Invasion of Barmenia

[federalist11]

The government of Barmenia has sent a number of threats to the Davostag Imperial Council and to the Imperial Court of Christian I. With the Satanic Republican Party nearly destroyed in a bloody civil war, His Imperial Highness now turns his sword to Barmenia. Under the leadership of Falamar Aethonis, Barmenia has gravely offended Davostag by calling in debts and assets owned to them by the previous regime, the SRP. King Christian I disagreed stating that Barmenia did business with an illegal dictatorship and that all economic holdings or business with Davostag will have to be renegotiated with the Imperial Council. Barmenia in turn declared war on Davostag in Dec. 3303. After four years of negotiations and cold war posturing between the nations of Davostag, Vanuku, and Barmenia it has finally come to war.

HIH Christian I has sent the 3rd Imperial Fleet to Barmenia which includes:
Davostag Navy #3: 2 Aircraft Carrier, 8 Destroyers, 16 Submarines
Davostag Navy Squadron: 100 Fighter jets, 50 Bombers, 200 Helicopters

The Fleet will also transport:
Davostag Army: 232,500 troops
300 Tanks: 7,500
200 Artilery: 5,000
220,000 troops

Davostag Marine Corp: 56,250
150 Tanks 3750
100 Artillery: 2500
50,000 troops

Combined troop levels are 360,000 military personal

Vanuku has also declared war on Barmenia as part of a friendly royal alliance between Davostag and Vanuku. The two nations are joined by Prince Harrisen of Davostag and Princess Christein of Vanuku. The Prince is personally overseeing the Davostag invasion. It is his intention to quickly capture the island region of Arakhim before attacking the mainland. Barmenia has recently had an election as of 3307 and may change its tune concerning its war declaration. The Barmenian military as of 3307 has an estimated 551,000 military personal and Vanuku has an estimated 114,000 military personal.


Davostag Fleet

As of today, it is 2 against 1. We do not need any more reinforcements from our allies in this attack. To do so would strip the glory of victory from Davostag and cause unnecessary deaths of Barmenian civilians. In the event Barmenia finds more allies, we will gladly accept support from warriors across all of Terra in so far as they are under my command.

Prince Harrisen

*The war shall be fought using the Davostag Military Accords
Votes Cast in previous election /100 = active troop levels
Votes Cast in previous election /200 = reserve troop levels

[Siggon Kristov]

Beluzian Aristocrat Slaps Davostag With a Hand of Support

East Beluzia gives Davostag right of way.

Davostag - Barmenia.JPG (51.41 KiB) Viewed 2001 times

The non-sovereign monarch, of Iker Ado, and former holder of the Beluzian throne, Count Siggon Kristov, has granted Davostag's military rights of way.

There are arrangements to pursue the Beluzian federal council to grant rights of way through all of Beluzia instead of just the East. Bailon is controlled by the Stanton family, and Iliathar is controlled by the ruling Williams family.

Even if there is no need for direct passage through Beluzia, there may be need for repairs or maintenance of ships, aircraft, or other machinery. Beluzia hopes that Luthori and Beitenyu will grant Davostag similar rights of way. An agreement between Luthori and Beluzia may allow Beluzian engineers to set up a station on Luthori's coast. Ships, from Davostag, may stop there. Count Siggon Kristov may have to get this clarified before sending trucks.



Foreign Minister, Yuri Kuznetsov, said:

Our involvement in the conflict is not meant to be anti-Barmenian, but rather in opposition to Barmenia's ridiculous stance. We will not participate in the conflict, or show any form of hostility towards Barmenia. The World Conference Centre still has a place for both Barmenia and Davostag; both nations are more than welcome to hold negotiations here.

Count Siggon Kristov commented:

The current administration of Davostag is not responsible for any losses suffered by Barmenia. They should take those issues up with the old government. They were the ones who declared war, and Davostag is not taking an unnecessary measure.

Beluzia, Vanuku, and Davostag, are known for their unique government systems.

[Kubrick]

OOC: Vanuku will not participate if we use the Davostag accords, basing troops on vote turnout is, in my opinion, stupid because Vanuku is a 1 party state, those votes never exceed 12 million so I will always be super low on troops, according to the Rildanor accord I have roughly 1,2million professionals. With the Davostag accord numbers I turn out with more material than troops..

[federalist11]

OOC: Vanuku would only need to follow the Davostag Military Accord in this conflict only and may use the Rildanor Military Accord for any and all other military actions that may occur at the same time period. Ultimately, troop levels are of little concern if the endgame remains the same, which is currently being negotiated out. The benefit of the D-Accord is that is encourages multi-party systems in nations, encourages bill proposing, encourages short term elections of no more than three years, and uses the game mechanics to determine recruitment and causalities during the war. For example, if Barmenia has a decrease in voter participation by say 1 million that corresponds to 1,000,000/100 = 10,000 casualties. If voter turnout goes up then that demonstrates a recruitment drive. The D-Accord also discourages one party systems, inactive party systems, and low enthusiasm players such as the SRP before me. The D-Accord also translates troops to units, for example an aircraft carrier requires 10,000 troops as a cost. This prevents nations from having ridiculous military stats like 100 Aircraft Carriers and 10,000 bombers, and 50,000 nukes. It turns the particracy military action from Risk to Axis and Allies format. Of course, all RP is voluntary from the start. Barmenia seems on board to try it out, and likely so because it gives them an advantage against us.

OOC: It is my intention that all nations joining this fight should join in using the D-Accords. The mixing of the R-Accords and D-Accords will not work properly.

IC:

To the honorable Count Siggon Kristov, The Five Imperial Kingdoms of Davostag does not plan to go through Beluzian waters to get to Barmenia as we shall attack the eastern side of the country at Arakhim. However, on the way back we may utilize your kind services to repair ships and aircraft. Our plan of action is to go through the Selucian straight to get to Barmenia.

Prince Harrisen

[Siggon Kristov]

Foreign Minister Kuznetsov:

Beluzia expected Davostag to pass on the Eastern side of Artania, which is why we are trying to make arrangements with Luthori. Beluzian hospitals are still open for use.

[Siggon Kristov]

OOC: Vanuku would only need to follow the Davostag Military Accord in this conflict only and may use the Rildanor Military Accord for any and all other military actions that may occur at the same time period.

OOC: That barely makes sense. The point of the accords are to regulate military sizes. How can 1 nation have 2 different military sizes?

OOC: It is my intention that all nations joining this fight should join in using the D-Accords. The mixing of the R-Accords and D-Accords will not work properly.

OOC: Your "accord" doesn't take fanatical miitarist factions into account.
The Rildanor Accord is somewhat mandatory. Your accord shouldn't contradict it, or allow a nation to have a military that passes Rildanor limits.

A nation doesn't use different accords for different conflicts; we need to have set military sizes.
Beluzia has set military sizes calculated by the Beluzia Accord: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=344680

1) They won't magically change for Davostag
2) Beluzia is neutralist, and cannot directly participate in war (royal families each have their own loyalist militaries which can participate in wars as partisan forces, representing houses/parties but not "Beluzia").

The D-Accord also discourages one party systems, inactive party systems, and low enthusiasm players such as the SRP before me.

You're discouraging one-party systems? Players don't have control of that; if no-one joins their nation, what can they do?
If all the players, in a nation, are satisfied with its existing laws, there's nothing they can really do to keep their visibility up, except creating a lot of omnibus bills.
Yay, we get it; you didn't like the "low enthusiasm" of the SRP. Being realistic, a "low enthusiasm" player wouldn't participate in a war, because they couldn't bother to make up stuff for RP.

The D-Accord uses the game mechanics to determine recruitment and causalities during the war.

That would only make sense in an internal war, which is why the Beluzia Accord takes the election map into account for all our RP.
Ironically, your "D-Accord" completely disregards internal conflict.

[federalist11]

OOC: The Davostag Military Accord is a limiting rather than expansion of military forces in comparison to Rildanor. Even if a nation had 100% voter participation of say 80-70 voters it would still be lower than Rildanor Accord numbers. Therefore, anyone who follows Davostag for a military encounter is limiting their forces for that specific war but may use Rildanor for any and all other conflicts that may occur at the same time. In other words, it becomes an agreement between two or more nations to use pistols in a duel rather than bringing two bazookas. Limiting ones forces for a fair contest under a different set of rules has precedence in historical warfare.

The D-Accord indeed doesn't take fanatical militarist factions into account because that number never changes regardless of historical events, elections, time, or any other change to the nation. It is therefore inferior to a new model that is constantly changing based off player input. Also, just because a nation has a high militarist faction doesn't mean they are military powerful; Afghanistan would be the most powerful country in the real world if that were true. The D-Accord should not be able to surpass Rildanor limits by design.

Military sizes can be dictated by both sides before the war begins. The terms and conditions of that war can also be determine. Ideally, the outcome of the war would also be determined.

Beluzia can decline to enter into this conflict for any reason and I will not hold it against them. It is merely being stated that if they were to participate it would have to follow the D-Accord.

Players can decide to relocate to other nations with more parties or they can recruit friends to join them in their nation. Too many players (I am guilty as well) decide to enter weak countries totally dominating them instead of competing with multi-party systems. The D-Accord was not designed to necessarily punish players as it was to be realistic. A one party dictatorship under the D-Accord probably has a weak military due to neglect, corruption, and oppression of their people. If all players are satisfied with the current laws, it means they are inferior players because they must therefore all have the same politics and vote all the same way. Even if that were true, they could propose bills and then vote against them to keep visibility up.

The D-Accord also has a Civil War addition to it, but it was never linked or made public because it didn't apply in this case. As stated in the D-Accords, a decrease in voter turnout will cause causalities and an increase in voter turnout will cause higher recruitment. Every election between nations could be considered a battle in which causalities and recruitment is assessed. For example, if country A has a 10 million voter turnout decrease they will lose 100,000 men and if country B has a 5 million voter turnout decrease they will lose 50,000 men if both elections occur close to each other. Then a battle can be determined with these casualty levels.

It should be noted that the D-Accord is still being debated between Barmenia and Davostag on territorial take overs. A party friendly to the attacking country could act as a marker for territorial take over of land based off election results.

[Siggon Kristov]

OOC:

Beluzia can decline to enter into this conflict for any reason and I will not hold it against them. It is merely being stated that if they were to participate it would have to follow the D-Accord.

We would never use the D-Accords, because we already have our own accord which we use to calculate the military: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=344680
Regardless, Beluzia cannot participate, no matter which "accord" is used. Beluzian law prevents direct Beluzian participation in foreign conflict. I told you that you can ask one of the royal families. Royal houses/families are allowed to do whatever they want to do with their troops. You have not asked any of us. I told you that you cannot ask "Beluzia" and that you would have to ask an individual party/house instead. Of course, the D-Accord doesn't have anything stated for paramilitaries, so you're actually blocking us from participating. All this excess protocol only turns players away from RP. We couldn't use the D-Accord even if we wanted to. It's an undoubtedly crappy accord considering it completely disregards paramilitaries, and the political opinions of the people. If a nation has a pacifist culture, it is unlikely to have a large military. Some nations don't even have militaries. The situation in Costa Rica is a good example of a pacifist culture.

The D-Accord indeed doesn't take fanatical militarist factions into account because that number never changes regardless of historical events, elections, time, or any other change to the nation. It is therefore inferior to a new model that is constantly changing based off player input. Also, just because a nation has a high militarist faction doesn't mean they are military powerful; Afghanistan would be the most powerful country in the real world if that were true.

Did Fox News tell you that? Not assuming you watch Fox News, but that seems like a really ridiculous statement, based on information that you allow the media to interpret for you. By the way, all the 5-region nations have around the same population. In the real world, different nations have greatly variant populations. Keymon would need to have a fanatical militarist faction of 50% to match a nation that had a fanatical militarist faction of 10%, because Keymon is small.

Vorona has a population just under 31,000,000, and a fanatical militarist faction of about 8.95%
Kalistan has a population of about 100,000,000 and a fanatical militarist faction of about 7.72%

I plugged that information into my Rildanor Calculator.
Vorona's military has a maximum size of 313,300.
Kalistan's military has a maximum size of 891,600.

Even though Vorona has a higher military faction, Kalistan's reserve troops are larger than Vorona's active and reserve troops combined; don't talk crap about "Afghanistan would be the most powerful country" because:
- Population is still a factor
- Political opinions do determine the support a nation's military would get (citizens elect governments and pay taxes that are managed by the government's budget)
- You probably don't know much about Afghanistan

If all players are satisfied with the current laws, it means they are inferior players because they must therefore all have the same politics and vote all the same way. Even if that were true, they could propose bills and then vote against them to keep visibility up.

That is what an omnibus bill is for; I did mention it.

You're discouraging one-party systems? Players don't have control of that; if no-one joins their nation, what can they do?
If all the players, in a nation, are satisfied with its existing laws, there's nothing they can really do to keep their visibility up, except creating a lot of omnibus bills.

A one party dictatorship under the D-Accord probably has a weak military due to neglect, corruption, and oppression of their people.

So any Terran nation, with only 1 party, is automatically a dictatorship? Some can RP that way, but that doesn't mean all of them do. And how do dictatorships survive? They need some sort of support from somewhere, and it's usually the military, media, or both. If it's the media, the people's opinions would be slightly shifted. They would be well under control. If it's the military, it's likely to be effective.

[catparty]

OOC: I like the idea of these accords giving more strength to countries with multiple parties. It adds a pro-intranational multiplayer aspect to the game. Countries with fewer players can act more decisively because there is less disagreement between them, so it makes sense to have countries with more players have some sort of advantage to counteract that.

The last time I checked the accord, it required that elections be frequent in nature. I like the idea of nations being stronger right after an election, since it adds an advantage to risking one's coalition's majority status through elections. That said, I prefer infrequent elections, so I would hope that rather than have frequent elections be required we just have the national armies get weaker the more time has passed after an election.

Of course, to me ultimately RP is about the epic stories told through it. I am bad at keeping track of small details, so differing troop levels/military makeups are not my main priority.

Anyway, sorry for taking so long to start RPing. Offline matters kept me busy this week.

[federalist11]

OOC: I am willing to amend the accord so that each year after an election for a total of (3) will reduce troop numbers by 10%. So, an army of 500,000 will lose 10% of that total every year it doesn't have an election after three years. That would reduce the total to 350,000 after six years, but would then go back up to a new count after the election takes place. This prevents players from using high troop levels in an especially high voter turnout for the entire six years. It also keeps the RP going even if a player neglects to call early elections. It keeps players busy passing bills and working hard to keep voter turnout higher. I agree with catparty that there needs to be a counter benefit to large party nations because it is difficult to coordinate with multiple parties. I, myself can declare war anytime I want because I have 66% of the vote.