I should note, that according to the treaty signed during EU3, China should have given Georgia £2,000,000 this session, if they haven't, they are in breach of yet another treaty.
fasquardon
fasquardon
Last edited:
-
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.
Italy has not seen any of its money either, despite being promised a down payment this very session.
mm...If china in due the the war was unable to pay his scheduled depths, and you think its yet another sign of rogueness from Chinese player end, Then I invite you both Vayar and Fasquardon to come it tell me rigth on the face how rotten to the bottom he must then be...Honourable to beat up the ones already down eh?
If I would have money, I would vouch China for all its depth if it's technically unable to pay, But Unfortuanetly I don't.
Also it's bit wierd that those guys who don't play anymore cares about some deals made by them...why not being here and making sure someone honnours the treaty by yourself?
If I would have money, I would vouch China for all its depth if it's technically unable to pay, But Unfortuanetly I don't.
Also it's bit wierd that those guys who don't play anymore cares about some deals made by them...why not being here and making sure someone honnours the treaty by yourself?
Last edited:
The sticking point appears to be China's insistence on not ceding any Chinese land whatsoever, to anyone, for any time period limited or otherwise. Since the coalition is unwilling to sign any peace which does not involve a considerable transfer of land - at least, this is my sense of our consensus - such insistence can only lead to continued war. If China will not agree to the principle that land transfers, both to Georgia and to the other coalition powers, are on the table, then the negotiatons are useless and the war will continue.
It is worth noting that the coalition is waging this war to ensure a reasonable balance of power in Asia and ultimately in Eurasia, which will guarantee peace for our descendants. Unfortunately for the Chinese, this requires a considerable weakening of their industrial and military strength. Any compromise on this point will simply lead to the same sorry tale being told, twenty years or thirty years hence, and by that time even more blood will have to be shed to bring the Dragon to heel. That is intolerable; it shall not be. If necessary we will pour out a river of blood now, rather than have our sons pour out an ocean. If necessary we will occupy China for fifty years. The Dragon will be chained, or the Dragon will be broken, but the Dragon will not be allowed to run free.
It is worth noting that the coalition is waging this war to ensure a reasonable balance of power in Asia and ultimately in Eurasia, which will guarantee peace for our descendants. Unfortunately for the Chinese, this requires a considerable weakening of their industrial and military strength. Any compromise on this point will simply lead to the same sorry tale being told, twenty years or thirty years hence, and by that time even more blood will have to be shed to bring the Dragon to heel. That is intolerable; it shall not be. If necessary we will pour out a river of blood now, rather than have our sons pour out an ocean. If necessary we will occupy China for fifty years. The Dragon will be chained, or the Dragon will be broken, but the Dragon will not be allowed to run free.
Can't you just occupy 100% of China and then have him auto-accept any peace you propose?
Does Vicky have that force-peace mechanism? I had the impression it didn't. But in any case, let's note that China does have those ~100 divisions still fighting; occupying all of it is not to be taken as trivial. Then, such a peace cannot enforce the population-loss clauses; we would have to take land, instead, and then defend it for the rest of eternity. Also consider the partisans, oh ye gods the partisans. The rebels are a godsend for us, they mean we don't have to occupy what China can't defend, the rebels will do it for us and not provoke the endless guerrilla warfare. So, yes, we can do that but would prefer not to. Hence negotiations. Which are not going well.
Negotations?
I say more of dictations of terms from both sides...no actual negotation in between...
I say more of dictations of terms from both sides...no actual negotation in between...
In case you want something that outlines your plans should negotiations fail:
The "PINKO" plan!
The ideas are easy to outline:
- whack china until it is 100% occupied
- Annex the lands outlined as zones I to VI plus the "eastern borderlands" to whoever does the submitting of peace proposal, then edit them to new owners as follows:
1) Georgia gets China's thinly populated western provinces as its new "borderland"
2) Additionally, the Chinese coast line is divided up into six zones (I-VI) with copious hinterland, which will be awarded to all six victorious coalition powers. Negotiations shall be made on who gets what.
3) Powers that do not wish to keep possession of their allocated zone may dispose of it as they see fit... abandonment to rebels, return to China, or sale to the highest bidder.
No reparations, no humiliation. China should come out of that with maybe 60 or 70 million people remaining. It can then place bids to buy back territory from the victorious powers (should they want to sell anything).
The zones should be easy enough to police, if each power does its share...
The "PINKO" plan!
The ideas are easy to outline:
- whack china until it is 100% occupied
- Annex the lands outlined as zones I to VI plus the "eastern borderlands" to whoever does the submitting of peace proposal, then edit them to new owners as follows:
1) Georgia gets China's thinly populated western provinces as its new "borderland"
2) Additionally, the Chinese coast line is divided up into six zones (I-VI) with copious hinterland, which will be awarded to all six victorious coalition powers. Negotiations shall be made on who gets what.
3) Powers that do not wish to keep possession of their allocated zone may dispose of it as they see fit... abandonment to rebels, return to China, or sale to the highest bidder.
No reparations, no humiliation. China should come out of that with maybe 60 or 70 million people remaining. It can then place bids to buy back territory from the victorious powers (should they want to sell anything).
The zones should be easy enough to police, if each power does its share...
Why does China have to be divided?
Just make China pay a hell lot of cash for everyone once in a while, to prevent further wars of international security problems.
Just make China pay a hell lot of cash for everyone once in a while, to prevent further wars of international security problems.
Why does China have to be divided?
Just make China pay a hell lot of cash for everyone once in a while, to prevent further wars of international security problems.
That requires China agreeing to play a helluvalot of money. They already had a treaty in place which said China had to tax to death 130 million or so of its people, so that it would become less dangerous. They did not abide by this treaty.
Also I think the fear with the other players is that even with massive reparations, China will still be able to out-industrialize everyone and then convert into HoI as a giant who dominates everyone else.
What about China loaning all their ports to foreigners, say for 100 years?
Since if the zones are to be that large, it'll be really unfair. Those lands have more than 70% of China population.
Since if the zones are to be that large, it'll be really unfair. Those lands have more than 70% of China population.
What about China loaning all their ports to foreigners, say for 100 years?
Since if the zones are to be that large, it'll be really unfair. Those lands have more than 70% of China population.
Well I think they are trying to encourage China to negotiate, by saying that if China refuses current peace offers and forces a long war with 100% occupation, then this is what they will do.
Presumably if China would sign a peace now, it would be a more lenient one?
Let me point out that comrade Leviathan is not a member of the coalition, and does not speak for us. With that said, I must say I rather like his plan.
With that said, I must say I rather like his plan.I'm just a bystander who offers his counsel to the game
That being said, turning down negotiations and continuing a gruesome war is always a risky gamble. By refusing peace, China is playing a dangerous game which can bring benefits - if the coalition tires of war, they may still concede Blayne a not too bad peace just to have an end to the war. Even better, if members start to drop out, while China still has large armies roaming the countryside, the remaining belligerents may find the costs of keeping up the war effort too high, and Blayne may still turn the tables to get off with better terms than he would right now. However if the coalition remains committed and destroys China's army then it will very well be within their powers to enforce a Carthaginian peace on China, a peace that destroys China as a major power for all time. Think of the above as the "Bitter Peace" version of a peace treaty.
A more lenient "Brest Litovsk" version would limit the demands to just one or two provinces in each zone. The ones with the most population of course, with a population of no less that 40 million in total. Kind of like the legation cities after the Boxer wars? (Which this war reminds me a lot of). Plus reparations to each coalition member, and parts of Tibet and Xinjiang to Georgia (if it wants it).
An even less harsh "Versailles" version would just take two or three large cities along the whole coast to whoever agrees to garrison it with a 10 division army for all times in the next 25 years. Plus maybe Georgia's provinces in the west. Also it would enforce the old demands on China (death taxes, reparations, army limits, mobilization limits, military access for the victorious powers for the next ten years). That would force the least losses on China but it would put them under fairly effective surveillance for the next decade(s).
I wonder what China is hoping for? That the coalition members simply tire of war and drop out, while he avoids destruction of his huge armies? Have the coalition made up their minds already on what they want? And to whom the eventual territorial gains would go?
That being said, turning down negotiations and continuing a gruesome war is always a risky gamble. By refusing peace, China is playing a dangerous game which can bring benefits - if the coalition tires of war, they may still concede Blayne a not too bad peace just to have an end to the war. Even better, if members start to drop out, while China still has large armies roaming the countryside, the remaining belligerents may find the costs of keeping up the war effort too high, and Blayne may still turn the tables to get off with better terms than he would right now. However if the coalition remains committed and destroys China's army then it will very well be within their powers to enforce a Carthaginian peace on China, a peace that destroys China as a major power for all time. Think of the above as the "Bitter Peace" version of a peace treaty.
A more lenient "Brest Litovsk" version would limit the demands to just one or two provinces in each zone. The ones with the most population of course, with a population of no less that 40 million in total. Kind of like the legation cities after the Boxer wars? (Which this war reminds me a lot of). Plus reparations to each coalition member, and parts of Tibet and Xinjiang to Georgia (if it wants it).
An even less harsh "Versailles" version would just take two or three large cities along the whole coast to whoever agrees to garrison it with a 10 division army for all times in the next 25 years. Plus maybe Georgia's provinces in the west. Also it would enforce the old demands on China (death taxes, reparations, army limits, mobilization limits, military access for the victorious powers for the next ten years). That would force the least losses on China but it would put them under fairly effective surveillance for the next decade(s).
I wonder what China is hoping for? That the coalition members simply tire of war and drop out, while he avoids destruction of his huge armies? Have the coalition made up their minds already on what they want? And to whom the eventual territorial gains would go?
Last edited:
Gollevainen said:
My deal with Blayne specifically stipulated that come time, the debt would be payed, even if China was at war. So if Secrets hasn't received his money, then Blayne is an oath-breaker.
And Golle, as far as it being honourable to beat up ones already down, I remind you that when I played Georgia, I exterminated at least one empire over a broken oath, and you helped me do so, while being in complete agreement that it was a just action.
Gollevainen said:
Secrets has been dropped into a game with 800 years of complex diplomacy with much less preparation on my part than I would have liked due to personal circumstances. No surprise that alot of people have tried to take him for a ride. More of a surprise that Georgia's oldest and closest ally does not seem to have been helping him find his feet. Maybe that old ally should spend less time railing at Georgia's old player for trying to mitigate the bad circumstances he gave the new player, and the old ally should spend more time helping his friends. Maybe then I wouldn't need to care about such old deals?
fasquardon
And the longer the war goes on, the further away the coalition moves from Versailles and towards a Bitter peace.
The Georgian and Japanese zones are much weaker than the others, so the division plan isn't the most equitable, however, given China's nature as a chronic oath-breaker, I would suggest to the individual coalition members that arranging the perfect division is not a priority. Replacing rogue China with honorable powers would be a rich reward in and of itself.
fasquardon
Hum. Let me again note that the "PINKO" plan is harsher than what is currently contemplated by the coalition. I request that the Chinese negotiators do not consider it as a basis for their next response. Such a plan would only be contemplated against a China which had insisted on resisting to the very end, and consequently had no armies in the field; and it would only be contemplated by a coalition that had been forced to destroy the Chinese armies and consequently were pissed over their several million casualties.
Edit: Although, with that said, the coalition offer will perhaps not be considered an enormous improvement by China:
Edit: Although, with that said, the coalition offer will perhaps not be considered an enormous improvement by China:
- Reparations to all the attacking nations.
- Two or three humiliations, whichever will bring China closer to 0 prestige.
- Japan to receive its two cores and two additional provinces.
- Georgia to receive four border provinces, an amount of cash to be decided later, and the 2 million it is owed.
- Italy to receive the moneys it is owed.
- The provinces of Tibet and Bhutan to be given to Georgia, which will release them as satellites.
- China to switch its government to the Nationalist or Conservative party, and retain one of these parties in power, and 100% poor taxation and full tariffs, until the terms of its treaty with the Indonesian Confederation have been fulfilled.
- France, Norway, Italy, and Germany each to receive four provinces of their choice, to be held until China has fulfilled its obligation to the Indonesian Confederation. In the event that China is found yet again to be in breach of any treaty terms, including keeping a Nationalist or Conservative government and holding poor taxes at 100% and tariffs at full, there shall be no obligation to return these provinces.
Last edited:
As requested, the factory levels:
And the fractions:
Chinese expansion is now matched by Indonesian, but the Chinese have much deeper reserves of educable manpower.
As an aside, we will be needing a new perm for France, the old one having regrettably been forced to drop out due to persistent connection problems we have been unable to fix.
And the fractions:
Chinese expansion is now matched by Indonesian, but the Chinese have much deeper reserves of educable manpower.
As an aside, we will be needing a new perm for France, the old one having regrettably been forced to drop out due to persistent connection problems we have been unable to fix.
Being at war and being technically unable to pay are two different thing. Exspecially if being technically unable to pay due is caused by the war started by the seccond party of the deal.
Hah! Indeed Georgia exterminated one or two (I recall total of three) empires...usually for dupious reasons. We were there too as in all other crazy stuff Georgia did and always supporting it. But never, not even once did we tought we were being honourable when doing the exterminations.
It's not Finlands place to comment on chinese-georgian deals exspcially when Finland was kept intentionally out from the exact clauses and terms of those deals.
But no need to worry, Finland will help his allies like it's used to do, to near it's own destruction if neccerical...