Pepperm1nts

World in Revolution: 1861

The Nexerus said
Surrendering? France doesn't lose a single square metre of territory. The treaty is essentially a white peace.

You can paint it really nice so it looks more appealing to France, but this peace is very lopsided for a white peace :P

World in Revolution: 1861

So Boerd said
Had the war gone on long and bloody, one side would have been totally eradicated. This is best for the sake of the RP.

Not necessarily. I'm sure someone wold have raised a treaty before their country was turned to ash. And in that case it would have been completely understandable. But surrendering before you even properly join the war? I mean, I don't want to bring up any stereotypes, but goddamn, France.

World in Revolution: 1861

AegonVI said
Someone should form a third (major) German state that I can take over.

Hey, those are my plans! I wanted to form a third major German state.

NarcolepticSailor said

You're right, there isn't a game to win. I'm usually the first to say that, and like to remind people that it's about telling a good story, not winning. But I don't agree that you're "not getting much" from the current treaty. Sure, you could have asked for a lot more (and France may have agreed :P), but you got all you wanted.

World in Revolution: 1861

The Nexerus said
Dutch, German, and Italian unity and sovereignty.

The Coalition wins, it's the Allies who are getting nothing out of this (except a lot of dead sons and fathers). The Prussians are a step closer to forming the German Empire, and the Dutch can now form Greater Netherlands. All the allies get is a bunch of dead people. Seriously, you should have kept fighting, France. Your move didn't just cost everyone the war, but will put you all at a severe disadvantage for (probably) the remainder of the RP. The Coalition has practically won the game.

World in Revolution: 1861

So Boerd said
Or you win and form a bigger world power for all Napoleon knows.

Hence why I don't think France should have joined to begin with. But they did. So now their interests should be to prevent the Dutch from gaining any land in Belgium. It seems wrong to just be like "Yeah, okay, have everything you want!" when they can still oppose them.

World in Revolution: 1861

Maybe the same reason it's against France's interest for Prussia to rule over German-speakers.

Among other reasons, of course.

World in Revolution: 1861

The Nexerus said
King William III doesn't necessarily all of Belgium. There's a reason the treaty specifically mentions that the status of Wallonia is pending.

All or half, it doesn't matter. It seems a bit out-of-character to let the Dutch have any part of Belgium. France is still strong enough to demand otherwise. If France was on the brink of destruction, and these were the Coalition's demands, then it'd make sense for France to agree. But France can still fight. They ought to dispute these demands. The Dutch have no right over even Flanders.

World in Revolution: 1861

Notice my edit in my previous post. That's why I feel it's so off. France is still strong, yet they agree to their demands like they're about to be destroyed.

World in Revolution: 1861

solamelike said
This far in?Nothing has happened to the French so far.

Just seems a little weak to let them have Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine. Trying for peace is fine, it's agreeing to their demands so easily that seems a little off. You'd think France would feel a little stronger about letting both Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine go.

EDIT: Especially considering France is still in a good position.

World in Revolution: 1861

Well, that's anti-climactic.

Seems like the French are being pretty soft here. I mean, I'm not sure they should have joined the war to begin with, but if you're this far in you might as well commit.