Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Hmm, sounds familiar doesn't it? Being stirred up and all. Rest assured, I won't mysteriously become inactive as has been the accepted mechanic of CNRP. Which, come to think of it means that SOME mechanics are meant to be changed. Some things change because of abuse; like protectorates have been attempted, maps, and a whole assortment of other things. First of all, if we're going by logic and common sense, it would be LOGICAL to assume that citizens don't magically change allegiance and ethnicity from German and Mexican to Tahoan. So if we're going by those, it would seem that you have no insurgents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Sargun' date='20 June 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1277090716' post='2344567'] I've already detailed that SoI also applies to any land that you take that was white land. Baja California was not claimed and annexed in the war, Shadowsage, as you placed claim to it only after Mudd was wiped. Thank Lynneth for that. It doesn't matter where your SoI is centered but whether it can fully cover your entire territory. [/quote] I'm sorry, I didn't realize YOU made the rules. I claimed it as Imperial territory by rite of conquest BEFORE the wipe. AFTER the wipe I advanced into California proper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='20 June 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1277092167' post='2344603'] I'm sorry, I didn't realize YOU made the rules. [/quote] The irony here being that I was the one in fact that made that rule a long, long time ago. And saying "I claimed it" doesn't mean anything. I can claim your land but that doesn't mean when you're wiped I automatically get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSchaine Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'd like to point out that IAT has already said this was an acceptable move by Mudd. And as has been said before, a lot of what you need to run an insurgency is made from things purchased at local stores and gas stations. The logistics everyone is so worried about is nothing more than buying normal stuff. Insurgents can move about quite freely unless you take extreme measures to stop them. Flooding an area with soldiers is not an extreme measure. There are a lot worse things that could happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 The problem being there AREN'T any local gas stations, or stores. Those that existed have either been raided and been subject to a scorched-earth policy or are now part of Imperial cities run by the military; which is so ethnically different that Tahoans are noticed and shot on sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Now its just getting illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='20 June 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1277092445' post='2344621'] The problem being there AREN'T any local gas stations, or stores. Those that existed have either been raided and been subject to a scorched-earth policy or are now part of Imperial cities run by the military; which is so ethnically different that Tahoans are noticed and shot on sight. [/quote] That's conventient. Next you're going to state that I can't have had any gas stations at all in Baja California because I didn't RP them, right? You're getting rather illogical. Common sense, learn it, embrace it, love it. An insurgency can easily be run with hunting rifles and outdoor supplies. Raids against enemy troops gets heavier weapons and since Tahoe didn't have any sort of weapons registration and encouraged an armed populace that is heavily nationalistic there is a ready made beginning. Combine that with weapons from military depots and wham, ready go. Game over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 When did one person start making the rules for CNRP? I have some rules to propose to that person and cake as a bribe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Justinian the Mighty' date='21 June 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1277093539' post='2344656'] When did one person start making the rules for CNRP? I have some rules to propose to that person and cake as a bribe. [/quote] IAT, a GM, apparently stated that Tahoe's actions were legitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Well its spy attacks. IG mechanic. Ignore that for CNRP and we'd have to ignore nukes and navy and...well, all of IG mechanics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Indeed, and Mudd is showing a masterful use of an IG mechanic for some very interesting RP... at least from his part. Its a shame that he did not put this effort into the war itself... but I digress. This sets a good precedent on what an RPer can do when he faces being rolled. RP an insurgency instead of rerolling elsewhere, creates some good opportunities for fleshing out IC, rather than leaving it hollow. The only concern i have with this precedent is that Mudd was only able to pull off this insurgency with IG stats on his side (the spy rolls). Once we create a system that allows less... fortunate RPers to do this, insurgency will most likely prove to be a powerful player against curbstomping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='21 June 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1277093831' post='2344664'] IAT, a GM, apparently stated that Tahoe's actions were legitimate. [/quote] I'm talking about in general. I'm not greatly concerned about Tahoe, since Shadow isnt my ally and I almost never stick my nose in the western hemisphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Emperor Mudd' date='20 June 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1277093292' post='2344649'] That's conventient. Next you're going to state that I can't have had any gas stations at all in Baja California because I didn't RP them, right? You're getting rather illogical. Common sense, learn it, embrace it, love it. An insurgency can easily be run with hunting rifles and outdoor supplies. Raids against enemy troops gets heavier weapons and since Tahoe didn't have any sort of weapons registration and encouraged an armed populace that is heavily nationalistic there is a ready made beginning. Combine that with weapons from military depots and wham, ready go. Game over [/quote] I'm stating that I burned down your old cities; the ones that I didn't populate with my own citizens. So try not to fail with every statement you make and learn reading comprehension. That's all well and good, but linking nationalism with your citizens is exactly that. YOUR citizens. Where did you replace the locals with your citizens? ... Don't worry, I'll wait. --- I don't mind the insurgency; it's got room for a wonderful story. The problem is there are so many inconsistencies, AND the mechanic needs to be defined and refined to prevent just continuing a war even after defeat, something I can see being abused in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='21 June 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1277094651' post='2344690'] I don't mind the insurgency; it's got room for a wonderful story. The problem is there are so many inconsistencies, AND the mechanic needs to be defined and refined to prevent just continuing a war even after defeat, something I can see being abused in the future. [/quote] A government can be defeated, but a populace can rebel, resist, etc. Look at World War 1, 2, Vietnam, War in Iraq, African colonization, the Russian Revolution. The occupying force (or what was considered the occupying force) was met with resistance in every single one of those wars by what today's people call insurgents. You may know them as freedom fighters, Resistance forces, etc. Just because a nation is defeated does not mean the citizens just sit down and accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I realize that. However, that doesn't mean that it happens every time; I point you to the Spanish-American War, specifically Puerto Rico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='21 June 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1277096396' post='2344761'] I realize that. However, that doesn't mean that it happens every time; I point you to the Spanish-American War, specifically Puerto Rico. [/quote] That is true. In the case of Tahoe, who has RP'd the population as nationalistic, it would make no sense for them to just sit down and accept a foreign occupier. As I said earlier, a government/nation can fall, but that doesn't mean the guerrilla's can't fight to bring back the nation they lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Unfortunately enough, his government did exactly that; sat down and accepted several foreign occupiers. The people in other territories haven't rebelled, thus it makes no sense for one uprising as opposed to three or four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Actually, he rebelled in Colorado as well, not to mention in places across the homeland that are yet to be raided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) Show me, then. I'll make a list as you give me evidence. [u]Places he hasn't rebelled.[/u] Cuba Hawaii Oregon Washington Alaska Bahamas San Francisco Montana Canada Wyoming Various Pacific possessions [u]Places he has rebelled[/u] Mexico --- Edit: added places. Edited June 21, 2010 by Shadowsage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='21 June 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1277097695' post='2344809'] Show me, then. I'll make a list as you give me evidence. [u]Places he hasn't rebelled.[/u] Oregon Washington San Francisco [u]Places he has rebelled[/u] Mexico --- Edit: added places. [/quote] Vince is away, and San Francisco is inactive enough so that I'll be reincorporating it soon. The rest are not the Tahoan homeland and didn't really have Tahoans on them. He's also rebelled in Colorado. So there's a 3-2, and only two of the three are legit anyway. Your argument has no merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Show me the posts where he rebelled in Colorado. Show me that. Also; if there were few Tahoans in those core territories he had for quite some time, then why are there so many in Baja California; a territory he obtained from a protectorate with a German/Mexican population? My arguments stands until you can prove it has holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 LOL You're actually trying to claim that he didn't rebel in Colorado? LOL You're trying to claim it to the person who RP'd a raid at a major base and transport of those criminals to the southern Colorado border? I'm done with this OOC nonsense and I'm done with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [b]*Shrugs*[/b] Show me where. If you RP'd some raid, that's you. Not Mudd. And you still haven't explained away Hawaii, Cuba, the Bahamas, and the various protectorates made of his territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 LOL You ignored the parts of my post where those weren't the Tahoan homeland and he doesn't care about getting them back. You just ignored something that completely contradicted your point and pretended it wasn't even psoted. Again, and for real this time, I'm done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 [quote name='Shadowsage' date='20 June 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1277099336' post='2344866'] Show me the posts where he rebelled in Colorado. Show me that. Also; [b]if there were few Tahoans in those core territories he had for quite some time, then why are there so many in Baja California; a territory he obtained from a protectorate with a German/Mexican population?[/b] My arguments stands until you can prove it has holes. [/quote] Seems like I addressed it. Although, I must remember the tactic you just used. The ignore thing. Seems useful. But I digress. I'm trying to have a conversation working out the kinks of this insurgency thing, and you refuse to talk with me. I don't see how I can do anything other than what I already am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.