However if there is some sort of plot to surrender to Germany there is a good chance that the Congolese and/or Brazilian presence there might figure something out. TO be blunt there's a couple of Brazilian airships there as well as some other assets (Steve knows about those). Let's put it this way... if you *had* landed troops in Mombasa these assets are not the sort of things you'd be able to ignore.
Lovely. Too nice that you have not wrote a single post about it in IC, so I do not consider anything of the sort binding. Unlike you or the congo, I at least write when I relocate major assets.
After the "the whole Dutch army is confined inside three cities, rilly" I'd be a bit careful with use of the verb shafted.
I am having them follow the lawful orders of their commander in chief, General Seyffardt.
Oh you mean the traitor who surrendered after 4 days of fighting while still having a couple hundred divisions to defend the Netherlands? After overthrowing the government of the country?
Siege just told me that as far as he was concerned Pieter van der Löwe cut a deal with the Congolese and he (siege that is) had made no deal about the colonies surrendering. With that taken into consideration I have to renew my objection to the Kenyan intervention. This time on the grounds that the player running the Union of the Low-Countries didn't have anything to say about it.
EDIT: I think what we have here is a mutual misunderstanding... Siege probably intended for the treaty to fix things in Europe and in most colonies, but didn't bother specifying anything about Kenya because, as far as he was concerned, the local government had basically bent over to the Congolese. Meanwhile Thanas apparently thought that the peace treaty was supposed to mean that all the colonies just bend over.
MoP, do remember that Portugal has crossed the river into Suriname. I suspect the issue of the disposition of Dutch Guyana may be become most... complex in coming days.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
Steve wrote:MoP, do remember that Portugal has crossed the river into Suriname. I suspect the issue of the disposition of Dutch Guyana may be become most... complex in coming days.
Spain has been plotting with the Portuguese since they crossed the river, I'm just waiting to see if Norade is still interested in the slice of Suriname we discussed earlier.
BTW, I've been doing some thinking on my army's doctrine regarding artillery. As has been mentioned by others, I have a lot of it; about one arty brigade for every three infantry brigades. I figure in divisions where this prevalent (everything except the mountain troops and cavalry) the infantry brigades have no organic heavy arty of their own, it is all pooled for the divisional arty brigade. The reasoning for this is that divisional commanders decide where arty is needed to smash the enemy at the point of decision. Given I have a lot of extra guns army doctrine calls for big preparatory bombardments for movement against enemy positions and commanders are loathe to advance too far ahead of their artillery support. In accordance with the big gun emphasis of the army, all the arty brigades are being motorized so they can keep up with the infantry, which is also receiving better transport. One area where this isn't as true is in the Cavalry, which is transitioning to more of a motorized/light armored force with the addition of armored recon battalions to their ranks. They stress quick strikes into the enemy flanks and rear.
While my army might have crushing firepower that is supposed to keep up with the troops, my commanders are loathe to do anything without it. I figure that gives me an interesting mix of benefits and drawbacks. Anyone care to comment on how stupid this might be? Unless its really bad I'll probably just go with it until war experience of some sort teaches my army to use better methods (unless this doctrine leads to smashing success that is!)
Last edited by Raj Ahten on 2009-12-22 12:26am, edited 1 time in total.
So, uh, what do we do with the whole Congo / Kenya thing? As I mentioned earlier Siege apparently thought that the local government had given in to the Congolese and didn't intend for them to auto-surrender to the Germans, so now what? Do we cancel Thanas' post or what? Also is Karmic Knight still around?
Just for the record, I have roughly one artillery brigade per three infantry because each of my peacetime divisions, plus their artillery brigade, forms the backbone of a wartime corps into which two more reserve infantry divisions are placed.
Keeps my units relatively capable across the corps-level board. Feel free to copy the idea, within reason.
Personally, I have 1 artillery brigade, per 1 cavalry brigade and 3 infantry brigades (and sometimes 1 armored brigade). In part, the artillery helps to soften the enemy while the infantry move forward. Cavalry is held in reserve to exploit breakthroughs or prevent enemy cavalry from flanking.
STGOD: Byzantine Empire Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
I'll be honest, I find the four day curbstomp of the Low Countries to be a bit disconcerting for the future health of the game. I really continue to feel hesitant to participate in anything when the map literally changes overnight and it seems that a great deal is decided outside the posts one sees in the IC thread.
"I'm sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your inability to use the brain evolution granted you is any of my fucking concern."
"You. Stupid. Shit." Victor desperately wished he knew enough Japanese to curse properly. "Davions take alot of killing." -Grave Covenant Founder of the Cult of Weber
Slacker wrote:I'll be honest, I find the four day curbstomp of the Low Countries to be a bit disconcerting for the future health of the game. I really continue to feel hesitant to participate in anything when the map literally changes overnight and it seems that a great deal is decided outside the posts one sees in the IC thread.
I think the real reason that it was a four day curbstomp is that the Low Countries didn't have a player.
The Four Day War has inspired me to add to the list of things Steve and I (and anyone else willing to undertake the Odyssey) must develop for SDNW3.5/4 a proper campaign resolution system that minimizes OOC arguments over outcomes. It should be pretty userfriendly.
Fucked if I know what it'll look like, though. Inspiration has yet to home in on me this time.
Hey... Russia doesn't have a player. Quickly, someone roll me some dice for the Seven Day Afghani War of 'Liberation'!
Actually, Shep, we postponing our war properly until the new year?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
Slacker wrote:I'll be honest, I find the four day curbstomp of the Low Countries to be a bit disconcerting for the future health of the game. I really continue to feel hesitant to participate in anything when the map literally changes overnight and it seems that a great deal is decided outside the posts one sees in the IC thread.
This is mainly due to a couple of reasons: first of all, the Union was being attacked by two great powers who had mobilized their armies whilst the Union had not (presumably due to Karmic's absence, but still). The Union armies also were horribly misplaced, making a proper defence practically impossible. And finally the Union didn't so much get 'curbstomped' as it was in an untenable position and had to surrender. Its colonies were being picked off by other players, its coastline was being blockaded, and the only thing left to do was to retreat to Fortress Holland to try and make the invaders bleed. I could've probably held off the German advance for weeks there, but after that the Union would've starved to death and would've had to surrender anyway.
The good news is, however, that most nations aren't in a position anywhere near as bad as the Union: they do not have colonies scattered all over the world, they are probably not be the only communist nation in their region, they aren't bordered by two imperialist powers who've just signed a landmark alliance, their fleets aren't horribly out of date and they presumably mobilize their armies at the first sign of trouble. It's really a combination of all these things (and probably a few I missed) that did the Union in.
As for things being decided outside the IC thread: only insofar that Steve & Co. roll dice and Thanas and I exchanged PMs about the course of the war. The results were always announced in one way or another however (either OOC or IC). It's not really any worse than all the other things people talk about via PM or IM.
I can buy that, the Netherlands are also a very small country to boot, for instance my buffer zone with the Cisplatine republic is about the size of northern France... In short it's a lot easier to defend if you're huge than if you're tiny.
However Schrödinger's Colony, that is Kenya. I am not unbiased here, but it seems that Thanas went further than he ought, in that I and Siege thought that the colonial leadership had given in to the Congo rather than Germany. Given a leadership who remains ostensibly socialist, unlike the military regimes that took over elsewhere, I find it unlikely that they'd suddenly give in to Germany. Doubly so when the main harbour is also the capital of colony / mandate.
Norseman wrote:However Schrödinger's Colony, that is Kenya. I am not unbiased here, but it seems that Thanas went further than he ought, in that I and Siege thought that the colonial leadership had given in to the Congo rather than Germany. Given a leadership who remains ostensibly socialist, unlike the military regimes that took over elsewhere, I find it unlikely that they'd suddenly give in to Germany. Doubly so when the main harbour is also the capital of colony / mandate.
It is not, afaik Monrovia is the capital of the colony. However, given the fact that the soldiers stationed there probably want to see their families again, I do not really think it is unrealistic to have them come over.
Norseman wrote:EDIT: I think what we have here is a mutual misunderstanding... Siege probably intended for the treaty to fix things in Europe and in most colonies, but didn't bother specifying anything about Kenya because, as far as he was concerned, the local government had basically bent over to the Congolese. Meanwhile Thanas apparently thought that the peace treaty was supposed to mean that all the colonies just bend over.
Actually, no they do not. Please take note that I have not taken over Monrovia or such. As far as colonies bending over, I do not see you raising much of a fuss about the other colonies other players take. Pretty selective bitching here, methinks.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Siege? Steve? Seriously one of you need to chime in now.
EDIT: Also... the other colonies have no choice, they *can't* resist. However Kenya is quite capable of holding the enemy off indefinately. Heck, if the soldiers there want to see their families again all they have to do is hold their ground, wait for the Congolese to arrive, and then seek to be dismissed and repatriated. Then at least they'll give a black eye to the people who *invaded their country* and *killed thousands of their countrymen*. Honestly you'd expect a bit of spite and hatred at this point.
Norseman wrote:Siege? Steve? Seriously one of you need to chime in now.
EDIT: Also... the other colonies have no choice, they *can't* resist. However Kenya is quite capable of holding the enemy off indefinately. Heck, if the soldiers there want to see their families again all they have to do is hold their ground, wait for the Congolese to arrive, and then seek to be dismissed and repatriated. Then at least they'll give a black eye to the people who *invaded their country* and *killed thousands of their countrymen*. Honestly you'd expect a bit of spite and hatred at this point.
I already PM'd you a proposal, I wonder why you did not get along with it.
That said, I'll await Steve's decision.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Thanas wrote:I already PM'd you a proposal, I wonder why you did not get along with it.
That said, I'll await Steve's decision.
Because at that time I thought you had already worked it out with Siege, I didn't know that he hadn't given his go ahead.
EDIT: Seriously, it goes against normal human behaviour for them to surrender to Germany like that. I would expect them to be angry over what the Germans and the French did, furious in fact, and desperate to find some way, however small to give Germany a bloody nose. I'll repeat myself: You just invaded their country and unlike the other Dutch colonies they can actually fend you off. All they have to do in order to accomplish that is to sit still for a week or two. Perhaps they'd think the better of it if they got more time, perhaps a few months of sitting on the vine and they'd start thinking of their family... but four days?
Once more if you had agreed this with Siege I'd find it odd, I'd grit my teeth, but I'd accept it. However as you didn't and at the same time *I* had made arrangement with Siege on the issue, well you see why I'm a tad peeved?
Wait, what's this about Monrovia? Monrovia is in Western Africa, for all I care it can be the capital of that particular colony but it isn't the capital of the Kenyan Mandate. That'd be silly. Kenya has its own local administration, just like the Top End, Surinam and the Antilles did. Pieter van der Löwe is (was?) the governor-general of Union Kenya, and his administration was located in Mombasa, making that effectively the capital of the Kenyan Mandate Area.
Siege wrote:Wait, what's this about Monrovia? Monrovia is in Western Africa, for all I care it can be the capital of that particular colony but it isn't the capital of the Kenyan Mandate. That'd be silly. Kenya has its own local administration, just like the Top End, Surinam and the Antilles did. Pieter van der Löwe is (was?) the governor-general of Union Kenya, and his administration was located in Mombasa, making that effectively the capital of the Kenyan Mandate Area.
I meant Nairobi instead of Monrovia. Sorry, got the cities confused.
That said, if you say Mombassa was the capital, consider my posts non-standing until Steve rules on it. I still maintain that considering their families etc, most of them would rather side with the new Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Belgium than turn coat and run, which will probably ruin their families as they will be considered traitors and not receive any pay.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Siege wrote:Wait, what's this about Monrovia? Monrovia is in Western Africa, for all I care it can be the capital of that particular colony but it isn't the capital of the Kenyan Mandate. That'd be silly. Kenya has its own local administration, just like the Top End, Surinam and the Antilles did. Pieter van der Löwe is (was?) the governor-general of Union Kenya, and his administration was located in Mombasa, making that effectively the capital of the Kenyan Mandate Area.
I meant Nairobi instead of Monrovia. Sorry, got the cities confused.
That said, if you say Mombassa was the capital, consider my posts non-standing until Steve rules on it. I still maintain that considering their families etc, most of them would rather side with the new Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Belgium than turn coat and run, which will probably ruin their families as they will be considered traitors and not receive any pay.
Human beings don't seem to work that way, I mean from their point of view they aren't turning coats and running, they are being loyal to their country and standing up for it. Even though traitors at home have surrendered and are now aiding the enemy in carving their homeland up like a turkey.
At least that is what the Kenyan Mandate authorities would give to it, but you know most people are very patriotic and want to defend their country. Worries about back pay really wouldn't enter into it four days, or even four weeks, after your country has been invaded on the slimmest of pretexts. Heck if they want real propaganda just print out copies fo the German ultimatum, then ask everyone, "Do you trust these people to deal fairly with us? Are you going to give in to this, or are you going to fight like men?"
Also don't forget that during WW2 the colonies of the Netherlands fought on, despite the fact that there was a German puppet regime in place. The Dutch oddly enough sided with their local leaders over the Germans. Very apropos I think...
EDIT: Also the Congolese aren't annexing Kenya, their deal includes maintaining the current *socialist* government in place. There's a reason that Pieter van der Löwe thought it was the better deal after all. Moreover if the soldiers there are grumpy about money... well there aren't all that many of them, so there's nothing that stops the Congolese from giving economic aid to the Kenyan Free State (or whatever they'll want to call it).
Siege wrote:Wait, what's this about Monrovia? Monrovia is in Western Africa, for all I care it can be the capital of that particular colony but it isn't the capital of the Kenyan Mandate. That'd be silly. Kenya has its own local administration, just like the Top End, Surinam and the Antilles did. Pieter van der Löwe is (was?) the governor-general of Union Kenya, and his administration was located in Mombasa, making that effectively the capital of the Kenyan Mandate Area.
I meant Nairobi instead of Monrovia. Sorry, got the cities confused.
That said, if you say Mombassa was the capital, consider my posts non-standing until Steve rules on it. I still maintain that considering their families etc, most of them would rather side with the new Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Belgium than turn coat and run, which will probably ruin their families as they will be considered traitors and not receive any pay.
To be a cynic both "kingdoms" are nothing more than a couple of puppet states. And any Dutch willing to take part in ruling them a damn traitor with Seyfert the arch-traitor. Hence...
Lascaris wrote:To be a cynic both "kingdoms" are nothing more than a couple of puppet states. And any Dutch willing to take part in ruling them a damn traitor with Seyfert the arch-traitor. Hence...
Or, the communist government was guilty of criminal negligience, running a police state, being general mass-murderers and dictators and the revolt by Seyffardt was the lawful act backed by the majority of people who pretty much hated living in a police state.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Sorry, I was ill last night and ended up in bed for 14 hours.
At this point I really have to say that I'd agree the forces in Kenya hold out, for the moment. IIRC the Garrison units are actually local-drawn and may never surrender, though the other forces may decide they want to go home after a few weeks for the finality of defeat to set in.
Of course, the German possession force is coming in late August, IIRC, not late July, so that gives a month for such thoughts to come in. It also gives a month for Congolese forces to come to the aid of their brothers in Mombasa. So the key question is if Germany will agree to write it off, extract concessions for doing so, or play hardball over it and get into a game of geopolitical chicken with the Congolese.
As for the swift fall of the Netherlands... Rogue and I did debate on how plausible that was, and for a time we contemplated overturning Siege's surrender. But ultimately there is legitimate reason for such an arrangement to be offered, the Germans were being generous in terms of local administration and rule and, IIRC, even acknowledged in the surrender that the Dutch army had remained "undefeated" in the field, and who wants to condemn millions of your countrymen to slowly starve to death? The prospect of rescue from another power was, frankly, non-existent. Is Britain going to scrap the NAP with Germany and risk their nation's main fleet, their only line of defense, in a potential confrontation with both the French Navy and the German? Spain and Portugal were already on Germany's side. The USSR is embroiled in a war with Manchuria and certainly by then the news of the crushing of the Northern Salient would've been made. Brazil and other fellow Socialist nations are too distant and completely unable to break the blockade. There was no hope of rescue at all. Only the chance for an honorable surrender that preserved the lives of one's countrymen.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
Regarding Kenya I think I should apologise for being a tad hot headed and angry in the exchange, even if this is the internet there was no need for that. I do however have an idea that might please us both, where both sides get what they want. Just please give me a chance to talk with people and check a few facts.
