Ha ha, cruel and real for most modern nations , but our Czar is a benevolent one.
-
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.
After all I feel like the Russians need the Mexicans more than the other way around, the Mexicans already have a syndicalism sympathiser for a president, so he’d love to use Russian bullying as an excuse to run to the international to find “safety in numbers” or whatever. it would be in the best interest of the Russians to instead court the Mexican people to their camp, if not for an alliance then at least to insure they remain neutral and outside of the internationale.
I’d say the easiest way to do that would be by huge Russian investment into the Mexican economy, finding some way to import Russian culture into the Mexican mainstream (I think Walt Disney lives in Russia in this timeline, right ? Or was that a different aar ?), and maybe just maybe if you want to be real sneaky, open up a line of credit to the Mexican government, let them borrow loans from Russia at low interest to fund all their socialist/welfare programs, hand them the rope with which they’ll hang themselves.
I’d say the easiest way to do that would be by huge Russian investment into the Mexican economy, finding some way to import Russian culture into the Mexican mainstream (I think Walt Disney lives in Russia in this timeline, right ? Or was that a different aar ?), and maybe just maybe if you want to be real sneaky, open up a line of credit to the Mexican government, let them borrow loans from Russia at low interest to fund all their socialist/welfare programs, hand them the rope with which they’ll hang themselves.
- 2
I'd agree, if empires were guided by a singular well then of course Russia and her allies wouldn't abuse their power to enforce such neocolonialist diktat on Mexico.
The thing is, empires are not guided by a singular will. The actions we ascribe to "empires" are the result of a thousand independent actors doing their own thing, seeking their own individual advantage with little regard for the 'overall good'.
Russia and her allies Britain, Japan and Austria are imperial powers with capitalist economic systems and very hierarchical social and political systems. The fundamental basis of capitalist economy is that debts must be paid and property must be respected. The fundamental basis of aristocracy is that privilege and wealth are exclusive to those who inherit it. Those things are ingrained in the minds of its people, especially its elites as that is part of their role. The continued acceptance of these tenets is the basis for social stability.
Mexico, now, that's a republican nation with no money, no allies, and an overwhelming stink of revolution to it. They expropriated their landed elites (how did those like it? Where are they now?), expropriated foreign corporations (how did their stock holders like it? Where are they now?) and that's just absolutely against the principles that uphold the social order in Russia and her allies, isn't it?
On what basis will a Russian diplomat, who may be from aristocracy himself and owns 50,000 acres of land in Vologda governorate, refuse to meet and listen favorably to the pleas of a Mexican exile who had 50,000 acres of land in Veracruz state expropriated from him? On what basis will a British general, whose family just was restored into ownership of their Sussex country estate, and the 51% ownership of the local brewery which they owned before the revolution, refuse to support the claims of a Mexican ex officer who got expropriated out of the distillery and distribution business he owned before the Mexican revolution? And if some British or Russian bankers are offered stock in a defunct but legally still existing American/Mexican oil business that still claims the two biggest refineries in Mexico, would they not see a great opportunity to buy cheaply something whose value may soon be restored by political "agreement" between Mexico and the imperial powers?
Tolstoy, in the third book of "war and peace", has some very insightful opinions about what really drives history... Did Napoleon or Kutusov really control the battle of borodino, or was it the result of 1000 individual, uncoordinated actions by officers and men on the ground? Is history really shaped by kings and emperors or does history merely portray it as such because that suits the overall narrative?
When Russian and imperial power moves in on Mexico, hot in pursuit of the hated syndicalists, that's just the thing where conditions and mindsets in the 100s and 1000s of actors involved in shaping Russian policy towards Mexico, will overwhelmingly lean towards perceiving Mexico and its government as a vile, evil, and illegitimate, and will perceive personal interest (moral, material and ideal) in helping all those exiled Mexican interests who want to have their land and their property back.
Syndicalist rollback, that's the direction the bus has been going since the Ukraine invaded Russia and lost that war. The bus ain't turning around just to accommodate some Mexican peasants who like their farming cooperative...
That's my interpretation and speculation
Totally real, that's how post colonial relationships between rich and poor nations work in the real world.
As for the benevolence of the tsar and the limits of his influence, see my previous post and Tolstoy
On what basis? That Russia isn't interested in an invasion of Mexico, and that this will be what's required to actually enforce these claims. Yes, business interests will be at play here, but that doesn't mean they'll win out- especially with the military sure to be invested in such a foreign policy coup. These figures might be pushing for harsh demands against Mexico, but you'd have just as many people who don't want to see 50 fresh divisions enter the field who would be pushing for leniency. The fact is that Mexico would never accept what you're proposing. These bankers and landowners might be greedy, but most of them aren't stupid, and if they are they'd be corrected by those who aren't.
Russia's great advantage in this phase of the war is that Red America retains Blue America's cavalier attitude towards Latin American sovereignty. Russia will win by not adopting that same attitude, particularly when they already have the largest empire in history to exploit.
- 2
Au contraire, Russia doesn't have to invade Mexico to put irresistible pressure on the country.
Russia is going to move a huge fleet, a big army, and a gigantic weapons arsenal into the Caribbean. That's a lot of muscle but it needs to be supplied locally and they will need all kinds of services to operate. The military headquarters on Cuba and the Russian embassy in Havana, once they are set up, are going to put out tenders for all kinds of services and supplies that they want from the locals - food, transportation, construction, amenities, security, entertainment. It's going to be a big factor in the Cuban economy. The Russians need a lot and they offer a lot: cash, political influence, bribes (so many bribes!), trade contacts, and of course military muscle.
The managers of the Russian Caribbean operation have a job, and that is, ensure smooth operation of the military forces, wherever the forces go. To do that, the managers will enter deals with locals. The Tsar isn't going to give them any kind of directives, what he does is tell the generals "Make the Caribbean safe against syndicalism, and check back with me before you go attack or invade nations we aren't at war with". The generals can figure the rest out on their own. Is Mexico a future target for operations? Can we deal with Mexican exiles or not? Is the Mexican president our enemy, or not? Is ex president Villa our friend, or not? That's not something the tsar decides, that's what the generals and diplomats on the ground decide. They're going to be thinking about what it would mean for their mission if the Americans preempt the Russians in moving on Mexico, and how they can control for such a risk by seeking out intelligence within and around Mexico. And the local actors, who actually make deals, introduce business partners to each other, aren't thinking of the overall mission, but of their personal careers and advantage.
It's not relevant what the tsar thinks of details at this point, he's got two continents to manage and isn't going to get involved. Russian imperial power abroad manages itself.
Welcome to the reality of imperialism since 3000BC
You call it greed, I call it self interest
It's what gets people to get up in the morningI intentionally exaggerated the kind of claims that Russia could push on Mexico. 120 year repayment schedule, compound interest, of course that's a bit over the top. But fundamentally, from the point of view of anyone seeking to invest or do business partnership with/in Mexico, those kind of issues absolutely must be addressed by the Mexican government, and can't be allowed to be swept under the rug. Can't make deals with people who don't pay debt, can't invest in a place where foreign property got expropriated without compensation. Syndicalist nations can do that, they don't care about what some capitalist lost 15 years ago. They deal between states. But Russia isn't a syndicalist nation, its economic actors are private enterprises. Can't do that.
Again, who and what is "Russia"? Russia's banks and businesses, those are to a great deal led by American exiles. What do you think they think of the Mexican revolution? Russia's military power abroad, that's generals and diplomats and they are by now veterans to dozens of invasions and arbitrary redrawing of borders across two continents. What does "national sovereignty" mean to people who annexed the Ukraine, dismembered the Ottoman Empire, redrew borders across the whole Balkans, carved chunks off imperial Germany when the opportunity arose, stormed across all of western Europe in weeks, and divided the continent together with the Habsburg? A mere theoretical concept.
Who secured those cities for the tsar, who kept the supplies flowing? Who kept Russia's soldiers fed, warm and clothed as they prepared for the channel invasion? Who keeps the trucks going, who brings fuel to thirsty planes? The Tsar? No, it's the generals, the business interests, the military and logistics and industrial managers, who do that... That, is Russia's power. They are Russia's power. They are Russia's advantage, not abstract ideals. Russia won't get anywhere without them. They shape its actions
- 1
- 1
I’m sorry but I still fail to see the logic in your argument.
first of all, from what we saw in the AAR so far, the 1000s of actors you mentioned don’t actually shape Russian policy all that much, it’s mostly the Tzar that dictates what Russia will do with barely any say for the rest of the government, you know, kinda like how he just ordered them to accept his desires for the German royal family to go back to ruling a unified Germany, or letting the Hapsburgs take over all of Italy.
second of all, how would antagonising Mexico and basically giving them an ultimatum between torpedoing their entire economic/political system or facing a Russian military invasion a good idea ? Again, Russia main goal isn’t expansion, it’s to prevent Mexico (that already has a Syndi sympathising president) from joining browder’s new USSR, so why would the Russians ever try to achieve that by obviously and publicly bullying the super popular Mexican government ? That would only have the opposite effect and would only hasten Mexico’s membership into the internationale, it would be so much better to gain the current Mexican government’s friendship instead, especially since unlike the totalists, the Mexicans haven’t really leaned into the “all capitalists/royalists are evil” rhetoric yet.
and finally, since when had the immigrants in russia, be they American or otherwise had any say on Russian foreign policy ? The Tsar does what the Tsar wants.
first of all, from what we saw in the AAR so far, the 1000s of actors you mentioned don’t actually shape Russian policy all that much, it’s mostly the Tzar that dictates what Russia will do with barely any say for the rest of the government, you know, kinda like how he just ordered them to accept his desires for the German royal family to go back to ruling a unified Germany, or letting the Hapsburgs take over all of Italy.
second of all, how would antagonising Mexico and basically giving them an ultimatum between torpedoing their entire economic/political system or facing a Russian military invasion a good idea ? Again, Russia main goal isn’t expansion, it’s to prevent Mexico (that already has a Syndi sympathising president) from joining browder’s new USSR, so why would the Russians ever try to achieve that by obviously and publicly bullying the super popular Mexican government ? That would only have the opposite effect and would only hasten Mexico’s membership into the internationale, it would be so much better to gain the current Mexican government’s friendship instead, especially since unlike the totalists, the Mexicans haven’t really leaned into the “all capitalists/royalists are evil” rhetoric yet.
and finally, since when had the immigrants in russia, be they American or otherwise had any say on Russian foreign policy ? The Tsar does what the Tsar wants.
There's absolutely no way Russia poses a greater military threat to Mexico than the CSA. If Mexico bows to Russian demands to that extent the result will be a CSA invasion.
Yes, I agree. And because most of those officers aren't fools, they won't make these kind of demands of Mexico or try for operations in a country on the CSA's border. Right now we want the Carribbean. We don't want to start a land war we can't possibly win against an enemy of our industrial strength that can easily reinforce its forces.
We're not discussing investing in Mexico. We're discussing keeping Mexico neutral, and potentially getting them as an ally of convenience if Browder does too much of a diplomatic gamer moment. Any Russian economic influence in Mexico would be unsustainable; any Mexican government that made even a tenth of the kind of deal you're proposing with Russia would get the CIA shooting its President real quick. Again, Mexico is literally on the border with America. We can't be thinking about projecting that kind of power there unless we've, for instance, totally sunk the American navy.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
What this all sounds like to me, is the trigger for the existing series of events in Mexico after Zapata is killed, where the end result might be Syndicalist, Totalist, or a conservative, military Junta.
As for Russia's course of action, whatever happens, a Mexico outside of the sphere of influence of the CSA can only help, whether they're let-leaning or not. Trying to pressure them into rolling back their popular Zapatist reforms would be disastrous, and would only lead to widespread support for joining the Internationale (such as it is). Make friends with the Devil, if it'll help you cross the bridge is what Realpolitik Russian interests dictate.
As for Russia's course of action, whatever happens, a Mexico outside of the sphere of influence of the CSA can only help, whether they're let-leaning or not. Trying to pressure them into rolling back their popular Zapatist reforms would be disastrous, and would only lead to widespread support for joining the Internationale (such as it is). Make friends with the Devil, if it'll help you cross the bridge is what Realpolitik Russian interests dictate.
- 1
It always feels good to see such strong engagement with a chapter. Clearly Mexico's sittuation is an emotive one so I'll make sure they get covered properly through this arc.
There's a lot to fit in the tail end of 1943!
Speaking of contentious issues, the duma voting system is going to be opening up for input. I can prepare a brief covering the canon sittuation and proposals (and will cover the debates as they evolve) but the essential questions (insofar as they impact the model I'll use for Russian elections going forward) are:
Duma:
Proportional representation or individual member seats
In the event it's proportional, what percentage must a party win to be represented at all ( the big parties wont want a billion small ones getting in on 1/500th of the vote.
The far right want a return to vote weighting but are unlikely to have the numbers to authoritatively recommend such a push.
Senate:
What should this become? The current structure has Senators being selected by persons belonging to certain bodies:
The chambers of commerce
The academies of science
The nobility
The army etc
plus Imperial apointments
Does that structure remain or should the senate change character. if it remains as is, what groups should be represented and with what weightings.
I know thats a bit of an info dump but wanted to give people heads up in case they want to engage
Now im going to go to bed and hopefully tomorrow i can have a new chapter up.
There's a lot to fit in the tail end of 1943!
Speaking of contentious issues, the duma voting system is going to be opening up for input. I can prepare a brief covering the canon sittuation and proposals (and will cover the debates as they evolve) but the essential questions (insofar as they impact the model I'll use for Russian elections going forward) are:
Duma:
Proportional representation or individual member seats
In the event it's proportional, what percentage must a party win to be represented at all ( the big parties wont want a billion small ones getting in on 1/500th of the vote.
The far right want a return to vote weighting but are unlikely to have the numbers to authoritatively recommend such a push.
Senate:
What should this become? The current structure has Senators being selected by persons belonging to certain bodies:
The chambers of commerce
The academies of science
The nobility
The army etc
plus Imperial apointments
Does that structure remain or should the senate change character. if it remains as is, what groups should be represented and with what weightings.
I know thats a bit of an info dump but wanted to give people heads up in case they want to engage
Now im going to go to bed and hopefully tomorrow i can have a new chapter up.
To answer this things I must ask: how is the Empire organized internally? Are there sub-national divisions or just municipalities? Are there special "provinces " or "states" for significant minorities? Etc.
Im hearing that "state of the empire 1944" probably needs to be a thing.
- 2
I like the structure as is since it's fairly unique and gives your Russia some character. I like the groups you've listed, but I'm not certain on weightings. I think the Academies would be smallest, but beyond that I'm not sure. I think direct imperial appointments are the most interesting category since that determines whether it's a real senate or a rubber-stamp for the autocrat.
For the first, why not both? Have some members elected by nationwide popular vote where parties receiving 5% of the national vote get members accordingly, but also have (large) constituencies where the share of the vote in that constituency delivers one or two members to the Duma. The first would probably provide a reasonable basis to form a majority "government"; the second would represent regional interests including those of minority groups that otherwise would have no chance of having their voices heard in the Duma.
For the Senate I rather like the idea of having it representative of organisations rather than people/places. I'll rather cheekily suggest thar rganisations such ss trade unions and the various faiths should have some representation, provided they have a sufficiently organised structure to provide one and represent something significant - there's probably no need for the hunting clubs to select a representative for the Senate (Philatelists, on the other hand...)
- 1
There are many parliamentary systems with a hybrid list/representation system. I'd say that the first question is: How big should the Duma be? The bigger the number of MPs, the more representative they are, and thus the issues brought up will be closer to the people in individual areas, as opposed to just grand strategy decisions.
Following that, there should be a system to balance the regional votes with the people actually getting elected. If all of Primorsk voted for Kadets (because of the American and Japanese influence there), then at least one Primorsk-based Kadet should actually make it to the Duma, not only the capital-based leadership of the party, because they ensured their being at the top of the party's list. In Greece you mark your individual favourites on the party list (up to 3) when voting, then those with the most votes has leverage to make sure he gets to join Parliament. Also in Greece, the party who wins the elections gets a 'bonus' of 50 seats out of a 300 seat parliament to ensure it's better able to create a government. The 3 percent national threshold also ensures that no two-bit party enters the national arena.
To better cater to the needs of the regions, maybe some 'regional independent; seats could be set apart for people to be elected without the support of a national party, which would ensure some representatives of the minorities get through. Again, that depends on the number of total members which will make up the new Duma. Keep in mind, please, that since the previous elections, the number of eligible voters has pretty much doubled, and the country has been enlarged by about a quarter by my estimates.
Following that, there should be a system to balance the regional votes with the people actually getting elected. If all of Primorsk voted for Kadets (because of the American and Japanese influence there), then at least one Primorsk-based Kadet should actually make it to the Duma, not only the capital-based leadership of the party, because they ensured their being at the top of the party's list. In Greece you mark your individual favourites on the party list (up to 3) when voting, then those with the most votes has leverage to make sure he gets to join Parliament. Also in Greece, the party who wins the elections gets a 'bonus' of 50 seats out of a 300 seat parliament to ensure it's better able to create a government. The 3 percent national threshold also ensures that no two-bit party enters the national arena.
To better cater to the needs of the regions, maybe some 'regional independent; seats could be set apart for people to be elected without the support of a national party, which would ensure some representatives of the minorities get through. Again, that depends on the number of total members which will make up the new Duma. Keep in mind, please, that since the previous elections, the number of eligible voters has pretty much doubled, and the country has been enlarged by about a quarter by my estimates.
- 2
I generally agree with this, though I will add that those exact same "Realpolitik" and "Individual" decision making processes are what lead foreign aristocrats and bankers to invest in "politically inimical" revolutions of any sort and countries when convenient for the individual or their plots. Thus, Germany giving the Bolsheviks a billion dollars of gold when it was convenient to them or US industries investing in interwar USSR and Germany.I'd agree, if empires were guided by a singular well then of course Russia and her allies wouldn't abuse their power to enforce such neocolonialist diktat on Mexico.
The thing is, empires are not guided by a singular will. The actions we ascribe to "empires" are the result of a thousand independent actors doing their own thing, seeking their own individual advantage with little regard for the 'overall good'.
Russia and her allies Britain, Japan and Austria are imperial powers with capitalist economic systems and very hierarchical social and political systems. The fundamental basis of capitalist economy is that debts must be paid and property must be respected. The fundamental basis of aristocracy is that privilege and wealth are exclusive to those who inherit it. Those things are ingrained in the minds of its people, especially its elites as that is part of their role. The continued acceptance of these tenets is the basis for social stability.
Mexico, now, that's a republican nation with no money, no allies, and an overwhelming stink of revolution to it. They expropriated their landed elites (how did those like it? Where are they now?), expropriated foreign corporations (how did their stock holders like it? Where are they now?) and that's just absolutely against the principles that uphold the social order in Russia and her allies, isn't it?
On what basis will a Russian diplomat, who may be from aristocracy himself and owns 50,000 acres of land in Vologda governorate, refuse to meet and listen favorably to the pleas of a Mexican exile who had 50,000 acres of land in Veracruz state expropriated from him? On what basis will a British general, whose family just was restored into ownership of their Sussex country estate, and the 51% ownership of the local brewery which they owned before the revolution, refuse to support the claims of a Mexican ex officer who got expropriated out of the distillery and distribution business he owned before the Mexican revolution? And if some British or Russian bankers are offered stock in a defunct but legally still existing American/Mexican oil business that still claims the two biggest refineries in Mexico, would they not see a great opportunity to buy cheaply something whose value may soon be restored by political "agreement" between Mexico and the imperial powers?
Tolstoy, in the third book of "war and peace", has some very insightful opinions about what really drives history... Did Napoleon or Kutusov really control the battle of borodino, or was it the result of 1000 individual, uncoordinated actions by officers and men on the ground? Is history really shaped by kings and emperors or does history merely portray it as such because that suits the overall narrative?
When Russian and imperial power moves in on Mexico, hot in pursuit of the hated syndicalists, that's just the thing where conditions and mindsets in the 100s and 1000s of actors involved in shaping Russian policy towards Mexico, will overwhelmingly lean towards perceiving Mexico and its government as a vile, evil, and illegitimate, and will perceive personal interest (moral, material and ideal) in helping all those exiled Mexican interests who want to have their land and their property back.
Syndicalist rollback, that's the direction the bus has been going since the Ukraine invaded Russia and lost that war. The bus ain't turning around just to accommodate some Mexican peasants who like their farming cooperative...
That's my interpretation and speculation
Of course, just like you said, so can the opposite occur. It really comes down to who is giving the overall shots (will an invasion be launched in support of X, etc.) vs. varying levels of economic or political involvement.
Logically, from the point of the government and monarchy, the Duma should remain on a FPTP individual seat system. Russia is a diverse nation, it won't serve the state interest to have every party attempt to create nation wide consciousness for their particular pet issues. Parties with local interests should campaign locally. Regional grievances should be addressed locally, not nation wide. Essentially, FPTP plays into the regional divides and lets the state buy off groups on the cheap whereas a nation wide proportional representation will create nation wide parties which are all the harder to coopt or buy off.
From the point of liberal and socialist/syndicalist parties, of course, a nation wide proportional representation should suit them best. How better to stoke flames of grievance, unite people in demand for reform, etc.
The senate is a curious and remarkable institution. The way it incorporates non partisan representation of institutions that the crown considers particularly important to the stability and well being of the state, is helpful and useful for a state that goes through as tumultuous a transformation as Russia.
That being said, what is the purpose of the senate in the future? Advisory to the crown, or active part in the legislative process, with initiative of its own? If the latter, then I don't think it's good to include "corporative representation" because it politicizes institutions that shouldn't be politicized, and gives initiative to institutions that should be servants of the state, not helmsmen. If the senate is a place where laws are negotiated then its members should all represent groups whose assent (well that of a majority) is necessary to make the laws good and politically accepted.
The chambers of commerce are okay, I guess. They represent a distinct and institutionally independent group on society.
Nobility... Well it's hard to imagine an imperial Russian state without a powerful nobility. I guess they are important, and their opinion impossible to ignore for the crown. But it should be said, that in times of modernization and rapid social change, their interest will usually be to secure advantages for the very few against the whole of society. As soon as any law touches on the material basis for the aristocracy's (hereditary wealth, hereditary privilege) the aristocracy will look only to its own interests and to nothing else. It's going to be very unpopular in the future when social questions come up to the Duma and senate. How useful is it to have them in the senate, really? Isn't that an unnecessary reactionary influence which should act through the Duma, on the basis of electoral franchise, rather than corporative representation?
The army, well my thinking is, these guys are important advisors to the tsar, but why include them in the law making process. The military serves the state, it should not guide it. Not in the future. The ministries of the army and the navy should look out to their interests, through the executive's influence on law making, not through seats in the Duma. Maybe reserve a very small number for them, like one or two seats, so they're heard but aren't a factor in the voting.
Academies of science - for a state that is fighting a world war, and looks to technology to win it, and then when it's won will look to technology to improve the lives of its people, yeah, the academies are going to be super important. At least for consultancy and advice. For law making, though? 99% of laws that come to the Duma (and the senate?) there won't be a scientific angle either way. The academics themselves are going to be a miniscule group within society. So, if the senate were to be part of the law making process (rather than just an advisory body) then in my opinion they don't have a place there. The crown should instead set up permanent committees to advise the crown and the ministries on any questions of scientific and technological importance, and take them out of the law making process.
Here are some groups that I think deserve representation on a body designed for corporative representation:
The various churches of the empire's subject peoples, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or other.
Veteran organizations. A mostly loyal group which nonetheless can take up popular grievances, without going through potentially subversive political parties.
Organizations representing the recipients of imperial retirement pensions. Same rationale as above.
Medical practitioners.
Now that I think about it, a body claiming to represent the masses in some way, but appointed by the crown, might end up becoming as unpopular as the "national front" organizations of post WW2 communist states IOTL. But that's a long term outcome. Old men in suits, claiming to represent a group, but needing personal protection detail when actually visiting that group...
But no political system is free of contradictions, so it may be a moot point. Nothing lasts forever
Yay!
- 1
Just apologising and flagging that work is particularly brutal this week (like a lot of other people who have been repointed from their regular work to the COVID-19 space, the stress waxes and wanes with outbreaks) so I don't expect the next update for another 48 hours.
I also haven't written much Browder before, so I'm still getting used to getting him right. He's not as one-dimensional as Valois or Bucard, and I'm not as familiar with him as I am with Vladimir. My interpretation of the man also differs a bit from the Kaiserreich norm, which means I have less of an anchor to check him against. I may be going out on a limb a bit, but if I don't have the conviction to re-write characters, especially now we're moving well beyond scripted events, then why am I even writing narrative story components?
Anyway, long story short is that narrative components always take longer than history book, and that's especially the case where I need to sit down and really understand a character first. Who is this American? And now that he has power, what makes him tick?
I also haven't written much Browder before, so I'm still getting used to getting him right. He's not as one-dimensional as Valois or Bucard, and I'm not as familiar with him as I am with Vladimir. My interpretation of the man also differs a bit from the Kaiserreich norm, which means I have less of an anchor to check him against. I may be going out on a limb a bit, but if I don't have the conviction to re-write characters, especially now we're moving well beyond scripted events, then why am I even writing narrative story components?
Anyway, long story short is that narrative components always take longer than history book, and that's especially the case where I need to sit down and really understand a character first. Who is this American? And now that he has power, what makes him tick?
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Guess I have 48 hours to advance from the beginning of the invasion of Britain to the current update.Take your time! After all, no matter how much time it takes you the updates always have superb quality.
Btw, I enjoyed the confused British at the Russian landing, it was so fun.
- 2
Man I missed the discussion about Spain, I was definitely going to say that Xavier was the better choice. Ah well.
- 1