|
| 16 Nov 2013 09:43 PM |
Essentially, my idea is rather simple. Take the US, Canada, Mexico, Caribbean [maybe], South America [maybe], and then take a hatchet to them and split it up. Not too sure where to go with this. ISRP of a soldier fighting, a nation RP, a main RP of soldiers, etc. My idea is this.
CANADA
French Canada [nobody likes them at all, so let's cut them off from the good part of Canada. talking to you Quebec.]
The Good Canada [aka the ones who speak bloody English]
AMERICA
13 Original Colonies CSA states [with the exceptions of the nations taken out [13 colonies, texas] Republic of Texas [dem rangers] Range States [New Mexico up to Nevada, to California.] Plains States [middle states] Ohio River Valley States [essentially states inbetween CSA, 13, middle states, etc.]
MEXICO/CARIBBEAN
N. Mexico and Baja California. S. Mexico [spanish rule still.] Cuban/Haiti/Dominican Republic Islandic States of the Caribbean [rest of islands.]
Not sure how to divide up South America. Any thoughts? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 09:52 PM |
| Brazil should be it's own little area. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:06 PM |
| It's already it's own nation. Plus, I'm not too sure if I'm gonna include it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:08 PM |
| Eep. Should've used better wording. I meant that Brazil should be split in half to its own little nations. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:10 PM |
| Maybe. I figure no matter how you split Brazil, the one with the more coastal cities is gonna be better. Brazil's not that industrialized, and you can't really split it evenly. Same with most nations. You can't counter balance it at all, unless you go west v. east. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:11 PM |
| Then don't split it evenly. Maybe you could have the worse side be allied with the other nations. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:13 PM |
| :/ Not sure if I could see a plausible advantage of having nations be allied with the worse side. They'll pretty much produce nil. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:15 PM |
| Other nations may think that they could conquer the worse side eventually, and are allying with them just to help out until they can take over completely. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:17 PM |
| And what would be the use of allying the worse side? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
timpookie
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 21924 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:18 PM |
Add Europe and Australia.
Donate all your money to me to save the endangered Bannanachair! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:18 PM |
| Putting them in debt and using it as leverage to take over the worse side. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:20 PM |
tim; Europe is already a powder cake the time I want to start off with. Australia's well, Australia.
Z0rr0w; Taking them over would be useful, but not sure I'd see the reason of taking the semi useless lands. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
timpookie
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 21924 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:21 PM |
AUSTRALIA IS AN ENTIRE CONTINENT!
Donate all your money to me to save the endangered Bannanachair! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:22 PM |
| Splitting Australia would likely cause Australia to collapse at this time point, plus they aren't even that unifed, per say. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:22 PM |
| Semi-useless land is still land. More space to put stuff, might even be useful stuff underground on that land. And if you want to conquer all the land, you still need to take the semi-useless land. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:25 PM |
| Yes, but it would largely be better to wage a full war on the split nations and gobbling up all the land. Besides, I doubt many would have their sights on S. America with Europe being a powder cake, and N. America warring against each other. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Z0rr0w
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 14027 |
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:31 PM |
| But waging full war would be riskier than allying for awhile, and a lot of people don't like taking risks. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Nov 2013 10:33 PM |
| Not sure how delaying the inevitable would be riskier. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|