Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

Trek  discord  political  WArs  Star  game  

Latest topics
» Eye of the Storm
Today at 7:26 pm by Crensler

» Battle of Scales
Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:12 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Discovery Rumination Schedule?
Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:32 am by The Lorerunner

» Turn 9-1068
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:59 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Nest of the Koth
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:21 am by SilverDragonRed

» Star Trek TOS essential episodes?
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:04 pm by NMdum1

» Turn 8-1068
Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:03 am by FreelanceZero

» The end of a journey (Star Trek: Voyager Rumination)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm by NMdum1

» Is The Federation in Star Trek Fascist?
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:59 pm by NMdum1

You are not connected. Please login or register

Council of Governors

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 13 of 16]

301 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:36 pm

Governor Grifenknight wrote:If we have reached that point, I doubt a conscription would do anything...

It would allow us to conscript level 5 national assets in defense of the nation. Of course that means that we can't use them during the initial push where they would be needed most.

View user profile

302 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:36 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:As I said, the bill would be amended so as to only be able to be used when Echaini soil is threatened directly. In the hypothetical you use, conscription would be allowed.

If you think the draft would be too slow to call up enough people in time to fight off an imminent invasion, I could be persuaded that I drop the need for Echaini soil to be threatened, but would insist then that conscripts must still only serve in Echain.

This also allows for people to be conscripted into factory work for the war effort in offensive wars though. (OOC: I'd be willing to change my mind for 2 influence)


If we were to do as you say and we were successful in defeating an invasion....what then?. We would still have no troops to pursue the enemy as those conscripts would not be able to leave Echain. The enemy would know this and so no treaty would be signed and the nation would be in a perpetual state of war with the conscripts being in service indefinitely.


OOC: Nah I don't want to sacrifice influence for this.

View user profile

303 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:37 pm

If we are at the point where we are willingly engaging in offensive wars we had better have thought of enough defence that it will be good enough. Don't enter into wars with the childish notion that we'll invade everybody else, and no one will invade us.

View user profile

304 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:38 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:If we are at the point where we are willingly engaging in offensive wars we had better have thought of enough defence that it will be good enough. Don't enter into wars with the childish notion that we'll invade everybody else, and no one will invade us.


Again your plan would simply not work. We would not be able to retaliate in a defensive war and thus we would be in a constant state of war until the enemy wins.

View user profile

305 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:39 pm

Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
If we were to do as you say and we were successful in defeating an invasion....what then?. We would still have no troops to pursue the enemy as those conscripts would not be able to leave Echain. The enemy would know this and so no treaty would be signed and the nation would be in a perpetual state of war with the conscripts being in service indefinitely.


OOC: Nah I don't want to sacrifice influence for this.

Don't enter into offensive wars and this won't be an issue.

Governor Bradley3000 wrote:Again your plan would simply not work. We would not be able to retaliate in a defensive war and thus we would be in a constant state of war until the enemy wins.

We're a minor country. Don't imagine we will be taking on others and winning unless we have allies. Our allies and our volunteers can fight the retaliation.



Last edited by Governor WhiskeyWhiskers on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

306 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:41 pm

Bradley, your plan would leave us in ruins too. If the enemy has reached the point of nearly annihilating us, what is a force of untrained persons going to do? It will merely lead to a massacre.

You must also understand that if we have reached the point of the defense of Echain, that means our navy must have been destroyed and an offensive push will be impossible since we are an island nation...

View user profile

307 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:41 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
If we were to do as you say and we were successful in defeating an invasion....what then?. We would still have no troops to pursue the enemy as those conscripts would not be able to leave Echain. The enemy would know this and so no treaty would be signed and the nation would be in a perpetual state of war with the conscripts being in service indefinitely.


OOC: Nah I don't want to sacrifice influence for this.

Don't enter into offensive wars and this won't be an issue.

You are not getting it are you?. If we are in a defensive war and we were to beat off an invasion we would then not be able to use those troops in a counter offensive and thus the war would not end as the enemy has no reason to surrender. Those people conscripted would have to remain in service and the invading force would keep wittling us down until we have no one left to defend the nation.

View user profile

308 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:44 pm

OOC:Posting again, because it wasn't seen.

IC: We're a minor country. Don't imagine we will be taking on others and winning unless we have allies. Our allies and our volunteers can fight the retaliation.

View user profile

309 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:45 pm

If it is a defensive war, a counter push is not necessary. We just need to defend our homeland and territories. That is the point of defensive wars, former minister of Defense...

If we are pushed back in an offensive war, it is most likely because our navy was destroyed and a counter offensive would be impossible since we are on an island.

View user profile

310 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:45 pm

Governor Grifenknight wrote:Bradley, your plan would leave us in ruins too.  If the enemy has reached the point of nearly annihilating us, what is a force of untrained persons going to do?  It will merely lead to a massacre.

You must also understand that if we have reached the point of the defense  of Echain, that means our navy must have been destroyed and an offensive push will be impossible since we are an island nation...

There are many cases in which this would not be the case. Such as we could be pushed to Echain proper and be on the verge of losing but we have to hold out longer as an ally might be readying for a push or for example let's use Indonesia, we might be at a case where we have been pushed back but the Dutch might be preparing to re-take the islands.

Another example is Republican Spain, if they had held out just a little longer until the invasion of Poland they might have won.

View user profile

311 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:46 pm

I'm sorry for being brief, as I'm here in the corner drafting a procedure act, but I'd just like to say that my issue with the bill is that it only discusses emergencies and is riddled with, well... problematic areas, from both functional and legal perspective (OOC: minor nitpicks, if they were the only issue, they wouldn't be a problem for me).
Also, it is far too draconian at times.

View user profile

312 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:46 pm

Governor Grifenknight wrote:If it is a defensive war, a counter push is not necessary.  We just need to defend our homeland and territories.  That is the point of defensive wars, former minister of Defense...

If we are pushed back in an offensive war, it is most likely because our navy was destroyed and a counter offensive would be impossible since we are on an island.


What reality do you live in?. A defensive war would not be over by simply defeating an invasion, why would the enemy come to peace terms if they have no reason to be afraid of a potential counter push?

View user profile

313 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:48 pm

Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:I'm sorry for being brief, as I'm here in the corner drafting a procedure act, but I'd just like to say that my issue with the bill is that it only discusses emergencies and is riddled with, well... problematic areas, from both functional and legal perspective (OOC: minor nitpicks, if they were the only issue, they wouldn't be a problem for me).
Also, it is far too draconian at times.

If you would what is draconian about it?. Unless of course the British, Americans, Germans, Soviets, French, Italians are all draconian about a law they have been using for the past 7 years.

View user profile

314 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:51 pm

If that is the case, then why don't we change it to an unanimous vote 9/9? That will leave out all possibilities and we will all know that when the Bill comes in effect, everyone agreed that we are in deep shit

View user profile

315 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:53 pm

Governor Gollvieg wrote:If that is the case, then why don't we change it to an unanimous vote 9/9? That will leave out all possibilities and we will all know that when the Bill comes in effect, everyone agreed that we are in deep shit


8/9 will be the farthest I would go as one Governor holding up the other 8 is just to far.

View user profile

316 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:55 pm

Governor Bradley3000 wrote:Another example is Republican Spain, if they had held out just a little longer until the invasion of Poland they might have won.
And in your Spanish example, my proposed amendments would allow for conscription to hold just a little longer. We were not defeated because we could not advance on their positions.

View user profile

317 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:59 pm

Bradley, you can't compare us to Spain because we're an island unlike them.  Also, what do your examples have do do with losing the navy?  If we are pushed back to Echain, our navies will have either been destroyed in battles or in port.  The only reason that we would have been "pushed back" is because our navy failed.  Pushed back is also a generous term as our targets will be bodies of land seperate from Echain.  Therefore, when they invade, they will have no route to retreat if our navy is destroyed.  This will only lead to their total annihilation.

If there is any situation where our navy is not destroyed or heavily crippled, then a conscription is not necessary.  Why?  Our navy would disallow any force from invading Echain, but even if they do, we should have a garrison to repeal them.  Also, these conscripts would only be able to fight under the army since the airforce and navy requires extensive training.

Also, if we have reached the point where we require a conscription to "counter-push", how effective do you think that will be?  We will not be fighting trench warfare like Europe, but our army will require many survival and naval skills due to guerilla warfare and Transportation respectably.  Also, if the enemy is able to invade Echain, that means our navy is destroyed or unable to challenge theirs in order to stop the invasion.  That means any dreams of a counter push are impossible because we wouldn't be able to leave the island...



Last edited by Governor Grifenknight on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:00 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile

318 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:59 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:Another example is Republican Spain, if they had held out just a little longer until the invasion of Poland they might have won.
And in your Spanish example, my proposed amendments would allow for conscription to hold just a little longer. We were not defeated because we could not advance on their positions.

Ah but you miss the point, Republican Spain would still have to have taken back all of it's land from the now weakened nationalists, this was a civil war so the example is a bit wrong but the point still stands.

Would you (theoretically) if you were a leader of a nation back down from an invasion of an enemy because you lost abattle when there is ZERO risk of retaliation and you could simply build up and try again?.

View user profile

319 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:03 pm

But in your example you specifically cite that if they had held defensively and waited for France and Britain to enter the war they could have won.

If we can not put together a full volunteer force for a counter-invasion after the morale boost of successfully defending our own country, our troops will not have the morale to fight on another country's soil and win regardless.

View user profile

320 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:03 pm

Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:Another example is Republican Spain, if they had held out just a little longer until the invasion of Poland they might have won.
And in your Spanish example, my proposed amendments would allow for conscription to hold just a little longer. We were not defeated because we could not advance on their positions.

Ah but you miss the point, Republican Spain would still have to have taken back all of it's land from the now weakened nationalists, this was a civil war so the example is a bit wrong but the point still stands.

Would you (theoretically) if you were a leader of a nation back down from an invasion of an enemy because you lost abattle when there is ZERO risk of retaliation and you could simply build up and try again?.

I have to agree with this sentiment. My people have been known to never stop until the enemy's home is burnt to the ground, everyone within 8 steps of their family line dead, and there's no one left to mourn them. It's been 2000 years and we still want to crush the Southern Barbarians

View user profile

321 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:05 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:But in your example you specifically cite that if they had held defensively and waited for France and Britain to enter the war they could have won.

If we can not put together a full volunteer force for a counter-invasion after the morale boost of successfully defending our own country, our troops will not have the morale to fight on another country's soil and win regardless.


At that point we would have no one left to volunteer and so would be forced to retaliate with conscripts.

View user profile

322 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:06 pm

You ask conscripts to volunteer.

View user profile

323 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:06 pm

Governor Grifenknight wrote:Bradley, you can't compare us to Spain because we're an island unlike them.  Also, what do your examples have do do with losing the navy?  If we are pushed back to Echain, our navies will have either been destroyed in battles or in port.  The only reason that we would have been "pushed back" is because our navy failed.  Pushed back is also a generous term as our targets will be bodies of land seperate from Echain.  Therefore, when they invade, they will have no route to retreat if our navy is destroyed.  This will only lead to their total annihilation.

If there is any situation where our navy is not destroyed or heavily crippled, then a conscription is not necessary.  Why?  Our navy would disallow any force from invading Echain, but even if they do, we should have a garrison to repeal them.  Also, these conscripts would only be able to fight under the army since the airforce and navy requires extensive training.

Also, if we have reached the point where we require a conscription to "counter-push", how effective do you think that will be?  We will not be fighting trench warfare like Europe, but our army will require many survival and naval skills due to guerilla warfare and Transportation respectably.  Also, if the enemy is able to invade Echain, that means our navy is destroyed or unable to challenge theirs in order to stop the invasion.  That means any dreams of a counter push are impossible because we wouldn't be able to leave the island...


This still does not discount the possibility of a counter push in the future. At that point we would be seeking aid from a foreign power and so our only hope would be to hold out with these conscripts for as long as we can before being liberated. My question is what happens when we have to push in order for a war to end. I am not saying we should use conscripts in offensive wars, I am just saying that if we are put on the back foot we cant just have these men and women stay in Echain they must be free to defend foreign outposts or fight on the enemy's land.

View user profile

324 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:07 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:You ask conscripts to volunteer.


That is not the point of conscription and what if not enough volunteered and we had nothing left to retaliate with?.

View user profile

325 Re: Council of Governors on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:08 pm

Gollvieg, I'm sure that works for a country that has enough people to overrun the world with their bare hands... Very Happy

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 13 of 16]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum