It'd need to be built though. Apart from a few nations I'm not letting anyone take up multiple states for the same nation.

Could Serbia make a leauge with both Croatia and Bosnia? EDIT: I realize that Romania and Bulgaria joining the leauge is unrealisti...

Could Serbia make a leauge with both Croatia and Bosnia? EDIT: I realize that Romania and Bulgaria joining the leauge is unrealisti...

For any form of league between Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia they have to agree to a south slav Union under Serbia. Serbia would be willing to go democratic(although they still be authoritarian) if they could get the other two to join peacefully, not so sure about Bosnia but I doubt Germany would so willingly let Croatia join anything involving Serbia.

Precipice also isn't the sort of RP where I will accept multiple nations joining together off the bat. Again, there are special circumstances, but if they weren't otherwise joined at some point in the past iterations of the RP then I'm not allowing it. We don't need any more Polkraines. And merger over the course of the RP will also be subject to a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't help too that I think Romania may already be played, but I'll need to double check. But right off the bat Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania don't even share a common heritage. So there's no reason they'd agree to straight up political merger.

Precipice also isn't the sort of RP where I will accept multiple nations joining together off the bat. Again, there are special circumstances, but if they weren't otherwise joined at some point in the past iterations of the RP then I'm not allowing it. We don't need any more Polkraines. And merger over the course of the RP will also be subject to a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't help too that I think Romania may already be played, but I'll need to double check. But right off the bat Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania don't even share a common heritage. So there's no reason they'd agree to straight up political merger.

They were all apart of Kebabs at one point They remove Kebab together. Edit:Googs just incase you forgot remember the Spanish-Serb diplomacy thing?

Edit: I honestly think you guys could form up as a sort of collaborative association like the SAC, potentially more integrated and centralized, and just do your own thing but you could also operate in joint Balkan League operations.

Oh, I was talking about how they would become allies to each other.

Edit: I honestly think you guys could form up as a sort of collaborative association like the SAC, potentially more integrated and centralized, and just do your own thing but you could also operate in joint Balkan League operations.

The problem with this is Serbia is basically a Fascist state that wants to take over Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria cause South Slav Unity. I am not so sure the other balkan states would want to cooperate with Serbia for those reasons.

I hate my galaxy s4 so much ;(

Edit: I honestly think you guys could form up as a sort of collaborative association like the SAC, potentially more integrated and centralized, and just do your own thing but you could also operate in joint Balkan League operations.

The problem with this is Serbia is basically a Fascist state that wants to take over Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria cause South Slav Unity. I am not so sure the other balkan states would want to cooperate with Serbia for those reasons.

Balkan league against Serbia, anyone?

Edit: I honestly think you guys could form up as a sort of collaborative association like the SAC, potentially more integrated and centralized, and just do your own thing but you could also operate in joint Balkan League operations.

The problem with this is Serbia is basically a Fascist state that wants to take over Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria cause South Slav Unity. I am not so sure the other balkan states would want to cooperate with Serbia for those reasons.

Balkan league against Serbia, anyone?

Uhhhh.... HEY GUYS LOOK THE KEBABS ARE TRYING TO CONQUER US AGAIN, FOCUS ON THEM. WERE TOTALLY NOT INVADING BOSNIA.

Hm...what about a pan-American movement in the US, Canada, and Mexico, instead of the US alone? That would increase the number of natives fighting for independence tenfold. Not only that, but it would provide some relief on the US for a while as the fighting becomes concentrated in Canada and Mexico (though the war would inevitably reach Cascadian territory and the Western US). As for the Balkans, my mistake. I didn't know Serbia had taken control of those countries. Still, a union of some sort does not seem out of the question. Also, wasn't Croatia annexed by Austria?

Hm...what about a pan-American movement in the US, Canada, and Mexico, instead of the US alone? That would increase the number of natives fighting for independence tenfold. Not only that, but it would provide some relief on the US for a while as the fighting becomes concentrated in Canada and Mexico (though the war would inevitably reach Cascadian territory and the Western US). As for the Balkans, my mistake. I didn't know Serbia had taken control of those countries. Still, a union of some sort does not seem out of the question. Also, wasn't Croatia annexed by Austria?

I'd say not, considering Prussia annexed Austria. It's fairly clear on the OP maps, I just checked.

Also, wasn't Croatia annexed by Austria?

From my Understanding Austria was annexed by Germany and Croatia became free but under German influence when that happened.

Only difference between this map and present is now Greece has eastern Anatolia and Constantinople is independent, as far as I see. Oh and according to every other map, Latvia is independent.

Ah, I must have missed that. Never mind what I said about Croatia then :S

Hm...what about a pan-American movement in the US, Canada, and Mexico, instead of the US alone? That would increase the number of natives fighting for independence tenfold. Not only that, but it would provide some relief on the US for a while as the fighting becomes concentrated in Canada and Mexico (though the war would inevitably reach Cascadian territory and the Western US). As for the Balkans, my mistake. I didn't know Serbia had taken control of those countries. Still, a union of some sort does not seem out of the question. Also, wasn't Croatia annexed by Austria?

Still not nearly enough natives. And the US and Canada detests each other. And Mexico is aligned to the Third International and ideologically split from the US and Canada. So a union in North America isn't possible, let alone a union of the native tribes.

Precipice also isn't the sort of RP where I will accept multiple nations joining together off the bat. Again, there are special circumstances, but if they weren't otherwise joined at some point in the past iterations of the RP then I'm not allowing it. We don't need any more Polkraines. And merger over the course of the RP will also be subject to a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't help too that I think Romania may already be played, but I'll need to double check. But right off the bat Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania don't even share a common heritage. So there's no reason they'd agree to straight up political merger.

No need, I, apparently luckily, decided to catch up on RP stuff today! So yeah. Romania is still being played.

Edit: I honestly think you guys could form up as a sort of collaborative association like the SAC, potentially more integrated and centralized, and just do your own thing but you could also operate in joint Balkan League operations.

The problem with this is Serbia is basically a Fascist state that wants to take over Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria cause South Slav Unity. I am not so sure the other balkan states would want to cooperate with Serbia for those reasons.

Except I've set up Bulgaria as Romania's #1 ally, so trying to integrate them would mean a war with Romania. I mean, you obviously still could attempt it, and we could work stuff out together. I'm just letting you know that's what would happen.

Still not nearly enough natives.

Um, I think there would definitely be enough. Census data from 1980/81 suggests that there were about 1 million aboriginal Canadians and 6.5 million of the largest Mexican indigenous tribes alone. Taking just those numbers and adding them to the roughly 4 million native Americans in the US (that's accounting both single and multi-racial individuals), that's nearly 12 million people. A sixth of that could fight a war.

And the US and Canada detests each other. And Mexico is aligned to the Third International and ideologically split from the US and Canada. So a union in North America isn't possible, let alone a union of the native tribes.

Understandable, what with the past two wars between Canada and the US. However, those are the governments of each country that hate each other. There are likely large masses of civilians that feel the same way, too, but I doubt the natives of each country do. Why? Because both have suffered in similar ways under their respective governments. They share a common enemy in the oppressive white man, and both share their heritage as the original people of the Americas. The same applies between both of them and the indigenous Mexican tribes. Remember, it isn't the white/Hispanic populace we're talking about here; it's the natives that have been oppressed. While the warring white man may not be so friendly towards the others around him, the natives would be. EDIT: Accidentally put 2 million for aborigines instead of 1 million.

Still not nearly enough natives.

Um, I think there would definitely be enough. Census data from 1980/81 suggests that there were about 1 million aboriginal Canadians and 6.5 million of the largest Mexican indigenous tribes alone. Taking just those numbers and adding them to the roughly 4 million native Americans in the US (that's accounting both single and multi-racial individuals), that's nearly 12 million people. A sixth of that could fight a war.

And the US and Canada detests each other. And Mexico is aligned to the Third International and ideologically split from the US and Canada. So a union in North America isn't possible, let alone a union of the native tribes.

Understandable, what with the past two wars between Canada and the US. However, those are the governments of each country that hate each other. There are likely large masses of civilians that feel the same way, too, but I doubt the natives of each country do. Why? Because both have suffered in similar ways under their respective governments. They share a common enemy in the oppressive white man, and both share their heritage as the original people of the Americas. The same applies between both of them and the indigenous Mexican tribes. Remember, it isn't the white/Hispanic populace we're talking about here; it's the natives that have been oppressed. While the warring white man may not be so friendly towards the others around him, the natives would be. EDIT: Accidentally put 2 million for aborigines instead of 1 million.

Firstly, Native Americans in Canada are still way on the minority in terms of Canadian demographics. They couldn't possibly muster the numbers required to fight the "ebil Europeans" occupying their land. Like-wise, Canada experienced a wave of immigration from England during its period of Civil War which facilitated the current status of the nation. So they're still way too much on the minority to be of any issue. As well in Mexico, the indigenous customs of the pre-Colombian natives are much more infused with the Mexican identity than that of the US or Mexico which overtook native customs and culture and replaced it with their own anglo-European customs. Many Mexicans are already natives already and are not particularly concerned with native uprisings. Reason being: why rebel against yourself? Mexican aboriginal culture assimilated itself with European ideology pretty readily. If we're going to consider Religion as being the qualifier for whether or not a Mexican is truly aboriginal or not than they'd be just as much in the minority. Catholicism and the minorities of other Christian thought (Protestants, Mormons) still lead over pre-Columbian faith. When Spain colonized Mexico they didn't white-wash it by killing all the brown people and moving all the white people in as England and France did. They kept the natives. The only white appointments were the viceroys. But in the century or more since Mexico declared independence from Spain they've most likely balanced out its own government. Post-independence Mexico managed to successfully create a pretty concept of common identity as "Mexican" between "Whites" (an honest minority) and everyone else. So no, they got no reason to rebel for native identity when for the last two hundred years they've managed to blur, smoothen, or remove much of it.