Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Thlayli]

On your first point, I'd argue that industrial NESes rarely if ever boil down to true global war. A major regional war is usually the best we get. So we don't have Versailles-style peace conferences where interesting, effective diplomacy occurs.

On the last, that's easy: Give newer players colonies and dependencies, so that they're acting 'under the wing' of their colonial overlords.

And at the current stage, the alliances aren't locked, just very clearly defined.

 

[LightFang]

Maybe NESers shouldn't always boil an industrial setting down to world war then. Particularly as the losers get destroyed more or less utterly and the winners tend to go bankrupt and lose significant amounts of power to their financiers, not that any of this is ever reflected to any capacity whatsoever in games.

Starting in locked alliances is crap in my opinion, particularly as half of all players don't roleplay to any capacity and just clamor for the biggest and baddest country they can get so they can shoot other people up. Plus being shackled to what LightFang calls neophytes can be as bad if not worse than being shackled to a corpse.

Oh, I'm so honored, I was referenced.

I hadn't even been aware that I threw around the word "neophyte" a lot.

My new word will be "tyro".

 

[Symphony D.]

On the last, that's easy: Give newer players colonies and dependencies, so that they're acting 'under the wing' of their colonial overlords.

That is extremely presumptuous of the rules, the draw of the NES for total number of players, and the availability of skilled players for major powers. Oh, and not to mention elitist, not that I have a problem with that, but it does tend to feedback into making all those assumptions precisely that.

So we don't have Versailles-style peace conferences where interesting, effective diplomacy occurs.

Ah. You mean the "GIVE ME THIS LAND OR HULK SMASH!11" type peace treaties that sometimes get whole threads dedicated to their silliness?

And at the current stage, the alliances aren't locked, just very clearly defined.

Such a tremendous difference indeed. I'm sure there could realistically be some miracle upset that switches them around at the final second that a story or two about talking heads would completely justify.

 

[Thlayli]

That is extremely presumptuous of the rules, the draw of the NES for total number of players, and the availability of skilled players for major powers. Oh, and not to mention elitist, not that I have a problem with that, but it does tend to feedback into making all those assumptions precisely that.

You can't exactly have it both ways. And there are only 6 great powers (America, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Russia,) so it shouldn't be terribly hard to find skilled or experienced players for them. It may be elitist, but it's also common senseist to give newer players smaller responsibilities.

Ah. You mean the "GIVE ME THIS LAND OR HULK SMASH!11" type peace treaties that sometimes get whole threads dedicated to their silliness?

Sort of, but with a little more pomp and circumstance.

Such a tremendous difference indeed. I'm sure there could realistically be some miracle upset that switches them around at the final second that a story or two about talking heads would completely justify.

The criticism of locked (or semi-locked) alliances might be legitimate if it had been tried, and decidedly failed, before.

I don't have the desire to endlessly debate this and clog up the thread anymore, so I'll just go back to updating.

 

[Symphony D.]

You can't exactly have it both ways. And there are only 6 great powers (America, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Russia,) so it shouldn't be terribly hard to find skilled or experienced players for them. It may be elitist, but it's also common senseist to give newer players smaller responsibilities.

Even 6 countries is fully 10% of the average extended NES playerbase (as in, all those still vaguely around, not the operational playerbase--in which case it's probably closer to 20%), meaning it is, in fact, somewhat difficult to secure that many. I also stated I really didn't care if it was elitist as it wasn't one of my concerns. Just that it might be for others. Even getting 6 skilled players does nothing to limit the real problem though, and in fact does much to enhance it.

The main concern is more that NESers in general are more or less incapable of realistically playing in an industrial setting. It's always about annexation and grabbing territory. A good example of this would be the Constantinople Conference of staznesIX, where for example Austria-Hungary attempted for no real logical reason to take over the Ukraine--a position which was more or less impossible to maintain in the long term given its already strong internal divisions--simply because it was more land. A more extensive list would be easy to assemble. I've been guilty of this several times myself, to be sure.

But the fact remains it's a problem that players more or less immediately render nonsensical any timeline in the period, no matter how logical or well-crafted it might be due to their own objectives, which are often totally different from what their "predecessors" in the timeline strive for, and which function as an immediate disconnect from that pre-established reality. This is also a chief failing of "Modern" games: out of character disconnect. They only begin to function well when they have developed their own internal consistency--when they have fully disconnected from the scenario and become something unto themselves in which the internal decisions "make sense."

Starting the game with a war just magnifies this already existing problem as it forces even more radical changes more rapidly than otherwise, even if it excuses the results as a consequence (all the weirdness being as a result of the upheaval and trauma of war instead of people just randomly breaking off of all previous decisions).

The criticism of locked (or semi-locked) alliances might be legitimate if it had been tried, and decidedly failed, before.

Because things are never self-evident and theory counts for nothing, but of course.

 

[das]

I don't know if I liked it, considering how short it was

It wasn't as short as it was disrupted. Still, refreshing to see it finally finished; quite an epic work there, Dachs, and it's good to see your war-detailing talent applied to wholly althistorical conflicts (to describe those in such detail is usually harder than with the historical ones). I also really like the politics of this time period, in case you haven't noticed yet.

Lerdo de Tejada fled for Spain, where he begged his case before a very interested Emperor Maximilian.

Irony duly noted.

Cecil Rhodes

I seem to recall he had a fascination with Palestine. As it has come under British rule much earlier than in OTL, might Rhodes rebase to the Middle East and try to organise Christian (and/or Jewish) colonisation combined with the development of assorted local resources?

the legendary General Skobelev

APPROV'D.

At the peace talks which led to the Treaty of Amoy, Manchuria north of the Sungari was ceded to the Russians and the Russians’ control of the Ussuri and Amur districts was confirmed, while Germany gained a few concessions in southern China for good measure.

Whither Mongolia?

Sun Yat-sen still at large and still organizing coups from hideouts in Europe.

Why not from America, and with American assistance? I'm pretty sure the Americans would be interested in undermining a French ally in favour of a democratic regime for them to save from diplomatic isolation.

by hitting the Turkish pilot with a revolver

I hope you meant "shooting", but knowing the proficiency of Serbs at achieving unlikely kills...

Eventually, the Boers took a page out of the Germans’ own book and began to stage jäger style resistance in the rural regions of the republics, but, combated by a series of blockhouses and overwhelming resistance, Botha and his minister of war, Jan Smuts finally agreed to annexation after a year and a half of failed partisan warfare.

Aw, no concentration camps?



You neglected to mention Argentina in the Latin American section, btw.

the 1800s

Grrrr.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

A shame he had to change his name, btw. Kaiser Waldemar has an unique ring to it, plus it's similar to "Vladimir" and so would balance Tsar George.

Petropavlovsk

-Kamchatskiy? Because regular old Petropavlovsk is in the other end of Russia.

so into the vacuum marched Marxism, with Benito Mussolini at its head.

For the sake of historical irony I suggest that Marxism - or at least its Italian variety - is renamed into Fascism (see fasci siciliani).

To conclude: I think there is far more potential for diplomatic maneuvering and indeed continued peace than may seem apparent at first.

On a wholly irrelevant note: what if the Years of Rice and Salt scenario - i.e. the death of an overwhelming percentage of the European population - occured in a different time period, like in the 6th century AD or the 17th (both times being likewise notorious for pretty severe outbreaks)? Lots of interesting developments to consider in both cases, considering also the migrations of this era which will be much more succesful than in OTL (this especially goes for the 17th century)... given that they don't die out in the process.

 

[Dachs]

I seem to recall he had a fascination with Palestine. As it has come under British rule much earlier than in OTL, might Rhodes rebase to the Middle East and try to organise Christian (and/or Jewish) colonisation combined with the development of assorted local resources?

I didn't really concentrate on the Middle East in the update, but that does seem to be an interesting avenue for him to take, especially given the pro-Zionist sentiments of the current Conservative leader.

Whither Mongolia?

I wasn't sure about that, actually; maybe the Tsar didn't really care about barren, horse-ridden wastelands. Oh, wait...

Why not from America, and with American assistance? I'm pretty sure the Americans would be interested in undermining a French ally in favour of a democratic regime for them to save from diplomatic isolation.

Sure, why not? I will freely admit to my rather limited knowledge of Chinese history and the personalities of her leaders; thus, if (by now fairly old) Dr. Sun wants to come to America, the author of this particular TL is not going to stop him.

I hope you meant "shooting", but knowing the proficiency of Serbs at achieving unlikely kills...

Who knows? Maybe Gavrilo Princip was in the plane. He's 18 at that point, after all.

Aw, no concentration camps?

None that you know of.

You neglected to mention Argentina in the Latin American section, btw.

And Peru, and Chile, and Bolivia. I'll do my best in the nation descriptions.

A shame he had to change his name, btw. Kaiser Waldemar has an unique ring to it, plus it's similar to "Vladimir" and so would balance Tsar George.

I think that nobody would take him seriously if he retained his first name, because of the sheer silliness of a pompous German Emperor named Waldemar. He'd lose his alliance with America for sure.

-Kamchatskiy? Because regular old Petropavlovsk is in the other end of Russia.

Aye.

For the sake of historical irony I suggest that Marxism - or at least its Italian variety - is renamed into Fascism (see fasci siciliani).

That would confuse the hell out of people, or at least me. Still, since I haven't really written up much on Italian Marxism other than the existence of Mussolini and his Black Shirts, it's always a possibility.

To conclude: I think there is far more potential for diplomatic maneuvering and indeed continued peace than may seem apparent at first.

Starting in locked alliances is crap in my opinion, particularly as half of all players don't roleplay to any capacity and just clamor for the biggest and baddest country they can get so they can shoot other people up. Plus being shackled to what LightFang calls neophytes can be as bad if not worse than being shackled to a corpse.

These alliances are about as locked as the OTL prewar ones - with sufficient loopholage for another Italy to weasel out of its commitments and then switch sides following outbidding.

Having said that, I do recognize the fact that this setting is basically made for a very rapid world war. War might not start off on the first turn - but I won't be surprised if it does - but it's basically guaranteed pretty soon. I do recognize the not so fantastic simulations of industrial warfare that exist in NESing and the fact that pretty much every war ends as though it were World War II, with emasculated losers (if they exist at all) and massive territorial aggrandizement at virtually no cost. It will probably take a good bit of doing, but I think that a heavily modified version of das NES rules (to include more realistic mobilization, war economy, and my usual heavy attention to military events) would work here.

The player problem is much more intractable, but assuming the people who have commented on this TL in this thread - das, Symphony, Thlayli, LightFang, Disenfrancised, alex994, and Azale (not to mention those who got involved in that US vs. Confederacy argument early on) - want to play, and a few others can be scraped up, I'm confident that we can get the major alliance members in play. I know it's bloody early to talk about the NES when all I have is a TL, no rules, no map, and no stats, but the people who have provided constructive input will definitely be accorded a first choice wrt nations. Since those people generally seem to be on the higher end of playing skill, we oughtn't have a problem. Besides, you guys read the TL.

 

[a_propagandist]

I would be interested in such a thing.

 

[das]

Sure, why not? I will freely admit to my rather limited knowledge of Chinese history and the personalities of her leaders; thus, if (by now fairly old) Dr. Sun wants to come to America, the author of this particular TL is not going to stop him.

The Nefarious Doctor Sun Yat-sen did spend some time in exile there at some point in OTL. In OTL his main extra-Chinese base of operations was in Japan, but that's not really workable here, which leaves America as the best option.

Who knows? Maybe Gavrilo Princip was in the plane. He's 18 at that point, after all.

I just get a funny mental picture of him hitting some poor Turkish pilot in the face with a revolver. That's Doctor McNinja quality of stuff.

Anyway, don't worry, I'm in.

 

[Azale]

Of course I'm in.

 

[Thlayli]

Almost definitely. The only thing that could possibly keep me away would be course craziness this fall...my schedule is pretty loaded.

Kudos for the sensible interpretation of war. A lot of the difficulty stems from NESing's war policies following a Civilization model of complete annexation. I think NESing, on average, follows an 'EU2' model better than a 'Civ' one.

And I know it's also early to talk about nations, but I'd like to express interest in the USA, since it seems to be fought over quite a bit in this type of NES.

 

[Dachs]

Thlayli: a resounding maybe.

Since I can't post the map, NK will. It's done, tho.

EDIT: Never mind. http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9479/danesiworldmap1925tf5.gif

 

[a_propagandist]

GB, if possible?

 

[Symphony D.]

Ah, it's the map with Philadelphia or Baltimore in the middle of Maryland again.

 

[jeps]

If that NES started anytime soon, Canada looks very appealing (they always do). As do Greece, Spain, and Netherlands. (wouldn't go for a major power, but any of those secondary/tertiary ones would be good.)

and hell, for a bigger challenge, Serbia looks fun.

 

[Symphony D.]

Since I'm looking at it again: the Commanders are "Soviet Red" instead of teal, and the farthest one east should actually be American, unless the purchase of Alaska was different. Also, most of the American city placement is horribly off, due to the base that was used--the staznesIX map has generally better placement for major cities.

 

[Azale]

Greater Germania looks like a barrel of fun, so does Japan.

My actual order of preference, with the perfect understanding that others may be more qualified for Germany, is:

1. Germany
2. France
3. Japan
4. North Italy

 

[~Darkening~]

Greater Germania looks like a barrel of fun, so does Japan.

I bet your update would look just as fun....

 

[ThomAnder]

One nitpick with the map... shouldn't GB own hong kong?

For the timeline, some question about China:

1) OTL they concentrated on building a beiyang fleet, not an updated army, why'd they suddenly switch focus? Especially since in the opium war they lost due to an inferior fleet. Furthermore they actually had no drive to modernize an army at that time. The army they used to defeat the taiping rebellion was mostly of miltia background from core china.

2) What happened to the constitutional movement, or was there any of this at all TTL? I would've thought with increased british influence they'd be even more willing to change.

3) Can you make the borders prettier?

 

[das]

OTL they concentrated on building a beiyang fleet, not an updated army, why'd they suddenly switch focus?

Here they had a bigger land threat (from Germany and Russia), while reconciling with Britain and Japan. That naturally dictates a land focus.

On the map, yes, some borders could look better. The Russo-Persia border in Aizerbadjan is simply wrong, for instance. And I don't think there is any reason for Ecuador to be this small this early.