[OOC] Anglia Event | Part I: Great Anglian Crisis

[Kori Chi]

I must admit there have been far too much content for me given my very light activity here to understand it all. However wanted to just state that my nation would realistically be willing to trade actively with both sides while keeping neutral, yet not find it uncomfortable to sell weapons (mostly late cold war tech given that it's what my nation produce domestically) in quantities for Anglia or else if needed (since always need a shady nation in those sorts of RP).

[Tagmatium Rules]

1 minute ago, Kori Chi said:

I must admit there have been far too much content for me given my very light activity here to understand it all. However wanted to just state that my nation would realistically be willing to trade actively with both sides while keeping neutral, yet not find it uncomfortable to sell weapons (mostly late cold war tech given that it's what my nation produce domestically) in quantities for Anglia or else if needed (since always need a shady nation in those sorts of RP).

EMBARGO.

[Kori Chi]

11 hours ago, Tagmatium Rules said:

EMBARGO.

After discussing with you on Discord, allow me to clarify: Understandable. However, realistically, it's trade that have been established since like the 80's, so way before even the war and stuff started.

OOCly we know Anglia is going to lose. But that's not a reason to have the bias of saying “yes, everybody against Anglia!”. KC doesn't know, just like Switzerland or Sweden did not know for sure in 1940 if Europe would ever be free from nazis (and pretty sure the Allies did not invade them afterwards for that). Therefore, neutrality and trade and a must for those that are in such position and will wait to see who's the winner. That's realism IMO.

Now if I do that, and just have tons of people putting embargo on KC just because “they know” by magic that Anglia is going to lose, I feel like that's kinda cheating because you know already the end-result, but there's no realism in that, because realistically all nations would continue to trade. Unless of course, you come to those neutral nations, and make agreement with them, and negotiate, like IRL the United States did, with lovely incensitives. Otherwise I'd just withdraw my proposal, goal wasn't to make KC a pariah, just adding more realism to the RP.

[Tagmatium Rules]

34 minutes ago, Kori Chi said:

After discussing with you on Discord, allow me to clarify: Understandable. However, realistically, it's trade that have been established since like the 80's, so way before even the war and stuff started.

OOCly we know Anglia is going to lose. But that's not a reason to have the bias of saying “yes, everybody against Anglia!”. KC doesn't know, just like Switzerland or Sweden did not know for sure in 1940 if Europe would ever be free from nazis (and pretty sure the Allies did not invade them afterwards for that). Therefore, neutrality and trade and a must for those that are in such position and will wait to see who's the winner. That's realism IMO.

Now if I do that, and just have tons of people putting embargo on KC just because “they know” by magic that Anglia is going to lose, I feel like that's kinda cheating because you know already the end-result, but there's no realism in that, because realistically all nations would continue to trade. Unless of course, you come to those neutral nations, and make agreement with them, and negotiate, like IRL the United States did, with lovely incensitives. Otherwise I'd just withdraw my proposal, goal wasn't to make KC a pariah, just adding more realism to the RP.

No, absolutely not.

But the flipside is, of course, is that it is in the interest of Tagmatium (and those who are ranged against Anglia/OCA) to put pressure on those who are still trading with a nation/alliance that they are hostile towards or at war with. This may include condemnation or more overt measures, as the trade helping what they now view as an enemy state.

It would be naïve of KC and others to think that they can sit on the sidelines and keep doing do without any repercussions. Whilst, yes, we "know" who is going to lose, this isn't about that. It is our IC nations dealing with what they see as an issue now. When there are Iverican/Gallambria/Seylosian/Tagmatine boots on the ground and it seems that other nations are aiding an enemy state by continuing to trade, there will be attempts to stop that aid. That trade may have a long history but that isn't the point.

Claims of neutrality may not cut it, unfortunately. Ultimately, at this point, it may well "just" be Tagmatium and those who are opposed to the OCA condemning further trade. I can't claim to be planning anything further. I know you're suggesting that I'm being too meta by doing this, using IC knowledge to inform OOC actions. It's clear that numerous nations are very much posed to take conflict to the OCA heartland, so KC will have to draw its own IC conclusions from numerous nations declaring war and whether it wishes to wait to be sweet-talked into anything.

[Kori Chi]

55 minutes ago, Tagmatium Rules said:

No, absolutely not.

But the flipside is, of course, is that it is in the interest of Tagmatium (and those who are ranged against Anglia/OCA) to put pressure on those who are still trading with a nation/alliance that they are hostile towards or at war with. This may include condemnation or more overt measures, as the trade helping what they now view as an enemy state.

It would be naïve of KC and others to think that they can sit on the sidelines and keep doing do without any repercussions. Whilst, yes, we "know" who is going to lose, this isn't about that. It is our IC nations dealing with what they see as an issue now. When there are Iverican/Gallambria/Seylosian/Tagmatine boots on the ground and it seems that other nations are aiding an enemy state by continuing to trade, there will be attempts to stop that aid. That trade may have a long history but that isn't the point.

Claims of neutrality may not cut it, unfortunately. Ultimately, at this point, it may well "just" be Tagmatium and those who are opposed to the OCA condemning further trade. I can't claim to be planning anything further. I know you're suggesting that I'm being too meta by doing this, using IC knowledge to inform OOC actions. It's clear that numerous nations are very much posed to take conflict to the OCA heartland, so KC will have to draw its own IC conclusions from numerous nations declaring war and whether it wishes to wait to be sweet-talked into anything.

KC trade with Tag and An. You both go to war. Why should KC change? An and Tag will both lobby. Eventually if war turn, KC will favourise the winner. But that's all.

But okay, forget my offer, don't want to dive into that. Just finding unfortunate that this RP is: all black, or all white, while reality is often grey (Allies did horrible things in WW2 for instance), and that's what I proposed.

[Tagmatium Rules]

20 minutes ago, Kori Chi said:

KC trade with Tag and An. You both go to war. Why should KC change? An and Tag will both lobby. Eventually if war turn, KC will favourise the winner. But that's all.

But okay, forget my offer, don't want to dive into that. Just finding unfortunate that this RP is: all black, or all white, while reality is often grey (Allies did horrible things in WW2 for instance), and that's what I proposed.

No, continue as you want. Obviously, this can be as black, white or grey as you wish

You want to be lobbied, fair enough. I imagine KC has been trading with both nations up until this point. How might you want to be lobbied?

Whilst the WWII comparison is the most obvious one, it's perhaps not as applicable in some aspects, as even the designated enemy in the OCA aren't doing anything as horrific as the Axis. There aren't any genocidal or even racist policies involved. As you say, more greys.

[Gaellicia]

Not sure which thread to put this in as we have multiple Anglia OOC threads, but I'll use this one since it's the most recent. Posting here for a more easily accessible timeline to consult for Tag and I.

Discussed with @Tagmatium Rules on Discord a timeline of Gaellicia's involvement in this war and the conflict with Volsci. The Volsci aspect will be mostly a regional affair, so other player nations for the most part shouldn't have to worry about them too much. Though sending supplies to us will certainly help with Gaellicia's survival.

January 21, 2023 - Start of the invasion. In the following days, Volscian forces make rapid gains and take hold of Yaran and make landings on my closer in island. Their ultimate goal is to permanently conquer Gaellicia. Their success is thanks to the element of surprise, the demilitarized nature of the initial targets, and speed.
Mid February - The front stabilizes some for us. The Volscian advance begins to falter.
March - A decisive victory for Gaellicia stems the tide, leading to a true stalemate.
April - We go on the counter attack. We manage to expel Volscian forces from our home island.
May-June - Gaellicia is making preparations to retake Yaran.

As Tagmatium begins to push into Suverina, Volsci (probably unwisely) captures the Hexanesa.  

Gaellicia offers to send an expeditionary force with Tagmatium into Suverina to help with your flanks. In exchange we agree to help each other retake our islands. This means our landings on Yaran are delayed.
? - Suverina campaign. Prep for retaking islands in the background.

October-November - Liberate our lands.

Air campaign on Volsci homeland, prepping for a counter/revenge invasion in 2024.

December - we’re forced to settle. Ceasefire signed and things go back to the pre war status quo. Except now there’s groundwork laid for a Cold War with Volsci and Gaellicia and Tagmatium are on the road to better relations? Defense agreement?

@Tagmatium Rules in regards to the Suverina campaign, in addition to the expeditionary ground force, I will provide sea lift for supplies as well as convoy escort. I have some corvettes that should be good in the claustrophobic and shallow waters that go to Suverina.

I'm sure the Gaellician marines can also perform landings and maritime raids so that your land advance into Suverina isn't the only vector of approach for our area of operations.

Air support will also be provided if Tagmatium can aerial refuel Gaellician jets or host a wing of fighters at a base closer to Suverina.

[Vithravark]

Ok, so, since now I'm somewhat nearby, I'll add my 2 cents on it. Still not quite sure which side to take on the grand affairs of things, though probably at some point will take @Tagmatium Rules and @Gaellicia side, perhaps as Volsci breaks the peace screen and invades Yaran. Perhaps some heavy handed diplomatic issues follow, since Vithravark could possibly be a beach head for a hypothetical invasion into Volsci.

[Gaellicia]

We could work something like that out.

33 minutes ago, Vithravark said:

Perhaps some heavy handed diplomatic issues follow, since Vithravark could possibly be a beach head for a hypothetical invasion into Volsci.

This idea, in particular, could allow the three of us to do some RP diplomacy and RP preparations without having to tackle the daunting task of a ground war in Volsci (as the counter-attack is going to be foiled, forcing a cease-fire). Still we could role-play diplomatic courting of Vithravark into our alliance and the military build-up for a counter-invasion that ends up never coming.

[Iverica]

Clarification. Shouldn't the broad Terrabellum war discussions be going on here? Since it says "part 2". I assumed it was meant for the phase of the war we're currently in/finishing. With this thread being for the opening stuff.

In the meantime, I've added some classification to the titles so it's less confusing: