Austria gets invaded by Croatia

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/about-austria-alea-iacta-est-edited--1198248/1/20

Austria, country that has followed a strict policy of neutrality, is getting attacked by Croatia. Croatia wants neighbouring regions to Germany and Switzerland.

Good thing EDEN respects the neutrality of other nations...

What you forget to mention is that Austria and Croatia first negotiated a bridge. "Poor" Austria first had no problems with the Croatians using Austria as a bridge (as this is what this is about. Croatia has no interest in holding Austria, they just want to reach Germany). Croatians promised pay the full costs of the war + the full costs of the resistance war to get their regions back + 1 Q5 hospital after the war was over.

Initially the Austrians agreed, but they got a bit greedy and wanted more. (something the Austrian president, for Phoenix PR-sake prefers to leave out)


Meh, don't come whining then. Croatia offered them a very nice proposal and they refused. See, that's the difference between Croatia and lets say... Russia. Croatia first tries to find a peaceful diplomatic solution whereas Phoenix would just grab without warning. Austria was offered a very very nice proposal, they asked for more in the hopes Croatia would say "yes". Croatia saw they where taking advantage of them and closed all negotiations and attacked.

This guy agrees with you.


This one doesn't.

Really, what the hell? Negociations or not, the do not have to agree if they don't want to (And if they wanted to keep their neutrality, they should refuse.)

And how was that a good proposal? What did Austria gain from such an agreement? Serve Croatian intrest without having to pay for them??

The fact is that Croatia gave an ultimatum (call it a negociated ultimatum if you want, it doesn't change anything) to a neutral nation. What happened to Austria could happen to Belgium...

This issue isn't about Neutrality. Austria had no problems with being a bridge at first.

This is about greed and wanting more, but ofcourse, such details aren't really the kind you want hanging around when you start posting articles in foreign countries asking for aid to "poor" Austria.


Croatia would have restored the country back in it's original state and Austria would have gotten a free TW + a free Q5 hospital. They refused... bad luck for them.

How is it greedy to ask for something in return when you do a favour to another country? I don't see how it matters that they accepted at first. Is it forbidden to change one's mind?

And really, how could they have maintained their neutrality if they helped an EDEN country finish off Germany? Is this how you conceive Belgian neutrality, shadow?

no, either they should have stayed out of negotiations in the first place or don't ask for too much.


And also, this is has little to do with A) Belgium and B) neutrality. A presidents first task is to look after his own country, no? Germany is f*cked anyway, do you really think that his refusal will make even the slightest difference to Germany? No. Croatia will reach it anyway.

If Austria's president cared for the German cause and was smart he would have accepted the offer and used the money he saved out by not having to RW his regions and having to tank his troops to get them back, and use that money in the fight for German independence. That way EDEN would have gotten what they wanted and Phoenix wouldn't be pissed either and even grateful for what Austria did. What you fail to see is that neutrality =/= doing nothing.

If he would have accepted, then he would not only saved his country allot of money (coz what do you think will happen when Austria will be out of this war? Exactly, they will be bankrupt), he would also have been able to really help out Germany (unlike what he's doing now by diverting Phoenix forces even more) and he would have gotten some nice bonuses in the form of free training wars and a free Q5 hospital.

A president should think rational and should keep in mind how he can serve HIS country, and not that of another, in the best way possible.

no, either they should have stayed out of negotiations in the first place or don't ask for too much.

negotiations like allways come when people insisting on something, in this case croatia wants to border germany or even want to bridge euk or france (i dont know there intentions so dont comment on this its useless), and maybe they made this impossible offer, so that it would be to costy to croatia so that they would leave austria alone with asking for swap(we cant know because we wherent there at the talks) .
the fact is that croatia has attacked an neutral countrie for there own cause, and what if in the future spain or poland wants an extra point to uk and belgium says they need more money or say no. (this is not about the fact that they do or dont need an acces point, its about the point that they might want to bridge some day)
is it then allowed to overrun belgium also when they do an impossible offer in order to backoff the country?

as belgium we should speak up that no neutral country can be invaded like this, becuase if we dont fight for neutral countries rights then others wont do it for us when something happens to us.

For my concern, even if a country comes with a very good proposal, I will never accept eBelgium to be a bridge to any other country (whatever the alliance they come from).

Olv007 wrote:For my concern, even if a country comes with a very good proposal, I will never accept eBelgium to be a bridge to any other country (whatever the alliance they come from).

If this would come to Belgium (from whatever alliance it would come from) and you know there is no way we can stop them if they launch a attack against us, you would be an idiot to refuse such an offer and allow Belgium to be occupied for at least half a year due to your actions.


You have to put the RL-thinking behind you. In RL I would agree with this, but ingame? It would be foolish for a president to allow his own country to be destroyed over something that doesn't even concern his country in the first place. A presidents job is to protects his own country first, not that of another.

So if eUK commes to me with a good proposal, you don't have any problem I would say yes?

Olv007 wrote:So if eUK commes to me with a good proposal, you don't have any problem I would say yes?

In the current situation, I would have a problem with it. If you would know eUK will take us anyway, regardless of what your answer is and there is no other way out, then I would say yes

shadowukcs wrote:

Olv007 wrote:So if eUK commes to me with a good proposal, you don't have any problem I would say yes?

In the current situation, I would have a problem with it. If you would know eUK will take us anyway, regardless of what your answer is and there is no other way out, then I would say yes

ur measuring with two measurments now.
at this point u would have made the same mistake as austria made (the mistake they made in ur eyes that they begon with negotiating)
people cant invade every country they want because if they harm to much people, then all those people will unite against them.
so in order to have the best security for belgium is to make it unattractive for anybody to attack us.
in this case it means that we need to say that its unacceptable to attack an neutral country in the hope that croatia will give back austria soon, because its unacceptable what they did.

It's very comparable to RL, it's exaclty the same as granting military access to another country. By swaping regions, Austria would have helped Croatia not only to attack Bavaria, but would also allow them to get about anywhere in Western and Central Europe, thereby threatening Phoenix interests in the UK, possibly in Brazil, etc. I really can't how Phoenix would have appreciated that and still have accepted Austria as a neutral nation.

There's really no way how you could justify Croatia's action. They've invaded a neutral peaceful country. It's as simple as that.

It really proves my point : big nation don't respect neutral nations. It's all fine as long as they're not in the way. But if they are, either they bow to their will or they get invaded.

@ eniotna

exactly that is what i mean, they could do the same with belgium if belgium doesnt give a bigger country what they want.
i really think there is no justification.

shadowukcs wrote:

Olv007 wrote:For my concern, even if a country comes with a very good proposal, I will never accept eBelgium to be a bridge to any other country (whatever the alliance they come from).

If this would come to Belgium (from whatever alliance it would come from) and you know there is no way we can stop them if they launch a attack against us, you would be an idiot to refuse such an offer and allow Belgium to be occupied for at least half a year due to your actions.


You have to put the RL-thinking behind you. In RL I would agree with this, but ingame? It would be foolish for a president to allow his own country to be destroyed over something that doesn't even concern his country in the first place. A presidents job is to protects his own country first, not that of another.

The moment we start letting nations trample over us is when we lose our independence shadowukcs.
It would be better to fight for our independence against whichever one of the 2 major alliances would maybe do this , than to give it away willingly.

Mike Wooldridge wrote:

shadowukcs wrote:

Olv007 wrote:For my concern, even if a country comes with a very good proposal, I will never accept eBelgium to be a bridge to any other country (whatever the alliance they come from).

If this would come to Belgium (from whatever alliance it would come from) and you know there is no way we can stop them if they launch a attack against us, you would be an idiot to refuse such an offer and allow Belgium to be occupied for at least half a year due to your actions.


You have to put the RL-thinking behind you. In RL I would agree with this, but ingame? It would be foolish for a president to allow his own country to be destroyed over something that doesn't even concern his country in the first place. A presidents job is to protects his own country first, not that of another.

The moment we start letting nations trample over us is when we lose our independence shadowukcs.
It would be better to fight for our independence against whichever one of the 2 major alliances would maybe do this , than to give it away willingly.

no, that would be the moment we lose our independence for another 6 months to a year.

Now Austria will be off the map for another year. Do you really think that when in a year RL Austrians will come on foreign forums asking for help to RW their regions (kinda like that Macedonian guys here), that any German will remember what they did for them? No. They won't give one flying sh*t for Austria nor their independence. Now Germany and Phoenix act all "oooh, the brave Austrians fighting for their freedom and neutrality" whereas in 3, 4 months from now and you ask them "what about Austria?", they'll reply "who cares for Austria?". That's how those major alliances work.

Do you think their sacrifice will have made any difference to Germany?

words like "neutrality" and "fighting for other nations" are nice words and make good PR, but at the end of the day, what the Austrian president did was a move that will completely destroy his country.

Look at what Ambiorix (the famous Gaul) did. When the Romans came he could have resisted them by force, got his clan wiped out and his lands confiscated. In stead he chose to be kind to them, allow them passage trough his lands and learned from them. And then, at the point when they where passing trough he chose to set a trap and managed to be one of the few gauls at that time to defeat the Roman legions.

What the Austrian president should have done, is allow them passage and use the money he saved got to RW German regions or help them in their fight. Then
A) he would have actually done something for the Germans
B) they would Remember Austria's actions for a long time
C)Phoenix would be happy for the aid Austria would have given Germany
D)eUK and other war zone's would be happier coz Phoenix would have one war zone less to spread it's over
E) EDEN would have been happier towards Austria as well
F) Austria wouldn't be occupied for a long time to come with it's treasury plundered
G) They would have gotten a nice, 100% free, TW with Croatia (meaning lots of experience for their citizens and activity boosts)
H) They would have gotten a brand new Q5 hospital


Now, they have nothing.

And then, at the point when they where passing trough he chose to set a trap and managed to be one of the few gauls at that time to defeat the Roman legions.

and still got his clan wiped out and his lands confiscated.

If a country is considering itself strictly neutral, then negociating being a bridge in some one else's war doesn't conform with this attitude.
As to agreeing to give up neutrality and independence under pressure of imminent invasion - some things should be a matter of principle. If you call yourself neutral, than you should act as such no matter what. Even if you get wiped off the map for a long time, you still should stick to your principles, which will help your image in the world as an innocent victim and an honorouble nation. No Austria is practically pushed in the camp of PHOENIX and at the same time it's dicredited by its initial negociations with Croatia.
And Ambiorix got his tribe ethnicly cleansed by the Romans due to his "treachurous" actions. Bad example

Aldous Zamiatin wrote:
And Ambiorix got his tribe ethnicly cleansed by the Romans due to his "treachurous" actions. Bad example

Very bad example......
Random fact , i never knew before , but i've just found out Ambiorix's tribe was located in the area which is now modern day Belgium.

And it is not about being conquered Shadowukcs , it is about our eNational Pride and our morals.
If we let a bridge happen through our country , we would not only show that we would allow one nation to move through our nation , it would give the message to the country they needed to get to , that we am helping them out.

This sort of debate will always occur in a game that has both strategic aspects and role playing aspects.

Strategists look at game mechanics while role players promote concepts beyond the game framework.

Neither side is clearly right or wrong. It all depends on what you give to and take away from playing.

Innos28 wrote:

And then, at the point when they where passing trough he chose to set a trap and managed to be one of the few gauls at that time to defeat the Roman legions.

and still got his clan wiped out and his lands confiscated.

ssssstttt

I left that part out for a reason.

Mike Wooldridge wrote:And it is not about being conquered Shadowukcs , it is about our eNational Pride and our morals.
If we let a bridge happen through our country , we would not only show that we would allow one nation to move through our nation , it would give the message to the country they needed to get to , that we am helping them out.

that's nice and all, but at the end of the day you are still playing a game. Ppl don't really get hurt in war. What does happen is that our game experience suffers because of the lack of our own country to build. Ppl who quit playing the game simply because it gets boring to live in occupied regions and not get any chances to play the game like others, simply because their country is occupied.

I agree that morals are important, but in this particular case, I prefer playing a fun game over having kept my morals high in a free text browser game.

shadowukcs wrote:I agree that morals are important, but in this particular case, I prefer playing a fun game over having kept my morals high in a free text browser game.

I find the fun is that i kept my morals high , but you know , we'm all individuals and we all have our own ideas and opinions on many things.

You can still have fun in an occupied country, in some cases probably even more fun Building your own country is in some sense role playing as well - nothing stops you to help the occupiers, but few choose to do so.