Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brood]

Great plan you want to insult our neighbour then think they are going to agree to work with us afterwards?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Well, that's not a soft diplomacy.

If you don't understand that's a diplomatic way to say "either you stop aiding Morovia and get NA pact and trade deals or face some unpleasant consequences, "

But sure, yours "Please, let us turn your country into a battlefield between us and Morovia" is much better

[Brood]

When you can't prove they are helping them at all and we have 0 problems with them at the moment it is, you don't open negotiations with insults and demands.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I doubt that it can be called an insult.  And that's partly demand, partly offer: non-aggresion pact (+ possibly some trade) in exchange Capia should stop lettinmg Morovia to use their territorial waters

That is more offer, because we say nothing like - if you don't do that, we'll bomb your bases (even if we may consider that)

How do you open negotiations with unfriendly nations? With pleading? Just say,  how would you approach Capia to make them give us military access?

[Brood]

In this case? I point out the war is unlikely to be settled at sea and eventually it was move onto land, they are right in the middle and so sooner or later one side or both are going to try to cross through, they can allow us to cross now and we'll attack the enemy and push them away from Capias border, or they can refuse and sooner or later one side or the other is going to invade them.

For them it's best to allow the superior nation passage to avoid a war that puts them at a disadvantage.

[3_14159]

Right. Again, what do they have to gain from letting us access them? War with Morovia. There is no other way for this. If they let us through their country, they will be attacked by Morovia due to them attacking our supply lines.
If they refuse, what happens? We'd have to attack a now prepared enemy probably in a military alliance with Morovia. Why? Because they now have a common goal and foe, us.

So, basically, there are two possible proposals:
a) Ukranian Ranger's "Stop them using your territorial waters" in diplomatic:
They can either refuse or agree. If they agree, all they are saying is: "They were using our territorial waters without our knowledge." This allows them to save face. If they don't agree, we have a reason to attack them.
Why would they agree? They gain a non-aggression pact with us, do not lose anything except possible Morovian payments, and keep their face.
Why would they refuse? They'd lose the Morovian payment, possibly. Communist/Capitalist animosities.

b) Brood's Transit plan:
Basically: "Let us through or *someone* might attack you very soon"
They can either refuse or agree. If they agree, they are now at war with Morovia. Why? Because Morovia'd definitely bomb our supplies which run through their country. Movovia would bomb the streets, the bridges, the train routes we use to get to the border. Capian streets, bridges and railways. Not to mention that it'd be a really, really great day for our international relations to say to another country: "Let us pass or get annihilated."
If they refuse, we'd attack them.
Why would they agree? Uhm... "Sooner or later one side or the other is going to invade them".
Why would they disagree? Otherwise, war with Morovia and two upbuilt armies clashing on or near their own territory. The victor is free to annex them, too.
In that case, wouldn't it be logical for them to propose an alliance to the guys who didn't threaten to attack them if they couldn't bring them into the war?

[Brood]

All if Morovia are idiots and declare war on a second nation when it would be smarter to just bunker down and make us attack them, why inflict minor damage that will not slow us down all that much when it doubles your enemies fighting strength?

Capia can either ally with us and then watch us and Morovia fight it out, ally with Morovia and guarantee we attack them, or ally with neither and wait to see who attacks them first.
Morovia is in no position to attack Capia and if they have brains then they'll know it, why attack Capia and bring an entire second army and second navy into the battle when it will only make things worse for you when you can just force your enemy to march up to your borders then try to breach your defenses.

[RAM]

Of course, We are just engineers, we should treat this as a technical question. I say that the righteous boats aren't about to let us down ,lets got for the deep-sea crossing!

[3_14159]

Just a small question: You raise three possibilities:

a) "Capia can either ally with us and then watch us and Morovia fight it out"
b) "ally with Morovia and guarantee we attack them"
c) "or ally with neither and wait to see who attacks them first."

Why didn't you say: "Capia can either ally with Morovia and then watch us and Morovia fight it out, ally with us and guarantee Morovia attack them, or ally with neither and wait to see who attacks them first."?
There is no functional difference between a and b. In both cases, they ally with one of the conflict's forces and get drawn into the conflict. If they remain neutral, they will treat both parties relatively the same. That is, no access.

I reiterate my point: Granting military access to either of us will be seen as an act of war (or rather, an alliance) between them by the respectively other party.

[Taricus]

What I REALLY want to know is why the fuck is a bunch of military engineers doing dictating the military plans for an entire nation at all.

[Brood]

Because Morovia is in no position to attack Capia, it's unlikely they could stand up to us in a land battle let alone both of us combined.
We on the other hand have better infantry, better weapons, better air force, better tanks.
If they ally against us we still stand a pretty good shot of winning, we can risk fighting both on land if we need to, Morovia can't.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

All if Morovia are idiots and declare war on a second nation when it would be smarter to just bunker down and make us attack them, why inflict minor damage that will not slow us down all that much when it doubles your enemies fighting strength?

Total misunderstanding of modern warfare. Allowing enemy to have invincible supply routes, supply depots and bases = war lost

Of course, We are just engineers, we should treat this as a technical question. I say that the righteous boats aren't about to let us down ,lets got for the deep-sea crossing!

As engineers we very well understand how many boats we can lose with that "maneuver". One storm = we have no torpedo boats anymore


Taricus, we are not dictating, we are suggesting as well as with production. [/b]

[Brood]

No, that means difficult war, fighting 2 enemies at once 1 that is stronger 1 that matches you means war lost.

[3_14159]

Aside from the supposed invulnerability of supplies (please refer to Great Britain and Japan during WW2 for two examples of vastly different success for a sea-based variation), I reitarate again: What does Capia have to gain to form an alliance with us and fight against Morovia, assuming we follow your plan?
Agree:
Possible Reasons:
- "Sooner or later one side or the other is going to invade them".
- "No, that means difficult war, fighting 2 enemies at once 1 that is stronger 1 that matches you means war lost."
Effects:
- War with Morovia.
- Two upbuilt armies clashing on or near their own territory. Combat damage for them.
- The victor comes out stronger.

Disagree:
Possible Reasons:
- We've just threatened them, making us a common enemy.

Effects:
- War with us.
- Two upbuilt armies clashing on or near their own territory. Combat damage for them.
- The victor is either us or a common alliance between the two.

So, what exactly would you do? That's right, stay neutral. Ideally, let the other two fight, weakening them as much as possible. Afterwards, either security or you can intervene.
However, by threatening them with war, you take that neutral option away. Countries, like people, do not like being forced to something. Therefore, my prediction is that they will ally against us, combining their navies and trying to cut us off from supply while trying to fight us to a standstill.

Therefore, my reasoning goes as such:
A) They currently have the option to either join one of the conflict's sides or stay neutral.
B) Joining the conflict means disproportional damage to them.
C) Therefore, they stay neutral currently.
D) They, just like us, do not really know anything about the recent changes in military strength of us or Morovia (They can watch the battles; they do not have spies in every factory).
E) Due to C, they may know about the naval force levels, but have no clue as to the military developments of the last ~5 years (since the land war ended)
F) We would take their option of neutrality away.
G) Due to F, they have to decide to join one of the sides.
H) When faced with joining sides of forces whose strength they do not know, they will not chose the side that threatened them.
I) They will join the war against us.

Or, to paraphrase: Gunboat diplomacy only works if you've got a gunboat and everyone knows they don't.

If you disagree, please point out the points where I'm wrong.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

As I have nothing to do and quite bored ( and tired to argue) , want to share my thoughts about the state of  our forces, what we lack and what we have

First, armor and artillery

733 40mm towable cannons
160 Badger Tanks (diesel)
332 Badger Mk2 Tanks (gas)
200 Badger Mk2a Tanks (gas, HVG-40)
403 80mm medium cannons
148 Hydra AA badger variant
37 320mm coastal defense cannon
293 Armored Cars
2 K-1 (including prototype)
2 Battle Bus (including prototype)

What I like : Number of Badgers, number of Hydras, number of 40mm cannons
What I dislike:
1) The fact that we wasted huge production power on refiting badgers tomk2a standards while older Badgers are perfectly fine in main tank role( infantry support) We could just start building new badgers right away abd would have more tanks,
2) Abyssal number  of Armored cars.
3) Battlebuses, as those are waste of cash ( APC as expensive as a heavy tank is not good at all).
4) Lack of medium artillery

In short everything is bad

Navy:

1 Glorious Cruisers
3 Popular Devotion Support ships
5 Popular Devotion ASW
1 Alexi class frigate
1 heavily damaged Alexi class frigate
2 Alexi 1337 frigate
103 Righteous PT boats

What I like:
1) Nice fleet of universal PT boats that are very useful in coastal defense, river crossing or preventing enemy river crossing while
2) Alexi frigates : Our escort ship for years to come, I prefer lighter ships, without anti-torpedo armor as those isn't effective at small ship
3) Popular devotion ASW: Submarine killer is what we need
What I dislike:
1) Lack of capital ships. Glorious is not a cruiser in my books but aa large torpedoless destroyer with inadequate AA defense.