Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The World War; Let us discuss...again.
Topic Started: Apr 4 2007, 09:28 AM (3,404 Views)
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Alright, RD has allowed me to start this topic, so without further ado...

We all want this conflict, and now that the...mechanics...of the political world have changed drastically since the last discussion, the conflict should looked at again.

So let us start by laying out what we have in terms of possible versus scenarios. Here is what I thought up off the top of my head in terms of general scenarios.

-JAUST goes to war with a regional alliance which draws in support of other regional alliances on both sides, MB remains neutral

-JAUST and the Muslim Brotherhood go to war and the regional alliances are brought in the conflict

-Muslim brotherhood starts attacking neighboring states/regional alliances, with more alliances being brought in. JAUST remains neutral

-Neither JAUST or the Muslim Brotherhood as organizations involve themselves as world wide conflict breaks out between the regional alliances.

-Religious war between Catholics, Orthodoxy, and Islam, etc. involving all alliances.


Now as to how that can start...any ideas? And of course anything more to add to the above list?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The most important question is: how is everything going to end? Who wins, who loses? We should probably answer this question early on, so that later no one will refuse to cooperate with the war because they don't like the outcome.

I'm hoping for constantly shifting, confusing alliances. Nations should change sides at least several times over the course of the war. That will make things interesting rather than tedious.

As for starting the war, the GC could start the war. The GC will be happy to attack JAUST with the aim of destroying JAUST and in particular, NAN.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
WWII had stable alliances and I would hardly call that war "tedious". I do agree that there should be a few betrayals, but not for the sake of betrayal..there should be good and compelling evidence that would necessitate such a thing, rather than the "I switch sides, buh-bye" kind of thing that I've seen.

In otherwords, if you betray/change sides, have some real reason (which would require excellent RPing/story telling) as opposed to "I no like you. I change."

And while I guess it shouldn't be made a rule, too many betrayals in a ahort time (or one nation swithcing sides every few days) is just...tacky...

By the way, TC, I don't think that plan is advisable as Filo is gone for the most part (and NAN would never go to war with anybody..I'm sort of hoping they leave JAUST to be honest...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately. This is one of the more plausible scenarios I've come up with so far. Since JAUST includes a couple of colonial empires, namely Kasnyia and Great New France, one simple way to start a war would be for several pan-*your-region-here* groups to attempt to forcibly liberate these colonies. Obviously, any attack on French or Kasnyian holdings will invoke Article I of the JAUST charter, bringing all of the JAUST nations into the war. The African Confederate is already a Pan-African movement, and a Pan-Middle Eastern movement would be simple enough to establish. Pan-Asian and Pan-European movements might take a little more doing, but I think it's possible.

Obviously, not everyone would subscribe to these pan-regional movements, so we'll have plenty of chances for the betrayal and high intensity diplomacy that TC would like to see. I don't really have a preference on the outcome of the war, but it's likely that there would just be no clear victor since the battle will be fought in colonies across the globe. It's conceivable that certain colonies may be lost or occupied while others are held. Furthermore, even if a colony is lost, it can be 'liberated' or a new colony can be established at a later date. Thoughts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Well, I have no problem with it...though I would either have to A. hope that planning for the war is concluded after my civil war plot...or B, I push the civil war plot after the world war.

Apart from that, I like the idea. Ziyer is especially vunerable to this, as Flumes has had his eye on that colony for awhile.

I also have another suggestion...if we're gonna do this, we should start it in the summer...that way alot of us who are still in school would have more time to fight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
True, I'm not asking for shifting alliances for no good reason. I don't think anyone here is willing to accept a WWI or WWII scenario for example. That is, one side utterly victorious and the other side utterly desolated and destroyed. I may be wrong, and perhaps one side will accept having their alliance utterly desolated at the end and at the mercy of the victorious side. Frequent backstabbing and side-switching will prevent a total war scenario, since goals are more limited, and people will be more interested in self preservation more than absolute victory (which are two totally separate things). Nations could assess their situation and choose their course of action based on immediate goals rather than a stable agenda of annihilating the enemy.

The 30 Years War and its associated wars (such as the 80 Years war and English Civil War) could serve as a model for our world war. Secret alliances, betrayals, and backstabbing are hallmarks of a normal, non-total, conventional war. As for the RP quality of handling betrayals and backstabbing, I don't think we need to worry about that because I think all of us are good enough RPers to handle that.

And the GC can still attack JAUST, I don't see a good reason not to. The GC hates NATO- or UN-like organizations, and JAUST is one of such an organization. At the very least it will spark the war, which is what you were looking for. Al Araam raises an excellent point about the colonial empires, and certainly GC will be willing to attempt and drive out Kasnyia from Washington state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

Well, all of these regional sovereignty movements would have to come from somewhere. They'll need a little time to get started. How long do you think your civil war RP will take? And starting RPs in the summer always sounds like a great idea until everyone starts going inactive. Usually there's a big summer slump where the activity of the vast majority of the players takes a major hit. Maybe if we have an interesting RP to keep people here and interested, the summer slump will have less of an effect...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

For what its worth even WWII had a great example of a shifting alliance: the USSR started the war in Europe with Hitler, but later the two became enemies and the USSR ended up on the winning side. I consider the USSR to be the big winner of that war since it started out as an aggressor and ended up a winner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
For the last time, JAUST is NOT the UN. And also I'll be damned if I'll have JAUST taken out so soon after its creation. I plan on having that alliance stay around for awhile atleast. <_< That said, if it becomes weakened (as wars would do), I wouldn't mind, so long as it still exists and is still viable as an organization.

As for attacking Pacifica...eh, I'm not willing to lose that colony at any point in time, simply because it is critical to a great deal of other plots I have...it's just as important OOC as it is IC. An attack on it would be fun though, to be sure.

And if we're gonna do a world war, I actually would prefer total war as per WWI/II, though I agree that one side should not hve absolute victory and the other absolute defeat. That is not fun. But a WWI ending where the whole world was just too exhausted to carry on would be interesting. Constant backstabbing and curbing it away from WW just makes the plot like every other war. I truely think it should be total. I may be alone in this, but that is how I feel. That said, we should have SOME backstabbing and side changing to keep it interesting.

EDIT- Al, my civil war will take months, which is why I think I'll pushg it back to occur immediately after the world war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The Resplendent Dawn
Apr 4 2007, 10:36 AM
For what its worth even WWII had a great example of a shifting alliance: the USSR started the war in Europe with Hitler, but later the two became enemies and the USSR ended up on the winning side. I consider the USSR to be the big winner of that war since it started out as an aggressor and ended up a winner.

Oh yes, great point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
I agree with RD...which is why a few betrayals/side changes would be fun..but overly much and it ruins it, in my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 11:36 AM

And if we're gonna do a world war, I actually would prefer total war as per WWI/II, though I agree that one side should not hve absolute victory and the other absolute defeat. That is not fun. But a WWI ending where the whole world was just too exhausted to carry on would be interesting. Constant backstabbing and curbing it away from WW just makes the plot like every other war. I truely think it should be total. I may be alone in this, but that is how I feel. That said, we should have SOME backstabbing and side changing to keep it interesting.

EDIT- Al, my civil war will take months, which is why I think I'll pushg it back to occur immediately after the world war.

Well, any World War could take months to plan and get started, so personally I'd prefer that we plan it for after your existing plans, and the rest of our existing plans as well. However, NRE does have some plans for a massive war in Asia, and that might integrate well with a World War, though I'm not sure.

As for total war, I don't see how backstabbing and such things take away from that. Hitler and Stalin are a great example of an alliance where neither could ever trust the other and look how things turned out. Also, consider that the Allies in WWI funded revolutionaries in Russia, so that they could overthrow the Tsar and make the Allies the "democratic" side. Of course that bit them in the ass. Another example of backstabbing is how the Allies in WWII sold out Eastern Europe to Uncle Joe; remember that the war in Europe began with the Allies defending Poland when the Nazis and Soviets partitioned it. Considering that, this must be considered a massive betrayal.

I also think the totallity of the war on each front should reflect the countries fighting. For example, the Western Front in WWI was a real modern, total war, with nation fighting nation and people being thrown against each other to die en masse. On the other hand the Eastern Front was an old fashioned "gentleman's war" between three emperors, and had much more dignfied treatement of POWs, among other things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Like I said, I agree with betrayals, just not without bound, which would curb a total war if that was all we did.

...I like the idea of a gentlemen's war..I think that suits Kasnyia's style...perhaps that is how I'll RP my guys... :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 10:36 AM
For the last time, JAUST is NOT the UN. And also I'll be damned if I'll have JAUST taken out so soon after its creation. I plan on having that alliance stay around for awhile atleast. <_< That said, if it becomes weakened (as wars would do), I wouldn't mind, so long as it still exists and is still viable as an organization.

As for attacking Pacifica...eh, I'm not willing to lose that colony at any point in time, simply because it is critical to a great deal of other plots I have...it's just as important OOC as it is IC. An attack on it would be fun though, to be sure.

And if we're gonna do a world war, I actually would prefer total war as per WWI/II, though I agree that one side should not hve absolute victory and the other absolute defeat. That is not fun. But a WWI ending where the whole world was just too exhausted to carry on would be interesting. Constant backstabbing and curbing it away from WW just makes the plot like every other war. I truely think it should be total. I may be alone in this, but that is how I feel. That said, we should have SOME backstabbing and side changing to keep it interesting.

But just because GC *seeks* to destroy JAUST doesn't mean JAUST will be destroyed. From an OOC perspective I don't want to see JAUST destroyed because it is something useful to have around, so I can constantly criticize it IC from the standpoint of Antebellum South, leading to fun diplomatic RPs. So the war could progress as the GC *attempts* but fails to break up JAUST.

Whether the JAUST calls itself the UN or not, it doesn't matter, because from the South's perspectice it is essentially a new UN, since, like the UN, JAUST is full of strange people from strange places and African dictators coexisting with Asian despots and an occasional democracy here and there. The South is biased, that is just an RP characteristic the world has to deal with. :lol:

And you should realize that WWI did not end due to exhaustion by both sides. It ended due to exhaustion and defeat by *one* side. The German Empire was utterly destroyed, its leaders exiled, its lands and colonies stripped away from it, what land it held on to was occupied by the victors, and the same happened to the Ottoman and Austrian empires, both of which ceased to be great powers and sank into obscure, 3rd rate status, the effects of which last to this day.

The 30 Years War, on the other hand, allowed each country to live to fight another day. Each side fought hard and well, achieved their goals and acquitted themselves honorably, and got new heroes and memories to remember.

If it is going to be a total war though, the end will definitely be anticlimactic, if everyone fights so hard, but failing to achieve their goal, which is the destruction of the enemy. Instead, I think the goals themselves should be more limited for our purposes.

I think you and I have different definitions of "total war", which is leading to this confusion. I am saying that total war is defined by the objective - utter annihilation of the enemy and overthrowing of their government, eradication of any traces of what existed before, etc. In contrast, you seem to be working from the definition of total war as simply being any war of maximal effort. But even a war not expecting to annihilate the enemy can be fought with maximal effort. So I think our two definitions of total war are compatible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shreikland
Member Avatar
Sergeant
 *  *  *  *
I think i'll end up concentrating on my borders than overly agressive movements. That is unless the Shreik natural patroisim overweighs the Religious implications (i've just finished some english coursework so im full of complicated words)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

Yeah, I think this war could have quite a few dimensions. If we decide to use colonies as a reason for it to start in the first place, that will draw a lot of nations in pretty quick. Once that happens, some of the combatants could be left vulnerable to other attacks. These battles could persist long after the colonies have been occupied and 'liberated' or the invading armies turned back. There are so many rivalries on this board that the outbreak of any large war should give almost every nation an opportunity to repay their enemies for some real or perceived slight, or make a grab at valuable territory, or overthrow a government with whom they don't see eye to eye, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
You know what I meant when I said exhausted. <_< :P :lol:

Also, I know I'll get alot of disagreement on this, but...to keep the war going, the guys who are here the most should lead the RP, so as to not allwo it to die. Y'all know who you are.

Here's an interesting question..shall we create a thread for every theater (one in every reguional forum), or one super thread in interregional? I opt for the multiple thread idea, meself....

Also, perhaps we can split the threads from diplomatic and military to keep clutter down (as the diplomatic threads are sure to cause some digressions and even outright spam). All in all, two threads in every region....how say y'all?

And Shriek, you are a member of the JAUST High Council, so you will have a great deal of responsibilities beyond just your own country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The Resplendent Dawn
Apr 4 2007, 10:43 AM
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 11:36 AM

And if we're gonna do a world war, I actually would prefer total war as per WWI/II, though I agree that one side should not hve absolute victory and the other absolute defeat. That is not fun. But a WWI ending where the whole world was just too exhausted to carry on would be interesting. Constant backstabbing and curbing it away from WW just makes the plot like every other war. I truely think it should be total. I may be alone in this, but that is how I feel. That said, we should have SOME backstabbing and side changing to keep it interesting.

EDIT- Al, my civil war will take months, which is why I think I'll pushg it back to occur immediately after the world war.

Well, any World War could take months to plan and get started, so personally I'd prefer that we plan it for after your existing plans, and the rest of our existing plans as well. However, NRE does have some plans for a massive war in Asia, and that might integrate well with a World War, though I'm not sure.

As for total war, I don't see how backstabbing and such things take away from that. Hitler and Stalin are a great example of an alliance where neither could ever trust the other and look how things turned out. Also, consider that the Allies in WWI funded revolutionaries in Russia, so that they could overthrow the Tsar and make the Allies the "democratic" side. Of course that bit them in the ass. Another example of backstabbing is how the Allies in WWII sold out Eastern Europe to Uncle Joe; remember that the war in Europe began with the Allies defending Poland when the Nazis and Soviets partitioned it. Considering that, this must be considered a massive betrayal.

I also think the totallity of the war on each front should reflect the countries fighting. For example, the Western Front in WWI was a real modern, total war, with nation fighting nation and people being thrown against each other to die en masse. On the other hand the Eastern Front was an old fashioned "gentleman's war" between three emperors, and had much more dignfied treatement of POWs, among other things.

Yes, RD has basically summarized everything I was trying to say, except he did it in a far more concise and coherent way.

The convention definition of total war = modern, mass mobilization of the nationstate, seeking to destroy the enemy population, lifestyle, government... essentially seeking to eradicate the enemy at all costs.

Non-total war = typically a gentleman's war fought on a shared understanding of honor, duties, and dignity in both how the war is conducted (like how the POWs are treated, as RD mentioned).

And RD makes a great point, different fronts could have different standards of war. For example monarchies could fight gentleman's wars with each other, while fascists and democracies tend to favor total wars.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 10:53 AM
You know what I meant when I said exhausted. <_< :P :lol:

Also, I know I'll get alot of disagreement on this, but...to keep the war going, the guys who are here the most should lead the RP, so as to not allwo it to die. Y'all know who you are.

Here's an interesting question..shall we create a thread for every theater (one in every reguional forum), or one super thread in interregional? I opt for the multiple thread idea, meself....

Also, perhaps we can split the threads from diplomatic and military to keep clutter down (as the diplomatic threads are sure to cause some digressions and even outright spam). All in all, two threads in every region....how say y'all?

And Shriek, you are a member of the JAUST High Council, so you will have a great deal of responsibilities beyond just your own country.

Let's have a different thread for each theater. The world war would take on different characteristics in each region depending on the cultural, political, economic, military situations native to each region. Our world war won't be a one size fits all thing, just like it wasn't in both WWI or WWII.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Agreed. What about the idea to have two seperate threads per forum, one for general diplomacy (not including the secret stuff) and one for the actual combat?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Yeah, I think there should be a thread for each theater or operation. However I also think that there should be a main thread that could do to things: first, it would provide an index of all war-related topics, and second, it would summarize the participants and the events of the war that have happened up til that point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shreikland
Member Avatar
Sergeant
 *  *  *  *
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 03:53 PM

....
And Shriek, you are a member of the JAUST High Council, so you will have a great deal of responsibilities beyond just your own country.

Oh yeah, would we use CPs or RPed armies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 10:58 AM
Agreed. What about the idea to have two seperate threads per forum, one for general diplomacy (not including the secret stuff) and one for the actual combat?

We could have any number of threads. This world war could be so epic and all-consuming that a few threads can't contain the thing. For example a secret negotiation between two countries could have its own thread, so that the main negotiation thread isn't cluttered. And if a particular battle is going to be massively epic, it could be its own separate thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

Shreikland
Apr 4 2007, 07:00 PM
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 03:53 PM

....
And Shriek, you are a member of the JAUST High Council, so you will have a great deal of responsibilities beyond just your own country.

Oh yeah, would we use CPs or RPed armies?

There will be some sort of guidelines in place. It may be the current CP system, or it may be a more qualitative guide, but you will know what size of an army is acceptable by the time we get this RP rolling, one way or another.

Edit:
And personally, I don't think two threads is going to quite cover it. By the time the World War gets into full swing, I suspect that it will actually be a number of unrelated or tangentially related conflicts that are happening at the same time. Each of these conflicts would need its own combat thread and most likely its own negotiation thread as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Trilateral Commission
Apr 4 2007, 11:01 AM
Kasnyia
Apr 4 2007, 10:58 AM
Agreed. What about the idea to have two seperate threads per forum, one for general diplomacy (not including the secret stuff) and one for the actual combat?

We could have any number of threads. This world war could be so epic and all-consuming that a few threads can't contain the thing. For example a secret negotiation between two countries could have its own thread, so that the main negotiation thread isn't cluttered. And if a particular battle is going to be massively epic, it could be its own separate thread.

Agreed.

Quote:
 
Yeah, I think there should be a thread for each theater or operation. However I also think that there should be a main thread that could do to things: first, it would provide an index of all war-related topics, and second, it would summarize the participants and the events of the war that have happened up til that point.


Agreed here too.

The main thread should be stickied (actually, I think all the regional main threads should be stickied as well, to help keep interest).

What about the idea of a small, constant group keeping the topics alive?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply