Ah, if you guys think the extra buffer has merit, I guess I'll draw a map for you to comment upon. Would move Poland and Russia further apart.
 
As for redrawing Moscow to touch NRG and add that buffer, yes, it'd broaden the front in the far north. Nov would be not the one province through which Russian units have to pass to get at Sweden. But it'd be a slow developing attack - as I consider appropriate for the Northern wilderness. And of course, the Danes could descend on Moscow rather than on Novgorod...
 
Charles

[quote:662e37b332] ----- Original Message -----
From: Jorge Saralegui ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])
To: Charles Féaux de la Croix ([email]charlesf(at)web.de[/email])
Cc: Nigel PHILLIPS ([email]nephilli99(at)hotmail.com[/email]) ; kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]) ; Mike Leprecaun ([email]mrh(at)panix.com[/email]) ; Marc Ellinger ([email]mellinger(at)blitzbardgett.com[/email]) ; hmtucaz(at)gmail.com ([email]hmtucaz(at)gmail.com[/email]) ; Mikael Johansson ([email]m_don_j(at)hotmail.com[/email]) ; dirk(at)knemeyer.com ([email]dirk(at)knemeyer.com[/email]) ; aislattery(at)aol.com ([email]aislattery(at)aol.com[/email]) ; dc279(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc279(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: 1648 091010: Update


Charles,

I like the idea of giving Austria more incentive to move east instead of west.  Another buffer on the Russo-Polish border is a good idea both ways, taking pressure off both and allowing both to consider moving elsewhere.  Is the idea behind extending Moscow to the White Sea an opportunity to give Russia more space from which to invade Sweden?


Jorge

2010/3/11 Charles Féaux de la Croix <charlesf(at)web.de ([email]charlesf(at)web.de[/email])>
[quote:662e37b332] Nigs,
 
well, I'm not sure this change makes Swabia less of a bottleneck (which don't have a particular issue with). Had I chosen to have Franconia border Hesse, then yes. But I didn't want to make the HRE have the makings of a doughnut, with Hesse/Franconia being the hole. That's why I added the territory of the Würzburg bishopric to Swabia (i.e. that salient towards Saxony).
 
For Austria I'd say this change is a mixed blessing. It somewhat complicates Austria's opening game, which I welcome. Getting three SCs in 1649 struck me as being too easy in the past. Bavaria can't help Austria into Saxony (and vice versa). This in turn makes Austria more dependent on support from pretty one single source of minor power support in Germany, namely Swabia. And that makes the job of those interested in curbing Austrian growth quite a bit easier since successfully competing for DPs in Swabia will most likely slow down the Emperor.
 
So I understand this change to be about recalibrating Austria's influence in the Empire as compared to those of others.
 
Also, the change down in Turkey might also tempt Austria more into a Balkan direction. After all, now that Damascus and Constantinople are no longer adjacent, A Damascus can no longer more to Constantinople in an effort to back up A Belgrade if need be. In other words, Belgrade is more vulnerable. Next to the opportunity this gives rise to for Austria, it also might have Turkey move into Hungary more precisely in order to check that danger.
 
In this regard, Fraconia also complicates home defence since if A Prague moved to Saxony or Franconia, it'd be somewhat less useful in fending off a Turkish raid.
 
Much as the Sultan may worry more about Belgrade, so does a Russian move into Armenia present more of a headache now thanks to Damascus and Constantinople no longer covering another. More of a temptation for the Tsar to go south, but also for the Sultan to move into Armenia precisely because of this danger. All in all, this makes early Russo-Turkish conflict rather more likely, methinks.
 
And that in turn had me thinking whether I ought to somewhat ease the home defence burden on Russia. Say by adding a buffer province between Nov, Mos, Vor, WRu and Smo. Another idea would be to extend Moscow up to the White Sea (i.e. Russia's northern shore), while adding a buffer between Novgorod, Karelia and Moscow, so that a Swedish move into Karelia wouldn't border both Novgorod and Moscow at the same time.
 
Considering also a number of other approaches, but decided to hold off of them for now.
 
Cheers,
 
Charles

 
 
[quote:662e37b332] ----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel PHILLIPS ([email]nephilli99(at)hotmail.com[/email])
To: charlesf(at)web.de ([email]charlesf(at)web.de[/email]) ; kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]) ; Mike Leprecaun ([email]mrh(at)panix.com[/email]) ; Marc Ellinger ([email]mellinger(at)blitzbardgett.com[/email]) ; hmtucaz(at)gmail.com ([email]hmtucaz(at)gmail.com[/email]) ; Jorge England 214 ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email]) ; Mikael Johansson ([email]m_don_j(at)hotmail.com[/email]) ; dirk(at)knemeyer.com ([email]dirk(at)knemeyer.com[/email]) ; aislattery(at)aol.com ([email]aislattery(at)aol.com[/email]) ; dc279(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc279(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: 1648 091010: Update


Charles,

I like the effect of Franconia and the prussian changes. Franconia in particular should help to avoid blockades in middle germany. I don't know turkey's territories well enough to comment on those.






Nigs




Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free