Alternate History Thread III
- Thread starter Luckymoose
- Start date
Symphony D.
Deity
Having finally gone and looked at it, it's riddled with flaws; the idea of Germany having enough men to crush Britain in a single year and then immediately redeploying them to Russia is just plain absurd, and contradictory to accounts of actual commanders at the time.Azale said:
Several other things with it are also wrong: absolutely no reason is given for the lack of the American atomic bomb being deployed when it is--or being delayed until 1956!--in fact, given the events occuring, it seems likely it would appear somewhat earlier, and would likely be lighting up Berlin instead. Instead it just doesn't appear, for no reason at all, which is stupid because if it was around the United States would have no reason to "invade" to cripple Germany, and no reason to acknowledge Nazi gains. Truman was by no means a "softie" (he was called "Give'em Hell Harry" for a reason) and with American casualties effectively halved by only fighting in the Pacific (along with deployments, since it took just as long) America will be nowhere near as war-weary. Britain will be nowhere near as prepared against invasion as the continent, and Ireland can make a convenient staging area after Iceland is taken.
The British POWs, despite their horrible treatment by the Nazis, and their military training and numbers, also don't immediately begin hostilities against their obviously imposed government, in the fashion of the French Resistance or other such groups. The idea of Kennedy backing down after American soldiers have been nuked is also crap, particularly if the United States actually does have SLBMs and Germany doesn't. How does Japan expand into Manchuria and Korea by the mid-1960s if it was utterly defeated and its economy smashed every bit as much as in real life? Their economy should only just be begining to turn around. Nixon does nothing of note, apparently. There's no reason given for the delay of the space program by 30 years, given it was driven by the development of ICBM technology. Using Ted Kennedy as a substitute, Democratic Reagan is just funny. Exactly what wars are going on? No details are given about what's been happening in the Soviet Union at all.
Several things are just plain wrong or ignored with this timeline, and it's rather quite unusable as a result, in my opinion, because entirely too much is unknown or unexplained. But whatever.
I don't see why my approval is required for anything since I disapprove of the whole scenario, but the rules are better. Only changes right off the bat is that "Battleships" have no reason for being on the purchase list and should be replaced by "Cruisers". Fighters/Interceptors and Bombers are entirely too close on numbers for equivilent cost. I always found "Space Launchers" to be a strange phrase--just call them "Boosters" or if you're going to be technical, "SLVs" (Space Launch Vehicle).Azale said:
That's some kind of joke considering you're in BirdNES, right?das said:
Where does it say nuclear warheads are included? You need to know how to make nukes to get nuclear-tipped ICBMs.carmen510 said:
I know the timeline is riddled with holes, I stated as much already and I'm not althistory expert I want something out relatively fast though...I even looked through a book I own on althistory and there was nothing satisfactory in the timeperiod I want. I just want a history set in modern times (1970-2000) and have it be playable and not a boring, two power or three power game. Those are usually only fun when the NES has progressed over thousands of posts to that point and even then it becomes old.
BirdNES is not that complicated...the trade thing is a little confusing, but his mercenary & standing army rules are pretty well thought out IMO.
I want something out relatively fast though...I even looked through a book I own on althistory and there was nothing satisfactory in the timeperiod I want. I just want a history set in modern times (1970-2000) and have it be playable and not a boring, two power or three power game. Those are usually only fun when the NES has progressed over thousands of posts to that point and even then it becomes old.BirdNES is not that complicated...the trade thing is a little confusing, but his mercenary & standing army rules are pretty well thought out IMO.
Symphony D.
Deity
You realize that's precisely what this scenario is, right?
Germany can't possibly match the United States in power, even if it is bigger and has a colonial empire, and is weakened by reformists here, particularly in the end-stages of the timeline.
The Soviet Union isn't strong enough to constitute a major threat considering it just regained most of its western territories and is heavily dependent on American supplies (and Germany is still a threat).
Great Britain is in a similar position to Germany except it's even weaker, having been a puppet for all this time.
Not enough data is given about Japan and the rest but they're probably not much better off either (the fact nothing can even be determined about them with any reliability is a good enough excuse to torpedo the whole idea).
In short, you have the United States as top dog, Germany as a somewhat distant second, and everyone else far behind. How is that not exactly what you say you don't want to run?
[EDIT] I don't claim that any of these are any better (or anything he links to) but they're certainly more interesting premises. Check a few of them out and look around at the links, or browse the 300 or so pages of Alternate History we have here. If you're going to mod something don't just settle on a premise because it's there, settle on it because its good.
Oh shaddup you...I was just starting to realize this when I started doing preliminaries on the stats. I was hoping that Germany would stay intact, but alas it did not. If it does (we just amend that part), you have Germany, Britain (they couldn't really keep Britain in tow), USA, Japan, USSR, Italy, all powers.
I just vant to mod, did not realize this era was so hard to find a good timeline for.
I just vant to mod, did not realize this era was so hard to find a good timeline for.
Symphony D.
Deity
That's a convenient way to ignore the fact a power is not a great power, or even a superpower, let alone a hyperpower, or the fact that there are differences in power at all.
In that scenario, the United States is a superpower. Germany and the rest are at best great powers. Which, again, is exactly the scenario you said you wanted to avoid. To be honest, if you want total equality, Modern times aren't the right times for it.
It's not my fault everything is so easy to destroy. If you want me to stop criticizing, make it better.Well, Sym picks pretty much everything to death regardless.
Here are two interesting 20th century premises already:
Xin Dynasty, 1916
World War III, 1957
Hah. I'm still working on Nukeless.Azale said:
jeps
Arcadefire
I am starting to work on a March on Rome type civil war and aftereffects alt-hist. Any suggestions?
das
Regeneration In Process
Frankly the latter isn't much better and the former is at the same time too bland and too unrealistic. As for Tony Jones, I like his althists for all their flaws, but I think its NOT what Azale wants.
As an idea, the USA seems to be the greatest unbalancing force in any proper modern world NES, as you yourself have pointed it out again and again, Symphony. So perhaps if we DO want an althist without USA predominating, we should find some way to break it up. Not North-South, but West-East (which was slightly more likely than the former as of the early 20th century). We need to put the East into severe social and economic slump, and push it over into political chaos (sometimes in the 1900s-1920s; the idea is to combine OTL economic and social problems with extra bad policies and complications in trade with Europe); then the comparatively-prosperous West, not wanting to be dragged down by this, may secede under some liberal democratc government, while right-wing and left-wing extremists eventually carve up the east (the former in the south, the latter in the north). Quite far-fetched, but hey, you're the one complaining about the USA being too hegemonic the most. Here we will have three reasonably-powerful North American great powers that will not necessarily try and fight each other. It will be a bit like my Divided Russia map; the West will go for the Pacific, the South will go for Carribean Sea and Latin America, the North will go for the Atlantic. Lots of possibilities here.
...or we could just go with what timeline we already are working with. That said, are you ever going to finish your Nuclear Gulf War?
Symphony D.
Deity
There are two simpler solutions: make everyone else stronger (resurgent British Empire, full-on Soviet Union, revitalized China, etc.), or make the USA as genuinely isolationist as it historically was (as in, make it difficult for the player to interfere elsewhere without problems back home). The latter is by far the easiest, and the most realistic, though it is scenario-dependent.das said:
I'll be honest: that alt-hist is so full of holes I'd sooner run with the Japanese Submarine-Carrier one, even in 2040 (and we all know I hate it in 2040!). Then again, there's a lowish chance I'd play, so why anyone's listening to me (even if I am right) is beyond me.das said:
I already said what I was working on at present.das said:
das
Regeneration In Process
Destroying is easier than creating (and how exactly are you going to get British Empire to resurge anyway? Pereslegin once proposed having it move its capital to Singapore, Constantine-style, but frankly I doubt that to be feasible); I still say we blow USA up, if only because we all know that isolationist tradition never holds NESers back, but actually also because it means more chaos in Latin America as well, allowing for some proper warmongering and imperialism there.
That said, the best modern world NES (balance-wise) would probably involve blowing the other great powers up as well (how fortunate that their economy is intertied!).There is a pretty nice Russian althist book out there, that I had proposed as a scenario before; it had a German victory in WWI followed up by a far grittier WWII with Germany, Austria-Hungary and USA fighting Britain, France, Italy, Japan and a "fascist" Russia, with the ultimate outcome being that of total socioeconomic breakdown due to less total war experience (WWI was a quick and clean win; also=no Great Depression=everyone is generally less ready for the economic breakdown when it DOES come, after building up for a long while) and semi-resultative communist uprisings. The end result being complete chaos that is gradually beginning to recede. Its like a modern day fresh start, and without the radiation that usually comes with it.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
das
Regeneration In Process
It IS, I assure you, though it mostly centres on the events in central European Russia (where a three-way battle between effectively marooned elements of the Kaiserliche Heer, a Russian nationalist faction and assorted Russian communist splinter groups rages, with various anarchists running around in the background). Some mention is made of pretty fun developments elsewhere in the world, however, as various petty states (such as Texas, Burgundy and Tasmania) arise from the chaos and fight against various neighbours. Sounds quite crazy, but not really much crazier than the developments of the early Russian Civil War writ large.
Symphony D.
Deity
Britain's empire collapsed because the British people lost their nerve. One can talk about rebellion or socioeconomics or whatever all one wants; the simple fact of the matter is they lost the will to rule and dominate. Remedy that (eg: clamoring for a socialist government to coddle them after WWII) and you can rather quite easily keep them afloat. That was, in fact, Winston Churchill's primary directive; he was simply thwarted at every turn by Stalin (who wanted to divide the West) and Roosevelt (who was trying to appease Stalin). You have to back farther to eliminate that mentality but it's rather easy to do by reshuffling some events (basically WWI, which was Britain and France's "Vietnam")das said:
Hell, this timeline is so full of holes there's no reason not to presume it can't happen here, since all sorts of other magical stuff does. It'd fit right in with the rest.
That's half the fun. Otherwise it's just "he who secures major weapons depots wins."
Plus you wouldn't get a Great Depression style collapse during a war--only before (probably sidelining it) or after (and be unlikely, since whoever wins will have a rather strong industrial base and have millions of working men returning and looking for work, inducing a high consumer's market instead of a buyer's market). World wars are invigorating for underperforming economies, self-perpetuating, result in strong manufacturing sectors, and the hardships they induce prevent runaway increases in value that then collapse--which was the key of the Great Depression: a stock bubble.
[EDIT] Also, do we really need to go over why Texas seceding is silly, again? That whole image is more or less a fabrication; it's not within factors of even Quebec, which itself is nowhere near as bad as say, Ireland was, and they only just barely suceeded. Azale would probably know more on this than I do, but I lived there for a number of years, and other than focusing more on state history, it's no different than any other part of the country, and wasn't in the 1940s either.
das
Regeneration In Process
There's a reason they lost that "will to dominate". Incidentally, they lost it before WWII, even if they ever had it.
Um... what major weapon depots? If they are this easy to secure they will presumably be captured immediately by the first warlord or bunch of anarchists that finds it.
And who said anything about a Great Depression style collapse? Merely a collapse as such. Wars are invigorating and so forth, but they do have an adverse effect on the economy. Not really sure if it has as much to do with the economy as with the sum of all the effects of war exhaustion crossing a critical threshold (like it did in OTL WWI for Russia, and nearly did for France).
Um... what major weapon depots? If they are this easy to secure they will presumably be captured immediately by the first warlord or bunch of anarchists that finds it.
And who said anything about a Great Depression style collapse? Merely a collapse as such. Wars are invigorating and so forth, but they do have an adverse effect on the economy. Not really sure if it has as much to do with the economy as with the sum of all the effects of war exhaustion crossing a critical threshold (like it did in OTL WWI for Russia, and nearly did for France).
Symphony D.
Deity
I did happen to say that, yes.das said:
Considering they went on to conquer a fourth of the world's surface over the course of a century and they believed they had every right to do so, I fail to see what postulation there is to be had on the matter of whether they wanted to rule. It could be said at worst they "found" themselves in the situation and accepted it, if they did not actively endorse it.The point remains, it is easy to do away with with some simple changes of events.
And given the magnitude of things that are neglected or ignored for no stated reason whatsoever in that timeline, it'd be rather easy to just conjure up a reason and never mention it (just like the atomic bomb or the space program) without being out of sorts with the rest of it. By the end of that timeline they certainly seem to want to reestablish empire anyway, so if one's going to stop Germany from being weak one may aswell accelerate the effects of British nationalism too.
Or we could come up with a rather quick and dirty alternate history that's about as detailed and suits the purpose better. Here's a quick stab:
- Kaiser Wilhelm II dies somehow late in the 1880s. Party.
- His replacement isn't quite so reckless and doesn't alienate Britain by doing dumb things like a naval arms race, or fire Bismarck. Germany develops decent ties with Britain by being non-threatening to them while building up its land forces.
- WWI in the West is short and sharp with Germany knocking out France via the Sclieffen Plan. Britain sits by, no longer so paranoid of German intentions abroad.
- WWI in the East is a grueling sort of affair until Germany deploys that Vladimir Lenin chap sometime in 1916 - 1917. Something vaguely resembling the Russian Revolution occurs and he comes out on top. The war ends.
- There's peace and prosperity.
- Japan gradually encroaches on China and the rest of Asia.
- France being humiliated and weakened by WWI, Japan snaps up its Indochinese colonies, comes into conflict with Britain and the Dutch in SE Asia.
- There's some sort of back-and-forth war in Indochina between the Colonials and Japanese. Somebody wins some, somebody loses some (probably the Dutch). Some third party (USA?) intermediates a solution as before during the Russo-Japanese War.
- Germany builds up land power in Europe, becomes the leading continental power.
- USSR gradually builds up capabilities and decides to begin exporting the Revolution.
- Japan, having possibly secured Borneo and having oil resources, focuses more and more on China, playing warlords against one another and gradually making progress, finds itself at odds with the newly formed USSR.
- A few more tit-for-tat wars occur, with the world winding up in a shaky peace for a few decades as no side has the capability of quite beating the others. The following power balance develops:
Soviet Union: opposed to almost all other "capitalist" powers.
United States: mostly neutral, no real alliances either way.
Great Britain: wary of German power on the continent and Japanese power in the Pacific, distrusting of Soviets; may seek to align with America against the rest, competes with Japanese
Germany: wary of the Russians, nominally allied with Austria-Hungary, having to watch out for French and Italian upstarts.
Austria-Hungary: see above
Japan: wary of British, Russians, to a lesser degree America; may seek to align with it out of fear of the other two.
Then there is a plethora of up-and-coming powers like a revanchist France, or expansionist Italy, plenty of lesser countries (like all of South America and the Chinese factions) that can fight amongst themselves, and a whole bunch of possible rebel activities.
Is it perfect? Not at all. Realistic? Probably not. Easy to flesh out and improve? Yes. Is it easy to come up with a scenario that preserves a multipolar relationship that could explode at any moment? Yes. Alternatively one can go back even farther, and do something like prevent America from ever coming into being in the first place, and having a more colonial world that keeps its grip on its possessions well into the 20th Century. If one's willing to settle for something as shoddy as that WWII alt-hist, then even two or three centuries can be whipped up in a similar fashion with little hassle and better balance.
However, if anything, I'd say balance is probably a bad thing, simply because that balance goes out of whack very quickly because if powers are balanced they don't have much reason to fear one another and immediately go to war (see: LuckNES2). Once the balance shifts it tends to go irreversibly in one direction or another with little or no means of restoration, leading to those two blocs duking it out with a singular unipolar situation at the end for whoever wins. That's going to occur pretty much no matter what as long there are equal powers (multiple or dual with others clustering around). You can only hardcode it in by introducing multiple, very strong competing interests (something like the above or stronger, preferably), assigning those powers to very paranoid people, or devaluing war (which is one of the areas where I'd agree with NK: most NESes are just about that these days).
Yes, and that warlord will then go on to kill the neighboring warlords, take their stuff, become more powerful, and repeat (which is why Anarchy is the stupidest of all possible political philosophies: it promotes this, but I digress). In that regard it's hardly a "fresh start" but rather a few fragmented states utilizing old (probably radicalized) local ideologies to gain power over the people, and that situation won't last long in the context of the history at all, let alone when players actually take it up (and begin eating each others states).
Plus it's rather difficult for a society to collapse in an effective manner when most of their able-bodied men-folk are off being conscripted soldiers in some far away land, unless one wants to presume some grand feminist revolt. Also, looking at the power line-up, it seems somewhat... odd. I'd have to actually read it and understand where it was coming from to put a lot of faith in it.
Meh, it's just vague enough to work! Year looks to be around...1960?
At this point...perhaps we should just use that as a base timeline and let the NESer's have some creative license.
Perhaps no trade cities so they are not encouraged to fight wars just to grab them?
At this point...perhaps we should just use that as a base timeline and let the NESer's have some creative license.
Perhaps no trade cities so they are not encouraged to fight wars just to grab them?
Symphony D.
Deity
Probably. It'd only be semi-stable for awhile until something gave. Perhaps something like Austria-Hungary finally imploding or something. Who knows. Not stable for more than 25 - 50 years, probably. So yeah, 1950s or 1960s would be when whatever balance there was started to collapse, probably.
I'd say it should be fleshed out a bit more than what's there. People will want to know who was fighting who and when.
Easy solution is just to render them inoperable for some duration of time under foreign rule (if not knocked out permanently due to fighting)--native populations don't tend to work so well for conquerers unless they were oppressed. Say, five to ten years for them to resume normal operation as an EC. Use fewer of them and make the actual economies of countries stronger. That way they become more strategic (and at the same time less important) while still being around.
