Quote from: VonMudra on 04-04-2009, 06:04:03

Yes, that is true, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are no Argentinian people living on the island.

I don't want to critize anything on the analysis you and sheik and Meadow have given, hats off, everything fine and true.
Just wanted to comment on this one - as for back then, it clearly had nothing to do with the fact that their lived no Argentinians on the island.
But it has something to do with the fact that there are no Argentinian people living on the island, because they can't live on the island because they can't enter it.

Sorry for being Captain Obvious here, but this surely noticed but not spoken disaccord just jumped in my face and digged its claws in my cheeks until I wrote it down.

Problem is, because it was uninhabited, the claim has always been in the air.  At first the french landed, and left a plaque saying it was owned by France.  Then Britian did the same.  Then Spain.  Then Britain.  Then Argentina.  Then Britain again.  So if the Argentinians want to rely all their claim on the island due to a plaque that an American privateer hired by their government left on the Falklands, then the French and Spanish have as equal claim to them as the British and French do.

Also, the main thing is that is shouldn't be decided by who landed first, it should be decided by who lives there.  And when 99% of the population is of British descent, it speaks volumes.  Would the population change if Argentinians were allowed to move there?  No.  It sure stayed the same throughout the rest of the history of the Falklands, it wouldn't now.  IN fact, the main immigrants to the island, other then the british, were Uruguayan.

Well.. actually.. no free Argentinian Citizen can visitin the Islands.. you have to be an Familiar of a Fallen soldier.. thats what i heard.

Yes, that is true, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are no Argentinian people living on the island.

And of course the most crucial bit...there are no Argentinians on the Falklands.  They were uninhabited islands until the British, and the population is 99% british to this day.  The Argentinians still have no ground for a claim, other then that they are close by.  But in that sense, the USA could claim the Bahamas.

Nope, it was his speeches, and videos of her visit to the US.

Yep, I think it would really add a new dimension to the game.  THen you couldn't just attack with a single army and expect to win.  Also, if attacked, you could go so far as to sweep through their country side, and not just destory their things for a single turn, but hold them and use their resources against them, without having to commit to conquering their province.

Oohhh, that's cool

Quote from: VonMudra on 02-04-2009, 00:04:36

Yes.  IN fact, for some nations, you start out with protectorates.  Hell, I even aided my Courland protectorate as Poland for them to expand into estonia.  They DO stay protectorates now.

Cool! Lack of protectorates/vassals have always been one of biggest oddities that have annoyed me in the previous Total Wars' diplomacy (or should I say lack of working diplomacy ).

Yep, the one thing I wish is that there was a way to peacefull annex them=/

Also, I was thinking the other day, and I had a great idea.


What if the border lines could move.  What if you marched in and took a town, the border of your state moved to surrond the town, and then if you made peace, it stayed a part of your nation?  It would make diplomacy a lot more fun, as you could just take certain producing areas, without having to deal with taking the entire state and deal with the civilian population, as well as being able to expand your state.  Then I was hit with something more.

Supplies.  Let's say your attacking a certain state, and you blitzed right through it with a single army, leaving a long, corridor from town to town.  Then, if the enemy snipped it off, your army was forced to live off the land, and could even be starved into surrendering if you didn't return to your nation, or open the supply line again?

I honestly think that would be REALLY damn cool...anyone with me?

Same as the original, about 21 lbs.  Its actually rather well balanced, and since I won't be carrying my K98k, K98k ammo/ammo pouches, and I'll have a loader to carry the ammo, it actually won't be that bad at all.  Since its shieldless, I'll also be rocking gasmask and welding gloves to "protect" me from the rocket exhaust

I'm also getting it repainted.  Going with a primer, then fieldgrey basepaint, then quickly applied winter whitewash using burlap to apply it, followed by finnish geometric camo (works for german too).  That way, as the paint flakes, much like on my helmet, it'll show the previously applied paints.  Makes it loook a lot better, and gives it some history.  My helmet is actually tuned to my persona, with field grey basepaint from my time in Italy, then winter camo for my service in the 43 winter in russia, followed by apple green with purple/brown and khaki splotches and dark green leaves painted into the camo pattern, light oxide texturization, and a single wire frame.  It looks really good now, as the paint flakes off, and exposes little white and fieldgrey, and even bare metal, areas of the helm