Of Mice and War
Day 1,495, 11:36
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by SaraDroz
History Made!
More ehistory is made: eUK has NEVER been wiped off the map before! eCanada took London first a few months ago, then eIreland repeated the operation and now eFrance has helped us create this ehistoric episode! Perhaps the proudest nation here should be eFrance who 1 month ago had a Non Agression Treaty with ePoland that kept them to 4 regions of their homeland and who today hold 11 of their own regions and 5 regions in eUK! Vive La France! Not to mention eIreland who today have small eDanish Empire (no elections in eDenmark tomorrow either).
One month ago ePoland held regions as far west as Idaho in eUSA and half of eFrance. Today the furthest west they hold is Western Netherlands.One month ago eSerbia held regions in the eUSA as far west as Oregon the Pacific Coast and as far south as Georgia. Today they are fighting to keep a foothold on the Atlantic coast; a continent further west! All this and eUK wiped from the map for the first time in ehistory... No matter HOW you look at it since eCanada entered the war ONE has suffered a catastrophic and comprehensive defeat not only in the North Armeican theatre but in the Northern European theatre also. eCanada is a mouse compared to both ePoland and eSerbia yet it was OUR entry into the war, long called for by the nCPF and proposed in Congress nCPF Congressman Wilhelm Gunter, that proved to be the critical turning point in the these theatres. I therefore suggest this war be named (well this series of ehistoric victories) The War of the Mouse that Roared.
The Phases
When eCanada first voted to make ePoland our natural enemy our natural objective was to liberate those regions of eUSA occupied by eSerbia and ePoland; we could call this Phase 1. There can be little arguement that this was wise as surely had eUSA been defeated, or forced to agree a Non Agression Treaty (similar to eFrance), eCanada would undoubtedly have been the next target probably with eUK joining in. eFrance was effectively constrained by their NAP so why not do the same with eUSA before turning on eCanada? The wisdom was to recognise that our future security depended on the result of the war in eUSA. To my mind the single biggest turning point in Phase 1 was when eUSA took Aquitaine before eSerbia had been cleared from eUSA. This raised the fundamental extension of the logic that links Phase 1 and Phase 2: If it was wise for eCanads future security to enter the war in eUSA why should it not be wise to for eCanada and eUSA to enter the war in eFrance for our combined future security? The logic was inescapable and the ePolish offer of a ceasefire was effectively blocked when Addy invaded Pays de la Loire in eFrance, almost forcing eUSA to follow suit and reactifying eFrench hostilies with ePoland. Phase 2 has seen eUSA push on through eFrance forcing ePoland to liberate regions of eGermany to create a buffer. Meanwhile we, with eFrance and our eIrish Bros have wiped eUK from the map to stop them having Congressional Elections tomorrow. In the course of the past month we have liberated or taken over 50 regions! As victories go in erep terms The War of the Mouse that Roared. ranks among the greatest and in strategic terms it is unparelleled. Merry Christmas ONE from eCanada!
The Future
I suspect that with todays attack on eSerbia in Aquitaine Phase 3 has already begun. Should eUSA lose this battle they lose initiative and eUSA may be invaded again. This then should be our first priority for the present. IF we lose the battle Aquitaine needs to be RW'ed to prevent any re-invasion while either eCanada or eFrance (preferably both) is swapped through the eUSA 'belt' of regions to create a second front; wars are always easier with two sets of allied initiative. This Aquitaine attack, even if won, is foolhardy in my opinion since eUSA then comes into contact with eSpain. It would have been far better to attack Midi-Pyranees but I presume this about resources and Aquitaine has rubber. Addy Lawrence wishes to continue the war against ePoland but this time he has been 'gazumped' by eUSA in the same way he did to them with Pays de la Loire. It is vital that either we or eFrance help on the eSerbian Front for now. An alternative strategy might be swap though into Scotland and follow eIreland/liberate eNorway. Of the two options the first seems more important and more dangerous, while the second holds out opportunities for easy short term gain. Fortunately I do not have to make such decisions but I warn that without the cleareance of Atlantic coast we may soon find ourselves fighting again in eUSA. The same logic that led us to eFrance could be applied to eSpain...
Questions on Objectives
Perhaps we should ask: Under what conditions could we consider this war won? Well we cleared eUSA so on the first level (or 'Phase') it was won then. We then cleared the coast of eFrance (and eFrance) of ePoland so on the second level mission accomplished. We have also cleared eUK so extra bonus win. If we are to attack ANY enemy wherever they be we are clearly in over our heads. The more enemies we take on at the same time and the further we advance the more the risk; we like ePoland become bound by the law of 'over-stretch'. It is vital therefore that we have CLEAR OBJECTIVES.
As no war ever ends in this game it is tempting to continue ad infinitum but this is the MISTAKE ePoland made. Let us therefore learn from this mistake when selecting our objectives. I would suggest that a one month ceasefire or even without time limit Non Agression Treaty or NAPs (similar to the eFranco/ePolish Treaty) can effectively (temporarily) end a war in one theatre; it worked for ePoland. On this basis I suggest that eCanada, eUSA, eFrance and eIreland could accept a NAP with ePoland and eSerbia along the following lines:
eFrance must be liberated entirely and the ePolish 'pocket' from Western Netherlands to Saarland be liberated. On these fronts they, nor we, shall not attack for 31 days. We shall liberate eUK and they too shall be bound by the Treaty.
We can then clear the Atlantic coast in eSpain and perhaps help liberate eItaly. It would also give us time to conduct the resources swaps we wanted with eUSA but not had time to do... Evidently many discussions would be needed with allies but the point is to end the ePolish, eSerbian and eUK involvement while we concentrate on eSpain. As I say it's merely a suggestion but to mind a 'war of many fronts' is a lose lose scenario for eCanada, eUSA, eIreland and eFrance that will see the return of the war in the enemies favour. Of course should eSerbia and ePoland reject such terms it would say a great deal about their commitment to eUK...
Etc...
I found time to listen to the latest Acacia Mason podcast the other evening. One of the major topics discussed was eCanada joining ONE... Chucky Norris was said to be "waving his walking stick" and threatening impeachment over this issue, Chucky being regarded as 'ancien regime'. On the issue of alliances in general I would like to make two points:
Nowehere in ANY eCanadian Presidents manifesto has a change of alliance been proposed. Until a President is elected with such a clearly stated programme it is doubtful if even Congress could legitimise such a decision if the vast majority of eCanadians opposed such a move. It's a bit like real life UK and the EU... they won't let us vote because they know we'll tell 'Europe' they stop at Calais. In my opinion unless a President is elected with this specific pledge to change our alliance Congress should impeach him/her if such a President tried to force the matter through.
Secondly changing alliances is NOT about game mechanics or as Acacia suggested 'gaining more influence'; it is about honour. You do NOT 'do and eUK' and change sides when times seem bad for your side. You stick with your allies through thick and thin! It is THIS that gives you 'influence'. The more you sacrifice and risk for your allies the more help you will receive if you need it. For example in the current war the eCanadian attack on Pays de la Loire (which was a make or break battle and perhaps badly timed for ePolish prime time) made eCanada a recognised 'power', although we are but a mouse. It was a gamble for sure but our allies won it for us... THAT is influence and honour.
On a completely different matter SaraD eta British Colombia in real life circa 20th January 2012 so any eCanadians in Vancouver or Victoria that fancy a meet up and a drink it would be a pleasure to meet.
I wish ALL a Merry Christmas! May you all have good pressies!
More ehistory is made: eUK has NEVER been wiped off the map before! eCanada took London first a few months ago, then eIreland repeated the operation and now eFrance has helped us create this ehistoric episode! Perhaps the proudest nation here should be eFrance who 1 month ago had a Non Agression Treaty with ePoland that kept them to 4 regions of their homeland and who today hold 11 of their own regions and 5 regions in eUK! Vive La France! Not to mention eIreland who today have small eDanish Empire (no elections in eDenmark tomorrow either).
One month ago ePoland held regions as far west as Idaho in eUSA and half of eFrance. Today the furthest west they hold is Western Netherlands.One month ago eSerbia held regions in the eUSA as far west as Oregon the Pacific Coast and as far south as Georgia. Today they are fighting to keep a foothold on the Atlantic coast; a continent further west! All this and eUK wiped from the map for the first time in ehistory... No matter HOW you look at it since eCanada entered the war ONE has suffered a catastrophic and comprehensive defeat not only in the North Armeican theatre but in the Northern European theatre also. eCanada is a mouse compared to both ePoland and eSerbia yet it was OUR entry into the war, long called for by the nCPF and proposed in Congress nCPF Congressman Wilhelm Gunter, that proved to be the critical turning point in the these theatres. I therefore suggest this war be named (well this series of ehistoric victories) The War of the Mouse that Roared.
The Phases
When eCanada first voted to make ePoland our natural enemy our natural objective was to liberate those regions of eUSA occupied by eSerbia and ePoland; we could call this Phase 1. There can be little arguement that this was wise as surely had eUSA been defeated, or forced to agree a Non Agression Treaty (similar to eFrance), eCanada would undoubtedly have been the next target probably with eUK joining in. eFrance was effectively constrained by their NAP so why not do the same with eUSA before turning on eCanada? The wisdom was to recognise that our future security depended on the result of the war in eUSA. To my mind the single biggest turning point in Phase 1 was when eUSA took Aquitaine before eSerbia had been cleared from eUSA. This raised the fundamental extension of the logic that links Phase 1 and Phase 2: If it was wise for eCanads future security to enter the war in eUSA why should it not be wise to for eCanada and eUSA to enter the war in eFrance for our combined future security? The logic was inescapable and the ePolish offer of a ceasefire was effectively blocked when Addy invaded Pays de la Loire in eFrance, almost forcing eUSA to follow suit and reactifying eFrench hostilies with ePoland. Phase 2 has seen eUSA push on through eFrance forcing ePoland to liberate regions of eGermany to create a buffer. Meanwhile we, with eFrance and our eIrish Bros have wiped eUK from the map to stop them having Congressional Elections tomorrow. In the course of the past month we have liberated or taken over 50 regions! As victories go in erep terms The War of the Mouse that Roared. ranks among the greatest and in strategic terms it is unparelleled. Merry Christmas ONE from eCanada!
The Future
I suspect that with todays attack on eSerbia in Aquitaine Phase 3 has already begun. Should eUSA lose this battle they lose initiative and eUSA may be invaded again. This then should be our first priority for the present. IF we lose the battle Aquitaine needs to be RW'ed to prevent any re-invasion while either eCanada or eFrance (preferably both) is swapped through the eUSA 'belt' of regions to create a second front; wars are always easier with two sets of allied initiative. This Aquitaine attack, even if won, is foolhardy in my opinion since eUSA then comes into contact with eSpain. It would have been far better to attack Midi-Pyranees but I presume this about resources and Aquitaine has rubber. Addy Lawrence wishes to continue the war against ePoland but this time he has been 'gazumped' by eUSA in the same way he did to them with Pays de la Loire. It is vital that either we or eFrance help on the eSerbian Front for now. An alternative strategy might be swap though into Scotland and follow eIreland/liberate eNorway. Of the two options the first seems more important and more dangerous, while the second holds out opportunities for easy short term gain. Fortunately I do not have to make such decisions but I warn that without the cleareance of Atlantic coast we may soon find ourselves fighting again in eUSA. The same logic that led us to eFrance could be applied to eSpain...
Questions on Objectives
Perhaps we should ask: Under what conditions could we consider this war won? Well we cleared eUSA so on the first level (or 'Phase') it was won then. We then cleared the coast of eFrance (and eFrance) of ePoland so on the second level mission accomplished. We have also cleared eUK so extra bonus win. If we are to attack ANY enemy wherever they be we are clearly in over our heads. The more enemies we take on at the same time and the further we advance the more the risk; we like ePoland become bound by the law of 'over-stretch'. It is vital therefore that we have CLEAR OBJECTIVES.
As no war ever ends in this game it is tempting to continue ad infinitum but this is the MISTAKE ePoland made. Let us therefore learn from this mistake when selecting our objectives. I would suggest that a one month ceasefire or even without time limit Non Agression Treaty or NAPs (similar to the eFranco/ePolish Treaty) can effectively (temporarily) end a war in one theatre; it worked for ePoland. On this basis I suggest that eCanada, eUSA, eFrance and eIreland could accept a NAP with ePoland and eSerbia along the following lines:
eFrance must be liberated entirely and the ePolish 'pocket' from Western Netherlands to Saarland be liberated. On these fronts they, nor we, shall not attack for 31 days. We shall liberate eUK and they too shall be bound by the Treaty.
We can then clear the Atlantic coast in eSpain and perhaps help liberate eItaly. It would also give us time to conduct the resources swaps we wanted with eUSA but not had time to do... Evidently many discussions would be needed with allies but the point is to end the ePolish, eSerbian and eUK involvement while we concentrate on eSpain. As I say it's merely a suggestion but to mind a 'war of many fronts' is a lose lose scenario for eCanada, eUSA, eIreland and eFrance that will see the return of the war in the enemies favour. Of course should eSerbia and ePoland reject such terms it would say a great deal about their commitment to eUK...
Etc...
I found time to listen to the latest Acacia Mason podcast the other evening. One of the major topics discussed was eCanada joining ONE... Chucky Norris was said to be "waving his walking stick" and threatening impeachment over this issue, Chucky being regarded as 'ancien regime'. On the issue of alliances in general I would like to make two points:
Nowehere in ANY eCanadian Presidents manifesto has a change of alliance been proposed. Until a President is elected with such a clearly stated programme it is doubtful if even Congress could legitimise such a decision if the vast majority of eCanadians opposed such a move. It's a bit like real life UK and the EU... they won't let us vote because they know we'll tell 'Europe' they stop at Calais. In my opinion unless a President is elected with this specific pledge to change our alliance Congress should impeach him/her if such a President tried to force the matter through.
Secondly changing alliances is NOT about game mechanics or as Acacia suggested 'gaining more influence'; it is about honour. You do NOT 'do and eUK' and change sides when times seem bad for your side. You stick with your allies through thick and thin! It is THIS that gives you 'influence'. The more you sacrifice and risk for your allies the more help you will receive if you need it. For example in the current war the eCanadian attack on Pays de la Loire (which was a make or break battle and perhaps badly timed for ePolish prime time) made eCanada a recognised 'power', although we are but a mouse. It was a gamble for sure but our allies won it for us... THAT is influence and honour.
On a completely different matter SaraD eta British Colombia in real life circa 20th January 2012 so any eCanadians in Vancouver or Victoria that fancy a meet up and a drink it would be a pleasure to meet.
I wish ALL a Merry Christmas! May you all have good pressies!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
The UK opted to change sides multiple times and look where they are now.
Like your articles Sara! 😉
needs pictures of mice fighting
V+S good article
Great article, roar little mousey roar.
I like your point about specific goals.
One is suffering losses on multiple fronts so I don't think we should take our foots off their necks.
Great stuff as always, Sara. I really hope your vision of a long-term strategic peace comes to pass--we in eItaly would be very grateful for any peace which permits an increased allied focus on liberating our home regions!
voted
great article as usual
oh and merry Christmas