I am admittedly not be the greatest expert in the field, but I believe that perhaps New England will take a special position among the colonies due to its location and culture.

It is geographically closest to Europe, considering that the trade wind routes go northwards past Greenland. Ships from Europe will pass here first, and Iceland, England, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, they are therefore relatively close and a first port of call for them.

It is right next to (northern) New France and northern east-coast native nations (Inuit), so it will have relations with them.

It seems to me it has the oldest European history and likely the most affinity with Britain of all the colonies.

So I would expect New England to have a leadership role in championing the relations with Western European nations and might feel as the most closely related to them. 

Posted by: @walsingham

So I would expect New England to have a leadership role in championing the relations with Western European nations and might feel as the most closely related to them. 

I would argue that the Southern Colonies already have become the dominant nation. They have had the vast majority of the 13 colonies player base for years now, they are the most organized, the most outspoken and will probably stay that way.

I would argue that the Southern Colonies already have become the dominant nation. They have had the vast majority of the 13 colonies player base for years now, they are the most organized, the most outspoken and will probably stay that way.

I can imagine why you think that. But I am of the opinion it won't work out that way.

The game design is balanced in economy, population, resources, army and navy sizes, governmental positions. The number of players has a very limited influence on the budgets and capabilities of a nation, that is much more determined by its real historical population number. In that regard the Southern Colonies are not more substantial than the other two colonies. You do need a minimum amount of players to run a nation well, but I think the USA player base is more than large enough to hit that mark comfortably for all colony nations. So even if the Southern colonies would maintain a player size that is twice that of the other colonies, it doesn't make a great difference if the active player numbers for North America are in the thousands.

Additionally, players will probably disperse as the game has limited positions, resources and opportunities. If you all crowd into one nation that becomes oversized, it simply means less players have opportunities. That will grow old quickly and players will venture out and look for opportunities elsewhere.

Take for instance a navy. It is limited to three fleets. These fleets are immensely expensive to upkeep, only the largest nations would have the population numbers to raise such taxes. So the colonies, rather small economies in 1750, would maybe be able to maintain only one fleet each at best. Those are limited spots available for Captains to get a commission in the fleet. If the Southern Colonies are overcrowded, most players would therefore never get the opportunity to serve in the Squadrons. I think it would drive many players to other American nations. The same applies for the army and government positions. 

I don't expect any of the colonies to have the power or economy to become particularly dominant over the others very quickly. It will take time to grow and develop and build up population and economy to get there, and that will take competent government. It's hard to say who will have the most competent government, it depends on individuals. If the other colonies have talented leadership it will not be easy to outgrow them economically.

Is it then possible for the Southern Colonies players to infiltrate the other nations and dominate them that way? I have heard of such plans and I am sceptical. Because it means that whomever has managed to wrestle supreme control over a nation will then willingly give that control to another (with the agreement of a full Cabinet). I think that is incompatible with human nature.

And that all being said, there is the matter of being a client nation first. That will have to be resolved first, at its start the Southern Colonies or any others will have to navigate a tricky situation, and just being dominant is not going to help there.

I think by the time the real launch of this world would approach and thousands of players will be present, enough will have chosen New England to govern it just as successfully as the others. I think a player group of thirty nobles could already do that quite successfully. And I suspect there will be many more. For each colony.

So in these circumstances it is really about what each colony nation can achieve in alliances with other nations. I would say for the Southern nations it would make much more sense to look towards Spain, the big power in the south, whereas New England would look more towards Britain.

I would say for the Southern nations it would make much more sense to look towards Spain, the big power in the south, whereas New England would look more towards Britain.

I would say that you avoid talking about France and Louisiane, and I could extend this to some part of Texas there. Unless you consider Middle Colonies would go more toward France. 😋 Colonists could seek help from France. I won't elaborate on what France would possibly do. In fact there could be a good proportion of US players joining this place even if they would be maybe surprised to find it all in French.

The more I look at it and the more I find it very interesting for the Amérique Septentrionale to become independant, and in fact we can extend that to Nordic nations and other places around the world. I'm curious, can any country conquer, lets say HRE invading New England Colonies, and once peace treaty made just free that colony ? I mean I think you can do that theorically but could it be simultaneous to the conquest, to be some kind of war goal, taking it to Britain just to make it free right at the signature of the peace treaty ?

I'm curious, can any country conquer, lets say HRE invading New England Colonies, and once peace treaty made just free that colony ?

Yes, that's possible, depending, of course, on everybody sticking to their agreement.

A master nation can propose a new diplomatic status for a client nation. Those are client nation, protectorate, ally, even neutral or enemy. Any new status would dissolve the old one.

However, there is a high bar of approval to change something drastic as a client nation to an independent nation. This high bar of approval makes sense in any case, but it is also there to keep gameplay realistic and not allow a group of gamers to manipulate the system to achieve these things.

The high bar is that first both Prime-Ministers (of both nations) need to agree and propose the new status to their Cabinets. Both Cabinets then need to pass the proposal unanimously. After that a majority of the House of Lords also needs to approve the proposal. After that the Monarch needs to approve it. This final step is a safeguard to also check that nothing is manipulated.

Incidentally, just cutting a client nation or protectorate loose is something a master nation can do one-sided. Agreeing to a new status is something that needs to be done together.

As for making the ownership of a client nation part of winning a war, that can also be done. That is a different process. Two nations can agree to (a series of) scheduled fleet and/or land battles. If they both agree to it, they can set victory conditions for the winner, which can by anything from payment to exchange of territory, a port, a series of ports or a whole client nation. In that case the Admiralty Board or Army Board can propose the engagement and the victory conditions, and the Cabinets of both nations have to unanimously agree to it. So again, it is a high bar to pass it, but possible.

So in these circumstances it is really about what each colony nation can achieve in alliances with other nations. I would say for the Southern nations it would make much more sense to look towards Spain, the big power in the south, whereas New England would look more towards Britain.

Does it not make more sense if new england looks for alliance with france? They are in the north too. And also native nations such as the miqmaq and inuit. They are independent nations that could be used as a jumping board to conquer the client nations. It would be a new canada if these nations are united.

Posted by: @raadspensionaris-p-steyn

Does it not make more sense if new england looks for alliance with france? They are in the north too. And also native nations such as the miqmaq and inuit. They are independent nations that could be used as a jumping board to conquer the client nations. It would be a new canada if these nations are united.

Probably not, the best bet for the 13 colonies is to work together, with Britan, for independence. Nations that share a language will have a lot more pollical pull with one another. Plus, with the number of American players that will play in north America, we can assume nations like New France, the native nations and the Spanish holdings in the content be all lead and staffed mostly by English speaking players. I'd bet money that we will see a North American alliance that aims to free all its members from the various colonial powers. We also know that there is already rebellious sentiment from the players who aim to play in the area of modern day Argentia. If the Spanish continue to have colonies hold resentment toward them, while they themselves are not building their nation on the forums and various national discords, they hold a very large possibility of losing much of their colonial possessions.

'd bet money that we will see a North American alliance that aims to free all its members from the various colonial powers.

I do believe that everyone will want to be independent and that will unify many powers in america. But when I look at present day america, north and south, I see people that are as divided as ever in how they think about the world. So I think once they are independent unity will quickly collapse and they will fight for dominance among themselves. They will never accept central control, also not in a union, as even today you can see that - when necessary - unions get bypassed.

Posted by: @raadspensionaris-p-steyn

I do believe that everyone will want to be independent and that will unify many powers in america. But when I look at present day america, north and south, I see people that are as divided as ever in how they think about the world. So I think once they are independent unity will quickly collapse and they will fight for dominance among themselves. They will never accept central control, also not in a union, as even today you can see that - when necessary - unions get bypassed.

I completely agree, and the post rebellion Americas is where I plan to play and make my money. I have my bid that if any major European power does not at least give some autonomy, if not independence, for their colonies in the Americas, it will lead to the collapse of their larger empires. Regardless of how the post rebellion political landscape looks, we are going to see the client nations of the western world unify in some degree. This political dance, both before and after the rebellions is also very important for the various independent nations in the Americas, such as the natives. They too are under threat of colonialization by Europe, but may also preserve ties to Europe in fear of a more local threat.

Posted by: @steve66

I have my bid that if any major European power does not at least give some autonomy, if not independence, for their colonies in the Americas, it will lead to the collapse of their larger empires. 

It might also be the case that economic reality dawns upon the European nations.

The economies of especially northern America are really small in 1750. So in that respect they have little strategic value. Maybe in the longer term that can gradually change, but my guess is that if Britain and France lose their American holdings, that amounts to less than 5% of their economic wealth or population size. Only Spain and Portugal are economically more heavily committed.

It might be the case that leaving North America to its own devices creates a good buffer against Asian expansion. The only worry there would be if the powerful Asian nations actually conquer the east coast. That is probably a prospect that won't excite the European nations.

Another scenario would be to divide the America's between the powerful nations (not at all uncommon in the 18th century), exactly for the purpose of avoiding massive warfare. China, Japan, Russia, Joseon, all powerful nations that might desire expansion to the east across the Pacific. Maybe the powerful Northern European nations can agree with the powerful Asian nations to divide North America in east and west, and regulate trade there. Maybe the national trade companies can play a role here.

It's not so unlikely that Britain, France, the Dutch Republic, Prussia, HRE and the Scandinavian nations reach an alliance. They share traditional enemies, and that axis probably will lie more to the east, Russia, (Poland/Courtland?) and the south, Spain, Portugal, Italian nations, North Africa/Ottoman. These are massive tensions with massive interests, Northern Europe might initially not be that interested in North America, except as a buffer against Asian intrusion, which is the last thing they need.

Northern Europe might initially not be that interested in North America, except as a buffer against Asian intrusion, which is the last thing they need.

The issue is that they are, there are dozens of forums posts about the Europe/American dynamics, and even more posts about the mechanical limitations of client states, how they can become free, and why should people play them. Most of the people contributing to these discussions are citizens of Europe or their colonies. For the British empire the 13 colonies made up ~10% of the Empires population. While the overall percentage of American client states economic value may be small in some empires, there are other economic reasons to want to hold onto nations in the west. For one, there will be materials and resources that are found in the Americas that can be found nowhere else, access to these could be crucial for a European economy to compete on the world stage. The Currency unions of the empires in Europe are also extremely important. The more players and NPCs using your money, the better. The more players converting gold into your currency the better (in most cases). There is also the added value of the manpower these colonies provide their empires. Players to sails ships and lead troops into battle, in time zones that are uncomfortable for European players to be in. Regional troop types like heavily melee focused infantry from native client states, or a disproportionate amount of privateers and light vessels that a nation could muster if it holds a rogue nation as a client state. Then there is the fleet limit that is a hard cap on the size of any navy. The more client states you hold, you open up more slots in your empire for ships of the line. The total strategic value of the Americas is huge.   

The issue is that they are, there are dozens of forums posts about the Europe/American dynamics, and even more posts about the mechanical limitations of client states, how they can become free, and why should people play them. Most of the people contributing to these discussions are citizens of Europe or their colonies.

True, some interesting posts but you can say they are about the game mechanics and illustrating them through the 13 colonies but if you look at alsewhere, you can apply it to the Ottoman Empire for example. They are also showing, I would say, not Europeans concerns but mostly Americano-British/English concerns. You can't say France was really concerned as, from what you already said in another post and from other players through the forum, its PM is/was an american player. It seems to me that actually most of players debating about the colonies, game mechanics, indepedence, are mostly from the USA and partly British, or linked to the British Empire. And I totally understand the debate and find it very interesting in fact.

There is also the added value of the manpower these colonies provide their empires. Players to sails ships and lead troops into battle, in time zones that are uncomfortable for European players to be in.

There I would say that it just depends where players are really going to settle their home. I'll use my personal case, I could perfectly get my family settled into Nouvelle-France as actually my playtime would be more corresponding to the timezone. And I would say, many europeans could do the same. In most MMO's, coming myself from EVE online, groups/organisations recruit usually all over the world to have a good timezones cover to be always active. As for the ships you raise a point that I don't know the answer, ships from a client nation, can they participate in a joint maritime blocus for the conquest of a port, or ships must be from only one nation ?

The total strategic value of the Americas is huge.

Yes and no 😋 Just joking. You're right, it's huge. I'll add though, Americas, as a whole, meaning not just the 13 colonies. South America is highly important too. North America isn't limited to the British colonies. Though while some on the forum pointed out that there were more than just the 13 colonies, debate has focused only around them. And I guess it's normal as I think i'm not mistaking too much in saying that they were at the heart of the creation of the USA. I would be careful about the West coast though, if I were a russian player on their east timezone I would highly consider conquering and settling there, Alaska, California... Chinese players might consider more gobbling the whole Pacific islands, then eventually the west coast.

Europe might initially not be that interested in North America, except as a buffer against Asian intrusion, which is the last thing they need.

British Empire will be highly concerned by North America, at least I think so. France, more or less. It will depends on who will lead France and Nouvelle-France. France will have big interest in its neighbourhood as usual and also all over the globe like Britain/Spain/Dutch Republic but things could be really very different from how things were at the time. Having european players as leaders of those countries would be different as having American leaders in Europe with less focus onto North America, that is of course depending on what their goal is. But in my mind it's only logical that players with different backgrounds, cultures have a different view of a subject.

My apologies for this wall of text but I really liked what you all said before and it pushed me to add those few words 😋 

For what concerns to Spain, our interest in North America lays on the Pacific Coast, and our possesions on Florida and Nueva Filipinas (Texas). Apart from that, its likely that the Caribbean would remain as the most important commercial hub on the continent.

You can't say France was really concerned as, from what you already said in another post and from other players through the forum, its PM is/was an american player.

I held a government position in France for the few months that there was a one. The issue is that there was a France, and it made promises and plans with people who may expect those to be honored. I played with that group in a previous MMO and understand they want an independent nation in the new world to play in. New France was offered to them, I believe some of them still hold government position in New France on the family manager.

" groups/organisations recruit usually all over the world to have a good timezones cover to be always active."

This is true, however the game forces time zones on us, markets close, large battles cannot be fought etc. Even if a nation had a sizable nocturnal community, they wouldn't be useful in those areas and their gameplay will be affected.

It seems to me that actually most of players debating about the colonies, game mechanics, indepedence, are mostly from the USA and partly British, or linked to the British Empire.

I myself once did plan to play in the British Empire, but I no longer have plans to play in it or its subjects

As for the ships you raise a point that I don't know the answer, ships from a client nation, can they participate in a joint maritime blocus for the conquest of a port, or ships must be from only one nation ?

I believe its safe to assume if Client Nations are called to war, they can participate in the large, fixed battles and port actions. If they are not allowed to they can still participate in activates like reconnaissance, trade interdiction and trade defense, smaller naval actions still requiring ships of the line and it can be assumed that the client nation could transfer the ownership of the vessels to the master nation in times of dire stress.