NationStates Jolt Archive

These weapons discussions are boring me terribly. Quinntopia does not give a fig about navalized undercarriages and I admit that I do not either. I am not a naval engineer and neither are you. But then again maybe you do have a point (wait out for BG) and I am thinking about buying some Quinntopian navalized stuff.

As for Germanys participation on the Eurofighter we were either large scale partners or we were not involved. I see the participation as completely cut in half, 50-50. If "G-man" is willing I think we should have integrated production of the Eurofighters just like in RL. Since the Meteor is the primary air-to-air armament of Eurofighter I likewise claim access to that missile. I also reserve the right to give "Q-man" access to it as a navalized variant. If Britain can go around on a technology giving spree then so can I.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. As I mentioned on the forum we should go back and RP some of the weapons development so that this issue does not keep on coming back over and over again. Plus it gives us something to do while USQ and BG are incommunicato.

I am so sicj and tired of all of this. When it comes to weapons, I use the RL weapons from the RL nations. I don't really care where they came from. So, let me do this for you. WE stole the Meteor. How is that? WE sent agents and infiltrated your facilities and stole it. That way, I can still use the RL weapon, and you can have your alternative AMW weapons production history. I changed everything else, but here it is. You can either take that or not.

Or, how about we developed a missile called the...Bleteor, yeah, but it has all of the exact specifications.

But, I just don't care anymore. Maybe a massive rethink of this whole scene is in order.

WWJD
Amen.

Chill, guys.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It doesn't matter all that much who has what. I mean, if Fleur is really attached to the Eurofighter, he can have the damned thing, 50-50. I don't really care. He can even claim joint-development of the Meteor, since it was supposed to be an AMRAAM replacement anyway... makes sense for NATO to have developed it.

On the other hand, I really don't like that you went and claimed something for NG's forces that even he didn't, Quinn. I'm pretty sure NG has roleplayed as using Mica or AMRAAM or something, and Mac did the same as Spain. To go now and say that suddenly France has the Meteor... doesn't make sense, yeah?

Honestly, I think this whole technology dust-up is painfully stupid. An Su-33 is essentially just as good as a MiG-29K, which is essentially just as good as a JSF or Harrier GR.11. The Puffin is somewhere in there too. The Eurofighter is relatively equivalent to the latest Russian fighters, and can beat anything fielded by Quinntonia except the F-22. The F-18 is a very nice little multirole and will work just fine, period.

Really, AMW isn't about technology. That's why (as I understand it) Dra-Pol and Quinn and whoever else came and STARTED AMW, because they were sick of having these endless technology bitchfests. So either we shut up about all of this now, or we eventually end up with superdreadnoughts and dredged harbours and populations in the billions.

I think you're really missing my point (Fleur and Quinn). You've got to at least get the types right, or else what am I supposed to do? Guess? Don't think I'm picking on you. I'm not. It simply is not a good idea to harp on silly things that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

If its technology that you're worried about, well, I'll just as soon take all those Meteors and Brahmos missiles out of the equation and go back to torpedoes and cannon. It really isn't worth losing anybody over it, and all this modern stuff is too confusing anyway. Not to mention, completely ineffective. :/

But seriously...this really sucks.

What's this nonsense about using the RL stuff from the RL nations? And it not mattering? Surely you've been paying attention to AMW for the last few years, Q? That would completely change AMW.

Maybe Dra-pol just stole US thermonuclear weapons, and the Indian missile shield, and Australian radar, and F-22, and Meteor too. Or, maybe not!

If you use the RL weapons from the RL nations, Q, then you still don't have Meteor!

The Bleteor suggestion -even with that as a joke name- is an even worse idea. Then everyone's just going to do the same, and there's no point in the military aspect of our RPing anyway.

There's no need for a massive rethink. Just carrry on, only listen to the people who're obviously right, or I'll take LRR and start A Recent-Past World, or A Completely Defenceless World, or something. [/Melodramatic threat]

Seriously, what's the problem? What are people afraid of? Some theoretical future battle that may or may not happen, in which the Indians use the weaponry they've RP'd acquisition of to win the day and magically win AMW and make the other players feel bad?

We didn't have this kind of trouble when the Drapoel were over-running hundreds of thousands of western troops and threatening total victory, which they never ended up achieving, so I'm not sure why everyone's so worried now.

*salutes Dra-Pol*

Seriously, guys. Why have we suddenly become so fixated on technology? From what I understand, AMW hasn't really concerned itself with tech developments that much so far. What's changed?

From my perspective, technology is of substantial importance... specifications aside, technology is tied closely to other elements in the story of AMW. The INU's navy has its present layout in large part because of the BrahMos, and what it can do. The Meteor as an indigenous British weapon stands as a symbol of a push for re-armament and military self-sufficiency in the UK over the previous decade (particularly if the Typhoon no longer occupies a similar post as a British solo project), its outsourcing to the INU underlining the close relations between London and Mumbai, and its dissemination to the Soviets one of the costs that came with a decision to alter course in Anglo-French relations. Who but the Drapoel would still use the Ultra Shinden in a world of Su-35s and F-22s?

Though that may speak to a different perspective on just what AMW was meant to accomplish... I had thought that technology was not the problem when the group came together, but rather logistics: it was an end to multi-billion-citizen states with million-man armies that appeared instantaneously on the border, by tying populations and geography to an objective source. In such a world, technology (and its differences and variations) would seem even more important than they are in non-AMW roleplay.
'Technology bitchfests' would seem to be the unfortunate price which must be paid.

Though, I do wish we could get Strath back every once and awhile to arbitrate.

Hm... in light of your experience here/general articulateness, I'll defer to you on this point. However, I'd still say that to me, AMW is about good roleplay and secondarliy knowledge of technology. It's why I actually enjoy NG's posting, most of the time, despite the fact that it sometimes strains the 'limits' of fluid time RP. Essentially, it's because the man is an excellent writer and a creative person, and that to me makes up for occasional slips in logistics.

I suppose what I object to is not the realistic roleplay of technology (in fact, I think that's one of the things that makes LRR a very good RPer) but rather the idea that we all have to be the bestest at something (or everything). Arms races in real life do occur, but they occur in such a way as is possible given the real limits of money, technology and previous expertise. It really irritates me, then, when I see something like the current Meteor/Eurofighter dust up. I don't think that having Meteor vs. having AIM-120D AMRAAM should really make that huge a difference... maybe the Meteor-armed guys have a small advantage, but it's still possible for the pilots with AMRAAM to score kills and even win dogfights. The same principle applies to aircraft, which is why I applaud NG for using the Dassault Rafale and have pushed for Veckie to use the Su-33s and MiG-29s. It makes more sense for him to use those, rather than somehow having bought a knocked-off Eurofighter design from Austria.

In the end, I think we're getting to wound up in having the 'best air force' or 'best navy', and it's starting to have a detrimental affect on RP. Granted, like Spyr says, these conflicts are unavoidable from time to time, but I think that the Eurofighter/Meteor thing is simply getting out of hand.

Accordingly, let me do something very self-important and use myself as an example. I have, over the past few weeks, been giving some thought to my air force. The results of this thinking (posted on my offsite factbook of gloriousness) have been essentially that I might have the Typhoon, but it still hasn't replaced all (or even most) of my Panavia Tornadoes. At the moment, my front line squadrons use the Meteor, but all the others still rely on stocks of AIM-120C AMRAAM, a decidedly inferior missile. ASRAAM is slowly replacing Sidewinder throughout my air force. Notably enough, if the Indians decided to make a play for Ascension Island, I'd fight them with Tornadoes and AMRAAM rather than Typhoon and Meteor, simply because that's what I have in the area.

That was not encouragement, LRR.

So yeah. I think we should step back from our countries-- something hard to do at the best of times-- and seriously think about where they're weak and where they're strong. LRR, for another example, has a small navy and a world-beating AShM. Spyr is... well... Spyr. It's a regional power, but it couldn't manage to launch an attack on, say, Europe. Australia? Maybe.

Am I making sense here?

We should have a tech thread, maybe on the off-site forums, to really explain differences when they're important, for those who don't understand.

When it comes to Meteor, the differences really are significant, and it just happens that, in broad terms, I understand them (while a lot of military technology and tactics remains beyond my appreciation).

For example, we need it understood that Meteor is a historic step, like the first all big-gun battleship, the first ironclad, the first jet fighter, the first guided missile, if less obviously so, hence people's confusion, I suppose.

It's an area in AMW where Britain (and now the Indias) have a real advantage. And, since Britain and the Soviets are on opposite sides and the INU's fussing in the middle, it kinda works out, anyway.

A tech thread might explain that most BVRAAMs -such as AMRAAM and Russia's latest- end up missing. Take the Eritea-Ethiopia conflicts. Both sides had decent Russian jets and missiles. Both launched 'AMRAAMSKIs' against one another at range. Both failed to hit a single thing, ever. Both the poorly trained Eritreans firing at well-trained Ethiopians, AND the well-trained Ethiopians firing at poorly-trained Eritreans. Everything missed. They closed in and used IR-guided short-range missiles, and the Ethiopians ate the Eritreans alive.

Meteor threatens to change that, because even in its terminal stage it still has thrust, while AMRAAM et cetera may be basically gliding. One evasive move and you've shaken AMRAAM. One evasive move against Meteor and oh dear, its coming back again, fast.

It'll make life hard for anyone fighting the British or Indians... unless they're the British or Indians!

Other techs could be similarly (or better, I'm racing the clock) explained, anyhoo.

Fine, I will aquiesce on every point, I don't care. However, I should le you know that for the most part I hate this stuff, a lot of the tech squabbles that I have taken the time to educate myself on have flown in the face of what pople's opinions are in AMW, and everything else, well, I could care less what type of missile it is, I only look for its range so I know when I can say I fire in my posts.

Can we get this air battle moving now?

WWJD
Amen.

Yes, but with that attitude you're just going to lose even more badly... as in you'll lose every single fighter without taking down a single opponent. See... my last post for details =/

Quinn, if you feel that we're somehow mistaken, feel free to provide sources, opinions, et cetera. I'd also say that it's entirely possible for the Tsarists/French to bloody the Indians a bit, they just need to attack with superior forces and close to range. Now, doing that will be hideously difficult, and I'd suggest that you also try to engage them with your more effective surface units if possible (after all, LRR has said in his posts that the Russian SAMs are quite a threat to his Puffin wing) and not try to take down his fighters with your own, operating without support.

Also, it's worth noting that the Vympel R-77 (Russian BVRAAM) is being upgraded to have IR guidance in its terminal phase (versus propulsion like the Meteor), partially offsetting the advantage held by Meteor. After all, despite being in 'glide' mode, the Vympel is still able to manouever in its terminal phase via control surface manipulation. Since AMW arms technology tends to be a bit more 'cutting edge' than RL arms tech, it could be argued that the Tsarists' latest Vympel models have this IR guidance.

I have aquiesced on every piont, as for my attitude, is the attitude that I don't care about tech? Unlike Dra-pol, I do remember that being one of the most appealling things about AMW when we decided to form it. But, I digress.

I guess the tech discussions have just soured me. I spent a lot of time this year getting to know the ins and outs of jets, even talking to pilots in teh air force, contacting a couple of Profs at the academy, etc. But when I felt suffciently armed with that knowledge, I tried to bring it to bear on AMW (This was post-MiG-on a armed carrier time, didn't even think about it, just looked at my factbook) I was faced with two things, people making very strange inferences with little or no support an just declaring my opinion wrong at the outset, or, having tech that doesn't exist in RL, with no equivelent, which made having tech discussions an impossibility.

I know we have hashed over this again and again, and I don't care to do it again. I know that we have decided as a community, at least some of us, to continue to use tech outside that which exists in RL and I've come to deal with that. I know that moving to past tech could not be agreed upon, and I don't care. But as far as I'm concerned, I will now fire missiles. I just want to RP. I just want to have fun. This is not fun. I have always been involvd in land battles up until now. I am out of my element, I only educated myself about aircraft because it made sense in land combat to know about it. Look at my factbooks, when it comes to land, I have men, and armoured pieces. So simple, so easy. It just doesn't work that way when it comes to naval battles. So let's drop the anal thing and just get to fighting, the only reason I even agreed to do this battle was because LRR was on the other side, but can't we just keep it going?

Please. I don't care about losing battles, I care about the overall story. It may be shocking, but before I enter into battles, I pretty much decide whether I am going to win or lose. That is why this is so frustrating.


WWJD
Amen.

Well, that may be the problem, then. You deciding unilaterally how things are going to play out. Does this even need pointing out?

Not really, hush.

All right, so, times and numbers and what nots?

Soviet India has major facilities in Libya, maintained since the USSR lost its ability to, like, exist and stuff.

Since the League began to look like a threat 50,000 military personnel have been based in Libya.

Since Algeria and Nigeria fell to HL influence, Soviet aid to and involvement in Libya has only increased, especially since United Elias fell and we stopped caring about our agreement to suspend military shipments to the Libyan military via the Suez.

Since the invasion of ECOWAS started, Soviet presence has built up further.

Since Algeria and Nigeria began to build up forces -their own and European- Soviet forces have increased their rate of build-up in Libya.

How long has all this taken everyone? I want to figure out what I've got to resist with =)

Well, that may be the problem, then. You deciding unilaterally how things are going to play out. Does this even need pointing out?

Don't you see how that plays out in your favour? I either decide that I am going to lose, and unless the other player does something really bone-headed, like surrender the second before I do (which has happened) I do. I may decide it will be hard fought but ultimately futile, but I will lose all the same(as in the above example-Ok, actually, i just over-estimated the resolve of my opponent, my mistake, not his). Or, I decide that I am going to TRY and win I may or may not, depending on the way the battle is playing out. And, I may decide on the way to a victory that loss may be better, if it is cooler. The odds are really stacked in favour of the other person gaining the victory, if you see my point. Of course, many of my combats have involved overwhelming numbers, but even then, say, in the Lavragerian conflict, I made sure to maintain a 2:1 loss ration. I lost at least two for every one loss claimed by my opponent, even though I thought it should be more parity.

In the Dra-pol conflict, I took less losses, but the losses on both sides were so staggering as to have the numbers cease to have any meaning after awhile.

There were even a couple of early battles where I got completely wiped out with minimal losses on the other side, and I thought it was fine.

So, um, yeah. Story good. Not caring for winning most of time. Like it when it happens though.

Oh yeah, the reason I was actually posting here, how are we with the African land war thing? Did we figure out how many troops are in Libya when the Nigerians come over the border? How far behind are the French and Soviets? That sort of thing? I know I am supposed t wait for a multi-pronged attack, but I think it is realistic that we would want to get in there ASAP and show the world how tough we can be.
Tsar.

I... still think that it makes a lot more sense to play as you think your commanders and soldiers would fight, and admit that you don't know what the other player is going to do. But that doesn't really matter, I am a bit confused, though, as to how making the decision before hand leads to your frustration at this point. Hm.

Yep, so, Africa. Erm, we do need to figure out how long everything has taken.

If necessary, the Soviets would establish a military presence in Chad and the CAR in order to secure their lines of supply (the CAR has roads from the AfCom to Chad, and Chad at least has tracks to Libya, though the northern prefecture seems to be lacking much else in terms of transport infrastructure), though I'd rather not have to deal with that.

How long after Nigeria and Algeria became League puppets does the preparation for an attack on Libya begin? Come to think of it, I suppose it'll be... ages, eh? But then how long do those preparations take?

During the first stage, the time when they're League-associated but not directly building-up against Libya, the Soviets will presumably have plenty of time to prepare in Libya, and we'll have whatever we want there. But that won't be everything we'd now want to face a two-fronted assault. More than 50,000 men, but not the two full army groups that we'll try to get in-theatre eventually.

But, if Nigeria wants to steam ahead of the Algerians we'll have extra warning: the invasion of Niger will be taken as a sign that Libya is the ultimate target, and full-scale preparations will begin immediately. How long does it take to fell Niger and get the Nigerian army in a position to launch offensive operations against Libya? We'll have that much time to go from stage 2 (in which we're built up beyond the 50,000 mark) to stage 3 (ready for a 2-fronted war).

When Niger's invaded, if it seems necessary to our supply, the Soviets will occupy the CAR and Chad, probably promising to leave the governments alone so long as they don't resist (being told that it would be regarded as siding with the HL).

Need to figure this out, eh?

Wait, now you're planning to invade Chad and the CAR? London isn't going to like that, oh no...

As for British forces in theatre, I'd say that I have about 15,000 troops all told, with about 7,000 of those being combat soldiers. More are on the way as French troops depart from their stations to begin buildup for Plan Yellow, and will eventually top out at about 20,000 (10,000 combat) for policing and enforcement duty. This'll pretty much be the total number of troops allotted for the African theatre, although around 75,000 troops remain at home or in other deployed zones, with perhaps 50,000 available for deployment. The other 25,000 are needed where they are (Buenos Aires, for example, has a battalion of engineers and about 3,000 active combat troops as a border guard/rebuilding and aid group). Logistically speaking, about 100-200 troops are arriving every day by aircraft to take up the slack left by departing Frenchmen. Three transport ships (Bay class, prolly) are sailing from the Home Islands (and shortly Gibraltar) to bring about 500 soldiers and their supplies. The journey takes... what, about five days? That should bring up my numbers fairly quick, give it a week or so for the soldiers to arrive, and another for them to deploy and replace French troops.

Hm... that seems a bit fast. Maybe two weeks to arrive, three until fully in place? That'll give NG plenty of time to pull up stakes and start moving out, although roads in Africa'll be clogged by his columns and mine. Oh, well.

Well, as long as they mind their own business and other parties do likewise, neither Chad nor the C.A.R. should have very much to worry about. Occupation, if it did occur, would probably be not so much occupation but Soviet troops moving in to secure railroads and other transportation infrastructure in order to guarantee their safe usage in the effort to resupply Libya. Such an arrangement would make the Ledo Road look pretty tame, and another corps or army would probably be needed just to offset the threat from Nigeria or the Sudan, so it is, I think, not a favorite option by any means. But that is just my impression.

At the time of the League-Indian naval battle, there would only be around 2,500 INA troops, a mix of commandos and marines, in Conakry, but that is besides at least that many Soviets and volunteers from various nations. Whether that other 5,000 gets there does depend upon the result of the action off Mauritania, but it does not depend too heavily, since another Indian fleet is headed up the coast to rendezvous with Ali Khan Marakkar's force and there ought to be some Armandians up that way to boot.

According to the last time I looked into the matter, the UDF can, at present, transport 14,460 well-equipped, battle-ready troops by sea at once, a number that could go up or down depending on how many vehicles are embarked as well. Currently, given what the 4th Army has at its disposal, that number probably looks more like seven thousand per trip. At twenty knots, the trip from Surat to Conakry takes around twenty days, so in two months the 4th Army could get most of a division to the ECOWAS nations as things now stand.

Anyway, the quick run-down of Hindustani forces in Africa:

-2,500/7,500 light infantrymen and commandos in Conakry, plus No.4 Fighter Squadron and No.37 Attack Squadron and potentially two major surface fleets (4th Front Army)

-11,000 light infantrymen and commandos in Libya, plus No.15 Fighter Squadron and Nos. 1 and 2 attack squadrons, soon to be joined by 4,500 mechanized infantrymen and a naval squadron (VI Corps)

-800 light infantrymen in Namibia

-39,000 light infantrymen and tankers in Eritrea and Somaliland, plus No.21 Fighter Squadron and a naval support group (V Corps)

-~150,000 troopers slated for deployment to Conakry, plus Nos.18, 7, 23, and 25 Fighter Squadrons, Nos.8 and 9 Attack Squadrons, and transport and helicopter squadrons (4th Front Army)

How do you get a clear idea of major transit arteries in Africa, LRR? I've been looking, but the best that I can find so far is Google Earth, which kills my shitty computer.

Heh, well, most of the time, I kind of guess. :/

Most of the time, I just look up a map on the internet, often from this website:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/

They usually show major roads, and the rest is mostly conjecture. Roads or not, though, there's always the distance to contend with, and the roads crossing the Sahara from Algeria to Mali, or from Tanzania to Libya for that matter, are hardly eight-lane expressways.

Indeed.

The Soviets are shifting much of their stuff through the African Commonwealth via its railways, heavily used in the past by the Lusakans, who managed to support simultaneous campaigns in Gabon and West Africa via the AfCom's modern rail infrastructure in the past. That's one thing to bear in mind: Kinshasa gave its support to the Soviet side (though they're not sending troops unless Tias comes back and changes his mind), and the AfCom is no DR Congo, more a larger native-dominated South Africa.

Once they get to the CAR the Soviets are forced to unload and drive to Chad, which gets pretty bad once they're approaching the north and probably end up crawling along dodgey trails.

Aside from that, marine transport is mainly through the Suez direct to Libya, where the Soviets are concentrating. We figure that the INU, Armand, the Lusakans, and the Strathdonians can cover West Africa directly, and are going to liberate the hell out of Algeria =)

WIGs help there, no end. By now we have dozens of large Dwrgis operating, each carrying a couple of AVs or a couple of hundred troops or a couple of hundred tonnes of supplies a couple of times a week, and by the time Nigeria invades Libya we'll have scores of them at it, eventually a good hundred (and now we see where that trillion annual dollars is going!).

Then there's the air routes, in which we again are well prepared by the Sopworth legacy in copying the USSR: civilian airliners and cargo planes are built to military specifications and scores of them are immediately available for military use (and since tourism's down a bit right now that's no big problem).

Oh, and whatever else is with the joint fleets headed for West Africa.

That's the only area we're worried about, to be honest. Don't have the spare capacity to increase the navy as much as we'd like. 's all going on WIGs, grunts, and fighter jets.

My main worry at first was simply supporting hundreds of thousands of extra people in Libya, a big desert with five million residents. But then I had a quick look at how many personnel were there during WWII, and stopped worrying so much.

Anyway, LRR's pretty much right about Chad and the CAR. Soviet forces will occupy key transit routes if Libya is invaded and either N'Djamena or Bangui tries to stop the flow of anti-League forces and supplies. Otherwise we could hardly care less. We quite like the CAR: it's supposed to be #1 in the world in terms of sustainable development. Best that neither govt. risk trouble given the number of rebels we could give tanks to.

I do not really care about how Soviets move in Africa. I think we've talked enough about it. I think that BG should just figure out what he wants to do and start RPing it. I don't give a fig how he gets his troops from point A to B as long as he explains it and it makes sense to me. When he talked about sending 500,000 troops to Africa I thought it was extremely optimistic and an over estimation of his resources.

So because he committed such a large number of troops I think he should move fairly slowly. Or at least have the bulk of his troops move slowly. In Libya I don't think he would have too many troops over there when the French invade. I don't see why we should have to alter the time line just because the Soviets want an advantage. Its an incredibly huge and monumental job to transport half a million heavily armed troops halfway across the world and would bankrupt other poor nations. I think that the war, along with the fiscal over management of the economy, would probably cause the Indian economy to collapse but heck like Quinntopia I will acquiesce if I think it will make good RP (although I won't bitch and moan about it as much as he does). And it should make good RP.

But basically I do not think we should have too much more to talk about. Just go ahead and start RPing.

Also, on a side note. Why was there so much bitching about Soviet atrocities? I was completely convinced that the Soviets would be threatening, cajoling, intimidating people to leave Christianity. They sure did in Soviet Russia and I do not think it would be any different in Soviet India. The state cannot handle any differing ideologies that are not based on loyalty to the state. And I do not completely blame them. Although every Christian should be a model citizen and very loyal it stops at a certain point. If a government ordered me to do something contrary to the Bible's teaching, I would revolt, or at least I hope that I would revolt and refuse to obey the state. This is the reason for persecution in Russia and I figured it would be the same in Soviet India.

In fact I was staunchly convinced of persecution happening, of every second of every day in Soviet India. You yourself went on about how Soviet India is a "closed society" with less freedoms, etc. You can kill and do whatever you want to in Soviet India and I won't have missionaries in there reporting on every atrocity but don't expect to have complete control over hastily held territories. The Soviets supported great atrocities in Dra-pol and I was frankly surprised at your aversion to a German missionary reporting what had happened thousands of times in Soviet India.

I think its good to diminish the RPing of atrocities but only because of good taste. I don't want to read disturbing filth and I don't think my post went that direction. Maybe I messed up and good too excited but I don't think my RPing was ridiculously far from the truth.

This is why I spend so much time trying to explain things, and trying to make sure that we all understand what's happening.... you keep making shit up! What the hell, mate?

Can someone else step in and correct every single thing that Fleur just posted? I have a few hairs left in my head that need pulling out.

Thanks for responding to my request for more information with insults. I'm not the one making up technology and hurting RP with constant questions and stirring up arguments over minor questions regarding technology. I would rather make a few mistakes in RPing than spend weeks of arguing over minor details.

Perhaps this just speaks to differing perspectives on what's important in RP...

In terms of persecution of the religious in the Soviet Commonwealth, perhaps from some perspectives it might seem appropriate. Looking at the nature of that society as posted, much less so, though one might perhaps argue it in the same way one might argue that there ought be democratic agitation in France and Russia, or the same religious ennui in the USQ that seems to pop up in RL when societies build up enough wealth. But, as I understand it at least, the nature of the society a player was originally accepted to RP in AMW is left up to that player. Out-of-character I might reccomend or suggest something, or ask the reason for somethings absence, but in the end my opinion of what that society ought be is irrelevant... the player is the final arbiter.

Questions of technology are perhaps more objective, seeing as laws of physics provide a much more steady base than laws of culture or politics. Education and debate is bound to come up, and I for one don't see this as a bad thing. We are not, after all, writing a novel with deadlines and revisions, and its better to work such things out when they appear so as to stave off later and more heated disputes. Some people take the somewhat easier path of technology with RL sources, some people attempt more creativity, and the latter in particular ought be ready to explain their claims until consensus is reached, be they Dwrgi WiGs or navalized MiG-31s.

On the capability to move forces into Africa, the discussion is already ongoing, isnt it? The Soviets cannot move those numbers overnight, cannot support operations so distant easily, but neither can the French. It is the numbers proposed for the first attacks out of Nigeria and the later Plan Yellow which provide us with a timeline, and the question now is, in the time it took those forces to accumulate, what was coming out of India, since the two sides seem to have been having time unfold on rather different scales.

Sigh. You think my objecting to you making things up about my nation constitutes an insult? All right, I'll sit here and address every point in turn... though it also seems like you don't want any information, despite your complaints. Seems to be lose-lose for me, but stuff it, you can read it or ignore it and continue seeing things your own way.

I do not really care about how Soviets move in Africa. I think we've talked enough about it.

Well, it kinda matters if we're going to RP a war, doesn't it? How are you going to attack my supply lines if you don't know what or where they are? I'm just trying to be helpful, mate. You do say, after all, "I don't give a fig how he gets his troops from point A to B as long as he explains it" which seems kinda contradictory, and explaining it is just what I've been doing.

When he talked about sending 500,000 troops to Africa I thought it was extremely optimistic and an over estimation of his resources.

So because he committed such a large number of troops I think he should move fairly slowly. Or at least have the bulk of his troops move slowly. In Libya I don't think he would have too many troops over there when the French invade. I don't see why we should have to alter the time line just because the Soviets want an advantage.

This is another huh? moment, then. Because I want an advantage? The League committed a large number of troops. When they started doing that, we started building up from a pre-existing base (of 50,000 personnel). They're closer, but we had a head start and greater means. Why do you think this is about me getting an advantage? You don't think I would have too many troops in Libya when France invades... because you want me to have a disadvantage, not because I want an advantage. We have 50,000 plus however many we can get in while France fights a war across several vast and under-developed territories and builds up new forces for a full scale invasion of a large target. So, uh, not too many?

This is why we need to hammer things out, OOC. We need to know what France and Nigeria have built up work out how long it has taken them to prepare for the invasion. Then we know how long Libya and India have had to prepare a counter. As Spyr says, I thought that time was passing more slowly than NG and Wingertonia seem to have supposed... I'm not springing forces out of nowhere, I'm just rushing through the last few months to catch up on the timeline.

Its an incredibly huge and monumental job to transport half a million heavily armed troops halfway across the world and would bankrupt other poor nations. I think that the war, along with the fiscal over management of the economy, would probably cause the Indian economy to collapse but heck like Quinntopia I will acquiesce if I think it will make good RP (although I won't bitch and moan about it as much as he does). And it should make good RP.

Really? A big job? Gosh, maybe that's why I've gone to pains to describe how it is being done! Other poor nations? Soviet India isn't a poor nation, it has an economy a couple of trillion dollars larger than Germany's. "Along with the fiscal management of the economy" care to elaborate a little on this vague stab in the dark? But you'll acquiesce, isn't that big of you? Q, 'acquiesced' when he was wrong. You don't get much choice in that situation. I'm not even touching the parenthesis.

Who says I won't RP damage to the economy, anyway? Again, you've got to stop assuming the worst and making things up. If you watch closely you'll notice things such as that promises to invest on an epic scale in the development of newly-conquered Bihar are already sounding hollow and so, when I've more than a few minutes a day on-line, you ought to be expecting trouble there, eh? And perhaps noticing that liberal easy-going life in Soviet India is being transformed by War Communism, changing the very face of the Commonwealth.

Also, on a side note. Why was there so much bitching about Soviet atrocities? I was completely convinced that the Soviets would be threatening, cajoling, intimidating people to leave Christianity. They sure did in Soviet Russia and I do not think it would be any different in Soviet India. The state cannot handle any differing ideologies that are not based on loyalty to the state. And I do not completely blame them. Although every Christian should be a model citizen and very loyal it stops at a certain point. If a government ordered me to do something contrary to the Bible's teaching, I would revolt, or at least I hope that I would revolt and refuse to obey the state. This is the reason for persecution in Russia and I figured it would be the same in Soviet India.

Warning, wordy explanation of religion as it relates to Soviet India, read if you actually wish to know, just don't complain that I was compelled to write it.

The thing where Q. kept forgetting that no acid was ever thrown in the face of any missionary, and re-stating the mistake as fact? Ah, you RPing the actions of my citizens in abusing somebody?

The first case I RP'd as an example of how some individual Indians -mostly Geletians- really look down upon the religious. It harks back to the hysterics in which Celtic warriors were reportedly found on discovering that citizens of Classical Rome and Greece et cetera worshiped humanoid deities.

Christianity has never taken hold in southern and eastern India. Nor has Islam to any great degree. The British and other Europeans attempted to impose Christianity on an unwilling population -most of which was atheistic, while some maintained its own spirituality- and the Principality officially supported it after independence, but the loathing with which almost all Indians regard said Principality only serves to further associate religion with failure, oppression, and ridicule.

So many Indians mock religion and the religious, and a few Geletians bully missionaries who have come marching in to the sub-continent like so many imperialist vanguards. One Quinntonian was infamously tormented and allowed to believe that he was about to be tortured with acid... that was a fairly extreme case involving private citizens, and even then he was just frightened and humiliated, having saltwater thrown on him in the end. Nobody was mutilated.

The state has few laws involving religion at all. It is perfectly legal to believe any mumbo-jumbo you like, you just can't acquire state funds to erect religious monuments or pursue religious activities, and can't acquire capital to 'waste', as the state sees it, on such frivolities. In fact many ancient Hindu temples and bodies of water revered in Celtic tradition et cetera still receive legal protection, so a few rites and ceremonies persist. These are of no interest to the state and tend to be accepted by private citizens who now view Christianity very much as the invading menace that many RL westerners regard Islam to be... as such they see Indo-Celtic traditions as almost a nationalist affirmation, even if they don't believe in it themselves.

As to Soviet Russia, well... hey, it's just as I read in a news article this morning: abstract art was regarded in the USSR as incompatible with socialism, while Cuba was prepared to embrace it. The USSR doing something doesn't mean that everyone else has to when attempting anti-capitalism of any sort. Surely you've noticed that Soviet India since 1989 has been officially anti-Bolshevist, and that the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and the CPI (Maoist) are in fact outlawed? If the USSR were still around, the ISC would probably be fighting proxy wars against it in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

You shouldn't really figure that things would be a certain way in another player's nation and act on it IC without first finding out for sure, that's all.

In fact I was staunchly convinced of persecution happening, of every second of every day in Soviet India. You yourself went on about how Soviet India is a "closed society" with less freedoms, etc. You can kill and do whatever you want to in Soviet India and I won't have missionaries in there reporting on every atrocity but don't expect to have complete control over hastily held territories. The Soviets supported great atrocities in Dra-pol and I was frankly surprised at your aversion to a German missionary reporting what had happened thousands of times in Soviet India.

Where in the world did you get this closed society, restricted freedom stuff from? Igovian Communism entails more democracy than any western nation practices. There aren't atrocities in Soviet India. It's just about the closest thing to a direct democracy that a society can be without ceasing to be a united nation-state.

What held territories were you talking about, anyway? There's only a few hundred Soviet troops in West Africa, supporting domestic forces in Senegal. The thousands in Libya are an expansion of a long-term presence that is part of Tripoli's co-operation with its chief supporter, Raipur. Ditto Zanzibar and the African Commonwealth. Namibia is the only place where Soviet forces have come along and really changed anything, and that merely entailed putting old-school SWAPO types back on top. Foreign opposition there is lead by Roycelandian agents... and the Roiks are secularists, too. And if Germans in Namibia are opposed by anyone it'll be Namibians who remember terms like Deutsch-Südwestafrika and perhaps note that the Indians have never called them Hottentots, never tried to force a religion on them, and never committed genocide against them.

In the end, if there are atrocities being committed by Soviet troops in Africa you'll hear about it from me first, and then you can talk about them from your perspective. As it happens, there's no cause for us to commit any as yet, and, more to the point, nowhere for us to do it! Our forces are on ships on the ocean bound for West Africa, or bottled up in friendly Libya.

(Actually there will be atrocities, but we haven't actually caught up with League forces on the ground, yet!)

'ello, guys. On the Atlantic battle, then...

I'm not sure what everyone else might be wondering about, but I thought a few notes couldn't hurt, especially on the technical side of things. Especially for the likes of NG to review, since he openly states that a lot of this jargon is unknown to him. Feel free to contest et cetera...

First up, the missiles. Complicated modern stuff that none of us can really claim to understand 100%, this sort of battle being without precedent in reality.

*The incoming Indian missiles are launched by VLS- they come in a real massive wave, and you've got to deal with dozens at once.

The League's defences are mostly conventional magazine based systems that can only engage one or a few threats at a time before moving on to the next.

Russia's Slavas and Kirovs (how many of these have they on hand?) have rotary magazines, which may be better than post type launchers, but still limit the number of missiles that can be put up at once, especially against such rapidly approaching threats.

The other way around, enemy missiles must have come more in a stream than a wave, since they can't all launch at once, while Indian defences could go up as and when required. Still, large numbers of Indian ships were struck, most destroyed. Now, this way around, unless the League players have something fantastic up their sleeves, is sure to be much, much worse, and likely to represent the end of most targetted vessels.

Further added, the likes of Charioteer have, what, 295kg warheads, off the top of my head... and impact at Mach 2.7. French battleships, even, are designed, are they not, for speed (as is the Gallic tradition, I think), and so have less armour than some battleships. With a modern warhead, a Brahmos or Charioteer will still strike like a heavy gun shell from an opposing battleship. Against any vessel other than a battleship, one of these missiles will spell ruinous damage, as it did for Soviet and Union ships hit by Russian AShMs, as you'll note that even our gun-and-armour boat Petropavlovsk had its bow sheered clean off... and it has more armour than any Russian ship.

LRR also hinted that other anti-missile defences in the League fleet are shorter-range (now that the Russians have used-up their best missiles shooting down Indian aircraft) and in many cases they simply won't have time to take-out targets attacking at above Mach 2, and that when they do it won't always save an unarmoured ship (another Indian vessel peppered by debris after killing a missile at the last second is another example of what would be expected to happen).

The battle appears to have reached the point of bloody slugfest, both sides having played all of their technical shots and danced until their legs failed. There's almost no aircraft left to consider, certain munitions have been expended, ranges have been closed, formations have been broken and made, now it is just a matter of 1 part nerve, 2 parts technical superiority.

Heck, I've just realised that the missiles in the air probably cost as much between them as a brand new Soviet frigate!

*Soviet submarines, four Anunkai Class SSGN fleet submarines, unless something incredibly clever is done, are about to rape the whole League fleet. Recently, in reality (as alluded to in a recent thread when a Soviet boat surprised but didn't attack a US carrier), a Chinese sub snuck up to within 12km of a US fleet carrier and surfaced, much to the surprise of the US Pacific fleet... it was indicated that this represented point-blank, and the carrier would have been done for if the US and China had been at war. Charging over waiting modern Soviet boats at flank speed leaves the League, realistically, absolutely no chance of detecting them before they choose to be detected. LRR indicates that the Soviets are holding their trigger finger even longer and firing on closing targets. Unless this has been anticipated and the League has some impressive non-godmodey trick (can't discount it, but I'll be impressed!), that's certain death for every ship they target.

Also, Soviet torpedoes in this situation, since they're not chasing a withdrawing target, can swim out rather than being 'fired', thus not exposing the launch position of the boats even then! Next, of course, the Soviets will have to start reloading, repositioning, and the fleet's survivors may pass by (depends what NG et cetera choose to do when thier ships start mysteriously exploding in the middle of the fleet), and may have to aggressively launch their weapons in a loud, detectable manner.

This is where the four subs are in incredible danger, but it just depends whether the fleet, under such heavy attack from below and above, bothers to slow down and hunt for them, or just carries on the pursuit of Khan's withdrawing fleet, or just runs away. Not for me to say.

At this stage, that's how I see it.

(I don't know if I'm imagining that some may question this, but if you do wonder about the almost suicidal actions of the Soviet submariners, I can explain it by several means. Warrior tradition of course, commitment to the revolution of course, saving their comrades on the surface of course, but also that many of them really don't believe it's certain death... they're confident in Soviet technology and Hindustani maritime experience, and they've never been in this situation before, so don't fully appreciate the recklessness of it. Further, the four boats represent only about five-hundred hands from the Expert Corps in a nation of half a billion, so they, like most front-tier Soviet troops, really are the devil-may-care heroic lunatics that they appear to be. It's only when reinforcements start coming from the Auxiliary Corps that we get more self-preservation instinct in charge for the Geletians at least.)

I have to say, I think the Marakkar is being a little hard on himself when he thinks about resigning in disgrace. For a man facing an exponentially larger enemy force with a penchant for massed attacks, he managed to bring many of the IN's larger warships (although sadly not Haveli) out of the battle in one piece, if heavily damaged in some cases. Moreover, he's about to utterly destroy the French armoured columns, since I'd suggest that even a Cherbourg will almost certainly take heavy damage from a plunging missile. I'd also expect that every Castellan class ship hit will be annihilated, assuming that they have standard heavy cruiser armour (6-8 inches, iirc). Honestly, I wouldn't stack CS Communism up against a couple of BrahMos with any certainty, and she's the best armoured ship on the planet.

*revises production plans to favour cheap, expendable frigates with heavy AShM launchers*

In the interest of being candid, here is my post regarding the actions of the Soviet submarines:

"After letting their Charioteers go, the four Anunkais exit the area, the Russians now having a rough idea of their position, though it will take some time for helicopters to arrive on-scene and most A/S weaponry, RBU-6000 rockets especially, is very much out of range. The Anunkais run very quiet, having sacrificed much in the way of speed in order to become perhaps the world's quietest nuclear boats, so finding them, for the vessels that make-up the Russian fleet's A/S screen, will be no easy feat. Many probably could not do it, though Udaloy-class destroyers at least do constitute no small danger. 517mm torpedoes are loaded into the submarines' four medium tubes, in case a pursuer gets too close and they are forced to defend themselves. Despite the fact that none of them are in contact with one another or the fleet command, they are able to move with some measure of organization, heading, as per the Marakkar's earlier suggestion, west and then north, hopefully emerging behind the main body of the enemy fleet and in a position to interdict any reinforcements that might be en route."

I'm not sure whether, in light of this, that whole submarine portion ought to be negated, since I kind of forgot about writing this. :/

Then again, I meant to have the Anunkais ambush the Spaniards, but it seems that the Spanish are already here, so they wouldn't really have anything to do up north and the Igovian submariners would probably know it.

As for the Marakkar, well, that may be, but he's still lost well over half his command and that doesn't sit well with a destroyer commander used to counting casualties in dozens.

BG, as usual, does an excellent job explaining the circumstances here, and at the moment I can't think of much that ought to be added.

Hm, yes, the submarine thing. I had forgotten that in all the delays, too.

So, what does everyone want to do about that? Do we assume that the Spanish haven't joined the main fleet yet, and that they are about to be ambushed by four fleet submarines, or do we assume that they got there before the Anunkais moved to intercept them, and that the subs are as such still in front of the combined League force?

Either way, somebody's going to get a torpedo in the face, it just depends whether the Spanish take it on their own and then the Soviets, if they survive, get in between the Franco-Russian force and the coast, or whether the combined League fleet shares the hit head on.

As to a Utopia vs. Brahmos... yeah, we wouldn't like to find out. I think that the main belt could take it, but we wouldn't test it just for fun, and I think that I'd have to report major damage if anything beyond the (double) belt were hit.

Okay, I just want to say that as a neutral observer to this battle, I've got some questions for both sides, as well as a few things that I think need to be worked out.

Firstly: The Spanish fleet. Where are they? It seems that by general consensus, we've agreed that they are not yet fully joined with the French and Russians, but if that's the case then the Anunaki submarines would be targetting them, not the French and Russians. Am I right on this?

Moreover, where are they in relation to everyone else? As I have it in my head, the French and Russians are approaching from the northwest after having made a sort of wide turn after joining up in the Bay of Biscay, and are coming towards the Namibian coast on a southeasterly course. The Spanish are coming from... Cadiz? If that's the case, they would have also had to round Africa's 'hump', so they're approaching at a sharper south-southeasterly course. Sound right?

The Indians have their sterns to the land as the engagement begins, and are moving (slowly) northwest to meet the Leaguers. As the Marakkar is a reasonably smart guy, I expect that he's not continuing to close with the French as the battle goes on. LRR mentioned that he's now falling back to port, where he'll receive heavy air support that will make any League attack suicidal.

Moving on.
Point two: NG, you really ought to have taken more casualties from the attack. Roik dreadnoughts mount SAM systems, yes, but they can't mount that many considering that they also have belt armour, a full gun system, and the like. Additionally, you've only got Standard SM-2s left for the Roiks (I think that's what he has) which really don't cut it against BrahMos. More should have gotten through. French ships, not having Aster, probably don't have much in the way of advanced SAM systems. Remember too, the Russians expended most of their quality SAMs against the Puffins, and so if any missiles targetted them, they'd have to go up against it with gun CIWS.

Furthermore, armour is next to useless against BrahMos and other missiles, a mistake I made in dealing with our earlier engagement. Remember, these are supersonic explosive weapons with significant power, a single hit should cut through a Cherbourg's single-belt like paper. You have 12-13 inch belt armour, right? That won't cut it; it's why modern high-value warships dispense with armour and instead mount lots of SAMs. Every single warship hit should at least be knocked out of action or seriously slowed (assuming that the hit is to something inconsequential, like living spaces, radar, etc.)

So by that token, Strasbourg's back should be broken by the 'keel strike'. In fact, assuming that you got plunging damage (the only way the keel could be hit) you're screwed anyway, since that would have gone down through the superstructure, hit some pretty important machine spaces and electronics, and then struck the keel. So that ship is dead in the water, at the very least.

Now lastly, the subs. They're running silent as a nuclear boat can go, anechoic tiles and all, so while active sonar will probably return a hazy image of where they are (and you need to triangulate from several directions at that) it will definitively show them where your subs are. You're also gonna get interference from the giant speeding fleet nearby, which will 'blind' your submariners to the relatively quiet Anunakis and their echos.

Basically, I think you should have taken several more ships lost (and I mean lost outright, not disabled or forced to break line). Since you have overwhelming numbers, you might not lose your initiative, but you're attempting to close with a retreating fleet with a range advantage. Think battle of Agincourt, man.

Last thing: why not just say you've got P-500s on your LancIIs, rather than saying that you went and adapted them to the Exocet brandname? I mean, that development takes time and effort, which would be a waste if you can just get the P-500 itself. Also, it's easier to remember what the capabilities are.

Quick rundown of your missiles, just to be sure I've got it right.
Exocet: Standard RL French AShM. Subsonic, radar guided, harpoon-alike.
Exocet II: Upgraded French AShM. Supersonic in the terminal phase, otherwise harpoon-alike
Exocet III: A P-500 with a fancy name.

Uhm, I think that's it. I don't pretend to be an expert here, but those are the thoughts I had when reading. Good post overall, though, I seriously think this is our best naval battle when it comes to co-operation.

I had envisioned the battle taking place on closer to a north-south axis, since the Marakkar definitely does not want to be trapped against the coast. Likewise I was under the impression that the French and their allies had come south from the Canary Islands, rather than southeast from the Bay of Biscay.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to call this the Battle of Cap Vert or Cap Blanc? That's where I imagined it taking place, with the Indians coming north after dropping-off troop transports and freighters in Conakry, and with the Leaguers driving South after leaving port in the Canary Islands.

There are lots of things that I should have done, confusing things given the fact that this battle is perhaps months behind the AMW 'present.' Certainly Soviet and to a far more limited extent Hindustani fighter squadrons could have shipped-out to Conakry in the two weeks or so that it would have taken for the fleet to round the Cape, but I'm not exactly sure what the situation is with these elements either.

Eh, too confusing...

As for the Nigerian Navy, before it goes anywhere it will have to deal with the six Soviet Ortiagon-class SSKs engaged in attacking it wolfpack-style, which are especially concerned with sinking the single Nigerian Kirov-class cruiser. And if that doesn't work the Nigerians still only have maybe two or three warships that could reasonably be called offensive, the rest being A/S-oriented and not too effective in that role anyway.

Soviet submarines are, as G-man said, really doing their best to remain extremely quiet, and the likelihood of a League warship picking up even one of the four Anunkais over the noise being made by the League's own submarines and nuclear-powered battleships roaring in at 40 knots is, I would think, pretty small, to say nothing of all four of them together. Active sonar, likewise, will do more harm than good, since the Anunkais will know with complete certainty where the League submarines are, while the League submarines themselves won't have nearly as good an idea of the Soviets' position. And not all the Anunkais are traveling together, either. Being unable to reliably communicate while submerged, and not having surfaced since passing the mouth of the Congo River, they are all in the same general area but they are not in any kind of formation.

But there is still the question of what they're actually up to. My original intent was to use the Anunkais to block League reinforcements and dismember the Spanish fleet, so I'm not sure if people find the Anunkais' continued presence at the site of the battle acceptable. They are, of course, submariners, and unable to receive any kind of orders from the Marakkar, so they may well have opted to stick around and try to hit the main body of the fleet anyway, but I can see why people might take issue with this.

One last thing with regards to Vecron: being AIP boats, the Type 212s don't have to snort for a long time. Not for three weeks, according to the Wikipedia article. Unless they've already been on patrol for that long, there's no need to do that, and their fuel cells should still have a fair amount of juice left in them.

As always, don't take me for an expert, and nothing I've said here should be regarded as especially well-informed.

What I really meant was, that the subs have three weeks before they absolutely have to return home and resupply/refuel. I've read that wikipedia article myself, but maybe I misread it.

Minor addition to help explain why I've maybe sounded overly confident/aggressive with the Anunkais: they have electric motors in addition to their nuclear drive. They're supposed to be about the quietest nuclear subs (while being somewhat slower than British and Quinntonian subs and a lot slower than some Russian ones) going, but that's on primary drive, and on electric they're of course more akin to an SSK than an SS(G)N. The electric drive, though, is only good for a crawl, far slower than most even retro Cold War SSKs, but, depending on what we decide for the Anunkais re. the Spanish and main League fleets, this may not be a problem, because, if they know basically where the enemy is heading (especially as he's at flank speed and easy to track), they need only idle into an ambush position and wait, so they don't have to rush, letting the enemy do most of the leg work.

I'm sure there was a more concise way of putting that, but never mind!

What do the League players want to do about the Spanish, then?

Edit: oh, aye, and Phalanx are almost certainly not going to stop a single Indian missile. The system sucks even under ideal test conditions against decades old missiles, let alone these cutting-edge weapons. Even if Phalanx did take down a Charioteer or Brahmos it would do so at such close range, given the feebleness of its ammunition, that the missile would at least in part impact and rip-through anything but the gun-and-armour hulls. Goalkeeper, I think, a notable bit better if it's the Evolved system, and I wouldn't credit most of the Russian CIWIS with a chance in hell of stopping the incoming missiles. No time to check what the involved ships actually have!

BTW: I have just been talking with Vecron about the Type 212 German submarines . He does not have them and never had them and wants to switch over to Russian made submarines immediately. This should be factored into the discussions of the subs although it will not really change much. The German subs are excellent and are probably the quietest stealthiest subs you will ever see. They are diesel, not nuclear, with air independent means of propulsion but unlike other subs, can operate within as little as 20 meters of water, allowing them to come much closer to shore for covert operations. However I do not believe he has used this ability so the combat with Italian subs should not change, although they are perhaps slightly less stealthy.

Also how long can nuclear subs remain submerged? Longer than 3 weeks? They have to come up for food and water.

Perhaps with the nearly equivalent Lada class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_class_submarine) then?

That's what I've asked for. Just waiting on Quinn's approval, though I'm pretty sure he'll agree.

A few technical questions have come up regarding the French charge and response to the Indian missile spam. They both concern Roycelandian ship design, unfortunate given Royce is indisposed, but I think they can probably be explained by anyone with a better grasp of naval engineering than I...

The first concerns VLS tubes. To what extent can they be armoured? I had thought them rather limited in that regard.

The second concerns that characteristically vertical dreadnought bow used by the Roycelandians. While it might send the girls cheering and the natives cowering, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it limited their top speed to some extent. Not usually an issue, save that the League fleet is now making an all-out rush.

While I don't pretend to be a naval engineer, here's what I know about the questions you asked.

VLS tubes can be armoured, but not terribly well. Much like the armoured box launchers on older warships, they're mostly proof against light gunfire (114 mm like the common DD guns of today) or against splash damage from a missile strike. Direct hits will penetrate, as is the case with most things. Obviously, though, a VLS can (and should) be put behind a ship's main belt so as to protect against gunfire or what-have-you, for all the good it'd do against your average missile.

A vertical bow might reduce top speed somewhat, but the bulge below the waterline aids in hydrodynamics so as to partially offset that. Additionally though, the ships we're talking about are significantly more massive than a Nimitz class carrier (similar size, significantly greater mass from guns, armour), and without nuclear power we're talking about some serious mass-moving. Apart from the Fish dreadnought, I really can't imagine that any of Royce's ships are built for speed.

I would think that the armour would be able to withstand some pounding. Afterall they were built to fight and are far more substantial than paper cups floating on water. Where did you get that information Gurg? Your probably right but if you can I would like to see the info. Please post the link. Thanks

Indeed... the Soviet Utopia Class battleships feature only limited short/medium range SAM batteries partly because sufficiently armouring VLS cells seemed rather too challenging. We're talking several inches of steel for significant battleship armouring even on deck, and for it to be any good the armour has to be quite massive. Wouldn't the whole system have to be covered by probably a single sheet, which would have to be shifted out of the way, somehow, every time you wanted to launch?

If we put much stock in the Walmingtonian government's report on the world's battleships it's worth noting that the Roycelandian vessels didn't tend to score terribly well, partly because there's so many of them and partly because their primary function has been in pomp and propaganda.

Not that this makes unarmoured and lightly armoured Indian ships any more likely to survive their heavy guns if engaged by them.

Perhaps one can put a bit of protection on a VLS tube then, but they would still seem to be essentially a massive hole in the armour of an otherwise thick-skinned battleship, not particularly wise with current missiles (BrahMos included, I think) can do a terminal hop-and-dive against the deck of a target.

Other than space needed for wrapping the things in substantial armour, don't VLS tubes have a finite lifespan, eventually needing to be hauled out and replaced?

Regarding the armouring of VLS cells. Indeed, you can't really protect them from the top, I was referring to side armament against splash damage and penetration. They can sort of sit inside an armoured box, but it won't do a whole heck of a lot of good if your entire magazine explodes.

Here's a good link about battleships in modern war, courtesy of Hogsweat (NS' resident battleship guru).
Linky (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=513)
A lot of the rest of the information is stuff I've picked up, no one specific source. Wikipedia has some, FAS has others. Google has the rest.

Right. Firstly Gurg, with all amity, your observations are sweeping and I disagree with a good many of them. Being pressed for time I am going to itemize my thoughts, quickly, below.

*Honestly, I assume France has put alot of energy into the navy, ergo I am not sure about the thousands of kinds of missiles and such, only that I would have found something reasonable and, moreover, suitable in respect to AMW's realism. Keep in mind that the Cherbourg-class ships, causa sui, were designed with this in mind, so I will stop and not go over it endlessly. If I have made errors here, I apologize as I have done so before: I am an academic, not an engineer. To the agenda:

1- Is either Beth Gellert or LRR calling my response moding?

2- The battle has only begun, with submarines of the progs poised to strike at the heart of the line, I took casualties as I saw fit.

3- I cannot answer for Royce. However given his penchant for all things technological, I assumed his ships would be far more, well, 'electronic', than the French.

4- I dont know where the Spanish are.

I have tried to do this friends, quite frankly, I am over with it. I have little enough time for RP as is, and this, despite my efforts (over 10 hours on that last post along, clinging to minutiae), is worse than going to work. So, I suggest the following:

1- Someone else can take over the League fleet, either Wingert of Vecron as earlier, and play from the onset of the Soviet missile attack. I was VERY impressed with the job Wingert did earlier, frankly, and want to turn this back over to him ASAP.

2- We postpone it.

3- We hash out amongst ourselves what happened and move on. This seems the best solution for me, barring the notion that WIngert cannot take control of the fleet. Seriously friends...we have spent over a year IRL dealing with this. I want to move on. Lets discuss what happened and do so.

I'm not questioning the efficacy of your SAM systems so much as the idea that certain of your ships could survive multiple BrahMos hits as you described. While strictly speaking I don't know what your missile defences are and will concede that point, I don't understand how, say, the Strasbourg survived being hit from above such that its keel was damaged. I mean, that's going through the entire superstructure, pretty much all machine spaces, and a good few missile systems assuming that your SAMs are mounted along the sides of your superstructure as seems reasonable.

If you meant 'belt', now, rather than 'keel', that changes things. I know I'm nitpicking, but I figure the fate of a whole League battleship is worth questioning further.

Let's call the Spanish as being apart from the main fleet, as Moorington seemed to imply some time back. They're still within range of the Progressive fleet's missiles and so their casualties can remain unchanged, but it does mean something in terms of dispersal of forces. Hm... pincer movement? If anything though, I think this is the big thing we need to get sorted; I'll stop intruding and leave you and LRR to it though.

Again, feel free to disregard what I say here; I'm no more of an expert than you. As to BG and LRR's positions, I believe that Beej seconded one or two of my points, although LRR was more vague. I'll let them speak for themselves.

Well, Wingert is up to his eyeballs in work for his master's degree, and he's making sure he's spending time with his family, so he won't have time to RP a full-fledged navy battle. As for me, I could take it on, but I have about as much tech experience as NG does, and, while it is considerably more time than Wingert, I don't have that much time to spare either. Yet with Wingert on hiatus and NG getting frustrated with all the realism debate (I've come to the conclusion that suspension of disbelief is a grand thing) I might be the best candidate to take over.

Personally, I would prefer the last option, lets figure out what happens right now and drop it! I liked the work Wingert was doing myself, but I think its unrealistic to expect him back anytime soon.

The Indian warships engaged the League fleet from a position almost due south, off Cap Vert (Dakar). Having let-loose with their missiles, the Indian warships are withdrawing once again more or less due south as fast as they can go, aiming to reach Conakry and their fleet train. The Indian fleet isn't about to get caught in any kind of League 'pincer movement,' because the Indians aren't traveling in a bunched-up, concentrated formation, but rather in a long and thin chain of frigate divisions that speak to the Indians' destroyer sensibilities.

The Marakkar's fleet would at the time of the missile launch be at least 220 kilometers away from the League fleet, and immediately afterward it reversed course and started going in the opposite direction at flank speed.

Anyway, I wasn't complaining about the damage that the Leaguers took. I just had a bit of a problem with how easily the Frenchmen detected the Soviet submarines.

I'm sorry if NG finds this frustrating, but what am I supposed to do? I find it damn frustrating too at times.

I'd just as soon do away with guided missiles and the like and go back to guns and torpedoes, which might level the playing field with regards to naval combat and offer-up increased opportunities for the dash and daring that characterized fighting at sea in the past. I mean, nowadays, it is just going to be a bloodbath, and there is no way around that.

Well, I'd like to get back to the RP too, and as I said I'm not complaining about the amount of losses that NG took. I ought to have a post up in the next day or two.

Well the fastest way to get back on track would be to say that both the Holy League and Soviet fleets were completely destroyed. This way we could immediately get back up to speed and not have to worry about this thing constantly hanging over our heads. I think that Gurg would be okay with this idea.

But then the war's basically over, with a crushing Indian victory on all fronts. I don't think many people would be all right with that.

(If both fleets are wiped out, the League is basically sunk, where as India's main fleet is still en route. Red would replace green as the new pan-African colour before you could say, "Oh my God, somebody call the US Navy!")

Generally I've been content to go with LRR's view of the battle, though I've tended to think that League losses were somewhat too low compared with India's, given that India's weapons are better both offensively and defensively speaking. I've tended to assume that, well, shit happens in war, and if we want to correct it then we can just take lighter losses to the next League punch to even things up, rather than asking for re-writes.

A question: are the Roiks actually in this battle, or are all the Roik ships mentioned just Roik-built and in foreign service? Because if Royce is involved, it's impossible to say that he's not in the war, and that raises all sorts of problems with his... not being here.

Except, the last post is a bit much. There's questions as to whether the League fleet will ever catch the Indians, even if we leave it alone, before the Indians reach safety. Then there's questions as to whether any ships could really be left undamaged after the massive Indian barrage, and able to make full speed. Then there's the fact that Petropavlovsk will come under fire probably hours before the rest of the fleet, being as it is lagging so far behind out of both necessity and choice. Then there's the impression that if inferior League defences can so well repulse the Indian missiles, superior Indian defences can basically brush aside inferior League attacks, and we get back to a bit of a waste of time a la the pre-population rules infantry battles.

Then the Lancaster attack. That's going to be intercepted by Kan-gel and Hobgoblins with droptanks and/or Marathon tanker support, and will be massacred, because, frankly, heavy bombers haven't a hope in this war, as I was sure the French had learned at Tripoli.

Finally, the submarines. That's just not happening, is it? If there is one way to get killed by a submarine, the League has found it. I'm not saying that Anunkais can't be found and beaten, but absolutely not like this. It's kinda too much to respond to, I'd feel bad. I'd basically be a, 'bang, you're dead' post.

Okay, if LRR isn't complaining about the casualties then I'm not either. Consider my objections on that front withdrawn.

Sorry, have no time today, but I will respond to BGs airplane sortie...though I wish he would have done it when I first introduced the bombers than when they actually launched (instead of having them launch and attack in one single post, a bit dubious...but who am I to talk), but no matter, and the Soviet strike on naval ships on the IC post soon. I am floundering mes amis...to be honest, I barely have any idea at this point what is going on. I think after this the League fleets will have to withdraw, unless Wingert can help me out...for the reason that I cannot manage the naval battle any longer. I mean, I’m just totally lost. In the future, the immediate future, we need to have a conference in AMW about how to conduct war. As it is, at least for me, it is far too confusing and amorphous. In reality from here on out, seeing the ultra-realistic levels AMW has taken on lately, I don’t even think I really can do war posts anymore. I appreciate that sometimes LRR feels the same way; but at this point, I really don’t even know what my own capabilities are, let alone what the enemies are, it is just too much.

Is it the startling fact indeed: has AMW reached the point where realism has grown so perfect that, to do this with subjective players, we cannot agree on how realism would turn out? I am responsible, of course, for starting this large war. I am baffled friends. Just baffled. I’ve been thinking a bit today that a few months of war has taken us about two years IRL now. Stunning. I mean, stunning. There was the timeline effort, and that helped organize things somewhat. I think that really there are only two people in AMW who feel this frustration keenly: LRR and myself, to some degree BG, and to a lesser degree Gurg (although he has been out of the war a long while now and only had one large maneuver). Although I think LRR and BG, to be fair, have taken it better than myself, as both are keenly apprised of various technological data. Looking back I don’t even think half of my moves in Africa were legitimate. I just don’t have enough time, even with extra time in November, to hack this. Maybe it is even not a lack of time, but acquired intellect, who knows. It seems to me the only way to make this fair would be to have a sort of “AMW Total War” as in the popular computer game. I am lost friends. Quite frankly, at this point, when I try and type a new page to respond I now only draw a mental blank.

So I do not think I can post IC on that for a while. I burned out after coming back with only several posts. Maybe the reason AMW seemed to do so well antecedently to ‘the war’ was that no one really had to match capabilities and such, it was sort of just a build up. When the war started, we lost a lot of players. True, there were small conflicts, just as there are small conflicts extra-theatrically (vis-à-vis the African theatre), but nothing ever on this scale. Looking ahead, I can only see more and more of this.

But enough gay banter on my part! Here is what I would love to suggest:

Honestly, the only other RP I have ever done prior to AMW was on America Online, which at the time in chat rooms had the ability to roll dice. That made everything nice and simple. Instead of comparing this and that, correcting that and this, debating everything, random fate (as is the case with real war) decided the matter. In battles we rolled dice. Yes, each side had advantages and such, and disadvantages as well, but it was chance that decided it. In essence the dice rolls decided either how many died, what characters died, etc. Perfectly adaptable to our AMW setting. My God, what fun we had! How terribly exciting it was, not knowing what would happen despite the most arduous plannings and strategems! Despite superior troops and such (and this was a Tolkien-based RP, so it had many fantastic elements as well) the battle might turn in any direction. On the home front you did as you wished, but when things mattered, the dice rolled. Furthermore that random element if you will lent itself so much to a realistic mood: when your characters are in the hands of fate, people will behave in many ways, anything can and will happen. What really brought that notion to mind was when BG said, a few posts ago, that on a certain occasion with one force pitted against another it would be simply 'bang, you are dead'. Such a statement takes all the fun, zest, and indeed all of the excitement and moreover joy out of RP. What is the point of playing any longer? Consider the quintessential game of war: Risk. Does that not operate on the exact same principle? I think we need a system exactly like Risk. Of course, the challenging fact is harnessing such a system to be objective online. That way it was totally fair. Friends, is there any way, for those of you who are technically inclined, that we can harness something like that for AMW? Can you roll dice on any instant messaging services? I mean, honestly I think, it could solve nearly all our problems. True, in some cases sides would have overwhelming advantages, such a thing could be taken into account, maybe someone gets two less rolls or something.

But that random chance, roll of the dice and hand of fate, is what, at least to me, really puts the umph into roll play. Does anyone agree with me? Everyone in AMW so far, save perhaps myself, and BG! with his nuclear sorties, has done their utmost to foster a completely realistic element. But would not this be a solution perfect as we find ourselves ever more bogged down in minutiae and realia? Just some thoughts, but I thought my concluding point was fairly good.

Hm, I just don't know. The thing with me is that I actually enjoy the technical minutae, even though I might not understand all of it, and in my head it's all about manoeuvre rather than actual combat. Now, manoeuvre is part of combat, obviously, but when the missiles fly it's pretty clear to me how much damage gets taken. Again, I might be alone in that, but this is how it works in my head.

Personally I wouldn't want to roll dice... I prefer the writing and I enjoy that aspect more than the result of the battle. It's fun to win, sure, but I've lost before and that's fun too, so long as you do it well.
Now, I understand that some of these things will be cumbersome to writers, especially fleet combat. We've been restricted somewhat by the fact that there have been no great battles in the current era, that there is only one great, unchallenged power in real life. We don't know what fleet combat will look like, how effective we can expect SAMs to be, et cetera. We have to make it up, and sometimes we fail.

To me, that's okay. Actually, if NG wouldn't mind, I could take over the naval battle (I promise to try and win, really!), but if he wouldn't want me to that's fine as well.

And the real problem in AMW at the moment isn't at least to me, one of combat. The problem is with logistics and supply, with getting the soldiers to, say, Africa, and with keeping them fed. It's difficult to model that, but it has a huge impact on the effectiveness of a force. I don't know, now I'm just ranting.

Yeah, I do apologise about cramming that interception post in when I did, it's just lack of time on-line for me, really. All my access is via internet cafes, for which I have to pay, so I'm always searching for jobs, trying to sort my visa, and keeping in touch with people back in Blighty and often don't have time to do both OOC discussion and get in a new IC post.

As to the war... hm.

Different players are always going to want to play in different ways. I think that this war has become too big, perhaps bigger than is easy to manage when we have players of different... types, I suppose. I wonder if we shouldn't try to work out some sort of compromise in terms of who is fighting who and on what scale.

This is only a suggestion, and not one that I've thought through, but maybe the League especially could sort of delegate roles to its membership. For example, NG might begin to play more as the King of France and helmsman of the Holy League, and someone else might play the major part of the armies in the field. I'd do some of it, through Tulgary, though of course I wouldn't want to be always fighting myself.

The King of France might, for example, dictate that the objective is Tripoli, and NG could talk about his troops being sent off, describing all the pomp involved, while I, Vercon, or someone else describe the detail of a combined offensive as it happens according to a plan in the making of which NG would have been involved. During the battle all involved parties, such as NG, could step in to talk on a sort of character level about the tactical details that have been described.

In this way a player such as NG, or anyone else who might want to do things that way, would be more like their King or whatnot, and would have less control over how things actually go on the battlefield but just as much strategic over-sight and freedom to talk character, pagentry, diplomacy, and so on.

It sounds good in my head, but I'm not sure how practical or appealing it is to others...

While I like the idea of rolling dice, its just far too easy to cheat, and I know of no way to plug it into an IM. I have no problems with rolling dice, I've tried to do it in one of my posts, but like I said, its just too easy to cheat. BGs idea does have merit, and would definitely help in consolidating strategy. But we could run into the same problem as we did with the naval battle, one guy doesn't have time to run it and has to hand it off to someone who might not have a clue of what is going on. BGs way of handling the war might be the best idea, and I would have no problems of having Gurg in control of League ships, but right now, the only active League members are NG, BG (a little though he's mostly Soviet), and myself. I have to tell you a hard truth, but don't expect Wingert to come back any time soon. This war has been delayed long enough, and I would like it if we could just end it! Anyone interested in a truce? ;)

I'd find it hard to justify a truce. The Soviet Commonwealth has been massively changed by War Communism: 20% of GDP is now accounted for in military-related concerns, and the Supreme War Soviet has taken a great deal of democratic power away from the 4th Commonwealth's extremely liberal establishment. The Soviets are on the verge of laying into League strength and capitalist establishments in Africa and turning the continent red, and signing a truce would represent a near 100% defeat for us, when victory actually seems likely if we continue. I'd have to RP a revolution at home in order to stop the war now.

I suppose I could do that. It would probably end the war, eh? Britain's already -astonishingly- forgetting the thousands of deaths inflicted upon the Empire by the League in the last year and cuddling up to the continental monarchs, and if Soviet India were in revolt Union India wouldn't be able to ignore it and carry on alone.

Do people really want the war to be over? It's a pretty big thing for me to do, since it might mean going from the cusp of intercontinental domination for Igovianism (we could well form puppets from Venezuela, though Vietnam, to Algeria if we stay the present course, after all) to an India that probably can't even keep foreign interests out of its home territory, but it'd be far more appealing than having AMW fall apart or stay stuck in a rut for another year.

Understood 100% BG. Please don’t take my comment as a snipe.

I did not want my last blurb there to seem like a cop-out or anything like that guys. Ad initio let me say I have no, or rather I had no, intention of engendering a truce by my comments. I.e. this is not ‘crying uncle’. Such would of course be possible but was it was not my intention to set things up for that? I must say though I am very heartened at this conversation my comments started.

Let me say though I really did dig the idea of dice though…it worked phenomenally well in my previous RP, and as we were in ‘chat-rooms’ there really was no opportunity to cheat. I won’t belabor the point however. BUT it did add a whole other dimension to the RP, the element of chance is of course impossible to replicate via minutiae.

Where to go, BG? I don’t want us to stop the past trend of where AMW was going, it is by and large valid, save as I said for maybe a few mistakes on my part. So I am on the surface very acquiescent to your motion that, at least regarding the League alone now, sort of ‘sub-contract’ assignments out. I would even not mind Gurg stepping in to do a few things. Likewise, you all know me, and I never mind a revolution, did a few before, sort of my raison d’etre to crush revolution. Others could have a revolution as well. Maybe, even, it might be like the latter days of WWI where Revolution swept several European countries. Islamic fundamentalism (reading headlines out of Pakistan) maybe…might be a nice touch?

However, thinking over everything, I think BG might be onto the right sort of idea with the subcontracting and all. The only problem I can see is what if people aren’t available at the same time? I’m sure we can work past that though. I don’t really know where else to turn, except that I hope the subcontracting will speed things up without detracting from content so to speak. I don’t wont to ‘fast-forward’ AMW…but I would like to move past this rut, win or loose, to new horizons.

Ciao bella!

If I were to take over this battle (which I hope wouldn't become a frequent thing, since I'm not terribly familiar with League equipment nor could I replicate some of the characteristically League tactics) I'd want to discuss strategy with NG, Vecron and possibly Wingert... where to position the fleet, how much to press the Indians, what acceptable losses might be, that sort of thing. I'll make an honest effort to win, but not beyond what I believe to be reasonable, and so.

Also, I've discussed with NG the idea of RPing a single division of French troops in Libya, probably made up of mixed armour and mechanized infantry. I want to do that mostly because Britain isn't doing much right now at all, and I need the ground combat practise.

Lastly, with regards to the seeming 'capitulation' on my part, I'd like to point out that Britain actually benefited materially from the peace, gaining a super fort, a few islands, Gibraltar, and great big piles of cash. Yes, three thousand odd people died, but since I don't maintain steady diplomatic relations with the League (rather, I behave towards them as South Korea does to North Korea in RL) I think I'm still within the realm of realism.

Well, except for Africa. And that's a case of REALLY not wanting to see a Red Africa. Does that make sense?

With NG seemingly busy at the moment, are we putting the naval battle on hold... again? Am I taking over? Is Vecron?

I don't think the battle should go on hold again, I'm not much of a strategist, but TG me, maybe we can figure something out.

I seem to have taken over the League fleet! Please give me a rundown of the situation in Indian terms, I did my best to troll through the (many) pages related to this battle and have come away with this: The League fleet is moving south at its best speed, being rather noisy, and has just eaten a barrage of torpedoes from the Anunaki submarines. It has expended almost all of its AShM missile capability as well as its ASMs, leaving only a few aircraft and gun CIWS to defend itself with. As far as hitting the enemy is concerned, the League must attempt to close the gap with all possible speed.

Um, I know next-to nothing about submarine warfare, but it seems like NG's charge might have just doomed his entire battle line. With the noise that they're making, I honestly can't figure a way out of it. On the other hand, I'm not really thrilled with the idea of crippling someone else's navy, so my first post will be exclusively from the Russian standpoint. I won't do that tonight because, well, I'm tired and I don't know what I'm doing. I'll get to the Frogs, but not right away. This one requires, well, a good bit of thought and not a little research.

Well, the French could always pull a Jutland. Which is certainly what the Marakkar is doing.

Eh, from the Indian point of view...

The Indian fleet, having taken pretty horrendous casualties and having lost most of the Hindustani warships, is making for Conakry at its best speed, where its carriers and fleet train have already been sent. There they plan to re-arm and re-fuel, so that they might hope to beat-off any League naval expedition much further south. The Indians are doing 28 knots, about as fast as possible under the circumstances, and probably about as fast as the French ought to be going, with enemy submarines in the area.

Though the Hindustani component of the joint Indian fleet has been all but destroyed, the Soviet part is still very much combat-capable, and only really needs to replenish its magazines before once again becoming a very fearsome and dangerous entity.

Reinforcements are en route as well, consisting of some three cruisers, two or three carriers, and maybe in the neighborhood of 20 destroyers and frigates plus another four Anunkais and six Ortiagons.

First, I think that some of the last few posts on the battle IC went a bit far, really, with the League catching up and brushing over the submarine threat. That'll have to be readdressed, somehow.

Of course the Soviets have lost most of their existing fleet air arm in the battle, even if we haven't lost many ships. Some of our top fighter aces who downed bucket loads of Mirage-2000 over the Coral Sea have ended up bobbing on the Atlantic waves.

I might be labouring under a bias, but I do rather feel that the League fleet ought to be taking a catastrophic hammering from the submarines, both the Anunkai ahead of its charge and perhaps Ortiagon trying to interfere en route to port, or whatever they're doing (I keep forgetting, too much going on!).

The League might destroy an Anunkai or two, or three, if they choose to stop the charge and hunt instead of plowing on or running away (in their place I'm sure I'd run for it), and other than that the armoured gunboat Petropavlovsk is limping at the back of the Indian fleet, wounded but deliberately putting herself in the line of fire and declaring they shall not pass, so if the League's commanders are as bloody minded as some appear to be they could always press on just for the sake of sinking one gun-and-armour vessel (even if was scheduled for a Hindustani breakers' yard last year).

I assume we could put a last-minute League disaster down to a few realistic enough factors. Nobody in the world is really experienced in modern naval warfare on this side. The most experience is in Hindustani heads, with the exception of very recent Anglo-Australian/French engagements that may not yet have seen their lessons filter through the stodgy feudal ranks. Then of course many Euro vessels are relics of a recently bygone age in which enemies were far weaker, and the Russian vessels are just... relics, some of which are lucky not to catch fire when launching their own missiles, let alone when being hit by someone else's. Plus, have some ships Nigerian crews? How out of their depth do they feel after learning on gunboats and motor launches?

Hopefully the age of AMW's epic naval battles will close with this bloody episode. NATO, the League, and the Progs have now all lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars by pitting entire fleets against one another in the Atlantic, and maybe we'll go back to smaller scale operation that's less risky IC and also easier to manage OOC! Plus if gives AMW's smaller nations a chance to throw a punch once in a while.

There's also the matter of the Armandians steaming up towards the Western Sahara... they're a bit out of their depth, the Atlantic being a bit different than the Armandian Gulf, but sufficient to give the battered League forces pause.

First, I think that some of the last few posts on the battle IC went a bit far, really, with the League catching up and brushing over the submarine threat. That'll have to be readdressed, somehow.
Agreed. How can we do that, though? Should I retcon back to Quinn's exit and play an ASW hunt while Ali escapes? Honestly, no competent admiral would go into line, sonar actually pinging, in an area where there might be suspected enemy submarines.

Of course the Soviets have lost most of their existing fleet air arm in the battle, even if we haven't lost many ships. Some of our top fighter aces who downed bucket loads of Mirage-2000 over the Coral Sea have ended up bobbing on the Atlantic waves.
Is the same true of the League, or do I have a few aircraft to muck around with?

I might be labouring under a bias, but I do rather feel that the League fleet ought to be taking a catastrophic hammering from the submarines, both the Anunkai ahead of its charge and perhaps Ortiagon trying to interfere en route to port, or whatever they're doing (I keep forgetting, too much going on!).
Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, but I honestly don't feel comfortable losing much of another player's fleet, however impractical it might be.

Hopefully the age of AMW's epic naval battles will close with this bloody episode. NATO, the League, and the Progs have now all lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars by pitting entire fleets against one another in the Atlantic, and maybe we'll go back to smaller scale operation that's less risky IC and also easier to manage OOC! Plus if gives AMW's smaller nations a chance to throw a punch once in a while.
If we do end up at war, BG, I'm thinking of deploying the RN in RL carrier battle groups of 2-3 AAW Destroyers, 2-3 Surface/ASW Warfare Frigates and 1 CV, along with maybe 1 CVE/CVL for backup and added ASW. To me, that makes a lot more sense than fleets of a dozen or more ships steaming about, hoping they don't meet a submarine because their own screw noise drowns out their ASW capabilities. Honestly, eighteen to thirty ships is too much to handle when it comes to modern warfare. Dumb bombs and prop aircraft? Maybe I could do it. Silent SSKs and supersonic fighter-bombers? No frickin' way.

Nah I say that this combat is already too complicated. I wouldn't go and back and readdress anything. We should take note of it and improve in the future. The most that I would do is list a couple of casualties as a result of the submarine as the League catches up.

The point, though, is that its not a 'couple of casualties'... the tactic chosen spells the doom of significant League shipping, and there isnt really a way to save them other than to take a step back under the assumption even the French wouldnt appoint such an inept admiral.

Raises questions on how much a player's decisions can be changed after-the-fact to correct for things their characters ought know IC that the player doesnt OOC, a can of worms whose opening brings troubles of its own to the flow of roleplay. But the only other options seem to be making Gurg declare devastating casualties for someone else's fleet, or agreeing on new laws of physics for AMW.

Indeed. By any sane measure, the next step for me would be to RP the sinking of Titan, Soleil Royale, Charles X, and several other battleships and cruisers. After that would be the three submarines (RNs 4, 12 and... 16?) and only then could I hope to start an ASW operation using France's CLs and Russia's DDs, which would result in, most likely, more sinkings before I caught the Anunakis. Going into line and charging here was not unlike Admiral Nagumo's order to re-arm his entire strike wing at Midway; a fairly small decision that cost him an entire battle.

And the entire war and his nation's status as an empire, hence the importance of sorting this out in a reasonable manner and not just dismissing the importance of the events.

Something of a pickle it is.

Still, France, being France, can always chop off the Admiral's head if he at least gets away after wrecking the navy, and we can get back to proxy wars and skirmishes. Even if France loses most of its maritime strength, with Italian and Estenlandic help they can still contest the Med, irritating Germany and Yugoslavia requires no navy, and most of the Indian forces will have to return home to the Indian Ocean before too long, anyway, I'd imagine. Our own battleships, certainly, aren't designed to stay long outside the home theatre.

I don't believe that NG officially gave away control of his fleet so at the very least I would check with him before blowing up most of his navy. I never wanted to become involved in the discussions about a naval combat I am not involved in but I guess thats too late. Although it might be helpful for future combats.

Anyway, the naval combat has gotten too ridiculous, is too slow paced and has spiraled into far too many pages. First person posts, while enjoyable to read, get tedious after reading pages and pages trying to figure out what the heck is actually going on. We should seriously reconsider the amount of detail we are RPing, if we get too specific it also makes it easier to lose sight of the forest for the trees, as NG may have done in ignoring the submarines.

I tried to follow the combat but found it extremely difficult and I only know as much about naval combat as wikipedia tells me. This is what wikipedia said:

Submarines are one of the greatest threat to conventional naval operations due to the stealth of modern submarines (anechoic coatings, ultra-quiet Pump-jets etc.), which is the submarine's sole advantage. The move towards shallow-water operations has greatly increased this threat. The suspicion of a submarine threat can force a fleet to commit resources to removing it as the consequences of an undetected submarine can be too great. The threat posed by British submarines during the Falklands War of 1982 was one of the reasons why the Argentine Navy was limited in its operations. [1]

I don't know exactly what "resources" you need to get rid of submarines. Do you just drop a bunch of charges?

Anyway, perhaps we could say that NG committed the "resources" and the Soviet submarines fled. I am tempted to advocate this solution and just say what was done is done simply because its the easiest and doesn't unfairly destroy his entire navy because AMW as a whole got too caught up in minutia.

Something just doesn't seem right with his whole submarine thing, are they a game killer? Don't like a battleship or carrier group? Position a bunch of submarines outside their home port and wait. Then bam! you've destroyed their entire fleet and can then hopefully escape back to sea. Is there a solution to the submarine threat? What should have NG done differently? Whenever a fleet moves should they drop a bunch of charges to get the subs? Perhaps we should adjust the power of subs downward so that AMW can continue to have large naval movements and consequently continue to have large empires. I don't know, something just doesn't make sense. I wish I was in the navy so I had the answers to some of these questions.

As one British submariner quipped, “the only way to know for sure that there is a submarine is when one starts losing ships—and that’s a very expensive way to find out.”5 (From http://xenon.stanford.edu/~lswartz/falklands.pdf) It also says, "Perhaps the most disturbing lesson of the war is in the realm of Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Argentina had only four World War II-era diesel submarines, two of which were tied up in port: the Salta’s battery was depleted (although the Argentines moved it around to confuse the British) and the Santiago del Estro had been cannibalized for spare parts.8 As mentioned above, the Santa Fe was damaged early in the war and thus remained inoperative throughout the conflict. However, the British spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to track these few submarines. An enormous amount of ordnance was dropped on false contacts, while Sea King
antisubmarine helicopters constantly patrolled the area.9 Their efforts were confounded by the difficulty to conduct sonar operations in shallow water.10 That the British spent so much time and firepower ineffectively chasing one outmoded diesel submarine shows both the difficulty of ASW and the deadliness of even older submarines to a large surface fleet. "

Here is a bunch of stuff on submarine warfare
Observers often forget that British victory in the Falklands was by no means a sure thing: the British Battle Group Commander, Admiral Sandy Woodward, said that “major damage to Hermes or to Invincible…would probably cause us to abandon the entire Falkland Island operation.”13 To protect these vital resources, several destroyers and frigates were sent on radar picket duty to essentially form the first line of defense against Argentine air attacks. One such destroyer, the HMS Sheffield, was sunk by a French-built Exocet missile, prompting a great deal of press on both sides of the Atlantic. The Sheffield was not the only ship to be attacked, however; the Coventry, Glasgow, and Ardent were all hit by conventional weapons (only the Glasgow survived).14 Likewise, the Atlantic Conveyor was downed by two Exocets and the Glamorgan barely escaped another Exocet.15 Furthermore, the Sheffield was not the first ship to be sunk by a “smart” weapon; as early as 1967 the Egyptians had launched Soviet-made Styx missiles, sinking the Israeli destroyer Eilat. By examining what caused these ships to be hit and/or sunk, we can learn vital lessons about surface warfare.

First, the British task force lacked Airborne Early Warning (AEW), planes that can detect enemy jets from far away, allowing ships time to arm their defenses and other planes time to shoot down the enemy. Indeed, the heavy losses as a result of lacking AEW have spurred the British to upgrade their Sea King planes to include AEW capability.16 US Navy officials claim that an American carrier battle group would never encounter ship losses equivalent to the British because our larger supercarriers provide for AEW planes.17 As one admiral put it, it is easier to “shoot at Indians, not at arrows.”18 Indeed, British naval officers explained after the Falklands conflict that their ships were not designed for Falklands-like conflict, but rather for a joint NATO strike with close airborne support provided by the US Navy.

However, relying on carrier support alone would be foolhardy. Several retired admirals have expressed concern over our over-reliance on carriers: former Chief of Naval Operations Elmo Zumwalt has called the carriers “a seaborne Maginot Line,” and Admiral Hyman Rickover 14 Norman Friedman, said that they would last “about two days” in a major conflict with Soviet submarines.20 Thus, many call for defense systems on ships themselves to shoot down missiles that get through the carrier defenses. Here, the US Navy points to the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (affectionately known as the CIWS) as a last-ditch defense against incoming missiles. However, no defense system is useful if it is not activated. This lesson proved itself well in the downing of the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 by an Exocet missile nearly identical to the ones that hit the Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor, and Glamorgan. Like the Sheffield, the Stark failed to employ the available countermeasures; her captain claimed that the ship’s electronic warning
system failed to detect the missile, and that the Phalanx system was not on automatic for fear of hitting friendly forces.21 One proposed solution is to integrate artificial intelligence technologies into close-in weapons systems, such as the Navy’s Aegis system.22

Ultimately, however, no matter how well defended a ship is, there is always the chance it could be hit. Examining which ships in the Falklands Conflict survived the hits and which did not provides valuable lessons in damage control, fire fighting, and ship design. The Glamorgan, for example, survived its Exocet hit, partially because of its navigator’s skillfully turning the ship
away from the weapon, but also because it is bigger than the Sheffield, such that “any hit would affect a smaller percentage of her length.”23 Many also speculate that the aluminum hulls of the Sheffield and other destroyers prevented adequate damage control and firefighting, because aluminum melts at relatively low temperatures. A House of Commons committee directed to
investigate the conflict was extremely critical of “fire- and battle-damage control” on board the various vessels; in particular, ruptured fuel tanks caused massive amounts of fire and smoke to erupt.24 As a result, new British ships have tanks as low as possible in the hull, and during the Gulf War the British practiced assisting other ships with fire fighting.25

One often forgotten aspect of the Falklands conflict is the role of logistics. Despite the fancy “smart” weapons and state-of-the art aviation technology, the war—like every war since the dawn of combat—was won with logistics. The British had to provide the “bullets and beans” to supply its sailors and troops fighting a war 8,000 miles away from home. They accomplished
this by two methods: First, they established a “forward” base at Ascension Island, airlifting stores and troops to the island early in the conflict.26 Though the island is still 3,750 miles away from the Falklands, it cut in half the distance necessary to resupply the British fleet. Second, the British utilized their substantial merchant fleet to ship supplies from Ascension Island to the task force. This “particularly ingenious solution” involved using a number of civilian vessels, including the luxury liner Queen Elizabeth II, to transport both troops and materiel.27 Of course, the plan worked mainly because the Argentineans failed to attack these merchant vessels. The Argentineans essentially made the same mistake that the Japanese had in World War II: by
attacking military vessels rather than the slower-moving, more poorly-defended logistics ships that supplied them, they failed to halt the British fleet. Indeed, the only logistics ship hit by the Argentineans was hit by accident: the Atlantic Conveyor was badly damaged by a missile
intended for another ship.

Perhaps the power of the submarine is too powerful and should be diminished to let us continue to have empires. Because if subs can wipe out airforce carriers, battleships, and all ships then we would all become regional powers with a bunch of submarines.

Also, maybe we should forget the NG and submarine thing because the question of how Soviet and INU fleets got so far any from their base of operations I don't think was ever answered.

EDIT: I guess frigate picket lines are one way to deal with the submarine threat.

You raise some very good, if long winded, points Fleur. Naval combat has gotten too complicated for ye olde average Joe, like me and, from the sounds of it, you to do competently against such seeming experts as LRR. I get really frustrated reading posts describing the stealth of subs that it feels like no matter what I do, I'll never detect them even with most of my fleet looking for them.

Here here. The subs are something that does confound me, I am at a loss to explain how to properly use them. I don't understand how say, a handful of subs should be able to take out a large fleet, but I had dozens upon dozens of subs on the other side. I mean, should I have just sent my subs into the Prog fleet, let them walk up on me, and call it a day? From the look of things, that is the only answer.

But naval combat as whole seems to not only be beyond my ken, it seems to have gotten more and more compicated as time has gone on. I wonder how much this has to do with who is fighting though. I remember the fight between NG and Gurg as one of the most interesting and exciting threads in AMW history, but this battle is so convaluted that even the people directly involved have no idea what is going on.

WWJD
Amen.

The more I think about this issue the more I think that we should completely forbid the use of submarines in future naval combats. They should be relegated to covert operations in landing a small number of elite troops and thats it. Like nukes they are just game breaking. After reading the little piece about the Falklands war I realized the difficulty associated with submarine combat. The article in question is peer reviewed and uses scholarly sources and it is probably the very best we can expect to have to learn about submarine combat. In the words of the naval instructor guy who wrote the article, that the British "spent so much time and firepower ineffectively chasing one outmoded diesel submarine shows both the difficulty of ASW and the deadliness of even older submarines to a large surface fleet."

If one old rust bucket can outmaneuver the British navy for several months then where does that leave AMW with its hundreds of nuclear powered submarines? We would be RPing the combat till kingdom come and our hair falls out. I say we throw the submarines with the nukes in the trash bin and think of other ways to hurt ourselves.

Well, I suppose most of this is really my fault, and taking grievous losses doesn't exactly make up for conducting the battle wrongly.

I have never claimed to be an expert on all this and nobody ought to take what I say as fact, something that (I hope) I have said a few times before.

But here is my explanation:

The issue with the Russian submarines was mainly that they fired their ordnance from near maximum range and in a volley, simultaneously minimizing the effectiveness of their weaponry while maximizing their acoustic signatures. This made it possible, by my estimation, for the Indian A/S screen to detect and attack the enemy boats. At the same time the Indians lost something like a dozen ships and two thousand sailors.

The French, on the other hand, have left their escorts in the dust, charging ahead at such speeds in order to run-down the fleeing Indians. Most battleships aren't fitted for anti-submarine warfare, so the French won't have any way to detect the Anunkais until it is far too late.

As for how the Indians got so far from India...well, the fleet has a sizable support component, with oilers and replenishment ships and such, and it isn't going non-stop from the Indian subcontinent to just below the Canaries. Friendly ports exist at Walvis Bay and Kinshasa, which the Indians used to re-fuel after the trip around the Cape of Good Hope. And if they had got there quickly, the battle would have taken place before France overran most of ECOWAS.

If it would make things go smoother, I would not be averse to revising my losses from the Russian submarine attack to something probably a good deal more appropriate. As many sources have indeed said, the USSR's submarine fleet would appear to be up to the task of scuppering an American carrier battle group, so by the same token the Tsarist submarines probably ought to have taken a much bigger bite out of the Indian forces as well.

As for Hindustani submarine operations in the Mediterranean, AIP submarines confer certain advantages in terms of stealth that can't just be discounted. One was lost already and two corvettes were sunk by similar technology operated by the Italians, the likes of which the Hindustani warships were similarly unable to locate.

Hm, let's see. I've been doing a bit of reading recently, namely in the form of Tom Clancy's SSN (foul, FOUL writer) and a few of the wiki articles that Fleur mentioned, as well as John Keegan's The Price of Admiralty which discusses the primacy of the submarine over the carrier.

What I've pretty much come away with is the following:

1. The Carrier is at great risk from the Submarine
This almost goes without saying, but an aircraft carrier is both more expensive and more vulnerable than a submarine, and unless well escorted will be toast if it encounters one. You can minimize these risks to an extent, by escorting your carriers with subs of your own as well as a screen of frigates and ASW helicopters, but these require their own tactics. First off, subs operate by sonar, and are detected by same. You need to keep your escort subs (referred to as SSN(DS) for 'direct support' several nautical miles (like, twenty or thirty) ahead of your CBG (carrier battle group) to keep their engine noise from interfering with your SSN(DS)' sonar systems.

2. There is no way to make a surface ship silent
A corollary to 1., apart from stopping the engines entirely and just sitting, you can't keep a surface ship as quiet as you can an SSN or SSK. So, to protect it against submarines you need to have an effective ASW helicopter or two, which are actually hugely powerful against submarines. More on this later. Most modern destroyers and frigates, let alone carriers, carry ASW helos, so provided you have reason to suspect there's a sub nearby, you can scree for it somewhat effectively just by putting your ASW bird in the air.

3. The Submarine cannot communicate without severe risk
This one is commonly overlooked, but a submerged submarine (by 'submerged' I mean significantly below periscope depth, say around 400 ft.) can't really communicate at all. Come to periscope depth and you get real-time communication via radio/satellite link, but otherwise you're restricted to the floating wire, which copies text at a rate of about a letter per minute. Receiving orders, then, usually takes the form of a coded message telling the sub to come to periscope depth (around sixty feet, tops, usually more like twenty or thirty) at which point you'll go there and receive orders via radio.

Unfortunately for the submarine, it's next to useless at periscope depth, in rough seas it runs the risk of broaching and making a shit-ton of noise, and it can't effectively fight. In combat situations, each sub captain is on his own, and can't communicate. He sticks to the plan, improvises, or dies. Sometimes he does all three. NEVER does he call command for orders, because he can't. This cannot be repeated too often; a submarine can't receive new orders without exposing itself to huge risks. In war in contested waters, it essentially can't receive orders at all.

4. Submarines don't carry many weapons
The American Los Angeles, perhaps one of the largest three attack submarines in the world (USS Seawolf and the Astute class, or in AMW maybe also the Anunaki and certainly the Nantes being its only competition) carries only twenty-six torpedoes/Harpoons, which share the same ammo space. It can also carry a few Tomahawk missiles, but these are single-use canisters and can't be reloaded without a visit to a tender. Standard practise dictates two weapons per target (you can usually get away with one for freighters and reaaaaly old SSKs like the Romeo or the Soviet Hound), but still that leaves thirteen shots at an enemy sub, tops. Less if you carry Harpoons as well. We're not talking weeks of sitting in one place and screwing the enemy over in terms of shipping, here.

5. Countermeasures work pretty well for sub-sub combat, as do quick manoeuvres
Something I learned from Clancy, but if you make a quick turn at your sub's flank speed and cavitate (make bubbles in your wake by turning your screw very fast) the torpedo is somewhat likely to miss you and attack your cavitation noise, which usually forms hundreds of feet away. This works pretty well for SSNs, who by definition have power to spare in terms of speed/screw strength. SSKs, which run on limited battery power, are more restricted. This is one of the reasons that SSNs are favoured over quieter SSKs, they tend to survive being shot at while SSKs are almost always sunk if positively acquired. AIPs, perhaps less so.

If you shoot off a countermeasure and are reasonably quiet (as in, don't shoot off active pulses or, um, hit an underwater object), the torpedo will lock on to the noisemaker about half the time. Hence: two weapons per target. It is unusual to fire multiple countermeasures, because two are not in this case better than one, they make the same amount of noise singly as doubly, and they come in limited numbers.

6. Surface ships are still useful
Surface ships have one great advantage over submarines, they can ping with impunity. A submarine gives away its position when it 'goes active' (pings sonar, which is like shouting "IS ANYBODY THERE?!" in Central Park at night. You will probably get some responses, but you've also just told everyone around you that you're there, and you don't know that they are, etc.) and so most submariners use their active sonar in only some cases, usually when they feel that the other guy knows their position and they're trying to even the score. One ping gives only an idea of how many enemies there are, not what type or where they are exactly.

Anyway, back to surface ships. They can't hide from subs, so the advantage of surprise is lost. They can, however, ping their often very powerful active sonar units, especially when operating in a group of two or more, and then share information to arrive at a quick targeting lock. Deck mounted Mk. 46 or Swordfish light torpedoes do the rest. The key here is sharing information, to get a target lock you need to triangulate with active (or indeed passive) sonar, and to do that you need three or more datapoints. If you have three simultaneous pings, you can communicate. Subs, as noted, don't have this advantage because a submarine can't send information out at anything below periscope depth (~60 ft) and can't receive information at anything below 400 ft, and then only at one character per minute. Quicker just to get three position readings and start shooting.

But again, surface ships can do it all in one go when operating in a group of two. (Two because one ship can dispatch an ASW Helo with dipping sonar, which is like adding a third ship to your triangulation-data-sharing party). It's worth noting that this tactic still works with multiple submarines, since active sonar (any sonar, really) isn't directional, although the further away an object is the slower your information return will be. Speed of sound < speed of light, which is why sonar detection takes more time than radar detection, amongst other things.

7. Air Power=Dead Sub
The submarine, no matter how advanced, is invariably prey to enemy air power. Because of the element in which it operates, a submarine has little chance of detecting an enemy helicopter well enough to shoot something at it, and no weapons with which to do it. I suppose you could stick SAMs in your VLS tubes, but you still have the problem of getting a target lock on an aircraft using sonar.

The aircraft can also do two things which the sub can't in a combat environment. It can use active sonar and it can drop sonobuoys, both of which are superb for tracking and triangulating enemy subs. Active sonar will illuminate the entire combat zone though, so you have to be careful when you use it, because it will paint not only the enemy, but also friendly subs. On the other hand, if there are no friendly subs, ping away. Dipping your active dipper in three places is much easier with a helo than it is with a submarine, because the helo moves way, way faster.

Helos (and, indeed, fixed-wing ASW aircraft like the P-3 Orion or SB-3 Viking) also mount Magnetic Anomaly Detectors (delightfully called MAD) that pick up the magnetic signature of the submarine's metal hull. This is about as effective as it sounds, and MAD can spell quick doom for a submarine. Aircraft can also drop small torpedoes, which while not as effective as the gigantic Mk. 48 ADCAPs or Spearfish torpedoes, are faster and well able to sink a submarine.

Conclusion
Submarines, when used properly, can crush surface fleets. On the other hand, surface fleets with the right equipment can protect themselves from submarines, they just have to initiate ASW missions to clear the seas before operating there. That's what Fleur's quote was about: CBGs must assume, when entering contested waters, that there are submarines. They have the tools available to drive off or sink those submarines in the form of air power, surface ships, and SSN(DS) boats, but they have to use them.

In AMW we've made the mistake of deploying large fleets without properly understanding what ASW warfare entails, and that's preparation. Before we can park our carriers and start bombing the crap out of an enemy or start sailing our battleships about, (I still think BBs are horribly at risk from submarines and urge you all to cease using them immediately, mind) we need to take the time to clear the waters of subs by air, sea and subsurface methods. We don't need to downgrade the abilities of the submarine, but we do need to understand their weaknesses and strengths alike. I think I've given a brief introduction here; I'll repost this and other observations on the offsite forums.

*wipes brow* whew! That was quite the little rant.

Yes, the thread has become too long winded, but that's only because we've had so many delays with people being away, so it has stopped and started a lot, and because the League committed such massive forces to one to-the-death engagement, and because a few people (Fleur! [shakes fist]) post more often complaining that it's too long winded than any of us post IC!

Will the anti-Prog (except NG, I admit) players stop trying to magic the League's way out of this, please? That's a large part of what's making it so painful.

I don't think, TCB/LRR, that the Indian fleet needed to take a lot more hits. It has already taken more than the League, that's without people trying to say that the League should get away clean, and most of the League's failures have been owing to glaring tactical errors in the deployment of their offensive firepower. Besides, an American carrier battle group will only relatively recently have begun to get much decent VLS type defence and has less physical armour when compared with some of the Soviet ships at least, and less stealth measures. Plus they keep putting Phalanx on their ships despite knowing that it doesn't actually work.

Fleur, what the League could have done differently would fill a thread as big as the one we've already got. If it were a land battle of the sort that some of us would evidently prefer to fight, we could say that the League got all its best lancers, musketeers, and cannon in one place at one time in a nice big formation, tempting somebody to all but knock them out of the war. And then the army unhitched its guns and expended all of its shot as soon as its scouts spotted the Indians a few kilometres away and on the move. Then, having come to regret that after the Indians drew closer and laid-down their own cannonade on their exposed ranks, the League's forces decided that, since it wasn't going quite right, they'd better just draw steel and charge... having made no effort to find out whether the enemy had grapeshot or even mitrailleuse or where they might be. Presently we find the French lancers under fire from Indian cannon as they charge them, their own guns out of ammuntion, and a couple of hidden Indian mitrailleuse about to open up from the flanks.

Sure, if the French get there, they might wreck the Indian cannon a treat. But since their guns are out of ammo or out of range, they've no support and no means to knock out the Indian mitrailleuse that are now mowing them down.

Over all, as I see it, the battle is actually most easily (and sweepingly) summed up as so:

As is almost always the case, the French are losing a battle because their brave and determined soldiers are being asked to deflect bullets with their nice uniforms, and the Russians are losing a battle because it's not being fought in Russia.

The Indians are only winning because they're fighting the French under a French commander, and the Russians outside Russia.

I think that TCB/LRR already covered -for the umpteenth time- the myth of Indian supply problems. India/Sri Lanka > Tanzania/Madagascar > Namibia > Congo > battle.

If it weren't possible to do such a thing, the Russian Empire would have been a lot better off in the early C20th, since it never would have got its fleet from north east Europe to east Asia in order for the Japanese to destroy it (another example of Russia's need to stick to bothering its immediate neighbours). And, as TCB says, if we did it quickly, neither the League nor the British would be in West Africa right now. But we didn't, and they are. Temper your complaints with a moments consideration.

The more I think about things, the more I realize that the Indian surface fleet really ought to have been screwed-over by the Russian submarines fairly early on, or, at least, they should have taken heavy-enough losses to dissuade the Marakkar from proceeding any further north. Indeed, by positioning the fleets differently, the Russians and French probably could have built themselves a fleet bastion all but impenetrable on the part of Indian surface warships.

So as to even things out, I think it might not be a bad idea to allow the League players to re-do their ill-advised battleship charge, perhaps switching it to a withdrawal immediately after the French bomber attack.

I'm not terribly worried about violating precedent in this regard, on account of the fact that such revisions have been made before, more than once on my part.

Hmph. Well, the thing is, I'm really unwilling to ask the Leaguers to take more losses when the Indians, had the Russian submarines been used realistically, should also have died in far greater numbers.

(((Will post soon hopefully about the submarines, studying for finals hard now. May have a break tomorrow)))

[shrug] None of us are military strategists/tacticians with any way to know how this totally unprecedented sort of engagement would have played out, so it seems to me that mistakes are mistakes, on both sides. I dunno, it just seems really odd for all this to have gone on and then the French charge at the centre of it all disappear from history. Oh well.

Oh my sweet Jesus! I am now glad that I have not dwelt overly long on this OOC thread! My God! I am more confused now than when the naval battle started, although I must say I enjoyed BG's analogies and wit-laden synopsis. To be fair, though, BG, the Battle of the Tsushima Straits had many more factors than Russian....problems. If you have not read At War, At Sea I heartily suggest it: it covers the battle in fascinating details, as well as its many many factors, both Russian and Japanese.

Anyway I am not trying to cut and run, if that is in fact what is being suggested by AMW player X. I talked to Wingert and perhaps he may be concluding the battle, if the Lord is kind I hope. Barring that I simply said I wanted it to end and leave, and am still amassing casualty lists for that engagement and the African war---dont worry, I am in gear again. I am sorry, but I seem to be able to handle land combat, it has a certain something that I can deal with, and I think I am able to realistically deal with land combats components. I am just not going to, quite frankly, chew the cud of naval warfare in depth OOCly for another five months. Sorry, but I dont think I have to. And that is not moding either, because I am perfectly happy to take casualties, just not endlessly pray at the altar of Tom Clancy (whom I do not like at all). So voila mes amis, just had to voice my opinion here. Ciao!

Indeed, it is very far from an ideal solution, but I'd rather avoid a major disagreement over an issue that is by now rather far in AMW's past, and which ended in a costly stalemate, however we look at it. League fleets are apt to be in port for the better part of the year, given the damage that they've suffered, and the Indian survivors and reinforcements will probably be recalled to home waters given tensions with the NATO powers...neither the Soviets or the INU, after all, have carrier battlegroups that they can send to sit off the coastline of any nation that gives them funny looks, promising to bomb them into submission.

Besides, Quinn has drawn up League losses that include several battleships being sunk by the missile attack, and this would perhaps provide a strong incentive for the Leaguers to withdraw rather than try to charge the Indians.

Eh, well, I'll admit that this doesn't really seem right to me, but, again, I'll take a bit of uneasiness over a major argument and further backlog in the African department.

Long post to follow:

Please forgive my laziness, I have been feeling particularly indolent lately. It is a poor excuse but it just goes to prove that I am a damned and detestable sinner without Christ.

Anyway here goes,
Russia?
How many subs did Wingert have in the combat? I checked out this factbook and he didn't have a full list on there, perhaps because he mistakenly thought the submarines were not as important as the surface fleets. Anyway, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy) Russia had 170 submarines in 1991. Not all of them would be nuclear submarines but still if half of the subs were involved in the combat they should be able to sink every ship in the INU and 3rd SC navy. I base this primarily on the peer reviewed article on the Falklands war which also cites their scholarly sources. My interpolation of that reading is that in a first strike they would be able to take out huge numbers of the fleets. That is if he didn't surface his submarines and just chunk out a bunch of missiles.

Battleships

As for battleships not being outfitted with A/S (Anti Submarine) defenses that is questionable. Without getting into the original battleship discussion, during WWII they proved to be far too expensive when a relatively cheap bomber could take them down. Battleships were eventually replaced with cruise missiles and aircraft carriers. Cruise missiles are much better than battleships, they probably have the same devastating impact but are capable of targeting and concentrating force where it is needed. Anyway, AMW as a group decided that battleships were valuable and that they would continue to be produced and developed. Therefore in AMW's context it would almost certainly true that governments would invest A/S technology into the very expensive battleships.

Gurg's analysis

Reading John Keegan’s The Price of Admiralty is an interesting read and was fortunately was available at my university. I do not have time to properly repeat some of its findings but I will briefly list a few of my thoughts upon a first reading. First, it is an interesting read but covers WWII and not the later Falklands combat. Therefore, not all its findings apply to the developments of later technology. Second, it demonstrated the constant change of technology in a total war situation. Sonar was developed, but lack of adequate depth location and slow sinking depth charges were exploited by U- Boats who “learned to exploit [the deficiency] by ‘braking’ violently to port or starboard as the escort neared its weapon release point” (238). In response the Allies “increased the weight of depth charges so that they would sink faster, enlarged their explosive fillings and increased the number of charges that could be released in a salvo to ten… [and] experimented with throwers which projected depth charges to port and starboard so as to enlarge the ‘spread’ and increased the intervals at which depth charges entered the water ” (238). Furthermore, they developed new anti-submarine weapons such as the “‘Hedgehog’, an antisubmarine mortar, which fired a pattern of twenty-four bombs, activated by contact fuses, into the sonar’s blind area, at intervals from each other slightly less than that of a U-Boat’s beam”. (239). This weapon unfortunately took too much time for the crews to learn and they developed a heavier mortar, the Squid, to attempt to rectify these problems. Keegan describes the early origins of the aircraft carrier came. Initially the conveys had aircraft catapults which vaulted a disposable aircraft into the sky. Like the anti-submarine warfare they initially were ineffectually and of little threat to the submarines. However, once again technologies continued to develop such as the Leigh Light and the torpex depth charges. The bombers would lay their searchlights down and try to nap a submarine travelling on the surface (they travelled much faster on the surface). However, the Germans finally responded to the increasingly dominating technological advantage by creating “a receiving device which detected airborne radar emissions” allowing the U-boats to continue to travel for a long time and dive only when they detected the airplane’s radar. Unfortunately, the Allies recovered the advantage by building a higher frequency radar. Another German advantage was that the submarines were encased in huge enormous bomb shelters and were consequently protected while in port. Another interesting example of technological gains was the battle over radio intelligence in which German and Allied powers fought to discover the secrets of each other’s radio ciphers. Radio silence was required for the submarines but was practically impossible to maintain because of the “overriding importance of strategic command” (241). Keegan finds they were “six forms of transmission which a U-boat captain could not avoid making at regular intervals. They were: (1) convoy position reports; (2) warnings of enemy submarines and mines; (3) operational situation reports; (4) weather reports; (5) own position reports” (242). Convoys, in contrast, could follow radio silence, relying on signals of “directional light, flag or siren”(242), although they could be located in other ways, fixed convoy patterns, chance visual detection from surfaced submarine. Keegan describes how each side, including the Germans, managed to eventually decrypt each other’s ciphers.

Keegan describes the fight of convoy’s HX229 and SC122, which were trapped between two wolf packs. A bunch of convoy merchantmen were sunk and a couple of depth charges detonated close enough to the subs to make them withdraw. The chase continued, more merchantmen fell, and U 530 was almost destroyed in combat by the destroyer Beverly, who finally disabled the U-530 after two and half hours and six runs. Unlike AMW, which has no weather to speak of, the combat was slowed by the weather, which prevented the submarines from identifying and attacking the convoys. The convoy approached close enough to London to get in range of the British air-force and the bombers forced six U boats below the surface (260). The continually arrival of bombers broke up the U boat formations and basically saved the convoys from any more devastating attacks. This was the greatest convoy battle of the Atlantic involving 40 U Boats, 90 merchantmen, 28 destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and Coast Guard cutters. 161,000 tons of cargo went down when 22 Merchantmen were lost. 7 U Boats were damaged. According to Keegan the lost of such a large amount of cargo in just a week “almost exceeded the capacity of the burgeoning Anglo-American, particularly American, shipbuilding progamme- 7 ½ million tons a year – to replace it” (262). However this proved to be the turning point as the Allies technological innovation continued. Keegan lists five breakthroughs, breaking of the ‘Shark’ Enigma key, 10cm radar, more long range aircraft squadrons, support group of escorts, and lastly, the appearance of the escort carrier. Keegan describes the rest of the combat but I will not do so.

The most important lesson gleaned from Keegan is the evolving nature of technological development. Frankly, I doubt that AMW can even begin to match the complicated real time evolution of technology. WWII stretches my technical capabilities while untested AMW technology is even more difficult. However, a tentative conclusion reached from this study suggests that my earlier pessimistic appraisals of the supreme capabilities of the submarine may be giving the submarine too much credit. AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) is a huge improvement over the diesel battery submarine but perhaps we can claim a similar development in sonar technology. Perhaps a radical new technology developed by the USQ. I doubt that the less economically powerful Indians and INU could have the military wherewithal to pump out newer and better technologies than NATO. Perhaps stealth technology in AMW could have become antiquated by increasing in anti stealth technology. This issue of technological production has disturbed me, how can we determine who has the best technology? We have all claimed technological superiority at one point and if we continue to model battles on a missile by missile first person view AMW’s reality begins to break down. Will an AMW anti-ship missile built by Gurg, claiming to be the best in the world, actually be able to destroy submarines better than the Indian one? What are their technological specifications? Does one of them have a practical disadvantage, such as a taking a long time to master, such as the Hedgehog? I know BG and Yugoslavia have gone into detailed minutia about some of their technological innovations, like comparing thrust weight ratios on aircraft, etc. But ultimately, I am increasing leaning towards the belief that AMW can never match RL evolution of technology. There are just practical factors and hidden technological deficiencies that we will never understand.
Because we are using technology we can never fully understand it leads me to the conclusion that we should severely limit military RPs in the future. Human relationships and politics will continue to be the same while military and technology continues to accelerate and change. None of us have enough knowledge to be able to anticipate how the military would really adapt to the situation and to attempt to do so is foolishness. Closely RPing battles only exacerbates this problem as developing maneuvers, like the banking to starboard, is problematic when we don’t understand the technology we are using. For explain I doubt that any of you would be able to tell me how to develop a technology against the anechoic coatings around submarines so that we could detect them. The greatest military minds and scientists around the world are working in secret laboratories to discover that question and I doubt that us stupid babies have better knowledge than them. In fact I don’t have to doubt, because I know that we use Wikipedia, hardly a reputable scholarly source. Furthermore, its pretty hard to RP military battles correctly when we have absolutely no idea what new technologies will develop or what military maneuvers to use against never before tested military technology. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding and there is no substitute for practical empirical case studies.
My growing conclusion is that if we continue to go crazily indepth on naval stuff we have to bring it up a notch and do our homework. I would rather use insights gained from reading See Spot Run before using any of the information found in a fictional work like Tom Clancy. Wikipedia is a step above (am I really saying this?) because you can at least sometimes track back to reputable sources. Don’t just tell me your thoughts or insights because a scholarly source and empirical study has far ever worth.

Okay I’ll end my rambling and finally discuss a couple of points that Gurg brought up.

First of all, Tom Clancy is fiction and I would rather use insights gained from reading See Spot Run before using any of his information.

1. The Carrier is at great risk from the Submarine
Yeah carriers are at risk from subs. Where did you find the information on the masking of sonar?

2. There is no way to make a surface ship silent
Yeah probably, where did you find that information?

3. The Submarine cannot communicate without severe risk
I find your comments doubtable given that Keegan demonstrated that submarines in a real practical, non theoretical situation had to communicate in six situations. Furthermore communication in subs could have improved past detection methods. But have they improved? I don’t know, I don’t work for the department of defense.

4. Submarines don't carry many weapons
Yeah I suppose its easy to Wikipedia the information and Keegan did state that “it was torpedo stocks rather fuel which determined a pack’s endurance” (253).

5. Countermeasures work pretty well for sub-sub combat, as do quick maneuvers
Clancy said so eh? Do any other sources validate his fictional renderings of submarine combat?

6. Surface ships are still useful
Where did you get the information about pinging? Keegan said something about having two surface ships. One would drop depth charges, and other would try to find the sub. Did he also mention something more indepth about sonar?

7. Air Power=Dead Sub
Where did you get that information? The Scholarly Peer Reviewed Source about the falklands (http://xenon.stanford.edu/~lswartz/falklands.pdf) clearly stated the difficulties in finding WWII subs with aircraft nevermind modern nuclear submarines. I will quote it a second time:
However, the British spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to track these few submarines. An enormous amount of ordnance was dropped on false contacts, while Sea King antisubmarine helicopters constantly patrolled the area.9 Their efforts were confounded by the difficulty to conduct sonar operations in shallow water.10 That the British spent so much time and firepower ineffectively chasing one outmoded diesel submarine shows both the difficulty of ASW and the deadliness of even older submarines to a large surface fleet.

BG, I don’t think I made any comments originally about the combat. Its only now with NG seriously discouraged and other Holy Leaguers frustrated that I began speaking out. I don’t want to get involved in a long protracted sea battle filled with posts about some guy banking 29 degrees to the right and then 180 degrees to the left to dodge a missile. The reason we are in this predicament has nothing to do with me complaining. And entirely everything to due with the fact none of us have any clue how to conduct naval operations. I don’t know why your always after Russia for having obsolete stuff. Why do don’t you ever list the advantages of Russia? Like numerical superiority in tanks over practically everyone in tanks and the large impact Soviet military equipment has had all over the world, from the Seven Days War to the preponderance of RPGs all over the world.

Anyway, I am done with my rant now. I tried to find some more information on modern submarine warfare but came up relatively empty. When finals are over I’ll look some more. Avoir

“Unlike AMW, which has no weather to speak of...” LOL, that is funny. I really enjoyed that, the only time that I have really used weather myself is for effect, in order to act as a metaphor for Wingert’s coldness and brutality, and usually blizzards.

Interesting post, I enjoyed it, if it was a little polemic. I definitely do enjoy the move towards more scholarly source material, though I wonder how realistic that push will be if/when it plays out. I will point out that in that article the whole point of the looking for the subs was that the submarine that they were looking for wasn’t in the areas that they were focusing their efforts, so that is where they spent their resources erroneously. I did get the feeling that had the sub been in their ASW network, it would have been fairly screwed, but they were worried mostly due to the “lucky shot” that it could get off, and the fact that its armament was still deadly, if not as accurate as modern stuff. But meh. I think you and it show clearly the danger of submarines, but I have to wonder at them being game enders. But I will sit out and wait for the decision of the community on this. Oh, BTW, it was 69 subs involved in the initial attack. I have them listed on like pages 13 and 16 or something like that of the thread.

I will stand up for Mr. Clancy, however, as he is widely seen as both a historical expert in military technologies and an expert on the history of modern warfare. For instance, he wrote with Fred Franks, retired US General, who taught at West Point, Anthony Zinni, retired four star general and teacher at Duke University. He was given an honorary doctorate, but so has Kermit the Frog.

WWJD
Amen.

The modern battleships could have ASuW preparations, but being at flank speed while the Anunkai were all but still would leave them something like 0.01% chance of detecting them before things started exploding. However, if they were charging along blasting active sonar, perhaps we could say that they became aware of the presence of hostile submarines and broke off the attack at the last second. If they detected them with active sonar and still kept going or tried to attack them they'd still get screwed over, of course, but if we assumed they'd got a vague signal return from active detection and run off we could also assume that the Soviets wouldn't chase them and exploit their risky use of active sonar owing to the presence of so many League subs.

Clancy can't be all bad anyhow... he's one of the sources listed for that Scholarly Peer Reviewed Source of Fleur's.

On a related note, no one has access to a copy of Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the United States, do they? Its a much-employed source for the above essay, and perhaps more reliable to cite than a paper for a 1st-Year ROTC class.

Lol well it is scholarly and if you count his instructor marking him then yes its peer reviewed. Lol when I looked at it originally I thought he was a naval instructor.

Anyway, I got Military lessons of the Falkland Islands war : views from the United States by Watson, Bruce W on hold. I also have on hold The official history of the Falklands Campaign by Freedman, Lawrence; and The Falklands War by Boyce, David George. I'll post about them when I get them. I am also looking through some journals for some information.

Kermit the frog got a doctorate?

So, can we wrap up the navy, Tsar, LRR? And, why has no one, Spyr, here I am thinking of you, mentioned At War, At Sea. I ready in MHQ yesterday that it is considered the seminal work in naval warfare. Personally I have never heard of this Falklands text, but okie dokie.

And has anyone actually ever seen a picture of Tom Clancy? My God, he looks like the elephant man. "I am not an animal."

To defend Mr. Clancy in more detail:
Yes, he is a writer of fiction, and SSN is a work of fiction. On the other hand, it was written in collaboration with Captain (Ret.) Doug Littlejohns of the RN Submarine Service, who served several tours (including two commands) aboard submarines and then went on to work as NATO Operations Officer for Submarines in the Eastern Atlantic, and then as Assistant Director of Naval Warfare for the U.K. Missile Submarines. He also served as commander of HMS Thunderer a stone frigate that serves as the RN's Engineering college.

Clancy himself has written a number of nonfiction works as well, generally layman's introductions to nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter groups, armoured cavalry etc. Moving on.

Where did I get my facts? Some from SSN (I don't have his nonfiction submarine work on hand, which is too bad), others from my own extrapolation, from conversations with various people (Draftroom types, esp. Vault 10, a naval engineer).

Battleships: What A/S defences do you plan to outfit your battleship with? Torpedo nets? Don't work. Passive sonar? Drowned out by the ship's titanic engine noise. Active sonar? Why put that on a slow, heavy, expensive battleship when you can put it on a frigate? Hedgehogs? Not really effective against modern submarines. Deck mounted torpedoes? Go ahead, but you'll be better off putting them on a faster platform like a frigate or destroyer.

The thing with battleships is this: to have a real battleship, you need heavy guns, armour, possibly extensive VLS (BBGs, for example) and a big power plant to move it all. The last real battleship, the HMS Vanguard, was powered by eight boilers and four single reduction geared turbines, can you imagine how loud those are? The General Belgrano, which was sunk in the Falklands conflict by submarine (the only ship sunk in wartime by an SSN to date) carried a similar, albeit smaller, version of the same drive system. Ship propulsion has not become significantly quieter since the 1940s, not because of mechanical issues but because of the hydrodynamic qualities of a standard single-hulled warship design. I don't understand it, so I won't go there. Suffice it to say, surface ships are noisy.

As for Keegan, I should note that I was actually referencing is conclusion, which was after the Battle of the Atlantic chapter. I honestly didn't find the Atlantic conflict to be that instructive for the reasons that Fleur mentioned, not least that the submarines were very different than modern ones, and the means of destroying them not at all related. In the conclusion, Keegan briefly discusses the merits of the submarine versus the carrier, in which he directly mentions the inability of submarines to communicate while submerged at combat depth, and points to that as the main reason that we still have surface ships. This observation is backed up by Clancy in SSN, who makes much of the idea that the Los Angeles submarine must travel to periscope depth and extend its communication mast if it wants to talk in real time. Other than that it is restricted to the floating wire, which I referenced above.

Fleur, I have to confess that as a high school student, I'm not entirely used to citing my sources point by point. We usually just content ourselves with a 'works cited' list. I can see that I'll have to reform my ways! Also, I'm a bit without access to a library (except the public one, which while useful is downtown. I'm not making a special trip there just for AMW).

Anyway, do BG or LRR have any objections to my treatment of Egypt? I know Fleur had some concerns (TG me, we'll talk), but if you two are okay with it then I'm going to continue in the same vein.

With regards to Egypt, my main question is why a nation that inherited such a large chunk of the Elian armed forces would require the protection of NATO, or, conversely, allow NATO to take over the nation's most important strategic resource without making a gigantic stink over it. Libya, I'd imagine, might appear threatening, but then again the Indians have always payed their canal fees in full, and they never tried to blockade the canal, unlike NATO. It seems that the only reason why the Soviets would be interested in invading Egypt would be to gain control of the Suez Canal in order to ensure the resupply and reinforcement of its forces in Libya, and the government in Cairo probably has much more to gain by simply letting that shipping, which pays for its passage, through without incident. United Elias was not a nation exactly inclined to have policy dictated to it by foreigners, and I'd expect that a post-Federation Egypt would carry on with that legacy to at least some degree.

Hm, okay. If that's the case, why would they allow the Soviets to take the canal? Wouldn't they, having recently suffered the breakup of their state, be glad to have the historically friendly western nations providing security for the canal while the Soviets go about declaring new Soviet Commonwealth of Xs? I mean, I honestly don't see why so few people (IC and OOC) are concerned by the fact that the Soviets have annexed Namibia and the Anarchan communes, and seem to be poised to do the same in much of West Africa. Does anyone doubt that the Soviets control Libya's government?

Britain, on the other hand, hasn't taken over any nations at all. We have military bases in Sierra Leone and now Egypt, and we have a cordial relationship with the rest of NATO. That's all. Why are AMW's imaginary citizens more likely to fear the Union Flag than the Soviets? Seriously?

*is annoyed by the seeming pro-Soviet bias of public opinion*

The Soviet Commonwealth and United Elias had surprisingly civilised relations, despite being far from allies. As LRR says, we never gave them any trouble over the Suez, and even stopped using it to supply Qadaffi with military equipment when they requested it. We had something of a mutual neutrality pact. Raipur has always been keen to see this continue with the successor states, and never bothered attempting to agitate for socialist change post federation.

Libya has never been a serious threat to Egypt. It's outnumbered more than a dozen to one, for a start, and, since the Soviets have behaved as described above in respect of UE and Egypt, Tripoli couldn't traditionally be convinced of the seriousness of Soviet support if it decided to launch a unilateral attack. And Libya hasn't a nuclear arsenal of its own to match Cairo's.

I never undestood the whole Suez saga, and always thought it quite ridiculous, to be honest. Egypt is a match for the Roycelandian or British empires in conventional combat, and probably has a first-strike nuclear policy to boot (a hangover from the federal system). It has no natural enemies beyond the sometimes-annoying Libyans, who, if anything, they use to manipulate the Soviets while expecting the Soviets to control Qadaffi's sometimes erratic behaviour.

I still don't understand why Egypt would decide to make powerful enemies and put itself in the middle of a war just so it can... enjoy the dubious benefits of surrendering wealth and sovereignty to the relatively unimpressive powers of London and Port Royal.

Oh, if there's a pro-Soviet bias in the world, I'd imagine it's owing to the example of the Soviet Commonwealth as the realisation of a centuries-frustrated dream for billions of lives. And a backlash to the resurgence and atrocities of religious extremism and theocracy. Think of all the student and worker groups that were supportive of the USSR almost to the very end, and, more to the point, those who were supportive in the early years, even until long after WWII, when the Soviet Bloc was still viewed as aggressively modern. Imagine if that had been coloured with prosperity, free expression, and social liberalism as featured in the ISC. If anything it's a stretch of the imagination to claim that populations across the world aren't over-throwing their governments and calling for Igovian intervention. Probably that in no small part explains the tide of reaction amongst terrified governments that are far less democratic in AMW than in reality.

...Nations like UE and China, on the other hand, acted wisely and placated the Soviets and portrayed themselves as co-operative, averting the spark of Soviet incitement in their nations, which had been left almost untouched by Igovian propagandists since the fall of the Liu junta and establishment of Suez agreements.

I've never accepted that the Soviet system is as utopian as you portray it; civilizations don't work like that. No attempt in all of human history to establish a truly fair and equal state has ever succeeded, which I think speaks for itself. Do Soviets have no greed? How did the Soviet system arise, if it had to make the transition from a dictatorship to a free state? Popular revolution is all very well, but it has with not one single exception become a full revolution-- turning back into itself and becoming exactly what the revolutionaries fought against. The USSR is only one case in point.
Honestly, while I like the idea of the ISC, it doesn't make sense to me that such a state could ever arise. At least that way, I imagine that the Supreme War Soviet behaves a lot like the old Politburo, because I can't rationalize in my head that it does anything else. I know you don't see it that way, but I expect that you and I have fundamentally different understandings of what it means to be human. That's okay, but it means you'll never make a Soviet out of me. :p.

Part of my understanding is that people, as a general rule, are idiots. I'm not trying to sound misanthropic, we're wonderful idiots and we're the product of billions of years of ever-decreasing idiocy in the natural world. On the other hand, sometimes people are born who aren't idiots, in their own way, and the ideals behind the republican form of government dictate that the less-idiotic rise to the top by laying out the most convincing case for the idiots. Gross oversimplification, but there you go. A true aristocracy, if you take the Greek Aristos to be literally 'rule by the best'. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but I prefer the idea of a few idiots leading with consistently idiotic policy than the whole mass of idiots pulling against each other, shifting every which way.

On to Egypt. As a player who never actually RPed with United Elias, I know next to nothing about that nation, so perhaps my posts don't make sense in that regard. On the other hand, from what I've gathered Baghdad (as Mesopotamia) hung on to a fair bit of the UE's military might, perhaps the large part of it. I'll freely admit that I followed Royce's lead in the Suez crisis, assuming that he knew what he was doing. I don't know if that's correct or not, but I can't speak to it. On the other hand, he also roleplayed the corrupting of the Egyptian government to the point that it was willing to accept outside control of the canal. Yes, democracies can be sleazy. See the above point about idiots and those who manipulate them. I contend that occasional sleaziness in the service of good is better than rule by the stupid, in the service of the stupid's own ideas of good. Not terribly logical, but it's very late and I'm not equipped to write a philosophy paper at the moment.

So I might be wrong in this case, but for my understanding of it, the groundwork was already laid by Royce, the Egyptian military not nearly so large as you believe, and the British perhaps the only ones not viewed with suspicion by the Egyptians. Even if the Soviets really are the best thing since sliced bread, I doubt that people will clamour for conquest by them. Things don't work that way. Note the Iraqis, who are currently fighting in the service of truly evil men against what might just be a stable, just government one day. They aren't fighting because they think Al Qaeda has their best interests at heart-- Al Qaeda has killed more Iraqis than the Americans have by a good margin. They're fighting because the Americans are strange, not from their country, and are seen as invaders. I don't know many American soldiers, but I can't imagine that they're generally bad guys. Idiots? Probably. But not bad.

They're white men in uniforms though, and they're strange. I can see, on that score, why they're fighting. Would the Egyptians do anything different against the admittedly imposing Geletian Celts, or the fairly jingoistic Indians? I doubt it. Might they fight the British too? Maybe, but they're being told by their government that the British are their friends, that they're there only so long as India seeks to take over the canal. And honestly? I don't have any intention to stick around after the fighting's done. No need to fight a guerilla war in a country that the Empire already lost in 1948.

Oh, I doubt that Egypt's a democracy. The Federal Dictatorship of United Elias won't have left any institutions in its wake to foster that, anyway, and if the Egyptian people are complacent it's probably because they have a standard of living comprable to most Western European nations.

The Igovian revolutionary state was raised in a way utterly different to the Drapoel, the Vietnamese, and others, and in different circumstances to the Russian. For one, it actually had a revolution, unlike some 'communist' states, which just had a system imposed upon them by an existing 'revolutionary' state such as the USSR. Russia also had one, but did it in the middle of the biggest war in history up to that date. AMW India did it in the 1980s.

Soviet India also benefits from an embrace of modern technology more typical in non-Asian (and possibly non-African... better yet just non-Maoist) communist movements, possibly owing to the Geletian factor, and in this age that means something more than it ever has in the past. It means a totally different take on telecommunications, information, and democracy. I think, Gurg, that you're seeing Soviet India from a RL perspective rather than an AMW perspective. AMW is very different. I like to think that it's better, but maybe that's just because I'm a co-founder =)

Anyway, if you want a generic commie baddie, you've gone right by squaring up to the CPRD!

Elias left us a list for Egypt, for ground forces at the very least.

3rd Army (Egypt) 313,432 (219,944 Active, 93,488 Reserve)

2nd Advanced Mobile Combat Division 25,442
2nd Armoured Division 17,238
5th Armoured Division 17,238
5th Mechanised Division 17,085
6th Mechanised Division 17,085
8th (Light) Mechanised Division 17,814
3rd Airborne Brigade (Separate): 4,157
4th Airborne Brigade (Separate): 4,157
Light Infantry Brigade (Separate): 3,829
2nd (Expeditionary) Infantry Division 18,830
3rd (Expeditionary) Infantry Division 18,830
11th Motorised Infantry Division: 17,033 (
39th (Light) Mechanised Brigade (Separate): 4,660
4th (Reserve) Mechanised Division: 18,086
7th (Reserve) Armoured Division: 17,238
4th (Reserve) Motorised Infantry Division: 17,033
7th (Reserve) Motorised Infantry Division: 17,033
43rd (Reserve) Tank Brigade (Separate) 2,446
40th (Reserve) Mechanised Brigade (Separate) 4,447
1st Artillery Brigade 4,361
3rd Artillery Brigade 4,361
6th (Reserve)Artillery Brigade 4,631
3rd Anti-Tank Battalion 729
5th Anti-Tank Battalion 729
8th (Reserve) Anti-Tank Battalion 729
3rd (Reserve) Anti-Tank Gun Battalion 628
4th (Reserve) Anti-Tank Gun Battalion 628
6th (Reserve) Anti-Tank Gun Battalion 628
3rd MRL Brigade 2,911
4th MRL Brigade 2,911
1st SSM Brigade 1,895
2nd SSM Brigade 1,895
3rd SSM Brigade 1,895
4th SSM Brigade 1,895
5th SSM Brigade 1,895
3rd SAM Brigade 2,409
4th SAM Brigade 2,409
5th SAM Brigade 2,409
(Reserve )Materiel Support Brigade: 2,638
(Reserve) Materiel Support Brigade: 2,638
Materiel Support Battalion: 397
Engineer Brigade 2,817
(Reserve) Engineer Brigade 2,817
(Reserve)Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare Battalion: 721
(Reserve) Maintenance Battalion 234
(Reserve) Maintenance Battalion 234
(Reserve)Medical Battalion 222
(Reserve)Medical Battalion 222
Signal Battalion: 169
(Reserve) Signal Battalion: 169
(Reserve) NBC Battalion: 636
(Reserve) NBC Company: 159

Which... changes things. Hm. Considering that Egypt's army is larger than the deployed Indian force, I suppose Britain's really just there to ensure that the Soviets don't cozy up to the Egyptian government and then incite a revolution. Honestly, I doubt it needs my help in terms of defences. The S-S Line should probably be an Egyptian project, if it exists at all, but I still think that building rail links to REA seems like a worthwhile endeavour.

Seeing as I tend (perhaps quite wrongly, by Dra-Pol's post) to see things as much more like RL than they perhaps are, I rather expected Egypt's army to be small and not-so-frightening by comparison to the Soviets. One suspects that the British have some catching up to do in terms of land forces. Meh. I'm not really sure what to do with Africa.

Oh, am I glad that you finally brought up his factbook stuff. Can you let me know the darn address to the old invision sight, there is some stuff on there that I am missing.

I think that the above is a good general guideline but shoudl not be taken exactly as Egypt's current strength. There are a couple of things to take into consideration: UE placed a large amounts of foreign nationals in the Egyptian portion of the military, and the military was largely seen by the Egyptians as a symbol of Baghdad’s control after their military conquests of them. Also, Egypt would be the least industrialised of all of the former UE territories, as it was a conquest and only came into the fold late; in the revised timeline would be what? Maybe Early 90’s? So, it would not have a fully industrialised capacity as much of the rest of Middle East under the former UE would. It would still be better off than Egypt in RL, though. And, though I would maybe half the military, (maybe two-thirds of its old size) it would be as exquisitely trained as the Quinntonian military and with all of the latest high tech toys that money can buy, with lots of awesome stuff and defences/radar grids and so on that money can buy. Though, when talking with Mesopotamia, I think we were thinking that a higher percentage of things like the Navy and Air Force would have ended up with Baghdad. All that taken into consideration though, means that Egypt would be ore than capable of taking care of itself, but might not have the economic an industrial infrastructure to prosecute a prolonged conflict and still hold a grudge against its former fellow UE members.
It still doesn’t answer the questions involved, but may clarify the issue some, and provide some logic behind everyone’s actions.

WWJD
Amen.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/NS_Modern_World/index.php?act=idx

In that you forget later I added a link on my German factbook on our outside forum to our old forums.

Warning: Excessive formatting and out of character musings to follow. Copied from DC.

Fleur, for God's sake. Let's leave past generations out of it.

This RP is getting a little cumbersome... too much history and a lot of actions that don't make sense. Some of us have come in in the middle of it... I remember reading Royce's Indonesia thread to get acquainted with AMW. It ran for longer, and I can't recall it being nearly so ridiculous and disjointed. Then, I suppose that on the outside looking in, things might have seemed different. Then again, it was mostly players who were used to dealing with each other. Dark Continent has seen several spinoff threads, covered the departure of Maccabees, Spizania's entire AMW career, and Fleur's joining. We've also had Terror Incognita dropping in and out. Looking back on this whole thing, my own RPing has changed a lot... mostly for the better.

On the other hand, I do think that it's gone on long enough. We should put this damned thing to bed, make some new threads to cover the League/Everyone War, and never post in DC again. Because the thing is an insane, cancerous growth. Ahem.

As I was saying... I don't necessarily agree with NG's contention that he 'deserves' West Africa, but I see where he's coming from. If someone were to say that I had to, oh, give up the American colonies for the good of the RP, I'd fight it pretty hard. The guy's been keeping up with a consistent storyline for three years. For all of our squabbling over technology and tactics, I have to say that I'm honestly most impressed by NG for being true to his nation's plotline. Britain, I'm afraid, has changed far too frequently to be believable. Working on it, working on it. So I suggest that we do, in fact, give him the colonies with a few provisios.

Obviously, BG and LRR are going to try to liberate them. That makes sense, considering their ideologies. My ardor for war with the ISC has cooled a bit, mostly because Britain seems to be shifting more Liberal Democrat (as in a socially liberal democracy, not the UK political party) than Market Liberal. Hm... Anyway, I'm thinking of going nonaligned as I scale back my AMW commitments. I'll still post, but I'm going off to college in a few months, I have a job, and life's getting in the way of posting. As counterpoint (because God forbid I be decisive about something!) I'd like to stick with the current feel of RP, which has been of very downward-spiraling relations with the ISC's Supreme War Soviet. BG, thoughts? How does the SWS view Britain these days?

Anyway, back to the point. I'd suggest that NG go the route of many post-colonial powers, and set up friendly puppet governments. That's going to be a challenge due to the degree to which he's alienated the people of Africa, but I think he's a good enough writer to swing it. No less ridiculous than, say, Britain unifying with Australasia while nobody was looking. Hmph! He'll still have to fight for the colonies, but if he can somehow get the people on his side (I know... I know...) then even the most determined of Soviets will have a rough time of saying that they're acting in the interests of the people.

As for Quinn. I'm with NG here... what the hell? While I do see where the declaration came from, a little buildup would have been nice. Also maybe a 'hey NG, I'mma declare war on you, better mobilize those reservists' telegram. I'm not accusing you of anything here, because I know from our discussions that part of the reason you moved quickly was that NATO fell apart in about a day, and your own life was starting to eat up your time. Still, it threw my entire foreign policy out the window. *pouts*

Okay, so in summary:
-Dark Continent is a mess, we should start new threads. I'd suggest one for West Africa, at the very least.
-Britain's political alignment is in doubt.
-John has a life. It takes a good chunk of time.
-NG should get his colonies, but he'll have to fight for them. Alternatively, we could have Veckie run the show while NG deals with his own life/progeny. Silly priorities.
-Quinn... should take a deep breath.
-John should stop typing this post... but it's so fun!

Whew!

NG and I more or less agreed already that West Africa will turn more to proxy wars between us as he pulls League forces out (Italy seemed for a moment to have different plans, but I doubt Vercon's going to act seriously without French support, eh?) and establishes some puppets. It'll be far from all of the ECOWAS nations becoming French clients, though. Still, this or a new OOC thread ought to hammer out the new condition of each West African state, I think. Some are pro-Soviet, some are to be under pro-French governments, some are stuck not wanting either and probably glad of Quinntonian mobilisations, blah, I forget what's what right now.

The SWS, by the way, is equally uncertain, but more disinclined to show it. Officially in the domestic environment the SWS hates London. Officially in the international community the SWS is prepared to forgive/tolerate/whatever. Practically, it could go either way.

Let me just make sure I get this right. As an alternative you would want me to take over in NG's plans to hold and defend his colonies? Is that right? If that is the case, those Roman soldiers could still be used to help defend the colonies. But, BG, you're pretty much right, I'm not sure if Italy could take on the power of the Soviets to try to kick you out of Africa, not with you, LRR and Yugolsavia stomping at my doorstep. Though I'm sure that doing so would look kinda cool, I'm not sure it be realistic, unless you want to go for a Six Day War type of thing. But I digress.

Personally, Fleur, since you and I are the two newest active members of AMW (though I'm not sure how long you played as the Czech before I came in) I'm not sure that our votes carry too much weight. BG and NG seem to have an accord about creating these puppet states, which I could go along with, especially with some other problems I have closer to home and a few promise made at Romulus' coronation that I still have make good on. I've been with AMW for a year now, and AMW has pretty much crawled along at a somewhat snail's pace, it's time to move on.

Thank you Gurg for a voice of reason! As many of you noticed: I am in fact trying to set up puppet governments...many many posts on them. More to the point...BG and I were just setting up a sort of proxy conflict as he just said above. I was just gearing up to start a new thread on this, was thinking of the title "The Dark Divided" or some such, where the client states can try and form, see if governments stick, and otherwise try to make sense of the confused war.

As I said earlier, the whole reason I started this whole thing, or at least collaborated on it, is that I truly want to RP in Africa, as Gurg said it is a solid point on my linear story line. I never said 'I would win, winner keeps all'---I should even hope that the whole RP has relayed that, as the French campaign has switched from conquest en masse to a holding strategy and puppet governments, and those waylaid by rebels that I hope to illustrate in coming RPs with LRR. So while we must set up a new thread for such, if we can awkwardly agree that the conflict 'as is' is ending, I think we need Quinn's input here.

At least, let me keep one country to RP in Quinn, if you are intent on forcing this out for your reasons. As it is I was only setting up pro-French governments in Burkina Faso, Togo-Benin, and Mali. I mean come on, please here, it is only coherent to the story line. Ad nauseam my point is simple, and I hope understandable: I just want to keep RPing in Africa, was very very much looking forward to a low scale bush war with LRR and BG, with rebel cells in cities and so on. I mean, I am loving this. And moreover, well, I think I said it all.

I think it would be reasonable for the US to engineer a partial climb-down without losing face if they get involved in the proxy wars that are expected to spring up in unfortunate West Africa.

If we look at the whole continent, there's hardly a part of it that isn't in or on the brink of war. Libya depends on the Indian Soviets for the preservation of the Colonel's government, Eritrea needs Hindustani support to ward-off League-backed Abassamara, which is also fighting in already divided Somalia, where presumably we can expect Depkazi involvement in some degree before too long, Egypt probably has remaining neutrality advocates struggling with anti-Soviet capitalists and the possibility of Islamist sentiment rising out of the collapse of the federation, I can't believe for a moment that Nigeria's population is united behind the Tsarist puppets, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have just broken up and some are getting involved in the African Commonwealth where Marxist rebels are still strong and Tulgary wants its empire back, Angola is in much the same situation, Namibia is surely a staging ground for further Communist operations in the Congolese region.

There's enough for everyone, Feudalist, Socialist, and Capitalist, to find allies to back and demons to slay, and Washington should have no trouble convincing the Quinntonian public that whatever they end up doing in Africa represents action on their threats against France.

Personally I'd like to hear LRR's opinion on the broad leanings of the various West African governments and populations, and maybe we can start drawing up a picture of who has what kind of support where. I'd like to have kept better informed, but I'm spending most of my time locked in blind panic over my finances and visa status. Urgh.

Heh, well, there's still Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland doing a good job of maintaining their neutrality, but then again who knows what might happen in the long run...

The ECOWAS nations are in a very difficult situation, that much is certain, and they aren't afforded the luxury of being picky about their allies. Pretty much whoever promises to defend West Africa from the French and support their eviction is bound to be pretty popular. At the same time ECOWAS heads of state are trying to find friendly nations that will interfere with their internal politics the least, with Yugoslavia and Brazil on the top of that list, though Yugoslavia's difficult geographic position and Brazil's status as an NPC leave that whole side of things unresolved.

Senegal and Guinea are the two nations to have leaned the furthest left since the beginning of the war, owing mainly to the fact that both contain un-damaged port facilities useful port facilities that were quickly reached by Indian naval and amphibious forces. I'd imagine that the Indians are fairly popular in those two nations, by virtue of the fact that they helped-out when nobody else was going to.

Ghana, doubtless, is experiencing a resurgence of the Pan-African ideals extolled during the days of Kwame Nkrumah. Probably the most appealing extra-African ally, though, is Britain, for the same reasons that Senegal and Guinea might favor the Indias. Though the Ghana is by a significant margin the largest ECOWAS nation, endowed also with the organization's strongest military, the country was hit very hard by the French. I'd estimate that just above 100,000 Ghanaian noncombatants lost their lives as a result of French carpet-bombing, forced evictions, nerve-gassing, and thermobaric weaponry, and for the same reasons that country, already not in the best economic shape before the war, is looking at something like 1.5 million internally displaced persons. Ghana's overriding priority is feeding and housing those people, and to those ends foreign aid money is desperately needed.

There is almost certainly a sense that NATO doesn't, or at least didn't, really care about West Africa, and most if not all the ECOWAS states acknowledge that India did come to help-out when help was most needed, but Quinntonian soldiers now are infinitely more appealing than Hindustani soldiers in a year. If Quinntonian military assistance was conditional on the repudiation of Indian military assistance, the only ECOWAS government likely to refuse that arrangement in my opinion would be Guinea's, fearing the return of Lansana Conte and the dismantlement of democratic reforms. Gambia and Guinea-Bissau will probably be happiest to see the Indians go, owing to their authoritarian governments and their proximity to Indian-influenced states.

Of course, the Quinntonians would probably have to promise that they won't bring the Germans along, with the whole Portugal business to look at.

In terms of West African citizenry, the French war against them has likely caused a sharp spike in the appeal of Pan-Africanism, and, by association, an increase in acceptance of left-wing ideologies. Where pre-invasion governments continue to operate this is probably not such a major problem, tempered as such feeling is by the inevitable wartime nationalism and a sense that the French or Nigerians could invade at any moment. Politicians whose popularity was low pre-war may well have been helped by the French invasion, exploiting, in at least the short term, patriotic sentiment and a sense of urgency to deflect more common criticisms. Of course, if the war with France fizzles-out and ECOWAS nations find themselves poorer than they were to start with, there's bound to be plenty of unrest across the board.

In the occupied areas, local resistance movements have perhaps started to adopt a more revolutionary character. This seems most likely in Burkina Faso, where the guerrilla war against French occupation forces is being led by a cadre of Lusakan-trained specialists. I don't see any reason why the citizens of Burkina Faso, Mali, Benin or Togo would be particularly inclined to support the French occupation that has so far proven extremely disadvantageous to them, and no doubt many local political leaders interpret the establishment of puppet governments as a sign of France's abandonment of colonial ambitions in West Africa.

Hm! Very interesting. Let me try to catch up.

Algeria, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, and Mali are to have French puppet or allied governments, though few if any of them have popular public support, while Nigeria has a Tsarist government.

What is the status of Morocco? Still pro-Holy-League? And Mauritania? Is Niger under any degree of occupation? Tunisia still independent?

Libya is pro-Soviet, the SADR invaded by pro-HL forces but... unconquered? Still fighting?

Guinea and Senegal have Indian forces present?

Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Ghana are all still entirely independent and knocked about to various degrees?

Cape Verde, Cameroon, Chad, the CAR, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, and Middle Congo not directly involved in any way so far?

Papa Africa is certainly going to be quite heavily focused on getting Burkina Faso its independence, as he has personal friends in government and military there. Tanzania can't compete with Britain materially, but Ghana's surely going to get a lot of visits from Dodoma.

Oh, for anyone who may be interested this Gold Rush (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545980) thread is for what's happening to the south, in the African Commonwealth, Former Lusaka, and related nations. Botswana could get itself dragged into that if it isn't careful.

Morocco, backed by the League (Spain, mostly), has swept through the Western Sahara and south into Mauritania, where something-or-other has happened... I'm not sure what, as in the time it took France to set up its West African puppets and reach the present stalemate, there may have been a withdrawal of League forces back to Morocco, or to their last-RPed lines of control somewhere around the middle of Mauritania, or they could still be pressing on. The latter may be more likely than the other options, as the Sultan of Morocco has the momentum to complete the dream of Greater Morocco stretching across the Maghreb, and unless another power gets boots on the ground to stop him West Africa's fate up until now hasnt really put much worry in him about consequences should he keep on going. The League may be hurt politically by this, but ultimately Morocco is far from reliant on their support... and Greater Morocco includes most of Algeria anyhow, so his ambitions arent along the same lines as Versailles or Madrid.

The SADR exists in little more than name at this point... they cant really hold territory in a conventional sense. Their forces are scattered across the Western Sahara and northern Mauritania fighting a guerilla action, and Spanish troops flattened their major civilian population centre with artillery, so they're diminished but rather motivated to keep up the fight. In addition to the Lusakans fighting with them (or rather, falling back and taking occasional pot-shots with them, I suppose) there are forces from the Armandian Combine present as well, in small numbers. The Saharawi, at last RP, had launched what will likely be the only conventional battle of the war, pushing their armoured vehicles along with a handful of Combine attack helicopters to intercept a Spanish column falling back towards the berm in the aftermath of their latest massacre. After that, the next major battle will take place along the coast... a Combine fleet is making its way towards them to provide support.
West of the berm, the civil populace is becoming increasingly angry in its protests against Morocco, ala RL's El-Aaiun Intifada.

Mauritania is faring a bit better... it still holds some territory of its own, but it cant really keep that up against determined assault, so they're reverting to highly mobile and guerilla tactics and trying to preserve forces... here and there, theyve held cities in some rather brutal urban fighting. Politically, the current governing junta seems to have convinced London of its legitimacy, and is getting desperate enough to become bedfellows with the SADR and even ECOWAS, despite fears amongst Arab-descent rulers that West Africans will bolster their kindred, a not-so-well treated minority in Mauritania. National sentiments arent going to allow for affiliation with a major bloc, though, be it NATO or the Progressives, even though that would seem neccessary at this point. The League may have plans of its own... the current junta ousted pro-Western leader Taya when it came to power, and he has reemerged as a League puppet of sorts, with the unusual distinction of being the last democratically-elected leader of the country, and thus ability to claim a degree of legal legitimacy. French agents also seem to be present trying to destabilize internal politics.

Niger fell pretty much without a fight, and is now occupied by Nigeria and their Tsarist allies. Of all the states in the region, it is perhaps the most pro-League... the Nigerians took the rather novel approach of not slaughtering everyone's relatives with nerve gas, and have exploited ethnic/tribal connections as well as the country's extreme poverty to make themselves rather popular, at least in the South. The north, with its Tuareg populace, is rather more militant, having taken the opportunity to declare independence before looting the uranium mines and scattering in the face of the Nigerian advance... desert nomads with dirty bombs, currently sitting between the Tsar's Nigerians and the Soviet's Libyans, makes for a rather volatile situation. Niger's armed forces are also a factor... they fell back, and were never destroyed by the invaders, but a few armoured cars in the Sahara arent going to free Niger from the Tsar's men, and as things stand they're likely to simply return to work under new masters if offered amnesty and a pay raise.

Tunisia was still independent last time I checked, though there was mention that League 'Plan Yellow' would be allowed passage through in an attack on Libya. Given the kerfuffle which emerged last time France claimed influence there, this might be best dismissed as wistful thinking and their pro-Mesopotamian neutrality maintained until something happens to really rock the boat.

It is, in fact, a bit confusing, given that events in the Maghreb are still in war-mode while elsewhere RP has progressed on into the aftermath, but catching up shouldnt take too long once the details are ironed out.

Well, by my lights, last time I checked, Spyr is right on. I would only offer the following in addition to what he said.
Morocco formed a binding alliance with the Kingdom of Spain, theoretically I suppose it is a dual-monarchy. In reality, once we get past to posting, it will not be long before the Sultan becomes a king a la Louis I of Algeria. That will be in the same post where I include the last paragraph’s material.

Mali, Burkina Faso, and Togo-Benin are currently occupied by ‘Allied’ forces. Niger as Spyr stated above is occupied by the Tsarist Nigerians. That is to say Mali is occupied by a clear majority of Algerian troops, Togo-Benin is occupied by a clear majority of French troops, and Burkina Faso is under the control of French forces, with a small but doughty Tulgarian contingent. Cote d’Ivoire had been mostly occupied by French troops, but through RP, or rather what was hinted at by RP and OOC discussions, those troops pulled out northwards in Burkina Faso, although it is likely that as things stand they may have some ‘buffer counties’ in the Cotes far north.

I am just waiting to see what Quinn say before I start a new thread “Africa: More or Less” wherein I intend to announce, or rather set up on their proper thread, (along with the war debt and other after effects I France itself) the French backed Union Mouvement Populaire Africain governments. Then I eagerly await rebels and such, and we will be able to watch the interaction, hot or cold, between the French sponsored Sub-Saharan regimes and those regimes supported by the Progressives…who have, inadvertently I am sure, occupied a fair number of coastal African states.

So can we continue on in Africa?

Ok, I think that I need to respond to this conversation prior to it going any further and too many things get decided in my absence.

Now, the main issues with this as I see it is:
1. It is perceived that this is a random act by my government, which no one expected.
2. From a purely OOC standpoint, NG, poor guy, is a new father. I can relate. He may be looking at more responsibilities at work. He is tired, and justifiably so, of RPing this thing at such a scale.
3. Also OOC, Both BG and NG have come to a point wherein they want to back off from WW3 and just fight some Cold War-esque proxy wars, for both OOC and IC reasons.
4. Gurg has been working with France to somehow temper his expansionism and channel his aggression toward invading Progs.
5. My long absences have meant that I was unable to properly RP Quinntonian reaction to many of these issues.
So, let’s unpack this a little bit. Firstly, the perceived randomness of this act very much flows from both my long absence, and the fact that many of you don’t have experience with the Jesse Obed years of USQ administration. In the first, I must apologize; I have been kept so busy, by my Master’s degree this year, and lat year, both my graduating year in university and my second term of the Presidency, as well as becoming a new father myself. This means that I either was forced to ignore, or didn’t realise until it was too late, several things that were going on. First and foremost, was the increased cooperation, in the name of NATO (an organisation which he was never a part) of Gurg with France in Africa. I found out about it after it was already going on, and it was just too late to really do anything about it, but I was shocked. I just never posted to that effect. The Quinntonian people would have seen that as not so much a betrayal, but as a complete cooperation with an agent of Satan. Now, the Quinntonians have always seen the HL as an evil group of tyrants, but the far lesser of evils. Thus, they have consistently had a “Prog first” policy, recognising them as far more dangerous. Further, though the leadership of these nations are utterly evil and corrupted, they do allow the Gospel to be preached to their people. And let us not forget; Quinntonia is pretty apolitical in regards to systems, as long as the people are cared for and have some amount of self-government, which is true to some degree in every system. As long as the people are care for and the Gospel is allowed to be preached, Quinntonians pretty much don’t care about your politics. Quinntonia does not find itself in opposition to the Progs due to their political styles, but rather due to their expansionism and atheism.
Now as for the OOC concerns, I don’t know what to do with that. I am pretty much going to be dropping off again due to my Master’s degree workload, NG is incredibly busy. BG is, well, um, in Australia. LOL. I want to be sensitive to everyone’s issues, as I hope that everyone is sensitive to my own.
That being said, I have no IC reason to back off. In my private communications and strategy sessions involving USQ and her allies, I have explained that I believe in two major points of doctrine. The first point is that all of Africa should be governed and ruled by Africans, in a way of their choosing. Particularly in cases wherein they have been invaded and are now occupied by foreign powers. The second is as I mentioned earlier, Prog first. That being said, the most important goal in Africa is to make sure that Africa is free of Progressives. And particularly the Soviets. The reason that I need to remove France to pre-war borders, meaning that they would retain Morocco and Algeria, is threefold. First, it is the right thing to do; I would have defended Africa before now except for my time commitment, and the play of PM Moerike being very much the vacillating and weaker leader in juxtaposition to PM Jesse Obed.
AS far as IC goes, I still very much want to move forward on this. As far as I am concerned, I am moving towards a total war situation with this very much in mind. Basically, I am not even doing anything out of character for Quinntonians, but rather returning to the way that I first played under Jesse Obed’s administration. It was supposed to be that the Moerike administration was out of character, but it has now been so long that only a few players even remember those days. Those were the days when I fought the bloodiest war in AMW history against Dra-pol, which seems to be heating up again. This is the USQ who is willing to lay down their lives for that which is right, regardless of cost or political consequences. Basically, to do what I would do should I have the power in RL. Defend the weak, fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, do good in everything, preach the Gospel, serve God.
NG, Gurg, BG, I want to RP this. Further, I need to RP this. I apologize for not making it explicit, and for allowing my periodic absences to interfere with how I should have RPed things, but I cannot change that now. IN my mind, with my understanding of the culture of the USQ, and the world situation, this move not only makes sense, but it is the ONLY option that we can make at this time. Though, thinking that I would proclaim my intention to do this months ago is unrealistic, it may have been just as unrealistic to think that everyone would see the storm clouds brewing and realise that the multiple posts I have made speaking about the slow crawl towards total war and a stand against all that is evil means that the sleeping giant has been awakened, and things were going to go downhill. I am sorry for that, but though I would never try to unilaterally impose my will on the AMW community, with whatever freedom of action that I do possess, I wish to invade Africa fully.
BTW, I do realise that the desire of BG and NG to hold onto some African holdings is hinging on this, and I am sensitive to that. But I wonder if the various Algeria/Morocco vs. Libya, Entritea vs. Abbassambria, and maybe even more fun with Lusaka being back in the picture, means that this can occur, but not in the exact way everyone had hoped or envisioned. I also know that NG wishes an empire, and is feeling that he is being deprived of one here. I might point out that France now basically includes Spain, Morocco, and Algeria, and that aside from West Africa.
That being said, I should point out that there is no reason to assume that I will win. I have no desire at this time to prosecute a war either on the Sub-Continent or in Europe, and so assuming that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are kept out of it, it should be a civilised little war. Further, I as Wingert am willing to go to war to defend France and her holdings and will follow your lead in this matter.

I hope this answers some questions, maybe acts as a launch pad for further discussion in this vein. God bless you all. He already had blessed me in providing such amazingly talented people to RP with. Let’s figure this out so that we can continue in some fashion.

WWJD
Amen.

All well said Quinn, I think that about covers it. I do have a few things I would like to say.

First let there be no misconceptions: France and her vassal Algeria, Spain and her vassal Morocco, are two totally separate states, ruled by Bourbons both maybe but separate still. I am only playing as Spain, and minorly at that, until, um, Moorington takes the role again or we find someone else. I am totally against any such notion of 'empire', and don’t want it getting out. While I am talking about Algeria I will also say I would not be party to a war against Libya, posted as much. What I want now is to fight rebels, the whole African style rebel/government thing.

Which brings me to my last point. If you intend to move in then I will be forced to withdraw, but I have spent too much time and too much of France's IC blood to just, as I said a few times earlier, pick up and leave. Honestly, I can not walk away after loosing nearly 10,000 Frenchmen, dozens of vehicles, and I guess no less than 3 battleships (realistically I might interject that if I had not lost the battleships, a case for pre-war borders would placed in a different light, as it is ICly some kind of gain would have to be made after that---sorry for that confusing and pointless aside) But considering this for a while I decided Burkina Faso would be the logical choice: they have been, well, less 'brutalized' than the other African states and would be the most pro-French. Plus Tias is back, and is in Africa, and he said a little bit ago that his government had relations with those of the former Burkina Faso…hence he could bankroll a rebel movement or something. And finally the largest French bases were set up there during the war. So I want to keep Burkina Faso, and I may say that I have earned it. Just has LRR has earned rights to RP certain African states, as has BG.

So, since we are obviously not all done debating this OOCly, I really cant post anything ICly on a new Africa thread. What I think may help is for us to, before RPing again, agree on what the situation in Africa is as of now. I am just going to itemize it below, and please remember this is just completely hypothetical. It is a blend of what I wanted to post as the result of my now most likely aborted Versailles Treaty and my plan for RP in Africa and your current thoughts, I really loved even thinking of this guys, as I said earlier I thought some of the coolest parts to the African RP were still to come. Hope they still are. Remember, hypothetical (but all based on our recent RPs):

Hypothetical Results of the African War (2005-2008)
*Sultanate of Morocco is incorporated into the Kingdom of Spain as El Reino de Marruecos under the guidance of the former Sultan, now Ferdinand II. He marries King Philip V’s youngest daughter, la Princesa Theresa de Bourbon et Savoy.
*Morocco, now Marruecos, relinquishes its claims to the Western Sahara. The Archduchy of Tulgary is given a fifty-year mandate to nurture the land until such time as they can establish a Unitarian democracy.
*The Kingdom of France remains in Burkina Faso where they have popular support, more or less.
(Are the other countries just abandoned then in misery, or are you planning on landing post haste?)
*Niger, supportive of union, remains tied to Tsarist Nigeria.
*ECOWAS, battered beyond recognition but still alive and kicking, maintains rule in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and to a lesser degree Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire.
*ISC forces remain in Senegal.
*Mauritania is still a fractured country, with Aiyala seeking to return and a military government in control.
*Libya remains a Progressive state, with a strong ISC/Union presence.
*(And what happened to Egypt?)

Well guys, does that work? Additions?

I think that people have too much of an emotional attachment to their nations. To say that a person has "earned" anything or "deserves" something is problematic if not downright wrong. People were given the task of RPing a nation and then they go through and carry it out. People should RP because its fun and not for any other reason. They don't deserve anything except a pat on the back and told their doing an excellent job. But alas, like the oil patch, compliments are rare in AMW and your lucky if you don't get a kick in the ass for a good job. NG while I don't think you deserve anything IC, for what its worth, I think you are an excellent RPer and are certainly up there in my books.

I'll go along with whatever the group decides but I think Quinn should be able to RP however he sees fit. The mobbery of AMW or what the more optimistic call "collaboration" troubles me often as it never fails to take away from the RP. But if you force Quinn to change his RP because of OOC reasons I will reluctantly and unwillingly submit to the will of the mob.

Well, the Soviets in Africa will gladly fight Quinntonia instead of France if it comes to it (with the intention of binding their arms to West Africa and their legs to Dra-pol and then setting the two off in different directions, of course!), as that will fit perhaps better with the idea of a Final Conflict between capitalism and socialism as promised by Igovian theory.

I should note that while France is perhaps presently in a reasonably strong position in Burkina Faso, there is bound to be very strong opposition there, as the Burkinabe people have some investment in the former Lusakan President's Pan-Africanism, and their army and paramilitaries are better trained than those of most ECOWAS states, and specifically for bush warfare at that. They learned in schools set up by the very bush fighters who brought the Roycelandian Empire to its knees, after all!

Tulgary will be quite happy to get involved in Western Sahara, though the inexperienced Czar Charles is unlikely to be very sensitive to the Sultan who will have to give-up a lot in order for Luxembourg to march in and take charge of his phosphates. Also the Tulgarians will be utterly outclassed if the USQ sails a carrier battle fleet up to the Saharawi coastline. Tulgary has a typical European frigate navy: it'd probably be like the Spanish-American War if they tried to repulse the US Navy alone.

Hm, so, are we going to do this? Fight WWIII directly and/or by proxy in Africa? I'm prepared to have the Soviets direct most of the energies of War Communism into the Namib-to-Congo and West-African theatres if needs be. It'll stop us invading North Sienna, I suppose, which is really a shame, because the Geletians are aching to stomp on those Armandian squirts!

On Quinn's point, I can certainly empathize... life can make it hard to find time for AMW, and between us we can produce vast depths of material which I doubt anyone here has time to absorb in its entirety. 'Red East' has lagged behind significantly from supposedly simultaneous Dark Continent events, for example, and the bits of Africa for which I'm supposedly representing NPCs and the Saharawi are equally slow. Honestly, I was expecting USQ mobilization, though perhaps not total war, against the Soviets in Africa... even in the days before Obed's death, the USQ didnt seem to want to confront the League, so I hadnt percieved there to be too much anti-League sentiment in the USQ. Through the East European conflict, coup in Algeria, minor scuffles in Tord, Philippine crisis, there seemed little objection, certainly on a far smaller scale than Quinntonian response over matters in Egypt, Goa, etc. The war in Africa has seen probably the League's most extreme behaviour yet, perhaps changing public perceptions in the USQ, but because that breaks the established pattern it might seem to have come a bit 'out of the blue'.

Anyhow, that aside, I think the Spanish-Moroccan relationship as suggested is a bit skewed... the Moroccan Sultan isnt really in a position where he needs to be a vassal of the Spanish, to change his name, or to give up the Western Sahara. He's an ally, he's recieving help from Spain, but he's far from a puppet, and the claim to Western Sahara has been a major element of Moroccan nationalism for many years, one of the things used to secure the Sultan's position when he pushed a generally secular (UE-supported) path rather than an Islamic line as would fit his Muslim subjects. Ultimately, he stands as an equal to the monarchs of France and Spain, and he is well aware of that fact... and at this point he doesnt seem to have much reason for concessions, unless loss in the Sahara will be replaced by Greater Morocco's claims over Algeria or something of the sort.

And as for time-frame... while the RP took place over a significant period, I'm not sure it was in real-time... a proper timeline of the war might be in order to figure out just where things stand in that regard.

The Quinntopian reaction to the League may not be as sudden as some might make it. Germany is arguably the USQ's greatest ally, out of all the USQ's allies Germany had the largest contribution in Dra-pol, even having their own protectorate for a while, and many many lives were lost beside their Quinntopian brothers. Germany has been pushing for a strong independent NATO for a long time, without relying on either the Soviets or the Holy League, and the average German citizen considers the Holy League and the Soviets equally evil and in bed with satan. While this has obviously changed, as NATO is basically no more, German citizens have pressured for strong emphasis against the League for some time now. Remember, of all the USQ's allies, Germany is the only theocratic power and what the USQ's spiritual brothers are saying would probably be given more weight than say secular Britain. In the USQ, it is entirely credible that public opinion may been changed by what their theocratic brothers are saying about the League.

As an aside it bears mentioning that ~90% of the population of Germany is composed of staunch and committed Christians. The leadership is largely, although with several notable exceptions (you'll find out later), morally bankrupt and absolutely horrible human beings. Take the bombing in Greece, my ambassador guy Bruckner is clearly evil and while it unclear of exactly who is giving him orders, he must have had help to pull off such an elaborate and cordinated activity. Eventually the USQ will find out about the doings of the leadership, but right now it remains unknown. I thought I should mention this because evidence of evil in the leadership of Germany is not evidence of evil in German society. Like Quinntopia, the vast majority of Germans are true Christians, and it is probable that the average Quinntopia citizen would listen and pay attention to what the average German citizen is saying. And they were overwhelmingly saying, in newspapers, television, etc that the League should leave, and immediately. I still haven't finished it yet, given my schedule, but the RP in Portugal should illuminate some of the angst the average German feels to France and the rest of the League.

I do have a fear, though, that if we do prosecute the war in Africa, Germany and France might inevitably come to blows, though I think Fluer was saying he would rather go to Dra-pol anyways, but I could be making that up in my head.

For what it matters, the Tulgarian military actually wants war with Germany. They, and many in government, regard the Germans as the greatest threat to Catholic Europe, and think that France, Tulgary, Spain, Italy, and Russia could overwhelm the Germans if they put their mind to it... so long as Washington continues to view Belgrade as an opponent rather than a potentially key ally. Almost nobody in the military or government below the Chamber of Princes wants to go through with the Saharan acquisition, and feels much as Spyr seems to in respect of Morocco.

The new Czar, however, is liable to upset them with his borderline obsessive desire to recover the Congo and visions of restored Empire by which to honour his father.

Anyway, should be fun...

Just dropping in to give a clearer indication of Britain's position here:

British aid continues to flow to every ECOWAS nation that will take it, although it is no doubt much reduced as transports are redistributed to moving troops. At any rate, any nation with a port will certainly see crates marked with the Union Flag showing up on their doorstep, most particularly in places like Ghana or Sierra Leone, should it ever come under threat. A note about Sierra Leone: though it's NPC, Britain guarantees its independence in gratitude for hosting a rather large supply base from which various aid missions are going out. If it ever comes under threat, there's a battalion of soldiers there with more promised rather quickly, in addition to Sierra Leone's own troops.

Egypt is... problematic. Initially I deployed there expecting that the satellite actions would touch off a war, and that Egypt hadn't retained much of the FDUE's armed forces. Since neither situation turned out to be true, I'm tempted to draw down the planned deployments and leave 4th Division there as a sort of attachment to Egypt's army. I'm sure that they'd be glad of the support, considering the massive number of unfriendly troops everywhere. On another note, I seem to have become (with Royce's departure) the majority stakeholder in the Suez Canal Authority. Its policy bears repeating: anyone can come through the Suez if they pay the correct fee. That includes the Soviets, the Hindustanis, the Leaguers and the Quinntonians. If I want to close the canal, I'll have to do it by parking a few carriers off the coast... which might happen due to bases in Cyprus. But I digress.

Currently relations with the USQ are at a low ebb, and those with Germany are outright hostile. I don't expect Britain to be joining a Quinntonian-sphere alliance any time soon, so the Progressives and Leaguers can relax on that front. As I see it, the 'special relationship' with Quinntonia remains open, and the United States can expect all sorts of non-combat assistance from the British in the vein that the US Navy gave during the Falklands Wars. Diplomatically though, the British see themselves as having been quite betrayed by the Quinntonians in that immediately after the Strathairn government restored a semblance of order in Africa, (at least, No.10 has convinced itself that the stabilization was due to British efforts... and it probably was, in part) the United States announced its intention to invade. In light of Quinn's post, I'm tempted to go along with that, but he should know that attempts to 'evict' British peacekeepers or aid workers won't be looked upon favourably.

Hindustan seems to be Britain's closest ally at the moment, and anyone who says otherwise will likely be reminded of their own lacklustre response to the League attacks on Gibraltar. Through Unionist efforts, London has been trying to repair relationships with the Indian Soviet Commonwealth, although few likely have understood that the real power in the ISC is concentrated in the SWS. Any negotiations are likely to be minor and ineffectual, since they'll be between British diplomats and the official governing body, rather than what is seen by London as its ministry of defence. In any case, Britain will at this point defend Hindustan's home provinces from attack as best it's able (mostly by denying passage through any narrow seas it can, but whatever). In Africa, the official policy is 'hands off'. Unofficially, anyone advocating for a democratic republic will find backers at No.10.

With regards to China, the same is true. Market liberals and democrats (small D, dammit) will find Britain a willing ally.

And the League. Oh, my. Despite recent co-operation in Africa, the British still haven't officially signed a peace treaty. Gibraltar and the various pacific islands were returned under the terms of a cease-fire, and while trade might be back up between the Continent and Britain, diplomatic relations certainly are not. Any talks will have to take place in neutral territory, and they'll be a pain. One suspects that Britain might try to trade on its special relationship with the USQ in this case, but if the Quinntonians declare war on the League we might be having talks in... Toronto?

I'm curious to see where this goes, but I don't expect to be hugely active in combat. If anything, I'll be the one running around and putting out brushfires, and glaring at Germany across the sea.

So where are we with this? I would like the opprotunity to RP this, regardless of the time involved, and the fact that considering the people involved on teh other side and their committments, it will most likely crawl along, but I still want to go forward. I don't think that anything should be decided, as in "I will end up with X" up front, but we should let the RP decide organicly. Rememeber, my entry as USQ into Africa does not just mean that I win, there is a lot of stuff that can happen between now and then. For instance, a Quinntonian election, that could concievably change everything. The war with Dra-pol starting up again, which seems interestingly likely right now. Strange happening with unstable allies, etc. Who knows where this will all end up?

WWJD
Amen.

Yeah if this heats up war between France could be become a reality although nothing I want to RP. I would be much happier RPing a conflict in Dra-pol. Much much happier. As for Tulgary. I think I am going to ignore Tulgary, for now, because the continued use of Tulgary by BG is controversial and most importantly, they would probably do what France wanted anyway.

I think you should go for it. I think people have realized the USQ may not win the conflict. It is very much in the air given the opposition against the USQ and the fragmented state of some important Quinntopian alliances. Go for it. I think you convinced enough people to proceed. Within the next couple of weeks I hope to post a response to your ultimatem.

I am not sure what is contraversial about Tulgary's use by BG, except that he impresses the conception of what the Soviets think that the Royalists are like onto them, but it is pretty fn and given the relatively smaller power, diametrically opposed to his own, harmless.

But as for the continuing thread, I will not move on without Jean's input.

WWJD
Amen.

Fleur, BG's roleplaying of Tulgary isn't controversial to anyone. If anything, it's actually a fairly well done piece of work... showing the seamy side of the League that NG often doesn't. It isn't a criticism, just an observation... two different kinds of writing that work well together.

So yeah. I'm going to side with Quinn in BG's defence. There's nothing wrong with what he's done in Tulgary, and it's no more 'objectionable' than when Dra-Pol was also Walmington on Sea.

Or The USQ and Russian Empire handled by the same player. They're in opposition to one another, and at the moment Q seems to be making something of a point of that, with the Tsar's Pacific fleet increasing activity.

As to Tulgary doing what France wants, well, the late Tulgarian leader was chief sponsor of the Bourbon Restoration in France, so Versailles actually owes Luxembourg quite a bit. Certainly France is far more powerful than Tulgary, but with 27 million subjects and an upper-middle income economy inclusive of a reasonably strong domestic arms industry (even the Quinntonians use versions of Tulgarian PDWs, SAWs, and HMGs!) Luxembourg isn't a complete lackey. The new Czar is inexperienced and possibly open to manipulation by Versailles, but at the same time I'm trying to indicate that he has his own ambitions that may conflict with French strategy. Tulgary's contribution is open to a contest between the Czar's will and the Bourbon king's skill at manipulation.

Alone, in any event, Tulgary has no chance of conquering Germany and at best a fifty/fifty chance of defending itself should Berlin ever decide to invade the Low Country, but the Czar's machinations must be of some concern to the Germans for fear that he may nudge the League into action harming German interests.

Meanwhile shots have already been exchanged between the British and Drapoel. Should turn out interestingly given coolness of relations between London and Washington-Berlin.

Wow didn't mean to 'attack' anyone with my comments. Perhaps I was just bummed out that, for whatever reason, Quinn never accepted my RP with the whole Czech Republic scenario and flatly denied it (yeah it obviously pissed me off).

Anyway, perhaps I might as well talk about my feelings because they might be relevant to whether Jean accepts Quinn's decision. I have a proposal for you NG.

I have grown tired of being criticized, mostly indirectly, by members of AMW. And if you think I am hypersensitive then read the Portugal and Austria threads and you will probably change your mind. I have not always reacted with maturity to slights on my RPing ability and I have slowly began to develop a personal distaste for one person in particular. I would like to think I am not emotionally attached to my nation and can stand propaganda directed against my nation IC but I increasingly come to the realization that certain OOC problems are not going to go away. I remember looking over the thread that Quinntopia and Dra-pol put together in order to clear up misunderstandings about Quinntopian involvement. From what I remember they put it together against what started to become OOC propaganda.

I was considering applying to take over the USQ after Quinntopia left as I am first of all a Christian and I think it takes a Christian to play a theocracy properly (even a crazy one like Germany). However, regardless of whether my claim was accepted, I now don't want to take over a nation and be subject to criticisms of the founding members. As a junior player it would mean that time and time again I would be forced to acquiesce, over and over, to the more senior members who would state that the USQ was imperialism and blah blah blah. And this would be difficult for me to accept with my stubborn personality. I have now got to the point where I don't want to stay around in AMW because as a junior member I would continually be bossed around. Its not so bad with Quinn because half the time his sanctimonious proclamations are right. Like when Moorington summoned a million troops in his capital overnight, out of all the senior members Quinntopia was the only one who stepped in and defended me. However, when I RPed as Germany kicking out those darn Holy League I get a kick in the ass from other founding members. I don't like the oligarchical setup of AMW and this would be especially true in a post Quinntopia world, which would probably be even more critical. I don't have seniority so consequently I will have to listen to half IC/OOC propaganda all the time. And its not enjoyable for me and under the circumstances I don't think it will be possible for me to stay in AMW. Even summoning up the energy for a short post is proving increasingly difficult cuz I’m tired of getting kicked in the pants.

So heres what I want to do:

I want to RP a war between Germany and France in which France emerges victoriously and a puppet monarchy is set up in Germany controlled by NG. While it may not be the colonial atmosphere he was originally thinking of, I would hope that it would be fun enough for him to allow Quinn to prosecute a war against him and possibly deprive NG of his African holdings. The only condition is that NG will have to kill half the population of Germany before taking over because the vast majority of people overwhelmingly hate the French.

Sound good NG? You let Quinntopia fight you in Africa and you can have Germany.

PS. I don't want to start an argument how I am overreacting and all of the criticisms against me were valid and how the truth is unicorns, rainbows, and handholding. I just want to move forward.

Oh....my....goodness.

First, I will point out that the difference in senior and junior members in AMW is mostly just in people's heads. The only reason that a senior member would be listened to more than anyone else, is that he has prove himself as an RPer and negotiator.

AMW is a community. One will notice that a major difference in how the most respected players of AMW post and everyone else is that they make their posts almost conditional on the basis of community approval. Every single member of AMW has the responsibility to keep watching out for Godmodding and poor RP.

No one in AMW makes unilateral post. If this were a game of unilateralism, there is nothing that anyone could do to stop the initial attack on Africa, but I immediately began a conversation on how we should proceed prior to dragging the whole community down a road that doesn't make sense.

That being said, I get as many (if not more) criticisms as any new player does. And some new players attract far more attention in this regard for others. I would point out that you joined at around the same time as two other players, and they seem to be doing well. I think you are as well.

You are a valuable member of this community, but again, we are a community. That means that there are leaders, a culture and politics. There are also rules. There are conventions. And in this community, there is discussion ad nauseam about everything. One should really try hard and not take it personally.
I would ask that you please stay on in AMW and perhaps look at the reasons that you think you are being stamped on. You may see a theme. I would ask that you bear with us, as we are obviously not living up to your standards, and realise that with time, your ideas and theories, if well put forward, will most likely become part of the whole theory that we work under here.
But, if I cannot convince you to stay, an in a long-term permanent fashion, I would still suggest that you don’t go down this bizarre, random, and altogether unlikely RP wherein 40 million Germans are slaughtered by a nation that probably is on par power-wise with them. There are many good RP opportunities, and you should seek them out in order to work this stuff out.
If you would like to talk this over in a more personal fashion, give me a call. I would love to speak to you in a way that can actually convey everything that needs to be done without relying on limited text.

Please.

WWJD
Amen.

Hey, do you think we should start another thread for the events in West Africa? It might be easier to keep track of things, given that the Dark Continent thread covers a number of different areas and conflicts.

I'll start it if you want, and, if nothing else, it will provide incentive to finally draw-up a post dealing with the West African situation.

There's also the matter of Spanish and Moroccan forces in the Maghreb, as that theatre has lagged quite a bit behind West Africa proper... perhaps we could split things up a bit, with a thread for ongoing events in West Africa, and another to finish up combat in the Western Sahara before evolving into something for longer term events across North Africa (including Libya, Algeria, et al... Tunisians collectively must be on the verge of heart attacks given the imperial Catholics on one side and the godless Communists on the other).

I was thinking of putting up something about Ghana, which still has some volunteer Australasian soldiers who I'd like to do something with, and there's a pretty impressive reconstruction/aid effort going on there by British troops.

Maybe we could split Dark Continent into respective West African and North African/Mediterranean threads, though, even then, we're going to be dealing with very many different subjects under one title. It still may well make things easier to keep track of, and I don't think we've had an IC post in Dark Continent for some time now.

Maybe a bit of bureaucratic reshuffling will provide some motivation to keep the issue going. I'll start a thread on West Africa by the weekend if that seems alright, and if nothing else it will force me to come up with a long-overdue post on the situation in the ECOWAS nations.

This is in response to Fleur's question on the Portugal thread:

It's more than a bit simplistic on my part to designate West African nations Muslim countries and Christian countries, seeing as it's a very diverse area to begin with, betraying a wide range of external influences, and neither Christians nor Muslims are apt to be very strict in terms of adherence to the provisions of their nominal faiths, and Islam in West Africa especially tends to incorporate many elements of traditional animism.

That it mind, the majority-Muslim nations in ECOWAS are Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger, The Gambia, and Sierra Leone. Christianity predominates in Ghana, and it is roughly equal in terms of followers to traditional beliefs in Liberia, but in neither of those areas do Christians compose a strong majority of the population. The rest of the ECOWAS nations, Benin, Togo, Guinea-Bissau and Cote D'Ivoire, have populations that largely follow traditional beliefs. It is important to note that in most areas inter-communal relationships are peaceful and freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed by all the ECOWAS countries.

As things now stand, Benin and Burkina Faso are wholly occupied by France, and Niger is under Nigerian control. With the exception of a few pieces of territory along its borders with Senegal and Guinea, the same goes for Mali. Togo's main population centers are under French control, but a large part of the Togolese Army, holding-out in a mountainous area near the Ghanaian border, was bypassed by the French and this force continues to hold onto a significant chunk of Togolese territory, if a negligible part of the actual population.

Though the Quinntonian line may hold differently, the Soviets haven't exactly overrun any West African country. Last I saw, there were a few thousand Soviet marines in Senegal, very much there with Dakar's blessing, and a few squadrons of fighter aircraft also well-appreciated by the sitting Senegalese government. Besides forces in Namibia, I think that comprises the largest Soviet presence on Africa's west coast. And if I'm not mistaken, the Soviets concluded a secret agreement with the French that provided for the withdrawal of, or at least a halt to the build-up of, Soviet forces in West Africa.

There are almost 20,000 Hindustani soldiers in West Africa, mostly marines and other light infantry units but now including an armored brigade in Senegal, but these too are operating under the ECOMOG command umbrella and are only apt to be there until ECOWAS doesn't want them anymore, or until NATO makes such a stink over it that Parliament decides that a continued Union presence in West Africa isn't worth the trouble.

It would certainly be nice to have a few hundred thousand Indian soldiers in West Africa, but, if there were those numbers, they wouldn't just be sitting around.

There is a very large Indian naval group operating out of Conakry and Dakar, but I'm not sure as to what part of it is still Soviet.

Eh, also, my promise to start a new thread for West African issues turned out to be a boldfaced lie. :/

I'll try to start that this week.

Recall that there are also around 10,000 British troops, most of them non-combat, providing aid to areas hit hardest by the invasion. Ghana itself receives the majority of support, but that's not to say that any other country won't get what it asks for in terms of supplies or fiscal aid. In that sense, I expect that the effects of British aid will be significantly more than the rather small (considering ECOWAS' size) number of engineers, light infantry and medical corps personnel.

Ah, I wish that Dra-pol could go back to Africa. That'd piss everyone off. Last time it kind of ended in abject disaster owing to our total lack of ability to support or extract our little expedition. We could do marginally better, now, but have other Christians to obliterate. Ho hum.

What I mean is, could somebody bait the US into major deployments, then bog them down for a couple of months? That'd really help us a lot ;)

Dont worry about delays, LRR, at the very least its given me time to prepare something for the Maghreb: have posted a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551023) for it, and an OOC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13498639) thread as well.

I am not criticizing you for classifying certain nations as Islamist or Christain. I am very glad you brought out the Islamist response to Germany because I think it contributes to the RP in a signicant way. However, you do plan to add a Christian response to the German declaration don't you? I think it is perfectably reasonable to expect Islamic countries to be completely horrified and scared by the German response. However I can't imagine that would be the sole African response to the German declaration. And I hope that slurrs about the Portuguese situation do not continue in which the Germans are perceived by every single African to be absolutely horrible imperialists and are throwing every single Portuguese into jail and the poor Portuguese are being horribly repressed and beaten down by the inhuman German monsters. Sure a couple Muslim extremists might present that view but I can't imagine that wuold be the ubiqitious response.

I would like to see some more RP reflecting the millions of Christian Africans. I also have some problems with you discribing the state of the church in Africa. Did you know that the Africans are starting to missionaries to North America and the Western world in general because of a perceived deepening spiritual darkness here?

Also where are you getting your facts for the religons? Benin for example has Christians as representing double the other religions. Furthermore I know that in many Muslim countries, including Afghanistan (which we fought to restore freedom), have the death penalty for apostasty from Islam. Which muslim countries have similar policies in Africa and do you think this will affect the numbers of officially listed Christians. It may be possible that even within Muslim countries substantial numbers of Christians exist.

You didn't seriously expect to be all that popular in Portugal, considering how authoritarian the regime there is, did you?

Leaving that aside, I don't really think that even the African Christians would be that thrilled at Germany's announcement, considering that it essentially marks the deployment of yet another armed group showing up and declaring freedom, peace and cookies so long as you worship our God. Anyway, the African Christian groups are probably not Lutheran, as the Germans and (I think?) Quinntonians are, but rather some form of either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Certainly this is true of Eastern Africa, where Ethiopian Orthodox is the main religion, but probably elsewhere as well.

Actually, that brings me to another point. With all these theocratic (or at least openly biased) Catholic and Lutheran states pushing their agendas in the world, what do the Eastern Orthodox/Episcopalian/Methodist/Seventh Day Adventists/Mormons/whateverelse people do when their nations get invaded and subjected to 'missionary activities'? I mean, they're Christian, but are they the right kind? Do the missionaries care, or is simple acceptance of Jesus as Lord do?

Oh, and what does the United States have to say about Israel?

EDIT: And Fleur, this is a nitpick, but the proper adjective form of 'Islam' is 'Islamic', not 'Islamist'. Hence, Islamic nations rather than Islamist nations. It's not a big deal, but it's really akin to calling a nation 'Christish' rather than 'Christian'.

Yeah it was nick picking considering I didn't spell check my last post nor do I intent to spell check this one.

I don't really think that the controversy between religious groups would be all that significant. Germany is composed of half Catholics and half Lutherans and they are getting along. Its the same God Gurg, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist,etc. So Germans declaring they will turn up to support their God could only be intrepreted in an positive light and as a breath of fresh air against the onslaught of the Soviets. So I don't think there is really an argument to be made that Orthodox or methodists would rise up against other Christian armies. I mean they could but with the Soviets, who may be linked heavily in peoples minds with the Dra-pol conflict, I think they would probably work together against the bigger threat.

The whole Portugal thread has become ridiculous and terribly artificial. Authoritarian? Huh? I made some posts about locking up Ignovian terrorists and now Portugal suddenly becomes filled with millions of German soldiers pillaging raping and throwing bibles into peoples faces. C'mon! The Ignovians practically invaded hte NA, a state which they are friendly with, to spread their revolutionary message and Soviet India is marching hundreds of thousands of troops in Africa to throw up Soviet governments wherever they can. If the Soviets infiltrated a country to spread their revolutionary zeal (actually somewhat simliar to the RL Americans, its how they got Texas) then it seems entirely justifiable to take steps to ensure that it didn't happen in Portugal. Don't talk to me about Germans imposing authoritarian governments. The move to arrest several thousand Soviets turned to be a fairly purdent move given BG's terrorist activities. Besides, the USQ has always be RPed as having a significant presence in German occupied Portugal with access to nearly everything, if Germany was up to no good the USQ would find out immediately, and the whole world soon after. Besides, I have characteristically protrayed the media as having a completely free rein with no government oversight. Generally media regulation is a quick sign of an authoritarian government. The belief that Portugal is authoritarian is just complete and utter nonsense.

Ah, I love that sort of logic. It's a good job we started locking people up for thought crimes, given what everyone else started doing shortly after! Probably you arrested a thousand previously placid terrorists, and half a dozen got away. It's just so unlucky that they happened to be the ones planning the next attack, eh!

Then I should also note that the Soviets in Africa are in Libya, Senegal, Madagascar, Tanzania, and the AfCom at the request of several of their governments and with the permission of the others, and in Namibia only to remind SWAPO that SWAPO stands for South West African People's Organisation. Namibia is the only country where we've even attempted to over-throw the government, and that was only to replace it with what it claimed to be and what the people fought for.

I don't know a great deal about the realities of religious sentiment in West Africa, so won't get involved with that right now.

Are you doing the Ignovian thing on purpose, by the way? Is it supposed to imply ignorance or something? Or is it just a mistake that you keep making? If the former, then that's fine IC but something I'd prefer you not use so freely OOC, if the latter, c'mon, man, fix it!

Where's the posts where the governments welcomed you in? Also, what is the status on Soviet troops in the Combine? And I would like to point out that time is relatively fluid in AMW.

And if I make a bunch of mistakes on your government feel free to correct me. I honestly thought that Ignovian and Soviet were synomous and I certainly have never claimed to be an expert on the affairs of another nation. I have to begun to repeatedly make OOC comments on the status of affairs within Germany because lets face it, no one knows as much about your country as you do you. The sum of my knowledge of Soviet India is basically that they are phalstranstries, democratic (although it may becoming more authoritarian under War Communism), and secular. And that the Geletians, a tribe from Western Europe, came over to India far in the past. And I know a couple of miscellaneous facts such as your two major cities are Rapurr and Calcutta and Soviet India has a well developed environmental industry. As for all the minutia about the differences between the 1st commonwealth, 2nd commonwelath, 3rd commonwealth, 4th commonwealth I don't really know other than the 4th commonwealth is more democratic to my knowledge. But some of this stuff doesn't neccessarily make the RP any better.

Perhaps we should leave this Portugal affair alone for awhile. But I would like to have LRR comment on the religious affairs in Africa and perhaps a little bit of an discussion.

There aren't any Soviet troops in the Combine... they're just puttering around the border because heavy tanks cant easily be shipped to Africa, and historical-ethnic tensions are the easiest route for those seeking to grab authoritarian powers in an ostensibly free society.

----

On minor linguistic quibbles, I think there may be some misunderstanding... firstly, Gurg was not pointing out a misspelling, per se, as 'islamist' is in fact a word... just not one to denote a country with an Islamic population, but rather a certain view of Islam which demands an active role in politics.
It also, like terms such as 'Mohammedan', comes from a context which can make its use a value statement rather than one of fact, but thats open to a lot of interpretation.

And the issue with 'Ignovian' is not one of correct terminology but of spelling.

The Indian Soviet Commonwealth is a political entity comparable to a state. Its major ideological influence has been the writings of Graeme Igo, and a significant section of its population is made up of Geletians. The three are not quite interchangeable, as not all Soviets or Geletians neccessarily follow Igovian teachings, and not all Igovians or Geletians are residents of the Commonwealth.
In-character, media and other sources may be more free in using any of the three terms to refer to the Commonwealth (at least outside India)... its simpler than explaining the difference to the audience. Political considerations also play a role.
For example, the Strainists are prone to refer to the Soviets as 'Igovians' or the 'Igovian Commonwealth' because they themselves take the name of the man who composed their ideology, while during times of poor relations they lean towards the Geletian term, as the Celts are foreign barbarians whose presence obscures the light of Asian civilization.

The objection here isnt one of incorrect use, but of incorrect spelling... as mentioned, the ideology takes the name of Graeme Igo, and is thus 'Igovian'. Your spelling tends to employ an additional 'n', creating the term 'Ignovian'.
This would make a clever propaganda move IC, a subtle way of the German government/media/etc from associating the Igovians in the popular mind with 'ignorant' (militant secularist Ignovians, ignorant of the Bible, ignorant of Jesus Christ, etc). If Marimaia was still around, you could go further and get terms like 'NeoSinnist'.
But since its used in an out-of-character context here, it may just be a spelling error?

I'm no expert with regards to religion in West Africa, and my information comes primarily from the CIA world factbook and wikipedia, of which the latter is not exactly a first-rate source. If anybody takes issue with the way that I'm handling things, by all means nominate somebody else to RP West Africa. I think I've done a pretty poor job first off, and I will probably be off NS by the end of the summer.

That said, no doubt Christianity is a major religion in West Africa, and I don't deny that more than a few West Africans are strong and fervent believers. I think my wording may have caused confusion, at least as far as Benin is concerned. According to the CIA world factbook Christianity is the largest single religion, but Christians do not form a majority of the total population. Either way Benin is under Franco-Nigerian occupation and if any German missionaries want to go there they'll have to deal with the Holy League. As far as I know, religious freedom is a constitutional guarantee in almost all the ECOWAS nations. Certainly nobody's going to be punished officially for failing to adhere to this or that religion. Given West Africa's religious diversity, that would be a sure recipe for disaster, and it's important to note that the existence of a majority-Muslim population does not imply an overwhelming majority of Muslims, particularly strict religious interpretation, or theocratic government. I can't speak for all of Africa, since I'm not playing all of Africa, but in West Africa at least it isn't just a matter of Christian nations and Muslim nations.

Therefore I don't think that a Christian response is really necessary, nor do I believe that the response posted was necessarily a Muslim one. From where I stand, it seems reasonable to say that the ECOWAS organization in general, a group of nations pushed ever closer together by the tide of world events and the proximity of hostile power blocs, would not be ecstatic about the German declaration. If the Germans said something along the lines of, "we will help you evict the French, and we will leave when you want us to," circumstances might be different, but the language used in that speech is more than a little imperialistic, and very familiar. It seems to me that governments at least will be offended by Germany's refusal to deal with them on an equal and diplomatic basis. The Germans are furthermore eager for a war the likes of which ECOWAS simply cannot afford, and the organization does not want to serve as NATO's battleground for the war with the Soviets. No matter their religious persuasion, most West Africans, I think, value highly their national independence, and they would not react at all well to Germans entering their nations and dictating policy, regardless of whatever good intentions Berlin might have.

Our interpretations of the Portugal situation differ significantly, but I think it can be said fairly that the Germans entered Portugal uninvited and imposed a system of government on a people who already had one, and, for better or worse, threw the concepts of national sovereignty and self-rule out the window in process.

The Soviet influence in West Africa has also been rather incredibly over-hyped. There are, as I stated earlier, to my knowledge less than ten thousand Soviet soldiers in the ECOWAS states, a number not likely to increase in light of the Franco-Soviet secret agreement. Most of those are concentrated in Senegal, an already-secular state, one of RL Africa's oldest democracies, and the Soviets have so far done nothing to challenge the position of the pre-war president Abdoulaye Wade and established organs of government. Hindustani marines did more damage in Guinea, where they helped local labor unions overthrow the corrupt and authoritarian president Lansana Conte.

The idea that there are hundreds of thousands of Indian troops in West Africa simply has, as far as I'm aware, no basis in AMW's reality. It's certainly no problem to maintain this ICly, as propaganda or mistaken intelligence or anything else, but, OCCly, it is important to note that this actually isn't the case.

Most of that information is accurate enough, actually, Fleur. The 4th Commonwealth did appear as an attempt to balance the most democratic institutions with a degree of national purpose, since the prior two Commonwealths had been hopelessly vague and disunited, while the 1st was almost Stalinist. Raipur and Calcutta are our most important political seats, indeed, though of course Bangalore and Chennai (Madras) are bigger than Raipur.

Spyr explained it all rather well, as he's prone to do.

I do like AMW so.

Anyway, I'm prepared to step back from Portugal for a bit if we can maybe have some vague agreement about roughly what the state of affairs is while we go about other business.

With the terrorist RP I was just taking some momentum from the RP Q and I have had trundling along. We're establishing radical Igovianism as the principle source of organised terrorism in early C21st AMW, picking up the baton from the likes of Germany's own Red Army Faction, Nihon Sekigunn, and PLO extremists (any or all of which may not ever actually have existed in AMW, now that I think about it), since we certainly don't have the same level of Islamist violence in AMW except as expressed arguably more legally through the Depkazi Caliphate. The idea is that young Igovians are frustrated with the Commonwealth's lack of action despite obvious widespread western pants-wetting over the Soviets, and feel that Raipur and Calcutta will never actually dare/bother to directly confront the USQ/Europe respectively. So long as that sentiment is out there, playing out particular actions is less important, really.

As to LRR/TCB, don't leave, man! I think you've done at least as good a job as anyone else, for whatever that may matter to ya. It is encouraging -even if it frustrates many young Igovians in India!- to see ECOWAS states actively disinclined to make themselves the Devil's playground, and even satisfying to have their particular governments balance the potential aid offered by the Commonwealth Guard against the threat that Igovian Communism represents to their own personal interests. Seems fair, to me, even if it makes building a Soviet empire that much harder ;)

Does AMW need a new focus to get us clear of this quagmire?

I suppose we can all get tangled up in Dra-pol and/or the Congo. Still, I do need to find a big conflict for the SWS, or it'll collapse and we'll be back to being the out and out good guys and interfering in every capitalist's business.

LRR, if you're fishing for complements, I'll shoot you. If not, let me say that you're one of the best RPers on NS, and actually the one that I enjoy RPing with most in AMW (no offense to anyone else, obviously). Furthermore, I think you've done an excellent job with ECOWAS... as good as any of us would have done. So don't be all 'I did a crappy job with the RP, I might as well leave', because that's selling yourself short as a writer.

Um, on the Portugal situation, the reason that I characterized the government as authoritarian was because you installed a monarch (who is also an idiot), you have made dissent illegal, and your crackdowns have done more to turn war-weary Portugal into a hotbed of terrorism than anything else. Hell, I expect they'd be back to neutrality if Germany hadn't waltzed in. And Spyr's right when it comes to my comment, it actually was pointing out the fact that while Islamist is a term of use (maybe term of abuse) it isn't a term for someone who is a Muslim or a government with those beliefs.

Well, me leaving NS isn't so much my choice, since, by that time, I probably won't have internet access. I need to work on my saxophone anyway. As for doing a poor job, I think ECOWAS was too big an area for me to take up by myself, and my being pissed off about France oppressing the Africans, I think, got in the way of having fun with things.

But anyway, how does my assessment look? I didn't write all that just for you guys to look at the first two sentences! ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13516709#post13516709

New thread for events in West Africa. My apologies for the decidedly bland title.

I am just wondering about something. Ostensibly, the USQ has earmarked tens of billions of aid dollars, massive military support, the promise of complete sovereignty, defeat and removal of Holy League Forces, and a promise to leave at the request of the people of West Africa to ECOWAS. This has been on the table while I have been moving to a total war economy and preparing to move in force into Africa.

That being said, I have said that I do not want to move forward without NG’s input, but that input seems to not be coming. Or at the very least, things have completely stalled in regards to the massive RP that I have planned and began in order to move into Africa and become involved in this matter. I guess I am just asking what I should do. I am not going to post this on the new West Africa thread as I do not want to clutter up his thread, but I need to know what to do. If I move to a support/aid/invasion paradigm in my interaction with West Africa, who is going to RP the French? I will send a copy of this to the e-mail that I have for Jean, as well.

WWJD
Amen.

Hmm... I'll have to think about some of the comments but right now I don't think that there is enough concensus for me to move forward with a German response concerning Africa or Portugal. I would like to be thrown at least a little bit of a bone because otherwise I don't think I can continue. I have stated that I would like at least a little bit of a positive Christian reaction to Germany's comments and I have explained about Portugal but I still seem to be getting more resistance and more rhetoric. I just don't understand why these things keep happening and why it is so difficult to RP a Christian reaction. Don't turn Europe into a dead area. Keep me happy and I'll stick around.

Fleur, dangling your continued membership at us like some kind of prize isn't going to get you very far. I'm going to be very honest with you, in the hope that you don't take what I'm about to say as some kind of insult. It isn't. It's just an articulation of my concerns, that's all.

1. Germany's actions have not really endeared it to the rest of the world in any way. You see, if Berlin had been a better partner historically, people would be a lot less chary of associating with it. But it hasn't really. Off the cuff, here's what Berlin has done ICly.
-Gone nuclear.
-Refused to co-operate in a NATO action on the basis of associating with 'imperialist pig-dogs' (Britain)
-Went a step further by ejecting Britain from Cyprus
-Set up a puppet government in a British ally, Portugal
-Refused to recognize the existing legitimate government
-Detonated another nuclear weapon in the North Sea, spreading radioactive garbage everywhere.
So, at least by my reckoning, Berlin has been pretty damned unhelpful as an ally, so much so that we're pretty much on the brink of war.

2. From Africa, a place already filled with French soldiers who are busy killing and raping while spreading the Catholic faith, Germans probably don't sound that different when they come preaching their (slightly different) gospel and ranting about the Evil Soviets (actually Hindustani and Soviets together). Recall that it was these Evil Soviets who in large part prevented France from consuming all of ECOWAS.

Taken together, these two acts combine to make Germany perhaps the second least sympathetic nation in the world, after France. I mean, seriously, nuclear weapons detonations? Those were banned in RL for a reason, my friend, and are emphatically not a good way to make other nations (or RPers) respect Germany.

As for what you seem to be viewing as active opposition to you personally; yes, some of this might be due to differing personalities. But more than that, it's the simple matter that really no AMW state has any reason to like Germany, except Cassanos. Given their decidedly environmentalist stance, it's doubtful that this alliance will continue so long as Germany keeps detonating nukes. Because no AMW state has any reason to like Germany, no AMW state has any reason to support Germany's ventures, and at this point it is becoming very clear to the world that the human race (again, nukes) would be better off without Germany. At least the poisonous mushroom clouds would stop.

So... no, Fleur, the resistance isn't about some kind of animosity towards you as a roleplayer, it's about animosity towards your roleplayed positions. If you feel that this means you no longer want to take part in roleplay, that's your right. But in the plainest possible terms, don't expect any of us to change our IC positions due to your OOC requests, because that isn't how AMW's roleplay works.

...and the Depkazi Caliphate still wants to do business with Germany!

(But that's only because the Mid Asian people haven't actually heard what Germans back home are saying about them, their faith, and their country, which, if discovered, will probably result in scenes reminiscent of Kurosian II's crucifixion orgy ("a nation long kept under the dark and inhuman pale of Islamic tyranny", "the Spirit of God will strike down the people of Depkazia in holy fear", "...dangerous and filled to the brim with radical Muslim extremists. In an area where people were starved for the Gospel it was certain that the devil would be found there also.", "no one with a wife and children would be permitted to go to the land of pagans and certainly no females were allowed to go", "extended bellies" and such comments and perceptions, if known to the Caliphal population, would result in the immediate collapse of perhaps Germany's last over-seas friendship prospect!).)