, in the event of Marimaia going off to war, Vietnam would say 'hey, good luck' and carry on as normal. The only time the alliance would involve actual military commitment from Vietnam is if Vietnam was invaded/attacked. There'd be officer exchanges, weapon purchases and that kind of thing too, but none of that has any real impact on Marimaia's military capability. The ABM shield would also be a part of the alliance, but considering the threat from China, Kalla's military buildup and Western military forces operating not far from Vietnam's coast, it's not unfeasible that they'd agree to it.

To be honest, I still don't buy into this idea sorry. Again, its going to devolve into a simple land grab.

I could spend hours arguing about it but it wouldn't matter. We'd just agree to disagree in the end.

I'm not going to take part in this.

Well, Hudecia has a hand in South Korea already. Most of its trade needs are met by established members of AMW. Its capacities and needs don't stretch beyond. Dra-pol is largely in the same situation. Other nations are not. I don't see how you can get five minutes arguing out of it, let alone hours.

Thus far, everything else seems to be on track and reasonable. This clearly has nothing to do with land grabbing, as the initial post clearly defines an utterly unrelated purpose.
Dra-pol's dealings outside of PC nations is of course strictly limited, so I have little to add from a selfish point of view.

As long as the differences in the RL world NPC nations are kept minimal, like, increased revenue from a trade partner they didn't have before or something, I am supportive of this venture.
But I am also very cautious as this could very well devolve into a land-grab if we are not careful.
WWJD
Amen.

The reason that I am not worried about Turkey, is thatI have friends in the military, who have served in peacekeeping capacities with the Turkish armed forces, reportedly, their "elite" troops. Now, this was the Canadian military, and they were appalled at how poorly equipped the Turkish troops were. Some had no guns, some no blankets, and none of them had food, the Canadian troops supported and equipped the Turks out of their own provisions. So, even if the Turks report 400,000 troops in that poverty stricken nation, their effectiveness would be questionable at best.

They also are a democracy, and have a tough time selling high military spending to their voters, but have made the military into something of a "make work" program to keep large numbers of people employed and provide them with training in the hopes that it will benefit the nation later.
King Wingert I of The Village of Farrah.

Well, I think that the Turkish armed forces are gradually on the up, and in the past have proven themselves capable of some offensive operation, if not exactly world beating. I do have some trouble with the idea of a friendly relationship while the Estenlands holds a knife to Turkey's throat... I don't care how much a guy smiles at me while he's holding a knife on me... in fact I think that I'd be rather more put-off by it, but I digress, the Turks are constantly under-estimated militarily. Those reports would fit right in with western opinion of the Turks during the Crimean war, where in they did all the hard work, and the best of the fighting until they were made scapegoats and pulled out of action by the British and French, then flung off into Korea they apparently fought as might be expected of someone defending his own land, not somebody elses, so one can only imagine what'd happen at home... ah, anyway, I don't care, it's just Turkey and the Ukraine, neither of you matter ;)

Idunno, smiling while you hold a knife to your throat seems to sum up US foriegn policy in RL! LOL!
WWJD
Amen.

Firstly, I think it is important to note that the Turkish armed forces is not just a military entity, but also a political one. While it may appear that Turkey is a democracy, and that is indeed true to a degree, it is usually the army who asserts that the government should be more pro-western, and the army have to an extent precipitated the secularism that has made Turkey an example to other islamic nations, rather than its democratic credentials.

As far as the relationship between UE and Turkey, this is without a doubt a complex one. While the formation of Elias was through revolution against Ottoman rule, and we fought the Ottomans again in The Great War alongside the British (not at the Dardanelles but at Aleppo and the Levant), there was a very deep resentment within Elias when the Republic of Turkey was declared in 1923. While the secularisation and reforms of Ataturk were similar to the Tanzimat reforms of the late nineteenth century in Elias, there was a genuine nostalgia and inherent respect for the Ottoman royal dynasty and even to this day parliamentarians in UE are given the suffix of 'Pasha'. Other issues such as language reform also showed a growing Gulf between the Middle East and Turkey who was trying hard to be European.

Prior to the cold war realignment of United Elias in the late 1970s, relations with NATO Turkey would have worsened, but after this event, much stronger ties especially with the military would have been established. Nowadays therefore it can be assumed that UE has a fairly positive view of the Turkish state and there are more issues that unite us (dislike of Kurds, fear of Islamic fundamentalism etc) than divide us. Given this view, it is likely that while not a written agreement, United Elias and Turkey have more or less a mutual defence alliance, however Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (since 2003) is somewhat of an unknown quantity, not being from the Kemalist mould and coming from an islamist background (he actually served four years in prison for inciting religous hatred!).

The Roycelandian attitude towards Turkey is one of total ambivalence.

On one hand, the Turkish connection to their history closely tallies to Roycelandia's similar interests. Indeed, Roycelandian Cartographers are notorious for being a little, shall we say, dated, in their representations. One of the most popular wall maps in Roycelandia still refers to places by their Colonial Era Names, regardless of whether or not that name is still current- hence, Indonesia is still the Dutch East Indies, all the former British Colonies are marked as such (British Honduras, British Guiana, and so on), the French Colonies (French West Africa, French Indochina), and so on.

Turkey's attempts at Westernisation have been supported by Roycelandia, but Roycelandia's support for the Kurds would have caused some friction between Port Royal and Ankara. On the other hand, Roycelandia almost certainly encourages Turkey not to get TOO Westernised...