Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Shadow of the Andes - An Interactive Chilean AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes to both
 
I would like to point out to all members of our illustrious Congresa that these two proposals are beneficial to our still fragile economy. First, this immigration will provide us a new tax base, and future employees in our growing industries. Second, this land we reclaim from the Spanish remnant will provide a boon to the markets and will do wonders for our deficit. I myself am quite interested in developing this land and hope I can purchase a good amount of this property, especially the choice pieces of it, early on if the latter bill passed. Further, if I do, I hope those new immigrants will supplement our small workforce and will help in building new industries for Chile!
 
Nay to the Freedom Act, for aforementioned reasons, such as national identity and the sheer amount of minority within Chile.

Nay to the Land Act, the Government needs to maintain total control over the land until the situation stabilizes.
 
I Abstain from the Freedom Bill, but offer Support for the Land Act. Some land must be kept for strategic government use, of course, but selling most to our own citizens may develop these lands to the profit of our nation with little cost to ourselves.
 
"We are a small nation still, it is in our hands to make Chile a paradise for mankind, a place where people no matter race or religion will become parts of a single great country, all of us must recognize that nor Chile nor any other country in the world will go anywhere, if it weren't for those in it looking for a brighter future. Those who were oppresed and seek equality,democracy and freedom, they are the ones who make countries great. Yes it is true our Chilean culture is very important to us and it shall be very important as well in the future, our religion as well will prevail in the hearts of all Chileans, The Bible says "love thou brother as you love thyself".
Why now will you try to close the gates on those who are looking for a brighter future, here in our land?
Yay to Freedom Act
Those who oppose democracy and are still bent to the Spanish crown, shall be expelled for they do not want whats better to the country, the president using the army should protect and assert sovereignty over every inch of our soil. We must free the land to those with the means and the willing to work it.
Yay to Land Act"
Coronel Francisco Javier De Miranda Reina
 
Senators, may I point out to all of you that you are all immigrants to Chile? Three hundred years ago nobody spoke any Spanish here. There were only the native population.

Now who are you to try and stop other people arriving to this country, some of them even your own fellow countrymen?

Especially, why is it that you are trying to sell the land in the south of our country to the greedy capitalists and investors, when they will no doubt simply exploit the natives? The native Americans have been here far longer than we Spanish-speakers, and you are about to throw away their freedoms in a trice?



-Senator for Punta Arenas, Witold Tamiuszski
 
Yes to Freedom Act
This is of little consequence to the national character and will promote cheap labour, though I still support the ideal of a single mother church. As long as we don't intend on giving the vote to these foreign peasants.

No to Land Act
Perhaps El Presidente can elaborate on the practical benefits to a northerner with few agricultural interests.
 
Yes to Freedom Act
Abstain on Land Act

"In normal circumstances I would support the Land Act, but I feel that the proposed sell-off requires government regulation to ensure that the population is treated fairly, according to the rights granted to all Chilean citizens. Currently, it seems simply to enserf the population of the area. Apart from the section regarding the sale of the land, I am for the resolution. I therefore abstain until a clause regarding the protection of the rights of the population be added, and I urge others to do the same."

Eberado de Cary
Senator for Valparaiso
 
Badajoz 1836-1837: Potosi​
​
​
​

Prieto had left Badajoz one issue that trumped all others - the reclamation of Potosi and Arequipa from Bolivia and Peru, which Prieto had always believed was Chile's by right. Badajoz, nearly a Jingo himself, wished to reclaim both territories, but knew that the three brigades he had ordered to the border would not be able to seize Potosi on their own, and he was loathe to commit additional armies to the cause. The President decided on a bold new plan: he would look abroad for allies to find another country that might be willing to attack Bolivia.

Before the foreign office could so much as dispatch a diplomat, though, Badajoz learned of a new threat to his plans.

At the start of his term, the new President had appointed three generals: Roseno, who was to take a single infantry division and march south, Carrow, who was to take two infantry divisions and secure the Bolivian border, and Zepeda, who was to serve as the rear-guard to Carrow with one cavalry division. Roseno grumbled slightly at his new task but complied; this was not the problem. Carrow, it rapidly emerged, was incompetent.

Only a week into his term, President Badajoz received a message delivered by courier from Zepeda, explaining that Carrow had hardly succeeded in marching the army to Copiapo under his dubious command. His utter lack of knowledge marked him as obviously unfit for command, wrote Zepeda. In truth, the situation was even more dire than the second general had said. The officers from Carrow's Army of Bolivia delivered a protest to Badajoz just days later saying that they would refuse to follow Carrow into battle. The President was forced to relieve Carrow of command and recall him to Santiago, unifying the Army of Bolivia and the Mounted Guard into a single unified Army of the Andes under Zepeda's command.

This first chink in Badajoz's plans proved to be short lived, as the foreign office returned with exciting news a week later. They had managed to secure an alliance with Brazil. Brazil, concerned with Bolivia's growing power on their southern border, agreed to aid Chile in its war of the Liberation of Potosi. Now confident in the strength of their invasion force, the Congreso declared war on Bolivia on February 1, 1836. Brazil declared war four days later, and Peru, the nominal ally and union partner of Bolivia, betrayed their alliance the next day.

Zepeda struck quickly, routing the meager standing Bolivian army at Antofagasta and sending his cavalry to surround the fleeing force at Potosi, forcing the surrender of nearly 3,000 Bolivian regulars. From there, Zepeda marched directly into Santa Cruz and Chuquisaca, and routed a hastily assembled defensive force of 9,000 conscripts and irregulars, who fled to Cochabamba to regroup and rearm. Zepeda began his assault on Sucre in March. The last pockets of Bolivian resistance died down by August, but the stubborn Bolivian government (by then fled to La Paz) refused to surrender.

Throughout the occupation, Zepeda sent messages to Santiago complaining of the lack of a rear-guard, claiming he had no officers he could trust to the task himself. Reluctantly, President Badajoz agreed to call up Roseno's Patriotic Army of the South for the task; Roseno marched north and occupied Antofagasta in September.

Nearly 30,000 Brazilian troops arrived in October and sensing defeat, the remaining Bolivian troops in Cochamba launched a desperate attack against Zepeda's Army of the Andes in Chuquisaca in November. Zepeda defeated them after two weeks of fighting at the cost of two thousand Chilean lives, sending them fleeing south to Tarija. Zepeda gave chase and his cavalry surrounded the Bolivian army in December, securing their surrender on Christmas Eve, 1836.

With most of the south of the country occupied and without any army left to speak of, Bolivia agreed to surrender the Potosi region to Chile. Chile officially annexed Potosi on February 20, 1837. The victory gained Chile enormous respect around the world, and the courts of Europe began to regard Chile as a middle power.

Peru, now broken away from the Peru-Bolivia Confederation, realized that an attack by Chile would leave them with a similar fate. In the aftermath of the annexation, Peru sent a proposition to Chile:

The Arequipa Purchase:
  • Peru will cede the Arequipa region to Chile
  • Chile will pay 2,500 pounds sterling to Peru
  • Peru and Chile will sign a Non-Aggression Pact to last in perpetuity.


Some urged President Badajoz to reject the treaty outright, but Peru's alliance with Argentina -- a much more powerful nation -- could prove troublesome if he pursued another war of aggression. The matter was put before the Congreso.
-------------------------

Player Actions Needed:

VOTING ON THE PARTIDO NACIONAL HAS CLOSED. The Partido has formed with broad support, more on that next update.

You have three things to vote on, the Freedom Act, the Land Act, and the Arequipa Purchase. If the Arequipa Purchase succeeds, Chile will peacefully purchase the Arequipa region from Peru. Otherwise, there will be a war. There is no peaceful option. The vote on all three bills will last one day.

Sample Ballot:
Freedom Act: Yes
Land Act: No
Arequipa Purchase: Yes

Chile will be unable to declare war on Peru at any time without incurring the penalties of a broken treaty, excepting revolution in either country (not coup, mind you. Revolution.)

There will be another vote on yet another party formation later. We'll get to that when we get to it.

For those wondering why I removed Carrow from command when I'm not supposed to do that - I don't normally reveal what traits generals rolled, but this time I will. Carrow rolled Lilylivered and Clueless, for a combined morale penalty of -100%, which means he would have lost every battle.
 
((Wow...wow...wow...

I'm a very sad panda now.

Also, if we voted already, should we vote again? Or can we just vote on the Arequipa Purchase?))

I vote Sí on the Arequipa Purchase.
 
Purchase, Yes. There is no reason for more fighting, which we could lose.
 
With 24 hours left (vote closes at noon PST tomorrow), we have:

Freedom Act:
Yes: 11
No: 3
Abstain: 1

Land Act:
Yes: 9
No: 4
Abstain: 2

Arequipa Purchase:
Yes: 3

((Sorrrryyyy Seek. That's the way cookie crumbles. It's not a personal reflection on you. The traits are chosen semi-randomly.))

EDIT: A bunch of people snuck in on me here.
 
For the Arequipa Purchase

"Although £2500 is a large sum of money, it is always better to achieve our goals through peaceful means. Additionaly, a war with Argentina would be disasterous - we have a long border, and though it is mountainous, we have no room to withdraw. Therefore, I recommend that we buy this land - it is valuable, and the alternative is war."

Eberado de Cary
Senator for Valparaiso
 
Seek75 said:
((Oh, my plans for conquering South America...ruined! I'll never be able to show my face south of the Equator again :( ))
Click to expand...

:(

You could make a new character.
 
Everyone dismisses a possibility of alliance with Brazil and then we get an alliance with Brazil! Perhaps if the senators would listen to me more often... Regardless, I am ecstatic at our success over the Bolivians. It almost makes me want to put on my old officers uniform. Almost. But I vote yes on the Arequipa Purchase as their Argentinean allies share a long border with us and they have the economic power to challenge Brazil.

-Armando de Vasces
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back