Re the US: no, nothing that ever amounted to very much. The Philippines was the worst of it at the start, then later some sub warfare, the odd naval engagement and the to and fro over Midway.
- 1
- 1
-
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.
To be brutally honest, once I pack my bags and leave the Kremlin, Stalin takes over again and so I imagine at the very least, Poland is going to lose its government. Voting against the Soviet master plan, being anti stalin and...Well...being in his way. I imagine Poland will still get a polish government, it'll just be a handpicked communist one.
Having said that, maybe Stalin stays content and the diplomatic guy who ran the negotionas stays running daily operations, in which case (given Germany and Poland are both under their sway) there is probably going to be a diplomatic referendum on where the disrupted territories wish to go to, or if they want to be their own place.
- 2
- 1
I doubt the US is going to mind much then. Sure its a backslap and a humiliation for the government, but not one that makes everyone want to take revenge on Japan. More like people want to go back to splendid isolation. Esepcialyl with europe fallen to communism and the British still being imperialist pricks
- 2
- 1
I foresee Stalin sending the master diplomat to head the Vladivostok peace talks. Due to train troubles, the master diplomat is forced to overnight at a luxurious Siberian gulag. As the doors close against the Arctic winter, the master diplomat notices that his ticket was one-way and not round-trip. The competent must be Western traitors for none in the communist party is better than Papa Joe. The longer that Stalin lives and oppresses, the sooner Europe breaks free. (Stalin will purge anyone remotely competent with the opposition gaining strength every year.)
Is Ceylon part of independent India or separate? If India escapes the civil wars with four (OTL) or fewer nations, I will be shocked. There will be bars that make more money from 'advisors' than non-spies. India will be a lawless devil's playground for decades, I fear.
- 1
I doubt Kelebek sticks around for long now the action is dying down so maybe it's last few acts is to...clean up the UGNR and USSR. Obel and Kaya get into a number of accidents that leave them permanently retired. And also horribly dead.
That train to Siberia mysteriously ends up diverted to the Balkans, where an enormous amount of funds, munitions and loyal red army units just happen to be hanging about, which is fortunate because a horrible series of gas explosions happen to occur in Moscow, leading to a lot of confusion and delay. When the chaos dies down, the new ruling council would appear to be made entirely of the diplomatic team from the conference (heroes of the Soviet Union), and a lot of the former regime seems to have fallen down several flights of stairs in the emergency. And broken their knecks. And accidentally stabbed themsevles 23 times in the back.
Kelebek has a final word with the Turkish president, hands the keys to SITH over and warns them to be very careful with it, and then leaves just around the time the first nuke gets tested.
- 4
- 2
Turkey will not be applying a veto regarding Proposition 23, as they do not have the option due to an existing bound pledge and the inability of any power to renege on a pledge in the final round. As a result, and with the final outcome in India resolved, the Secretariat will now 'crunch the numbers' in terms of absolute bargaining point outcomes for the conference. This provides a superficial (and approximate) metric for 'who won the peace', which will naturally tend to favour the main gaining powers of the Comintern.
Following that, the (rather more complicated) calculation of the 'handicapped' bargaining outcomes will be promulgated.
Following that, and subject to immediate commentary in the aftermath of the Treaty of Geneva, the AAR will revert to your authAAR's full control and I will provide my own impressions of a hypothetical post-war world. I will decide the format, pace and time-span for that speculative alt-history in due course.
Following that, the (rather more complicated) calculation of the 'handicapped' bargaining outcomes will be promulgated.
Following that, and subject to immediate commentary in the aftermath of the Treaty of Geneva, the AAR will revert to your authAAR's full control and I will provide my own impressions of a hypothetical post-war world. I will decide the format, pace and time-span for that speculative alt-history in due course.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Or more realistically, the diplomatic team is sidelined and kept out of the inner circle/under house arrest for the rest of Stalin's life...which means when he dies in the early 50s, they are untainted by his crimes, have a lot of domestic and international support (especially in the wider Comintern), and the miltiary likes them. Can certainly see them getting back into power in the struggle afterwards, esepcially because they'll be the only ones with a plan of what to actually do with the USSR and wider Comintern.
- 2
- 1
Plan of action:
1. Pack bags
2. Arrange passage to London
3. Resign
4. Let Winston have it with both barrels (figuratively speaking, of course)
5. Go home and have a nice cup of tea
6. Watch wartime coalition implode and hand the whole sorry mess in India over to Nehru
7. Pray for an Attlee government
1. Pack bags
2. Arrange passage to London
3. Resign
4. Let Winston have it with both barrels (figuratively speaking, of course)
5. Go home and have a nice cup of tea
6. Watch wartime coalition implode and hand the whole sorry mess in India over to Nehru
7. Pray for an Attlee government
- 5
Yup, UK would do well to elect a labour government and invest the welfare state. Then new comintern does the same, and we all look down upon the freedom land and the japanese for not doing it (yet).
- 2
- 1
Angry El Pip noises
Excellent. I'll hold off my retrospective, hoping it doesn't soon become old enough to drink if you multiply by 365, and await the final tallies.
- 1
- 1
League of Nations Geneva Peace Conference - 2 December 1944: The Conference Aftermath
League of Nations
Geneva Peace Conference - 2 December 1944
The Conference Aftermath
Geneva Peace Conference - 2 December 1944
The Conference Aftermath
Here's a quick summary (I hope I got the figures all right) of the bargaining scores from the conference. Default points were scored for those countries that started in late or missed a vote.
To explain how it's been done. Each proposition had arbitrary points assigned by me, factoring in how important I thought each possible outcome was to a country (more points at stake) and then what was in their best and worst interests for each proposition. There was also a little bit of trying to use the points to shape outcomes and negotiation between players and factions, matching the descriptive blurbs that accompanied to points sheet for each country.
I don't pretend to argue that it was all completely scientific or 'right' (in nature of comparative calibration) but I just wanted to provide that context and motivators. It was also partly shaped by my own views of what each country should be trying to do, according to the way I'd played the game and what the AI had done, then how the various regimes might have reacted. Then it was all over to the negotiating reps to take it from there.
My own quick impressions: there were far more comprehensive agreements made, especially between Turkey and the USSR, but also with Japan, than I thought there would be. And I had also anticipated that Turkey and Japan in particular were going to be forced into using a bunch of vetoes each in the early to mid stages, therefore limiting their voting power and outcomes towards the end.
A meta point: If I'd just done the AAR outcome without this kind of conference system, then it would simply have ended as it did on the map, especially with Turkey getting a disproportionately generous outcome per the game rules/mechanics. So apart from giving participating commenters on the AAR a chance to get directly involved and have a bit of fun (rather like a game of Diplomacy, for those who've played it), I wanted to see if something might be done to weaken the positions Japan (in return for peace) and Turkey and the USSR (as the New World Order's principal winners) via international pressure to be accepted in their prime positions.
So in absolute terms, of course Turkey and Russia were going to be the biggest potential 'winners'. For gauging that, you can look at the max and median lines in the table below. Just as Turkey and the USSR had the most to win, the UK/Allies had the most at stake (to lose) and would not like many of the likely outcomes (Comintern control in Europe, Japan's incursions in Asia, the dangers of post-colonialism in India, etc). The same went for France, then Japan, Germany and the US to a lesser extent.
The median score is the half-way point between the minimum and maximum possible score if everything possible had gone wrong or right. The 'adjusted score for minimum' is used to get a 'zeroed' minimum score (to get a range from minimum to maximum starting at zero to add to apply to the actual score).
So Turkey range is -5 to 335, so a range of 340. So the 5 is added to Turkey's unadjusted points (205) to place it in that range. So 205 on a range of -5 to 335 becomes 210 on a range of 0 to 340. Romania's minimum was actually above zero, so 10 was subtracted from their final unadjusted score.
Enough blurb for now (can ask questions later), let's see the results.
So according to this, and if my maths is right, in absolute terms Turkey did best, followed by the USSR. Then next in a close pack were Poland, Germany and Romania. Next was the US, then those that got hit the hardest were France, Japan, Germany and UK/Allies. But those last four all had by far the most to lose, as the war had hit them hardest, or they would not like many of the likely outcomes.
But adjusted for how each went basically according to their median outcome, it was somewhat different. Turkey emerged as the clear winner (I was surprised at how well they did out of the compromises made, and had little need to even use vetoes). The next group were pretty closely grouped, all just above or below their medians: Poland, the USSR and France, followed by Spain. Next with fair results were the US, with another close group in the mid-low 30s of Romania, the UK/Allies and Japan. Predictably, the most 'done over' (though at least they were represented at the Conference) was Germany, for whom there was little natural sympathy from either of the two winning factions, while Japan had its own agenda (which faded away once their own initial 'starring role' was over.
This is not to say who 'won' or 'lost' in a personal competitive sense: the scoring system was fairly rough and ready, arbitrary and was never an even playing field. But you have all really helped in shape the outcomes, which I can now use for the hypothetical epilogue. Thanks so much to all of you! And even if there may have been some bargaining lows as well as highs along the way, I really hope it was an interesting and even enjoyable experience.
The other little outcome was who would constitute the new Permanent Five of the League of Nations Security Council, once that body is fully established and open to 'all comers' now the Conference is over. As you would have guessed, with so few veto/pledge penalties applied in the end, the top five end as they started, per below:
The P5 are highlighted in yellow.
More to follow, but I now declare the full post-game, post-conference season open! In due course, Ill make some hypothetical epilogue observations, which will take all the various comments made or that may come, but as in the AAR, those impressions will be mine alone. Of course, everyone can debate or disagree with them as they wish. But for my fan-fic contribution it will be what I reckon might occur.
Thanks to all readers and especially contributors. Over to you guys.
- 4
- 3
I'm pleasantly surprised with how Poland came out of this conference, especially considering I lost points due to a Soviet Germany. I also agree Turkey did very well coming out of this conference. I'll be curious to hear from nuclearslurpee why his score was so low. I assumed his would be fairly high since Japan did very well in the conference. I also wonder what objectives the USSR would have needed to maximize its score?
Thanks for putting this game on, it's been a lot of fun! I thought you did a great job capturing the feel of diplomacy, and I'll be curious to see what was going on behind the scenes.
Thanks for putting this game on, it's been a lot of fun! I thought you did a great job capturing the feel of diplomacy, and I'll be curious to see what was going on behind the scenes.
- 3
- 1
Just a quick observation: once the Japanese peace process was over - and they had to make compromises to get there - it was hard for them to gain much traction from the rest of the agenda. And being part of many votes that won does not necessarily mean they were always propositions that were going to be favourable … Japan was always going to have to pay a price for peace and influence in the post-war world and its institutions. And membership of the P5 is and important one. One way of showing the point scores alone don’t necessarily reflect everything that may have been gained for the longer term.
- 2
- 2
So did Japan have points assigned for certain outcomes in Europe, such as independent Germany or other things that would have been nice to have but hard to achieve? They did pretty much trade Comintern support in the Pacific for full support of all the miscellaneous goals of the Comintern which probably ran against their interests, but they secured the most important like you said.
- 2
- 1
Technically Russia could have tried to get Soviet puppets over just about every piece of land up for grabs outside of Asia, so in a technical sense, we walked away from quite a bit to get something actually achievable.
- 2
- 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TOP SECRET - FOR IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 December 1944
Geneva, Switzerland
RETROSPECTIVE ON THE GENEVA PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1944
From: Koki Hirota, F.M.
To: Okada Keisuke, P.M.
C.C. His Imperial Majesty the Emperor
From: Koki Hirota, F.M.
To: Okada Keisuke, P.M.
C.C. His Imperial Majesty the Emperor
Greetings, Mr. Prime Minister:
I hope this missive finds you well.
While I have, of course, C.C.ed your office on all official communications made by our delegation during this Conference, such sporadic and scattered asides, divorced from proper context, cannot provide the complete picture of the proceedings which have taken place here over the last two months. Therefore, I have undertaken to write the following retrospective as a high-level summary of the negotiations which have taken place, to provide just this proper context for yourself and, in the future once the information contained herein could no longer threaten the standing of our nation in the eyes of other powers, for posterity.
At the beginning of the Conference, we were approached by the Comrade from the Soviet Union with a most intriguing offer: namely, that a voting bloc would be organized to pass Proposition 1.1, allowing Japan to keep all territory controlled as of the cease-fire agreement prior to the Conference, with the understanding that Japan and the Soviet Union would sign an accord following the Conference to settle a separate peace between them, allowing Japan to continue prosecuting her war against the hapless Allies with promises of Soviet support. While intriguing, as you are surely aware this bold idea did not come to fruition, as the Secretary-General dutifully informed our delegations that such duplicity was well beyond the agreed-upon bounds of the Peace Conference and would surely invalidate the proceedings. With this settled, our delegation sat down in the IJN Yamato Tea House and proceeded with the business of the Empire.
In our discussions, it soon became clear that it was considered in the best interest of most parties that Proposition 1.2 be passed, as Japan, regrettably, could not hope to hold the full extent of her wartime gains while the rest of the world would see no benefit from continuing a difficult and expensive war. Thus, for the first two weeks of the Conference, negotiations proceeded largely on this basis. The one notable exception, of course, was the hard-headed President Roosevelt of the United States, who refused to even consider the prospect of peace with our great nation even after we suggested that certain Japanese territories formerly under U.S. occupation might be returned to American control (namely, the Pacific Islands). After the successful passage of Proposition 1.2 - opposed only by the United States and their craven pet, Germany - the tone of discussions did thaw somewhat, but I must not get ahead of myself.
In general, it soon became apparent that two key voting blocs could form - one led by the United Kingdom and the United States, representing the old Western colonialist interests; and one led by the Soviet Union and supported by their Turkish lackeys, representing
On one hand, the delegation from the Soviet Union quickly assembled a coalition which would support Japanese aims in Propositions 2 through 5, allowing retention of significant wartime gains at Allied expense. While the Soviets have been a hated enemy for the Japanese people, this deal was otherwise amenable, notably as the cost of this support was only one Japanese vote for each of Propositions 2 through 5 given to support the aims of each other coalition member - this meaning four votes apiece were pledged to the Soviet Union, to Turkey, and to Poland whose votes were also necessary to secure the majority. This generous and flexible framework also allowed our delegation to expand our aims and demand the partitioning of India in exchange for three additional votes.
On the other hand, discussions with the United Kingdom revealed that similar support for Japanese aims in Propositions 2 through 5 could be gained in exchange for an omnibus voting agreement in opposition to the Comintern bloc. Compared to the Comintern proposal, this agreement would have an upside, a downside, and a serious obstacle to overcome. The upside: the down-ballot votes would be generally favorable to Japan, albeit not in ways which would have direct impact on the well-being of our state, and supporting these Propositions would have given us excellent diplomatic standing on the global stage. The downside: the Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Churchill adamantly refused to allow the partition of India, a position very much opposed to our salient Imperial interests. The obstacle: the United States would have to be persuaded to set aside her intense distaste for Japan and agree to form the third member of this voting alliance. We were not optimistic about this possibility, but we saw no reason not to secure a desirable alternative to the Comintern plan and to thus be, as they say in the West, "spoilt for choice".
It so happened that the choice came down to the very last moments. After some prodding, the United States did at first appear to warm up to the concept of a deal with the Empire of Japan, but unfortunately would not agree to support our aims in Propositions 2 through 5. Due to a serious miscommunication, this disagreement culminated in a loud, drawn-out argument over the terms of bound pledges in front of the Secretary-General himself, as our two delegations and that of the United Kingdom were on the verge of signing a binding agreement. After this, the agreement fell apart irreconcilably as the United States refused to entertain any notion of recognizing our wartime territorial acquisitions, even after significant concessions were offered. Fortunately, as we had in the meantime finalized the terms of our agreement with the Soviet Union and her lackey states, this turn of events while disconcerting (to witness such childish impudence from a leading world power was astonishing, indeed!) proved to be no inconvenience to the Empire of Japan - although we did in any case amend the terms before submission, as you are well aware, to return to the Americans their lost Pacific island bases, as a gesture of good faith and to deny the violent and irrational President Roosevelt any semblance of casus belli against our fair and generous nation.
After this, successive rounds of voting proceeded, so far as we know, quietly as the lines had already largely been finalized. We must here express our regret at being unable to support our erstwhile wartime allies in Germany in the face of Soviet expansionism - however, we must regard this as the price paid, particularly given their early willingness to subject the Empire of Japan to continued harsh warfare by voting for Proposition 1.3. We do also regret that the global position of the Soviet Union, our great historical enemy, has been much-improved in part by our own actions, but one cannot brew ceremonial tea without crushing a few leaves after all.
We expect that by the time this missive reaches your offices, the fate of India will have become clear. While the Conference attendees did vote, with a rather amusing spread, for the independence and partitioning of the former British Raj, Mr. Churchill has expressed every intention of fighting this decession in the strongest possible terms and at great cost of diplomatic standing. For now, it seems that the future has yet to be written.
It should go without saying that the contents of this retrospective, containing as they do candid opinions about nations with whom it is in our best interest to maintain excellent relations with, must be treated with the utmost secrecy, and under no circumstances should these contents be made available to the general public until such time as any opinions expressed herein could not possibly be damaging to the Empire of Japan.
As for myself, I am in awe as I watch our tireless IJN sailors navigate the glorious IJN Yamato down the Rhône River to the Mediterranean Sea, where I shall board her and begin my journey back to my beloved home land. Truly, the warrior spirit of our soldiers is unmatched anywhere in the world!
Blessing and honor be upon the divine name of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor.
Sincerely,
Koki Hirota, F.M.
* * * * *
Game Comments:
Overall I think the peace conference mini-game was a great success, and did a great job within the limits of simple rules to represent how this probably would have gone IRL. Perhaps unfortunately, this does mean that the winning power bloc (Russo-Turkish) came away with most of the spoils and that a single voting alliance dominated the proceedings, but I think that is realistic even if I think some players would have preferred a more dynamic game. That's the way the votes fall! Overall, the rules worked very well and were for the most part clear or easily clarified by our tireless SG LN - hearty applause for you, sir!
I would probably point out a couple of things which could be improved, perhaps in the hypothetical case of a Polish-led event in the not-too-distant future? The main thing, I think there were perhaps too many rounds, eight was too many and I think five or six would have been ideal. Most of the negotiations happened in the first two rounds, at least as far as I know and I did not see any voting results that would contradict this assessment. This pretty much meant that the remaining rounds consisted of casting a vote and waiting a week, at least for me. With 5-6 rounds there would be the major negotiations in rounds 1-2, quieter rounds in the middle, and one or two final rounds with some big-ticket items that could motivate some last-minute change of the diplomatic landscape.
To shorten this, I think the votes about constituent GNRs "formed" prior to the GW2 were not needed, and did not really make consistent sense with how other pre-war territorial changes, e.g., China or Ethiopia were treated (to say nothing of the Baltic states which were annexed by Stalin after Germany started a world war). Why did we vote on the fate of Greece or Bulgaria, but not China, Ethiopia, Lithuania, ...? Not a major issue, but a bit inconsistent and I think contributed more rounds of voting that were not necessarily needed. Aside, having a few less Turkey-centric votes could have created a bit more tension between Turkey and the USSR in trying to balance the votes for an agreement, though given how the players approached it I doubt that would have happened in practice this time around.
Otherwise, my only real issue to raise would be that of players effectively trying to change the rules of the game in-character on the "public" thread. I understand not understanding the rules at first grasp, and it was of course fine to discuss and raise with SG LN when needed (as TBC and I did in the opening round). However, we had players posting in-character in the thread threatening to negate a vote without express veto powers, trying to push for resolutions not on the voting agenda, and so on. Fortunately our authAAR kept a lid on such ideas but to me it just felt unseemly to have that kind of thing in the public thread - better to keep the rules chat and roleplay chat very well-separated, I think.
That being said, overall the players should be commended for a polite and friendly game where no one came to blows or started a flame war over rules minutiae, as so often happens in these kinds of games when the competitive juices really start flowing. I do have to commend @Wraith11B for sticking to his guns, roleplay-wise, even if it wasn't necessarily in the objective best interests of the nation he was representing (in my opinion, anyways) it kept the game interesting.
Once again, my congrats to @Bullfilter for a fine mini-game and an excellent cap to an incredible AAR which is absolutely Hall-of-Fame worthy! Vur ha!
Commentary on the rest to follow...
- 3
- 3
Am I double-posting? Yes. Have I been sitting on that lengthy in-character retrospective for three weeks? Yes. Does it deserve its own spotlight apart from the vagaries of thread commentary? Well...
----
Looking at the scores, I have to say that I'm surprised that the USA and UK came out as well as they did, namely ahead of Japan on the median. I'm guessing most of that was "piggybacking" on how well Turkey did, since if their score sheets were anything like Japan's there were a lot of mid-round options like "-5 if the USSR wins, +0 if the Turks win". Otherwise I didn't see them winning much aside from Proposition 3 for the USA.
Despite the raw scores I'm happy with Japan's overall result. My primary goal was to secure as many of the Pacific resources as possible, which along with doing my best not to trigger the apparently war-fevered FDR into a continuation war was why Japan was willing to give back the Pacific islands (keeping the Philippines as the USA had no veto there, and in-universe to keep the US Navy out of Japanese waters!). Secondarily, we were able to destabilize India and push the UK out of the subcontinent, which is good for Japan in the long term as this opens potential fertile grounds for economic colonialism, as previously mentioned. As a bonus relations with the USSR are not openly antagonistic and there may be some opening to resolve some questions of the Manchuria-Transbaikal border, friendship is a lot to ask for but neutrality and perhaps cordiality are within reach.
In the future I see Japan's path as being largely less overtly militant except in China, where I see expansion fueled by a combination of economic reasons (with diminishing returns at best) and "nationalistic" reasons so that the IJA can feel relevant. In spheres further afield, I think a lot of somewhat European-style colonialism with economic inroads rather than military expansion will be preferred as Japan really doesn't have the ability to project military power everywhere as an occupier, despite what the IJA thinks. This is perhaps not unlike what China is doing at present albeit for rather different reasons. The IJN will have no problem getting funding as long as the USN looms as a grave threat to the home islands. Of course, this is my vision, the real question is whether the political sphere at home will follow it, or if the victory-engorged military will intensify the internal power struggles, make stupid decisions, and tear the country apart as they did in the OTL war.
Joining into the commentary:
I don't know if Wraith knew it at the time, but the USA basically decided the entire peace conference by their unyielding refusal to deal with Japan - which, as I said above, was perhaps not great in terms of the in-game consequences for the West but I applaud the commitment to role-play over pure minimaxing!
All that said, I don't think anyone would argue about the realism of the net result, except the USA which still probably thinks they should be allowed to nuke Japan from orbit because the paint got scratched on a couple of battleships or something I dunno.
Fun fact, I could have taken Poland's vote as they misread the pledge and voted for 3.1 anyways, but I chose to be nice. You're welcome.
I'm curious to hear from other players who had more... substantial interactions with the USA just how deeply opposed they were to Japan, was there really no room to reach an accord, not even for the sake of screwing over the Commies? Inquiring minds want to know!
----
Looking at the scores, I have to say that I'm surprised that the USA and UK came out as well as they did, namely ahead of Japan on the median. I'm guessing most of that was "piggybacking" on how well Turkey did, since if their score sheets were anything like Japan's there were a lot of mid-round options like "-5 if the USSR wins, +0 if the Turks win". Otherwise I didn't see them winning much aside from Proposition 3 for the USA.
Despite the raw scores I'm happy with Japan's overall result. My primary goal was to secure as many of the Pacific resources as possible, which along with doing my best not to trigger the apparently war-fevered FDR into a continuation war was why Japan was willing to give back the Pacific islands (keeping the Philippines as the USA had no veto there, and in-universe to keep the US Navy out of Japanese waters!). Secondarily, we were able to destabilize India and push the UK out of the subcontinent, which is good for Japan in the long term as this opens potential fertile grounds for economic colonialism, as previously mentioned. As a bonus relations with the USSR are not openly antagonistic and there may be some opening to resolve some questions of the Manchuria-Transbaikal border, friendship is a lot to ask for but neutrality and perhaps cordiality are within reach.
In the future I see Japan's path as being largely less overtly militant except in China, where I see expansion fueled by a combination of economic reasons (with diminishing returns at best) and "nationalistic" reasons so that the IJA can feel relevant. In spheres further afield, I think a lot of somewhat European-style colonialism with economic inroads rather than military expansion will be preferred as Japan really doesn't have the ability to project military power everywhere as an occupier, despite what the IJA thinks. This is perhaps not unlike what China is doing at present albeit for rather different reasons. The IJN will have no problem getting funding as long as the USN looms as a grave threat to the home islands. Of course, this is my vision, the real question is whether the political sphere at home will follow it, or if the victory-engorged military will intensify the internal power struggles, make stupid decisions, and tear the country apart as they did in the OTL war.
Joining into the commentary:
Basically, there were a lot of items in the middle rounds where Japan voted for a +0 or -5 option about some business in Europe. In-game, this was as Bullfilter said an attempt by the scoring to get Japan to care about European affairs - and it did almost work, as I related in the retrospective I had a deal on the table with the UK and USA to form a counter-bloc to the Comintern, but this fell through as the USA would not support Japanese interests when push came to shove. Given the choice I would have preferred that path, which would close off India for the near future but would provide useful friends in the West and severely hurt the hated Soviets, but it was not to be and Japan took the pragmatic option offered by Uncle K.
I don't know if Wraith knew it at the time, but the USA basically decided the entire peace conference by their unyielding refusal to deal with Japan - which, as I said above, was perhaps not great in terms of the in-game consequences for the West but I applaud the commitment to role-play over pure minimaxing!
I think in any game of this type you expect a bloc to form up as the optimal win condition. I don't think this is unrealistic, after all good luck finding an IRL peace treaty that wasn't laughably one-sided in favor of the victors (even with the superior latitude for backroom dealings offered in IRL), but it's certainly not easy to prevent. I do also wonder if the situation may have been different had Turkey not had so many votes on its "home turf" so to speak, which were pretty much gimmes for the Soviets and could be leveraged for a "fair" deal (for a party of two!) in the rest of Europe. Hence you see Turkey winning by points with that ~60% score and Uncle K establishing the Soviet Union as the leader of the New World Order even if they didn't come out at the front of the peace treaty.
All that said, I don't think anyone would argue about the realism of the net result, except the USA which still probably thinks they should be allowed to nuke Japan from orbit because the paint got scratched on a couple of battleships or something I dunno.
This is correct. Japan did not win by points, but if you compare to the pre-war situation got much of what she could have asked for and then some, plus membership on the P5 ensures international respectability. At least West of Hawai'i and east of Maine. It's particularly useful since the USSR+UGNR vs USA+UK blocs will rely on Japan's swing vote in many cases, so the Empire will likely be able to get away with a fair bit as long as someone ties FDR to his wheelchair at a very safe distance from the Big Red Button™.
Yep. Fun fact: I actually changed the deal before we made it to vote for Prop. 3.2(?) because I didn't want the US veto to trigger more war, so I had three pro-Comintern votes basically pledged away for not even in my own interests by the scoring - but I really wanted an ironclad assurance that there wouldn't be a cause for the US to veto, particularly if they played a dirty trick and voted for Prop. 3.1 just to veto it and screw Japan.
Fun fact, I could have taken Poland's vote as they misread the pledge and voted for 3.1 anyways, but I chose to be nice. You're welcome.
Technically, but without making friends Russia would have lost every vote. Well, maybe not every vote, the UK-USA bloc was pretty fractured even after the whole fracas about Japanese interests.
I'm curious to hear from other players who had more... substantial interactions with the USA just how deeply opposed they were to Japan, was there really no room to reach an accord, not even for the sake of screwing over the Commies? Inquiring minds want to know!
- 4
- 1
I appreciate you not doing that! That would have been a great way to ruin the game for me, and it all was because I misread the agreement/assumed you would vote for 3.1. In my defense, I believe it got changed(?) and I was mainly worried about the stuff directly related to Poland, leading me to skim over that part.Fun fact, I could have taken Poland's vote as they misread the pledge and voted for 3.1 anyways, but I chose to be nice. You're welcome.
Very true, I know Poland was shopping around for other options, but the Comintern did a good job locking down a coalition. I was talking to the UK a fair amount and trying to feed them information so they could create an anti-Comintern bloc, so it's interesting how close things were to going the other way. Very interesting to see just how close you were to siding with the West, and I appreciate the detailed background info.
I also figured I'd add that the vote for independent Germany was not well-intentioned. The hope/expectation was it would win and get vetoed by the Soviets, partitioning Germany north and south. Sorry rover, but that was the plan Turkey and I concocted, and it almost worked!
- 4
As you do.
This is an impressive summary and I must put my own thoughts to paper soon...
I admit, this more dynamic flow of diplomacy (exactly like the boardgames pretty much) would have been fun but very chaotic. I understand why bullfilter put a lid on it.
Well...I did put effort into making sure everyone else hated and feared Japan as much as possible.
I think tbf that the Soviets, upon seeing that Japan had the entirety of China to try and handle, would genuinely figure they could spend decades on that and do little else, so it makes a lot of sense to trt and play nice. Sealing the border at port Arthur, making sure siberia is secure and having a somewhat quiet Asia is well worth being nice to one country we have only been at war with twice and didn't do much damage to this time round.
Hold that thought.
Yes I kept all my deliberations private because a) im not playing my hand in public and b) it seemed a little rude to stress Bullfilter like that.
I deeply enjoyed role-playing with them. We actually came somewhat close to an agreement a few times, and probably would have been secret allies the whole time if that Japan/British war idea was okayed by Bullfilter.
I certainly think so. Aside from a clean and secure border, and Pacific access...we don't really have any interests in China or Asia. Maybe that changes with Mao in the mountains but it may well be we end up negotiating a rump state in the mountains between siberia and China proper (a buffer state between us and Japan, essentially)?
Did very well though, and as the technically 'weakest' option to inherit the power in South East Asia and the Pacific, the USSR wins too.
Hold that thought.
I knew the whole time BTW.
- 4
- 3