|
|
Post by tpc on Jan 24, 2019 2:32:17 GMT
I got revived from my precious tomb. Thanks to Tol. I need some pushes to keep my interest up. I”m wondering when this Indochina RP will start? Looks like I might have some research to do if GM permits. Yeppier, still going for PRC. will decide whether or not to join come the weekend. Next week would be the optimistic estimate. You may do research. Shoot me a PM if you have anything to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 27, 2019 8:42:29 GMT
There's really no specific department or person I could think of. I wrote that to provide some sort of justification for the RP mechanics. Without the realistic political constraints faced by any US/USSR/PRC, the three would be OP. I guess a group of people with similar opinions that happen to head the diplomatic corps, regional military command, etc. would make sense. So far I have found a semi-example (for USA, haven't found the counterparts on the communist side yet) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Advisory_GroupThe PRC began to send their advisors and later form the Chinese Military Advisory Group (CMAG) to assist the North Vietnamese forces in return, led by General Wei Guoqing,[2]:45 along with Senior General Chen Geng. This is the beginning of China’s assistance.That's for PRC Wikipedia doesn't have a specific article for Soviets being involved in the Vietnam War, instead being sprinkled here and there all over various pages. I can only assume they use the same model of using a Military Advisory Group designated for the Soviet-Vietnamese relations respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 27, 2019 8:50:03 GMT
tpc, maybe I'm overthinking this... but so far it seems that PRC is actually the more active superpower on the Communist side than USSR on the whole from what I'm reading thus far in the few random hours I've spent across various days last week. Although it does looks like USSR was more active at first while PRC finally became more intensively involved 1965 and beyond (implying lesser involvement prior to that, ofc). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_WarThe trend of China's military support to Vietnam is shown in the Table. China's supply of weapons and other military equipment to Vietnam sharply increased in 1965 compared with 1964. The amount of China's military supply fluctuated between 1965 and 1968, although the total value of material supplies remained at roughly the same level. But then in 1969-70, a sharp drop occurred, at the same time that all China's troops were pulled back. Not until 1972 would there be another significant increase in China's military delivery to Vietnam.Am I overthinking this, and we should simply have fun? Lol 
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Jan 27, 2019 14:44:00 GMT
tpc, maybe I'm overthinking this... but so far it seems that PRC is actually the more active superpower on the Communist side than USSR on the whole from what I'm reading thus far in the few random hours I've spent across various days last week. Although it does looks like USSR was more active at first while PRC finally became more intensively involved 1965 and beyond (implying lesser involvement prior to that, ofc). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_WarThe trend of China's military support to Vietnam is shown in the Table. China's supply of weapons and other military equipment to Vietnam sharply increased in 1965 compared with 1964. The amount of China's military supply fluctuated between 1965 and 1968, although the total value of material supplies remained at roughly the same level. But then in 1969-70, a sharp drop occurred, at the same time that all China's troops were pulled back. Not until 1972 would there be another significant increase in China's military delivery to Vietnam.Am I overthinking this, and we should simply have fun? Lol I personally like your involvement in this, got me thinking about this as well and hadn't it been for my (cursed) exams starting tomorrow I would have been reading on CMAG right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Jan 28, 2019 2:52:28 GMT
I'll announce that I've chosen not to participate after all. I'm not in a place, as far as other commitments, where I can do this right, and if I can't do it right, I shan't do it at all.
Maybe next time!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 6, 2019 5:22:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tpc on Feb 6, 2019 5:26:46 GMT
How's a week (11 February) sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 6, 2019 5:31:46 GMT
I'm ready whenever y'all are |
|
|
|
Post by Santa Anna on Feb 6, 2019 11:58:42 GMT
Any day soon works for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Europyrealm on Feb 6, 2019 20:24:41 GMT
I second that. Looking forward to something new. |
|
|
|
Post by tpc on Feb 7, 2019 4:14:30 GMT
On the 11th of February, 12.00 GMT, ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 7, 2019 6:26:22 GMT
On the 11th of February, 12.00 GMT, ok? fine by me |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2019 9:32:20 GMT
On the 11th of February, 12.00 GMT, ok? I had originally thought an earlier date (like 8th on this Friday) was probably what you were planning, lol. Monday the 11th is perfectly fine with me anyway. *thumbs up* |
|
|
|
Post by tpc on Feb 10, 2019 0:54:03 GMT
Hey all,
I will be setting a 7-day/one week deadline for posting turns. If you feel inconvenienced, please tell me. If you think we can have a shorter deadline, please suggest one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 10, 2019 3:13:31 GMT
Hey all, I will be setting a 7-day/one week deadline for posting turns. If you feel inconvenienced, please tell me. If you think we can have a shorter deadline, please suggest one. Seven days? Seems a bit extreme. Three days should work out fine, 1 GM & 4 players, don't forget, so it's not a large-scale WW1 RP where we have fifteen people putting in their turns. If you feel the phases might end up running out of time too much, you could tack on a fourth day being the grace period while the original 3 day remains the targeted goal. Would that satisfy your aim of balancing needs? |
|
