|
Hashim posted:The 'Roman' dynasty, who also rule over Scandinavia-Novgorod. So it's the Roman Empire then.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Roman(s) reigns supreme in France/Britain. A good thing to hear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Oh, well, it’s clearly time for the Second Gallic Empire, then
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Hashim posted:I've genuinely been trying to think up a good name for France-England once they get English as an accepted culture in vicky, and haven't gotten much further than 'Dual Monarchy' or something to do with unions. So who knows? Maybe as their languages merge, so does their name- Franterre, maybe? Or something like that, I'm no linguist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Frangleterre 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Hashim posted:The 'Roman' dynasty, who also rule over Scandinavia-Novgorod. vyelkin posted:So it's the Roman Empire then.  e: Looking very much forward to the seemingly inevitable personal union. frankenfreak fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Brittany
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Voting for C for that sweet back scratching
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Frangleterre That's silly and sounds like a Muppet ThatBasqueGuy posted:Brittany That might actually work!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
"france"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Voting C on the vote, if that's still going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Given the choice between C and D, C is the least bad option. As for France/England, United Kingdom would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:This, exactly. Plus, we don't have a real good option for maintaining good relations with Armenia and Egypt both, they're at +40 each right now and other than abstention we can't make it more likely that they'll back us when the Andalusian question arises at the end of the conference. Since abstaining isn't going to happen, we have to go with the choice that makes it most likely we can get a vote from at least one of the two. D is better policy, C is better politics. And politics matter more if we want to restore Catalunya to its rightful place in the fold. Also, gently caress Morocco. It'll be good to have good relations with France, and I was pro their getting northern/western Occitania, but relying on getting 6 votes from 5 members will be a lot harder due to the RNG than getting 5 votes from 3 members. Siding with France, Russia, Bavaria, Hungary and Egypt is less reliable than just getting Hannover, Russia and lower odds on Bavaria, but equal odds on Hungary and Crusader Egypt. That tiebreaker is powerful. rarx fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jun 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Given the choice between C and D, C is the least bad option. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern France
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern France United Kingdom of France and Southern Britain
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Dual Monarchy is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
rarx posted:Siding with France, Russia, Bavaria, Hungary and Egypt is less reliable than just getting Hannover, Russia and lower odds on Bavaria, but equal odds on Hungary and Crusader Egypt. Agreed. If we have a way to make Hannover very happy with us and it doesn't piss off Russia or more than one single vote power, we should probably support it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Hashim posted:I've genuinely been trying to think up a good name for France-England once they get English as an accepted culture in vicky, and haven't gotten much further than 'Dual Monarchy' or something to do with unions. So who knows? I mean, part of it depends on the current dynamics in the country. Right now, it sounds like France is in a pre-Ausgleich Austria situation where France owns England but has yet to reaffirm England's status as a separate entity with its own laws and customs. In that case, "France" makes sense. If the French monarch has recognized England as a co-equal part of the state, with her simply serving as the unifying figure, then "France-England" works. If the French monarch wants to promote a cultural or national fusion in the vein of Czechoslovakia, then some kind of fusion name like "Frangleterre" or "Francobrittania" would seem appropriate. A fourth approach would be something that tries to distance itself from both France and England, promoting allegiance to a state that has no explicit national ties. To me, a name like "the Dual Crown," which promotes unity around the institution of monarchy as opposed to the collective nation, or "Gaul," which tries to sidestep the nation issue by hearkening back to something earlier, seems appropriate. E: In simpler terms, does accepting English as a culture mean accepting it as a co-equal identity, trying to establish a new national identity, or trying to move beyond the idea of "France" and "England" entirely? QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jun 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Gallia, maybe? Just how conservative are the ruling French anyway? I can certainly see a faction promoting some kind of pan-Gallic (Gaulic?) identity for France-England, especially as a counter to the Celtic influences of Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:57
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:E: In simpler terms, does accepting English as a culture mean accepting it as a co-equal identity, trying to establish a new national identity, or trying to move beyond the idea of "France" and "England" entirely? France will get an event chain that, depending on the choice they pick, will likely end with them putting English on equal standing with French. So I'm gonna avoid anything to do with Gaul, which has strong connotations with France and its surroundings, and instead go for something like the Dual Monarchy or Dual Crown, since I can imagine the Roman dynasty promoting the idea that an English-French union is only possible because of the royal family linking them or something. Obviously, all that can change over the next century though, so I'll probably mess around with it a bit more before deciding. Gaul would probably work as the name for a fascist France that lost England to nationalism, for example.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
France-England is just like Austria-Hungary and therefore cool. And good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Dual Crown just means you have to come up with better (interesting) names for their Socialist/Fascist forms. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Nothing can go wrong with linking the the idea of a nation to a bunch inbreed royals and ignoring the cultural and nationalist tensions that simmer for decades imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
How about the European Union?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Nothing can go wrong with linking the the idea of a nation to a bunch inbreed royals and ignoring the cultural and nationalist tensions that simmer for decades imo I mean hey, it worked alright for Belgium
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Some Grand Vizier in the future posted:Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal … A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all … I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where … Some damned foolish thing in the British Isles will set it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:How about the European Union? sounds a bit Tirrunist
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Hashim posted:I've genuinely been trying to think up a good name for France-England once they get English as an accepted culture in vicky, and haven't gotten much further than 'Dual Monarchy' or something to do with unions. So who knows? There was a proposal for a Franco-British Union, so maybe the the Franco-English Union? Anglo-French wouldn't really work, since it was initially the French who took England, any more than the Hungaro-Austrian Empire. Also voting C.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
The assassination of Francois-Fernand at the hands of Gabriel Prince
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
What kind of future are we trying to build, here? One in which people are shuffled about as pawns on a chessboard, as our populations have been in the past? Chunks of Iberia thrown to various powers as counterweights--is this really what we want? Or are we aiming as we always have, for a brighter future? There is only one reasonable vote. D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Have you tried naming it the French-English Commonwealth? Just to jinx it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
The Congress of Cádiz Part 5: The Iberian Question This time around, the Majlis is a bit more divided, with opinions split between Options C and D. After days of furious debate, however, the assembly breaks decisively in favour of Crusader Egypt - a decision that truly marks the end of the era where religion largely conducted foreign policy.  Loudly championing the rights of Egypt, the Russian Empire also votes in favour of granting the Levant to them, only to be firmly opposed by Morocco, who determinedly insist that the Muslim-dominated Levant will only find peace when under Muslim rule.  The other congress powers are not so sure, however. Nobody votes in favour of restoring the status quo, and it’s obvious to all that granting the Levant to either Armenia or Egypt only serves as yet another proxy war between Morocco and Russia, leading to more suffering and misery for the people of the Levant. So the representatives of Hannover, France, Bavaria and Hungary all agree to form a mini-bloc within the Congress, opposed to granting the Levant to either Armenia or Egypt. Instead, they propose that two new monarchies be set up as buffer states between the rivalled powers, with the Emirate of Syria ruling from Aleppo, and the Kingdom of Outremer from Acre.  This is met with anger and hostility from the representatives of both Egypt and Armenia, predictably, but the two-state bloc press onwards and submit their proposal to the Congress. And after another round of voting, the final tally comes to zero votes for Option A, three votes for Option B (Morocco, Armenia), four votes for Option C (Russia, Egypt, Al Andalus) and five votes for Option D (Hannover, France, Bavaria, Hungary). And so the motion narrowly passes, with a committee quickly organised to begin drafting plans for Syria and Outremer.  And with that, we come to the last item on the agenda: the Iberian Question. The Iberian Question revolves around the ‘legitimate’ borders of Al Andalus, as the representatives of Morocco put it. Since Grand Vizier (and now Sultan) Raed Zulfiqar had stormed into northern Iberia in the last days of the Tirruni Wars, some have claimed that Al Andalus has no rightful claim to these captured lands, which suffered greatly under the rule of the Mahdiyyah and now deserve to have their independence recognised. Furthermore, there are many in the Majlis al-Shura who insist that Catalonia also ought to be returned to Al Andalus, stretching its borders across the entirety of Iberia. As several diplomats rightfully insist, however, Qattalun has been independent for almost 70 years now, and is equally deserving of sovereignty and freedom.  So the Congress convenes to decide this matter, with countless diplomats, mediators and emissaries all taking to the floor over the next few hours. What stance do the Majlis take? Option A - We demand northern Iberia and Qattalun! Effects: We suffer a large infamy hit (which makes it much harder to form alliances or expand early on in vicky). There will be Andalusi cores in northern Iberia and Catalonia. If this option wins, we will receive the territories of northern Iberia and Catalonia. Other countries that pick this option receive a big relations boost with us (but there is overall a smaller chance of it being picked over the other two options). With this option, we start with cores on the entire Iberian peninsula. Option B - We demand northern Iberia! Effects: We suffer a moderate infamy hit. There will be Andalusi cores in northern Iberia. The independence of Qattalun is guaranteed. If this option wins, we will receive the territory of northern Iberia. Other countries that pick this option receive a small relations boost with us. With this option, we will receive cores on various Iberian territories if and when we conquer them. Option C - We demand nothing. Effects: We suffer no infamy hit. An independent kingdom is set up in northern Iberia, and Qattalun’s independence is guaranteed. If this option wins, we will receive nothing, and our borders return to the pre-Tirruni invasion boundaries. Other countries that pick this option suffer a relations hit with us. With this option, we will receive cores on various Iberian territories if and when we conquer them. ——— Reminder that we (Al Andalus) will have 1 vote in this matter, alongside France, Bavaria, Hungary, Armenia, and Egypt. The great powers of Morocco, Russia and Hannover will have 2 votes apiece. So keep in mind that even if our chosen option doesn’t win overall, the relations boost/hits will still take effect, and the other powers will remember how we voted. Also, in the event of a stalemate, the tie is decided in favour of the side with more great powers. hashashash fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 8, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
A Every inch of Iberia belongs to us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
A All of Iberia is Andalusian clay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:A Exactly. I don’t expect this to win, but I want those cores.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Better to get something than nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Better to get something than nothing Cores are something! A
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
A. A no brainer. Even if we lose the vote, having cores on the land is vital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
B let's be humble for once
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Our votes thus far would have counted for nothing if A isn't how we vote!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 20:15
|
|