Inaccuracies

[scorpion]

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.

Well what is to be learned from this is that it wouldn't hurt for the news to be a bit more detailed when it comes to war operations, because I would'nt have considered any of this unless you referenced it otherwise.

[Serenissima]

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.

It's less a matter of the length of supply lines and more the era in which it's in. It's a huge, huge military deployment into an entirely hostile country, over sea alone without a friendly border country flowing supplies over it or anything. In 1898, when we're still using mostly sail power for non-military vessels, and horses and carts are the universal and sole means of moving supplies around on land. The opponent is fighting on home turf and with a hostile populace also resisting a huge and unexpected Italian invasion.

The latter argument is a bit facetious, as if everyone in the US was suddenly entirely in favour of the Iraq war and Afghanistan because Obama was elected. It'd be unpopular to continue the unpopular war, and fairly cheeky, game-mechanics-wise, to change government every time an unpopular decision is made to wipe away the negative opinion without actually changing the decision. In addition, the treaty allows for some retaliation, but a costly, enormous invasion of another European country is rather beyond the reasonable scope of the treaty, transparently so. :p

[Huojin]

It's less a matter of the length of supply lines and more the era in which it's in. It's a huge, huge military deployment into an entirely hostile country, over sea alone without a friendly border country flowing supplies over it or anything. In 1898, when we're still using mostly sail power for non-military vessels, and horses and carts are the universal and sole means of moving supplies around on land. The opponent is fighting on home turf and with a hostile populace also resisting a huge and unexpected Italian invasion.

The latter argument is a bit facetious, as if everyone in the US was suddenly entirely in favour of the Iraq war and Afghanistan because Obama was elected. It'd be unpopular to continue the unpopular war, and fairly cheeky, game-mechanics-wise, to change government every time an unpopular decision is made to wipe away the negative opinion without actually changing the decision. In addition, the treaty allows for some retaliation, but a costly, enormous invasion of another European country is rather beyond the reasonable scope of the treaty, transparently so. :p

1. Not an entirely hostile country, there are friendly elements and sections throughout, as demonstrated.

2. Spain still has a modest railway network, so don't get too up on your high horse (and cart)

3. The point in question is that no one blames Obama for starting the Iraq War or the War in Afghanistan. Unpopular wars or not, he still continued to wage them to what was deemed their conclusion.

4. If you knew Italian history you'd know that the Di Rudini government collapsed in the aftermath of the Bava-Beccaris Massacre, providing that distinction between governments without my interference. So I'll thank you not to accuse me of abusing game mechanics.

5. The articles of the US-Italian Treaty that was signed allow for whatever our redacted articles allow for. And within our opinion, Italian actions were well within the scope.

[Serenissima]

Wasn't accusing you of it, just saying that having a fresh government 'wipe away all sins' as a precedent would result in that. As for Obama, well, he also had to promise to pull out, with the resulting situation that it was unfinished and has led to IS, among other things, but that's a different debate. For a similar example, Trudeau removed Canada from involvement against IS, as promised and popular - he didn't stick around and continue bombing "because they were already there".

If it were up to me, I'd probably go back and redo the entire thing (including Italian plans) with regard to feasibility being taken into account, but I doubt there's any appetite for that. Regardless, a seaborne invasion of another major European country isn't exactly a simple or easy undertaking, even if we were talking the same being done by Britain, France or Germany.

[Master of Oblivion]

So first about India. The reason I had the agricultural revolution stuff was that Seren dumped a large amount of credits into the Indian famine thing. More than any actions save the construction of the canal by Smyg. An agricultural revolution is inaccurate to have happened in six months, but I needed there to be some outcome for it besides wasting credits.

- So about Spain: The Carlist uprising should be seen as a combination of political conservatives and regional uprisings that both united under the Carlist banner. Carlism had a boost in popularity in 1898 with the outcome of the Spanish American war. Furthermore Carlism still had enough of a basis in the Basque area to support militia. Huojin's initial propaganda would have fueled the flames of the Carlist too. Furthermore these aren't the best soldiers right now, they are militias led by the aristocracy.

With the Commune of Barcelona, I understand that Anarchism did not have a revitalization until 1908. What I was trying to do there is just have a more general workers uprising along the lines of what happened in Paris in 1870. There might be small factions of socialists and arachists, but mostly it is just fed up workers seeing a chance to revolt. If people are unhappy with this move I can undo it.

I agree with the naval issue. I will add Huojin's fleet back along with the Spanish fleet still being based in Cadiz.

[Master of Oblivion]

I have updated the news to include the results of NPC diplomacy with Seren.

[Smyg]

Well...

Many of the reforms both parties suggest are those that you have put forward.

[Master of Oblivion]

Fixed stuff with India, Ireland, and the Spanish-Italian war.

[Gesar]

The Ottomans (really, half the region, but it's probably best represented by making them Ottoman-focused) should have the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees and the smaller Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee. Split between Persia and the Ottomans (maybe Russia?) should be a generally vague Armenian militia rebel group.

[Aegis]

Hey Dr. MoO PhD, just wanted to say my inf tech upgrade is mentioned in the news but not the stats.

[Coin]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, why has my income decreased to an even lower point than before? Russia's income being the lowest in the game is a bit daft. A seventh the income of Belgium...

[Serenissima]

Russia was backward economically in many areas, but the sheer size of the place, the population, and the bits in European Russia that -are- industrialised do mean that the place is, indeed, deserving of being a Great Power.

[Gesar]

The Ottomans (really, half the region, but it's probably best represented by making them Ottoman-focused) should have the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees and the smaller Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee. Split between Persia and the Ottomans (maybe Russia?) should be a generally vague Armenian militia rebel group.

Bruh

[Coin]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, why has my income decreased to an even lower point than before? Russia's income being the lowest in the game is a bit daft. A seventh the income of Belgium...

[Serenissima]

As far as tech goes: how will we be handing aircraft, zeppelins/airships and Dreadnought-era technologies? Adding them to the existing system sometime I assume.