Inaccuracies

[Snacks]

Dr. MoO PhD gets a turn when I get a response

[Master of Oblivion]

I will need more information to change the level of the Chinese military. Has the level of armament been evenly distributed between military units or is this just concentrated in one or two key units? As a compromise position I could make it shown that the Chinese military is in the process of going between level 2 and level 3.

[Smyg]

Germany needs to have Hehe tribal rebels in German East Africa. They're a pretty big issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Mkwawa

In July 1891, the German commissioner, Emil von Zelewski, led a battalion of soldiers (320 askaris with officers and porters) to suppress the Hehe. On 17 August, they were attacked by Mkwawa's 3,000-strong army at Lugalo, who, despite only being equipped with spears and a few guns, quickly overpowered the German force and killed Zelewski.

On 28 October 1894, the Germans, under the new commissioner Colonel Freiherr Friedrich von Schele, attacked Mkwawa's fortress at Kalenga. Although they took the fort, Mkwawa managed to escape. Subsequently, Mkwawa conducted a campaign of guerrilla warfare, harassing the Germans until 1898 when, on 19 July, he was surrounded and shot himself to avoid capture.

[Serenissima]

I will need more information to change the level of the Chinese military. Has the level of armament been evenly distributed between military units or is this just concentrated in one or two key units? As a compromise position I could make it shown that the Chinese military is in the process of going between level 2 and level 3.

The military units which were most loyal to the Qing in northern China had priority, largely the Beiyang Army. This wasn't just a factor of loyalty, but also the sheer distances involved and lack of effective centralised government meant that even where arms were imported, it was very difficult to get them assigned far away from the import point. Of course, given the various competing princes and noblemen who were usually in both government positions and military commands, and the fact that these individuals had wealth and connections of their own to acquire imported arms, it was a very messy situation in general - and as pointed out before, just possessing the equipment did not mean it was usable, with the most clear example being the Qing navy.

[Huojin]

Seren, as helpful as you might think you're being, we've already said before that technology ratings do not equate to loyalty or ability to use the technology as well as other nations. Even having it correctly distributed isn't important for the technology rating, as it dictates whether you have in some significant level achieved that level of tech. Whether it's properly distributed or not is less relevant. The US sent troops into battle in this period using single-shot blackpowder rifles - does that mean we should downgrade them?

Just give China level 3 or say they get it in L1899, and if some crisis emerges then it can delay full implementation.

[Serenissima]

I guess we'll see how it goes.

[Smyg]

Hey Dr. MoO PhD!

I took the liberty of changing some stuff in the turn. I didn't edit any of text, beyond fixing some minor spelling issues, adding a coherent system of intro spacing, and adding punctation marks at the ends of the sentences that needed them. I may have missed some stuff. I did remove one or two of the NPC background paragraphs I had written for you, as they were superfluous to the other news (no sense in having two news pieces reporting on the same referendums in Australia). I also broke out all Oceanian news, and all Arctic/Antarctic news, into their own news sections, to make it all easier to read and more geographically coherent. There's still some issues you need to fix - I think there's a mixup with the two Italian massacres, and the Dreyfus Affair has an unfinished sentence.

[Smyg]

Once again, I hope this is fine - I also took the liberty of adding the full state names of all countries, in bold, to the NPC stats, to make diplomacy a bit easier. I also added stats for the following missing countries: Liechtenstein, Andorra, Brazil, Monaco, San Marino, Samoa, Hawaii (as of this turn). Check them out and see if the proposed stats are fine. I also fixed some minor spelling issues and such, removed overt spacing, etc. I also removed Sweden and Norway, since they don't make sense to have when Cthulhu has his own player stats for both kingdoms.

If you like the style, I can do the same to the first pre-game stats. If not, I guess I'll remove it all.

[Huojin]

Hey Dr. MoO PhD, so I thought I'd write a little about some inaccuracies/mix ups I spotted in the turn too. Smyg thankfully took care of most of the formatting stuff, so I can just say some other odds and ends. The turn was pretty good overall though! Also if you give me info on Spain and China, I'll draw up a map for you.

There are some clear instance of background news events Smyg and I wrote that have been duplicated, talked about twice, or seem in conflict or like they ought to go together. Here's a list:

"- The efforts to create the Federation of Australia gain traction with referendums being held in several colonies. The results are positive."
"-A referendum is held in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria to approve the draft Constitution of Australia. The constitution is accepted by the required majority in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria, but not in New South Wales."

"- In Malta, anti-British sentiment seems to wane. Citizens begin to see the Empire as a beneficial arrangement. Great Britian carries out naval exercises in the Central Mediterranean. Many wonder if the actions have to do with the war between Spain and Italy. "
"- Elections are held for Malta’s extremely limited legislature, granted under the 1887 “Knutsford” Constitution. Notable electees include Fortunato Mizzi, founder of the Partito Anti-Riformista."

"- The Bava-Beccaris massacre occurs in Italy. A group of peaceful protestors is shot by the military. The King of Italy initially awards the commanding general a medal for protecting the palace but soon relents in the face of criticism. He appoints Giovanni Giolitti to the premiership in the hopes that this will buy off left-wing criticism. Many on the left see through this scheme however, and are outraged at the king. "
"- Insufficient wheat harvests in Italy last year see a spike in prices this year. As the Italian government struggles to contain the prices, left-wing demonstrations break out across Italy demanding “bread and work”. These erupt into riots in Lombardy, which are brutally suppressed by the army under General Bava-Beccaris, leaving anywhere between 80 to 400 dead, and 400-2,000 wounded."

I'd recommend re-writing these sections (and possibly others, might've missed them) so they're integrated. Some of these have been moved around or deleted by Smyg, but I personally preferred his phrasing for the Australian referendums. Just my two cents.


Other issues:

Okay, it should say "Venstre" not "Venter" in the Danish elections. Autocorrect is an ass, this was my mistake.

The incomplete like about the Dreyfus Affair starting "The scandal surrounding" is my bad too, the section got copied incorrectly from notepad to pastebin. But it's explained by the line underneath anyway, so feel free to delete it.

There's an incomplete/poorly phrased/double explaining bit in the line about the Boers buying artillery - "about the costs, of the cost)" - which is Smyg's mistake (for once not mine!)

The Dog Tax War should have "takes place in New Zealand". I blame Smyg('s iPad)

It should say "Resistance to white rule" not "Resistance of white rule" for the Native Americans in the US stats.

Now that Greece is NPC, I'd like to propose its military be downgraded to 25 units total from 30 units total, since playability is no longer a concern.

Madhist Sudan should be listed in the stats, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan still doesn't exist, until 19 June 1899.

I dispute the success of an agricultural revolution in India. For starters, "India" is very loosely defined, since direct British control outside of the Princely States is not contiguous. But the real problem is that the system is almost entirely feudal. There's been no land reform, even in the British presidencies, to fundamentally change the state of land ownership in India - and there wouldn't be until 1947. It wasn't until after this that you began to see the seeds of agricultural change.

From what I can tell, Li Hongzhang should have requested Yuan Shikai to suppress Cixi, if anything. He was originally on the Emperor's side, before revealing the Emperor's plans to Cixi and Ronglu. This course of events would make more sense than him attempting to overthrow the dynasty entirely so early, and far more sense than the Emperor and Cixi uniting to fend him off.

Also worth noting that the New Army was actually considerably smaller than even the Kansu Braves - only 6,000 strong, versus 10,000 Kansu Braves. Of course they were better armed and trained, but the Braves were still armed with modern guns. Basically just pointing out the "outnumbered" bit seems a bit silly. Especially since there were other Chinese troops there too.

The Norwegian separatist/dissolutionist sentiments were more than just political-reform based, it'd be nice if the news item reflected that just a liiiiittle more.

I'm not quite sure why my popularity is so abysmally low, unless it relates directly to the King himself, rather than the government/Prime Minister. In which case that'd be fine I guess.

The agreement pertaining to the Cretan Gendarmerie was made with Prince George of Greece, not the Kingdom of Greece. They're separate, and it should be expressed as such.

In the naval battle off the Balearics, you note that "The assault on the Islands leads to the destruction of the Spanish fleet at the cost of one Italian ship." Firstly, it should be noted that 1 naval unit =/= one ship, so if I only lost one ship I should (presumably) still have 13 units not 12. Second, the Spanish fleet is primarily based out of Cadiz, so quite why there was a naval battle in the first place is a mystery.

Anarcho-socialists in Barcelona are not substantial or significant enough at this point in history to take over the city. Smyg's head anarchist honcho and will back me up on this if you want to debate the point.

The Carlists at their strongest point in the Third Carlist War massed 50,000 men. The Spanish state numbered hundreds of thousands. I seriously doubt that some 20+ years after their last rebellion, with their support having withered and faded away across the political spectrum, that they could mount such a substantial number of units unless they're very very poor quality. The fact that after their defeat they never again challenged after their challenge in the 1870s described as "small in scale and almost trivial in political consequence" is testament to their weakness.

If we had a debate on Qing equipment vs Qing troop standards, I believe we should have a similar one with Russia, since they simply don't have the equipment to arm their whole force - not even close. So the short time for increasing their military tech level is questionable to me, unless we're taking that into account at the very least mentally.

[Serenissima]

For the record, I wasn't even expecting anything to happen so fast in India - famine relief, agricultural equipment and some agricultural colleges wouldn't mean a 'revolution' in the space of six months, though land reform and sustainable development are on the cards in the grand scheme of things over time. So I don't disagree on that one as an altered description of what happened is advisable, even if the mechanical effects are the same from taking measures to stabilise the food situation.

Inefficient as the Russian military was, it was, however, more effective, equipped and powerful than the Qing.

[Huojin]

For the record, I wasn't even expecting anything to happen so fast in India - famine relief, agricultural equipment and some agricultural colleges wouldn't mean a 'revolution' in the space of six months, though land reform and sustainable development are on the cards in the grand scheme of things over time. So I don't disagree on that one as an altered description of what happened is advisable, even if the mechanical effects are the same from taking measures to stabilise the food situation.

Inefficient as the Russian military was, it was, however, more effective, equipped and powerful than the Qing.

I expected as much re: India. Just worth changing what's written.

And I don't doubt it with Russia. Merely pointing out that the situation is comparable. When your instructions to your men are "pick up any dead guy's gun you see lying around", you've gotta remember Russia is a little bit pants at the technology thing

[Coin]

For the record, I wasn't even expecting anything to happen so fast in India - famine relief, agricultural equipment and some agricultural colleges wouldn't mean a 'revolution' in the space of six months, though land reform and sustainable development are on the cards in the grand scheme of things over time. So I don't disagree on that one as an altered description of what happened is advisable, even if the mechanical effects are the same from taking measures to stabilise the food situation.

Inefficient as the Russian military was, it was, however, more effective, equipped and powerful than the Qing.

I expected as much re: India. Just worth changing what's written.

And I don't doubt it with Russia. Merely pointing out that the situation is comparable. When your instructions to your men are "pick up any dead guy's gun you see lying around", you've gotta remember Russia is a little bit pants at the technology thing

This, from an Italian player who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he's able to fight a war across a long land and sea supply chain, arm some Spaniards and feed their army, plus presumably pay them; all with no bother at all and great success. Because Italy definitely isn't pants at the whole war thing.

If Dr. MoO PhD wants me to get into a debate about why I disagree, I will, but glass houses etc. Russia's army was a match for most at this point, and I could debate my levels as being low already, but Russia having to arm her massive reserves is quite different - in both 1905 and 1917 it's on the home front that she was lost hardest.

[scorpion]

For the record, I wasn't even expecting anything to happen so fast in India - famine relief, agricultural equipment and some agricultural colleges wouldn't mean a 'revolution' in the space of six months, though land reform and sustainable development are on the cards in the grand scheme of things over time. So I don't disagree on that one as an altered description of what happened is advisable, even if the mechanical effects are the same from taking measures to stabilise the food situation.

Inefficient as the Russian military was, it was, however, more effective, equipped and powerful than the Qing.

I expected as much re: India. Just worth changing what's written.

And I don't doubt it with Russia. Merely pointing out that the situation is comparable. When your instructions to your men are "pick up any dead guy's gun you see lying around", you've gotta remember Russia is a little bit pants at the technology thing

This, from an Italian player who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he's able to fight a war across a long land and sea supply chain, arm some Spaniards and feed their army, plus presumably pay them; all with no bother at all and great success. Because Italy definitely isn't pants at the whole war thing.

If Dr. MoO PhD wants me to get into a debate about why I disagree, I will, but glass houses etc.

I really have to agree with coinnech on this, the capability over the sea, isn't where it needs to be to make sustaining a presence there possible for Italy.

[Serenissima]

Okay, now that I'm home and had time to read the news in full, a few historical points for inaccuracies and things missed:

Agreed with Huojin concerning Spain (no hordes of Carlists or Anarchists), though I suspect Spanish resistance on their home territory would be a lot stronger than portrayed, and the logistics of a massive seaborne invasion in 1898 leave a lot to be desired. A naval battle would probably not happen until after the Italians landed troops unless the Spanish naval forces in Europe were particularly moronic - and rather than throwing everything in and getting wiped out in a pitched battle they were clearly going to lose, they'd presumably stay based in Cadiz and sortie out to sink Italian troopships and supplies as raiders, being chased around the Mediterranean a lot. There's no radar or aerial reconaissance at the time for the Italians to actually find the Spanish raiders easily, so an ongoing problem for Italy - though not a crippling one - is going to be their commerce and supply lines being captured and sunk by Spanish cruisers.

A siege of Madrid within a couple of months of landing, especially given a non-suicidal Spanish Navy, is right out, given supply lines of the period and the fact that all military transport is horse-based still. For preserving the theme of Italy winning, which I'm fine with, though, there'd definitely be substantial beachheads on the Mediterranean coast of Spain with Italian troops, and Spain's instability - if not its exact portrayal - makes sense. So, the result of Italy winning is entirely fine, and even minimal (which is still going to be plenty of casualties) losses are possible given the relatively poor quality of the Spanish, but it certainly wouldn't be plausible as written. It's more a fight that is being won by Spain lacking much ability to counter Italy, even with the massive problems Italy's military effort would be suffering, rather than anything positive on the Italian side. The longer the fighting goes on, the more the balance swings in Spain's favour.

Italy's popularity issues, however, make perfect sense with regard to the fact that they started an enormous foreign European war and a full seaborne invasion of another country without any real casus belli or threat to Italy being involved, so the populace being upset with the government over this strikes me as entirely logical.

Might have forgotten the Fashoda Incident and Marchand's little expedition, but if you've left that out due to France not actively pursuing it, or are saving that one for the next turn after Kitchener gets there, fair enough.

As mentioned above, Indian 'agricultural revolution'. I don't mind my detailed efforts to stabilise the Indian food economy paying off, but a full 'revolution' in agriculture in six months' span is rather extreme! It was never what I'd intended, just laying groundwork for more future stability and prosperity in India and reacting to the initial famines.

Missed out the Imperial Conference and Imperial Preference reforms, and the latter's economic effects, from the turn. I know it was a seperate PM from the turn, so I understand how it might have got missed, but it's important I get that in there (and that the credits are deducted appropriately once I know the cost). Ireland was also missed, though I'm okay with this for now since I got a PM about Ireland and haven't actually spent credits there yet.

As you might have guessed by the names of them, all of the islands Austria-Hungary has now 'annexed' were already claimed by Britain via Right of Discovery, and formally incorporated in 1908. Not asking for a change other than noting that they were all already claimed - will otherwise be reacting ICly throughout the turn.

Technically, those five ships did not 'begin construction' - they are the first-class battleships Vengeance, Implacable, London, Venerable and Bulwark, which were already being built at the game start - hence why the short construction times given in the game are feasible. I merely didn't cancel them. This is a pedantic point, so sue me, I just care too much about naval matters.

The Boer section makes little sense, for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, the British position hasn't "softened", as it has not hardened in the first place yet, and central government, rather than the bullish High Commissioner, is handling the negotiations in this game. I know you're basing the Boer side off the Bloemfontein Conference reaction in 1899, but those positions and the 'harder' British position have not yet happened, so it's actually a much more reasonable offer than was made historically, and has been made before the unreasonable offer has been made at all.

Secondly, under existing treaties, the Boer Republics are still essentially, and legally, under British authority at this time, hence why there's an Uitlander issue in the first place. Legally speaking, the negotiations are not Imperial demands on foreign countries outside their sphere, but discussions with governments that form part of the Empire and fall under British 'suzerainty', as the treaties in question put it. The offers made are allowing the status quo of semi-independence for the Boers to be preserved in the hope of peace, rather than making them entirely under British control - so the parliamentary veto is not a new demand, or over a foreign country. Full rejection of the terms presented and walking out of the discussions is essentially a declaration of full independence, and triggering a war, but with the Boers starting it and being the bad guys this time around.

Unless there's some underhanded factors at play, I don't think that Paul Kruger was a suicidal warmonger who'd abandon negotiations without even making any counteroffers, especially not when the initially offered terms are much nicer than the ones that were historically offered in late 1899. So, if this was a deliberate thing on your part that they've broken off all relations and provoked the war themselves, fair enough, but for realism purposes, I'd expect more along the lines of a counter-negotiation offer - which is why I did those negotiations in a detailed PM, expecting some negotiated response from the Transvaal - such as altering the years of residence before enfranchisement, discussions over monopolies, and so on.

So, in both cases, if that's the way you decide to play it, fair enough - I just felt a bit like there was a misunderstanding of the South African situation here, and thought I'd bring it up for another go. Once I have the answer, of course, I know whether to react by responding to a Boer counteroffer in the conference (which they haven't given thus far) or going on a war footing to defend the British suzerainty against the declaration of independence, basically. Just strikes me as odd that the Transvaal reacts to a conciliatory position with tearing up the negotiations entirely, rather than, as historical in next year's Bloemfontein, the British High Commissioner for South Africa throwing a tantrum and walking out because his unreasonable demands were not met.

[Huojin]

Addressing some issues with Italy, though mainly Seren's issues raised, since Coinneach's comments are less thorough (arm, feed, and pay an army of local volunteers? Pull the other one )"

Agreed with Huojin concerning Spain (no hordes of Carlists or Anarchists), though I suspect Spanish resistance on their home territory would be a lot stronger than portrayed, and the logistics of a massive seaborne invasion in 1898 leave a lot to be desired. A naval battle would probably not happen until after the Italians landed troops unless the Spanish naval forces in Europe were particularly moronic - and rather than throwing everything in and getting wiped out in a pitched battle they were clearly going to lose, they'd presumably stay based in Cadiz and sortie out to sink Italian troopships and supplies as raiders, being chased around the Mediterranean a lot. There's no radar or aerial reconaissance at the time for the Italians to actually find the Spanish raiders easily, so an ongoing problem for Italy - though not a crippling one - is going to be their commerce and supply lines being captured and sunk by Spanish cruisers.

There are a number of factors I've gone into with Dr. MoO PhD about Spanish resistance, where favour has be curried, the background of Prince Emmanuele Filiberto (formerly Crown Prince of Spain, I'll have you know! ), discontent in Spanish society, and of course copious amounts of propaganda. So not wildly inaccurate levels of resistance.

As for the naval battle aspect, one might remember that the Americans landed in the Canaries, creating problems on the Atlantic side of Cadiz too. Just as a factor to remember.

A siege of Madrid within a couple of months of landing, especially given a non-suicidal Spanish Navy, is right out, given supply lines of the period and the fact that all military transport is horse-based still. For preserving the theme of Italy winning, which I'm fine with, though, there'd definitely be substantial beachheads on the Mediterranean coast of Spain with Italian troops, and Spain's instability - if not its exact portrayal - makes sense. So, the result of Italy winning is entirely fine, and even minimal (which is still going to be plenty of casualties) losses are possible given the relatively poor quality of the Spanish, but it certainly wouldn't be plausible as written. It's more a fight that is being won by Spain lacking much ability to counter Italy, even with the massive problems Italy's military effort would be suffering, rather than anything positive on the Italian side. The longer the fighting goes on, the more the balance swings in Spain's favour.

I would argue Italian supply lines aren't totally awful. Italy -> Sardinia -> Balearics -> Spain is not that difficult a chain to hop. Difficulties in Spain itself might be more significant, but we've got local Spanish support too, which one would assume makes supplying the army not quite as difficult as imagined.

Italy's popularity issues, however, make perfect sense with regard to the fact that they started an enormous foreign European war and a full seaborne invasion of another country without any real casus belli or threat to Italy being involved, so the populace being upset with the government over this strikes me as entirely logical.

Entirely logical, were in not for the fact that we had a casus belli through our treaty with the Americans, but far more crucially, this war began in February/March under the Di Rudini government, whereas the Giolitti government has come to power in late May/early June. The present government, therefore did nothing to begin the war and is merely continuing it to its conclusions, having already been involved in it.