NationStates Jolt Archive

Done.

Wow. I had almost the same idea a couple hours ago. It must be an omen. Count me in.

If I can join please sign me up as Czarist Russia.

I'll be playing as the good ol' U.S. of A. if possible.

I like the idea, I'd like to join, mind if I get to be Germany?

I'm thinking of signing up as Great Britain.

Hmm, thinking about this. Could I start as a province of Britain, aka Palestine? Fight for independence until '48 then RP the nation rising.

Hmm, sounds like a good RP project.

I'd like to play China if possible. I have some ideas for an alternate history China, as I love alternate history novels and scenarios.

Can we play ethnicities which do not have their own nation in 1900? If so, I would like to play as Poland.

Peoples without their own nations - such as the Irish, Polish, Finnish and the many nationalities of the Balkans and others at the start of the 20th century are free to roleplay. However, you'll have to do an independence movement and sucede either by peaceful or violent means from the country you originally were part of. This might be slightly difficult if people want to break apart from a Non-Player Controlled state, but we will work something out.

So far those onboard include -

Generic Empire - United States of America
The Scandinavians - Russia
Aequatio - Germany
Sarzonia - Great Britain
Sanctaphrax - Palestine
Sharina - China
Crimson Sith - Poland

I will remain in the void for awhile; I'd prefer to concentrate my attention on developing the parametres of gameplay, rules etc. I'll make another post later, have to work right now !

This is going to be so very fun. I look forward to your next update. :)

sounds good, Luxembourg please :D

Looking forward to this.

I have a question, though. I was wondering if you know any good 1900's - 1920's history websites for all the nations involved? It'd make things much easier if we knew what population, equipment, and politics were like back then. :)

I'd like to join as Japan, please. :)

Sharina: I got the hook up (http://www.fsmitha.com/) :)

Could I play as Brazil?

I would be greatly interested. Count me in as France, please.

EDIT: yes, you would be able to play as brazil, since they got theire own nation since about 1800. in fact, they were an empire until 1890.

So we can RP independence movements?

If so i'd like to sign up as the Irish please. (i'm not irish but i'd like to try my hand at a guerrilla war/terrorism style situation). Sorry i'm quite new and this is my first real war RP but i'll give it a go.

May I please have the Ottoman Empire? I have an awsome alternate history idea for them (which ends up in my AMw nation). Thank you.

I just want to know something: will we be able to invade/buy/aquire a piece of land from a non-RPed nation?

I will take Austria-Hungry if possible!

Just as a question, how would the time-scale be measured? When do we decide when one year ends and another begins?

Would this be a full-time deal like AMW, or a "pop in whenever and make a couple of posts" kind of thing? I'm interested either way, but I might not have time for a full-time thing as I'm planning several other major RPs at the moment. If it's the latter, I'm definitely in.

Can you sign me up as South Africa?

south africa was a property of great britain, so you will have to RP a resistance movement... and as far as I know, there wasnt one at that epoch.

south africa was a property of great britain, so you will have to RP a resistance movement... and as far as I know, there wasnt one at that epoch.

*points at Boer War* Yes there was. Also, as the whole of South Africa, I could also RP as the two Boer Republics, Transvaal and Orange Free State, which were independent until the end of the Boer War in 1902. And then it'd only be about ten years until I got self-rule as a Dominion.

I would like to claim the great nation of Korea. I think Japan has not occupied me yet, and I am free of China. I am also unified, and I have evil plans for this unified Korea. *laughs evily*

In fact, korea was a japanese protectorate, a bit like great britain in palestine before 1948.

/Edit: all the facts i use (except when stated otherwise, with words such as "as far as i know") come from the "Atlas Historique, Perrin, Paris, 1987".

Hey! Great to see alot of interest, I'm very optimistic about Earth 1900-2000. Ok - the questions:


I just want to know something: will we be able to invade/buy/aquire a piece of land from a non-RPed nation?
As of right now, E1900-2000 is in its infancy, with myself as the sole decider in gameplay composition. I feel that buying territory from NPCs* is just an easy way to acquire vast tracts of land which doesnt lend itself to good roleplaying, and we are talking about the heyday of the Age of Imperialism here. Therefore, I dont think its a good idea.

However, buying territory from actual players is legitimate and furthermore, you can invade whoever you like. Just be prepared to pay the price.

Just as a question, how would the time-scale be measured? When do we decide when one year ends and another begins?

I've put some thought into this. My idea is that one month in the real world would represent one decade in E1900-2000. That gives us 10 months to decide the victor.

Would this be a full-time deal like AMW, or a "pop in whenever and make a couple of posts" kind of thing? I'm interested either way, but I might not have time for a full-time thing as I'm planning several other major RPs at the moment. If it's the latter, I'm definitely in.

E1900-2000 operates on the basis that you have a life outside of its existence. What happens here is seperate from your other roleplays. Though the words trouble me slightly, because I really would like peoples attention - it is "a pop in whenever" sort of thing.

Also- an update of people onboard -

Chrisstan - Japan
Fortestan - Brazil
Beta Centaury - France
Lesser Ribena - The Irish
Yafor 2 - Ottoman Empire
Kordo - Austro-Hungarian Empire
Malkyer - The Boers
Fluffywuffy - The Koreans
Spooty - Luxembourg

I have some more time off tomorrow, so I'll begin working on a draft of rules and such. If anyone would like to help out, then dont hold back!

you forgot me :(

Luxembourg please

"In fact, korea was a japanese protectorate, a bit like great britain in palestine before 1948."
-Beta Centaury

According to my World History book (it's a school book), Japan invaded Korea in 1904 in the Russo-Japanese War. Manchuria and Korea, as well as other small parts of China, were given to Japan.

E1900-2000 operates on the basis that you have a life outside of its existence. What happens here is seperate from your other roleplays. Though the words trouble me slightly, because I really would like peoples attention - it is "a pop in whenever" sort of thing.

Sorry, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. Of course I'd b more involved than a couple of posts.

Oh, and Beta Century, Korea became a Japanese colony in 1910 along with Manchuria, which was reorganized as the puppet kingdom of Manchukuo. Hiro Bumi Ito was the first Japanese governor-general of Korea, and was assassinated by Ahn Joon Gun in the same year as the merger. [/history nazi]

"In fact, korea was a japanese protectorate, a bit like great britain in palestine before 1948."
-Beta Centaury

According to my World History book (it's a school book), Japan invaded Korea in 1904 in the Russo-Japanese War. Manchuria and Korea, as well as other small parts of China, were given to Japan.

Korea was independent, but it was a protectorate. then, it got invaded by japan, who effectively gained control of it; they were a protectorate, not a colony.

Oh, and Beta Century, Korea became a Japanese colony in 1910 along with Manchuria, which was reorganized as the puppet kingdom of Manchukuo. Hiro Bumi Ito was the first Japanese governor-general of Korea, and was assassinated by Ahn Joon Gun in the same year as the merger. [/history nazi]

That was after 1900, so we begin alternate history. dont bother what happened after the first of january 1900.

Korea became a protectorate in 1905, before being annexed outright in 1910. So Korea is independent at the start of this, but is probably in a terrible position and will probably be over-run at the start. But that's all a part of my plan....

Korea became a protectorate in 1905, before being annexed outright in 1910. So Korea is independent at the start of this, but is probably in a terrible position and will probably be over-run at the start. But that's all a part of my plan....

humm... my atlas seems to be wrong (i did some research of my own)... well then, korea is yours, my friend!

Oooh... Can I take on Greece please? Thanks. :)

Korea became a protectorate in 1905, before being annexed outright in 1910. So Korea is independent at the start of this, but is probably in a terrible position and will probably be over-run at the start. But that's all a part of my plan....

Well, that's assuming that I even decide to invade Korea. :)

I would like to be switzerland, if that's alright

Mexico, por favor!!! AIIIYEE!!! Para la madre de la tierra!!!!

Can i play a cuba? I think they were owned by Spain til the American Spainsh war.

I'd like to be the Netherlands, if thats ok with ya.

I'll be Nicaragua.

I am interested and I have played in an alternate history thread before and enjoyed it thoroughly

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367321

I would like to play either Spain or Siam or Sweden (whichever works best is ok with me)

Spain still has a few colonies (Spanish Morocco for one), Siam is the only independent country in Southeast Asia and Sweden has a pretty powerful neutral

my primary nation is New Shiron, but I like to use Galveston Bay for alternate history RP

So far there has been alot of interest in Earth 1900-2000, which is great. I've been knocking around some ideas on how to govern the group, because we all need rules...apparently.

The main problem is Technology. I dont think alot of people [myself included] have a good knowledge of the state of Technological achievement at the turn of the 20th century. I was thinking maybe of compiling a Technology chart similar to the one included in 'Civilisation II' which is a good basis. People could then see what they needed to get an Atom bomb for example; the prequisite being Einstein's 'Theory of Relative' [ok, thats not exactly how it happened, I'm just simplfying it]

Any questions? Also, an update of nations joining in on the project, which can also be found on Page 1 of this thread -

Generic Empire - United States of America
The Scandinavians - Russia
Aequatio - Germany
Sarzonia - Great Britain
Sanctaphrax - The Palestinians
Sharina - China
Crimson Sith - The Polish
Chrisstan - Japan
Fortestan - Brazil
Beta Centaury - France
Peng-Pau - Greece
Lesser Ribena - The Irish
Yafor 2 - Ottoman Empire
Kordo - Austro-Hungarian Empire
Malkyer - The Boers
Spooty - Luxembourg
Fluffywuffy - The Koreans
Brydog - Switzerland
Ackerenia - Mexico
Zackaroth - Cuba
Euroslavia - The Netherlands [aka 'Those Crazy Dutch Guys!']
Roach-Busters - Nicaragua [independent @ 1900?]
Galveston Bay - Spain/Siam/Sweden [Please make up your mind!]

So far there has been alot of interest in Earth 1900-2000, which is great. I've been knocking around some ideas on how to govern the group, because we all need rules...apparently.

The main problem is Technology. I dont think alot of people [myself included] have a good knowledge of the state of Technological achievement at the turn of the 20th century. I was thinking maybe of compiling a Technology chart similar to the one included in 'Civilisation II' which is a good basis. People could then see what they needed to get an Atom bomb for example; the prequisite being Einstein's 'Theory of Relative' [ok, thats not exactly how it happened, I'm just simplfying it]

Any questions? Also, an update of nations joining in on the project, which can also be found on Page 1 of this thread -

Generic Empire - United States of America
The Scandinavians - Russia
Aequatio - Germany
Sarzonia - Great Britain
Sanctaphrax - The Palestinians
Sharina - China
Crimson Sith - The Polish
Chrisstan - Japan
Fortestan - Brazil
Beta Centaury - France
Peng-Pau - Greece
Lesser Ribena - The Irish
Yafor 2 - Ottoman Empire
Kordo - Austro-Hungarian Empire
Malkyer - The Boers
Spooty - Luxembourg
Fluffywuffy - The Koreans
Could i be the Kingdom of Italy please, presuming no one else is and you dont mind?

OOC: I'm thinking technology isn't advanced much beyond the repeating rifle, rudimentary tanks, and battleships with some big guns. "Big" in that era was roughly 12 inches. The HMS Dreadnaught didn't come into being until around 1905 or 1906. Before that, you had battleships with something like four 12 inch guns and a number of 9.2 inch guns. The Dreadnaught was the first all big gun battleship and it changed the face of naval warfare.

Submarines were also early 20th century, notably the German U-boats.

on rudimentry tanks, they wernt devoloped until WWI and even then they were just Tractors with guns on the top, to my knowledge the only Submarine in those days was one used in the American Civil War the main armement was a bomb on the end of a stick

tell me if im wrong

Could I please be Portugal? Thankyou!

I want in. Argentina please.

on rudimentry tanks, they wernt devoloped until WWI and even then they were just Tractors with guns on the top, to my knowledge the only Submarine in those days was one used in the American Civil War the main armement was a bomb on the end of a stick

tell me if im wrong

no youre right about the tanks. The first tanks to appear in world war one were not very sophisticated. The first proper military submarines were launched in 1906 in the form of the U1 model in Germany.

I do have some books which cover military technology circa 1900 - Rifles; Artillery; Tanks. However, the main problem is what kind of additional technology - like methods of mass production and methods of producing iron, coal, oil etc. Maybe its not important, but think about this - the most technologically advanced nation-state has probably the best chance of surviving, of spreading its influence across the globe and winning the next war.

I will go with Spain as it has the most options

useful sources online on Naval Warfare

http://www.wtj.com/games/battlefleet_1900/
http://www.warships1.com/default.htm
http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/
http://www.xenophongi.org/milhist/modern/russowar.htm
http://www.geocities.com/scs028a/

rules I came up with for 1905 War at Sea RP
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_FKC/index.php?showtopic=347

Civilization rules on tech development are pretty good and easy to use

links to maps of the 1900 period
http://www.discusmedia.com/1900Spa.htm

rules I came up with for 1905 War at Sea RP
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_FKC/index.php?showtopic=347I got the following error: Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:

You do not have permission to view this topic. Maybe you should C&P the rules?

also good is this, a timeline site
http://timelines.ws/

I got the following error: . Maybe you should C&P the rules?

sorry, forgot it was a protected forum

I used these rules to game out naval combat in an alternate history World War 1 thread Nordreich and I did for a while... with some adjustments they could be usuable for World War 2 era or 1880s era naval combat as well.

War at Sea
Naval combat in the Great War 1905 –

Ship ratings
Offensive rating (how many 1d6 do they get to roll on an attack roll)
Based on how many guns, rate of fire, efficiency of layout

Torpedoes 2 – 4 tubes 1
Torpedoes 5 -10 tubes 1
4 x heavy guns (10 – 13 inch) 1
8 x heavy guns (10 – 13 inch) 3*
8 x medium guns (7 – 9 inch) 1
6 – 8 light guns (4 – 6 inch) 1
anti torpedo boat armament 1

*better arrangement and sighting


Defensive ratings (how many hits can they take)
Based on internal compartmentalization, armor, seaworthiness, damage control features

Superior 4
Excellent 3
Good 2
Poor 1
None 0

Endurance (combat radius or how far from a base can they operate)
Based on coal capacity (or oil) and cruise speed and tells you how many sea zones away from base the ship can travel in one turn (and fight).


Ships can shift bases at roughly 3 times this distance without refueling. Generally, to operate further from bases colliers or tankers are needed, roughly 1 collier or tanker for every battleship, 3 cruisers, or 5 destroyers or 10 lighter ships.

Speed (combat speed)
30 knots 5
25 knots 4
20 knots 3
15 knots 2
10 knots 1

All ships were rounded down to closest as things like foul bottoms, equipment wear and tear and the like are considered.

How Combat works
Each turn is considered 3 months (seasonal) so that we don’t have to worry about tactical factors like finding the enemy etc.

Strategic Movement and control
Oceans are divided up into Sea zones
Atlantic consists of North Sea, Barents Sea, Western Approaches, English Channel, North Atlantic, Central Atlantic, Caribbean, South Atlantic, Great Southern Ocean, North American east coast

Pacific consists of North Atlantic, North American coast, Hawaii, Marshal Islands, Western Pacific, Philippine Sea, Philippine Waters, South China Sea, North China Sea, Sea of Japan, Sea of Yakkutsk,
Gulf of Siam, Coral Sea, Polynesia, New Zealand, Whutefeckia, Gulf of Panama, Mexican coast, Dutch East Indies

Indian Ocean consists of Red Sea, Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Maldives, Madagascar, Diego Garcia, Antarctic sea

Mediterranean Sea consists of Western Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea, Aegean Sea, Sicily,

Black Sea and Baltic Seas are each their own sea area.

The Suez Canal connects the Eastern Mediterranean to the Red Sea
The Panama Canal connects the Gulf of Panama to the Caribbean Sea
The Kiel Canal connects the Baltic Sea to the North Sea
The Cape of Good Hope lies at the junction of the Great Southern Ocean, South Atlantic, Madagascar, and Antarctic Ocean
Cape Horn / Straits of Magellan lies at the junction of the Great Southern Ocean, South Atlantic, and Whutefeckia
Movement between the Black Sea and Aegean Sea and vice versa is only allowed for the alliance that controls Constaninople
Only British and British allied ships can move into the English Channel Sea zone (extensive minefields)
Only German and German allied ships can move from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea (as the Skaggarak is also extensively mined)

An Alliance controls a sea area if it has warships at sea after combat and the enemy doesn’t. Merchant traffic is not allowed in areas where the enemy controls the sea zone, nor are amphibious invasions or troop movements by sea.

Movement
Initiative is determined and then each side takes the ships it has and may chose to move them into any sea area within range (one sea area at a time). When the opposing side moves into a sea area containing ships of the other side, fleets may then chose to accept combat, retreat to its base, or attempt to move through the sea zone to another sea zone. The other fleet may choose to intercept, and each ship of the escaping fleet rolls a 1d6, trying to roll under its speed. If successful, the ship moves to the next sea zone but the intercepting fleet may choose to send ships to pursue it, or when the escaping ship reaches the next sea zone it will have to do the entire process all over again.

Example: The German cruiser Dresden starts in East Africa. It can go to the Madagascar sea zone where a pair of British cruisers is waiting for it. It gets lucky, and makes it to the Diego Garcia sea zone where another British cruiser is waiting. Once again it gets lucky and makes it to the Antarctic Sea. This time no British ships are waiting.

Example: The British Home Fleet moves into the North Sea and risking all, Tirpitz decides to send out his High Seas Fleet. The two fleets meet and fight, and after suffering damage and losses, the Germans decide to retreat back to Kiel.

Combat:
First round is long range combat, and only battleships, dreadnoughts and battle cruisers may fire (roll a 1d6 for each number in its attack value) against one target (one battleship or cruiser, or a torpedo boat squadron, destroyer squadron or gunboat squadron). A roll of a “6” results in a hit and targets can take hits until they reach a negative number (so 1 hit will generally kill a light ship, while multiple hits are generally required to sink a heavy ship).

At this point, fleets decide to close or retreat. Speed is compared, and the faster fleet has the initiative and may close or retreat as it wishes. If both speeds are equal, than the smaller fleet chooses to close or retreat. Retreat means that fleet returns to its closest base, which may mean moving through one or more sea zones between it and home port (which means it can be intercepted). The victorious fleet may choose to pursue. In no base is available, that fleet is destroyed (it either flees to internment, surrenders, or scuttles) unless it fights (and wins).

If both fleets choose to close, than the smaller cruisers, destroyers and other ships enter the battle and all ships pick a target and roll to attack it. All combat is considered simultaneous and damaged and losses are assessed at the end of the combat round. After each round of combat, each side may choose to break off or continue the action. If either side breaks off, combat then moves back to long range, but the other side may attempt to again close (same rules as before).

However only a maximum of 4 rounds of long range combat and 2 rounds of close range combat are allowed in a sea zone in each turn (simulates fatigue, ammunition exhaustion and other factors). If a ship or fleet breaks off, it must return to a friendly port within range that doesn’t require it to do battle in another sea zone.

Supply
At the end of all combat and movement, each side looks to sea which sea zones it controls. A sea zone is under friendly control if friendly forces have a base bordering that sea zone, and no enemy warships are in that sea zone. If both sides have a base and no warships remaining at sea, than the side that controlled it the previous turn is considered to have retained control.

All remaining ships at this point now return to base, and may move to any friendly base or neutral port within its range that does not require it to enter an enemy controlled sea zone. If a ship cannot make it to a port without passing through an enemy controlled sea zone, it is eliminated (it surrendered, was interned or was scuttled).

Damage effects
Ships take hits, and each hit indicates how much damage as been inflicted on it. It then must be repaired, which takes 3 months for less than half damage or 6 months for half damage or more (round up). Some ships are actually squadrons (destroyers, torpedo boats, gunboats) but the rules are the same (to make life easier).

Submarines and Mines
At this point, ocean going submarines aren’t possible yet. However, for every 5 submarines a nation has, it can conduct one torpedo attack or choose to use that submarine as a warship to control the sea zone it is in (which cannot be attacked or intercepted). A torpedo attack can be launched against any one enemy warship in the sea zone it is in (roll an attack, a “6” is considered a hit). Any warship torpedoed by a submarine is automatically sunk regardless of how many hits it can usually absorp.

However, submarines can only operate in the sea zone directly adjacent to its base. A submarine cannot move from sea zone to sea zone unless transported there by transport and can only be transported from one base to another base.

Minefields are simpler. Each turn, each navy can choose to pick any enemy ship that moves from a base to a sea zone and declare a mine attack against it (including submarines). A successful hit automatically sinks that ship. The Allies have the following Navies: USN, CSN(Dixie), RN, RBHN (British Hannover), RAN, RNN (Dutch), IJN (Japanese), French Navy, and Turkish Navy and can also add the Whutefeckian Navy. The Central Powers have the following navies: German, Russian, Italian


Ship type Attack Defense Range Speed
Dreadnought 6 4 3 3
Battle cruiser 6 2 3 4
Light Cruiser 3 2 3 4
1st class Battleship 4 3 2 2
2nd class Battleship 4 2 2 2
3rd class Battleship 4 1 2 2
Armored Cruiser 4 2 3 3
Protected Cruiser (1900+) 3 1 3 3
Protected Cruiser (pre 1900) 2 0 3 2
Destroyer squadron (4 – 6 ships) 3 1 1 5
Torpedo boat squadron (8 – 10 ships) 2 0 1 5
Patrol squadron (4 – 6 gunboats) 1 0 3 1
Merchant / Transport convoy (20 ships) 0 1 4 1

Special Combat modifiers
The Japanese, Germans, and Americans start the war with a superior gunnery spotting system to the other navies and get a +1 to all die rolls the first 4 turns of the war. (at which point everyone else catches up)

The Japanese can launch one surprise attack during the course of the war. This can be against ships that are actually in a base, and a maximum of 3 torpedo boat squadrons can take part. They get 1 round of torpedo attacks and then are considered to have escaped after exhausting their ammunition.

The following naval leaders can be added. They are assigned to a specific ship, and if that ship is sunk, they are considered to be killed. The British have Admiral Craddock and Jellicoe, the Japanese have Admiral Togo, the Germans have Admiral Graf Spee, the Americans have Admiral Sims, and the Russians have Admiral Markarov (Markarov cannot start the game assigned to any fleet as he is in Budapest engaged in talks). These Admirals add a +1 to the attack die rolls of all the ships of their nationality in the sea zone they are in. The exception is Admiral Craddock, who can add that bonus to British Hannover ships and British Hannover ships.

All big gun ships (Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers) get a bonus to their shooting of +1 if shooting against a non all big gun ship (superior sighting and spotting arrangements). Light cruisers get a similar bonus against protected cruisers and gunboats.

needless to say this wasn't the completely edited version but in practice it worked out pretty well.... it only took me about 2 hours to referee major battles like Jutland, Syracuse, Tsushima and a couple of others....

it was a lot of fun... the rules were based on a couple of tabletop wargames I used to play.... "War at Sea" and "Victory in the Pacific" (Avalon Hill games late 1970s... which should tell you how ancient I am because I bought them new.. chuckle)

typical warships 1905 (based on historic but not actual ships as were part of that RP)

Michigan class Battleship (Dreadnought type)(1906)
18,000 tons, 20 knots, crew 1000, 8 x inch, 20 x 3 inch, 12 machine guns

Ranger class Battle Cruiser (Dreadnought type)(1906)
18,000 tons, 28 knots, 8 x 12 inch, 16 x 3 inch, 12 machine guns

Indiana class battleship (1895 -1896)
11,000 tons, 15 knots, 500 crew, 4 x 13 inch, 8 x8 inch, 4 x 6 inch, 10 x 3 inch, 6 machine guns

New Hampshire class coast defense battleship (1886)
7,000 tons, 17 knots, 350 crew, 4 x 10 inch, 6 x 6 inch, 7 x 3 inch, 8 machine guns, 4 torpedo tubes

Lake Erie class Armored Cruiser (1903 – current)
9700 tons, 22 knots, 675 crew, 8 x 8 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 12 x 3 pdr, 12 machine guns, 6 torpedo tubes

Lexington class Armored Cruiser (1895 – 99)
9300 tons, 20 knots, 500 crew, 8 x 8 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 12 x 3 pdr, 12 machine guns, 5 torpedo tubes

Chester class Protected Cruiser (1902 – current)
3800 tons, 28 knots, 360 crew, 6 x 5 inch, 10 machine guns, 4 torpedo tubes

Philadelphia class Protected Cruiser (1884 – 1892)
6,000 tons, 20 knots, 450 crew, 4 x 8 inch, 10 x 5 inch, 4 x 6 pdr, 6 machine guns, 6 torpedo tubes

Brooklyn class Protected Cruiser (1878 – 1883, modernized 1900)
3500 tons, 20 knots, 8 x 6 inch, 4 x 3 inch, 10 machine guns, 4 torpedo tubes

Nantucket class Gunboat (1878 – 1886, modernized 1902)
1800 tons, 20 knots, 180 crew, 4 x 5 inch, 10 machine guns,

Petrel class Gunboat (1883 – 1895, modernized 1903)
1000 tons, 20 knots, 150 crew, 4 x 5 inch, 8 machine guns

Bainbridge class Destroyer (1900 – 1902)
500 tons, 28 knots, 75 crew, 2 x 3 inch, 2 x torpedo tubes

Terry class Destroyer (1903 – current)
900 tons, 30 knots, 100 crew, 5 x 3 inch, 2 machine guns, 6 torpedo tubes

A class Torpedo Boat
150 tons, 25 knots, 25 crew, 6 machine guns, 2 torpedo tubes


I did a LOT of research for that thread

ermm... i think it is a bit exagerated to use such complicated rules for a simple RP. We should only rely on the usual player imagination.

they are a handy way to rate ships by capabilities... but I understand if they seem a bit complex... they really need a referee to run correctly anyway (which I ended up doing last time)

I feel that this should just be an RP with a ref. We could, possibly, have a certain time where things such as nuke can be made. You can say that nukes cannot be made before, say, the 1940s. Other technologies should be less restricted in my opinion. Submarines should be available, but they lack torpedoes until their invention (which was WWI, I think). Aircraft, I think, were ready for military exploitation before WWI. It's just that no one realised their potential.

Some other rules that we need to consider are modernisation rules and population growth. Modernisation is a poor nation, such as my Korea, building factories and industrialising. Perhaps a certain time frame can be enacted for industrialisation. For population growth, perhaps you can use historical growth rates from the starting population with modifiers for industrialisation (positive) and negative modifiers for those nations that remain stagnant. This stops anomolies in growth, such as some nation's populations shrinking by millions due to wars that never happened, that would occur if we used the populations from every year.

I feel that this should just be an RP with a ref. We could, possibly, have a certain time where things such as nuke can be made. You can say that nukes cannot be made before, say, the 1940s. Other technologies should be less restricted in my opinion. Submarines should be available, but they lack torpedoes until their invention (which was WWI, I think). Aircraft, I think, were ready for military exploitation before WWI. It's just that no one realised their potential.

Some other rules that we need to consider are modernisation rules and population growth. Modernisation is a poor nation, such as my Korea, building factories and industrialising. Perhaps a certain time frame can be enacted for industrialisation. For population growth, perhaps you can use historical growth rates from the starting population with modifiers for industrialisation (positive) and negative modifiers for those nations that remain stagnant. This stops anomolies in growth, such as some nation's populations shrinking by millions due to wars that never happened, that would occur if we used the populations from every year.

a ref isn't a bad idea... as far as torpedoes go, the Whitehead torpedo was first used in the 1880s when Chile sank a Peruvian ship (or vice versa, I forget which) at 500 yards. Everybody promptly began building torpedo boats, followed quickly by torpedo boat destroyers by the 1890s which quickly made torpedo boats obsolete until World War 2. The Japanese had some (although not a lot) of success with torpedos in the RussoJapanese War of 1904, crippling a pair of Russian battleships in a not terribly effective but close enough attack on Port Arthur at the start of the war (without a declaration of war either)

Effective submarines that had a reasonable range show up around 1913, with earlier designs showing up around 1901 (strictly coastal boats as dangerous to the crew as the target in many cases).

oops, I forgot to switch screen names but this is Galveston Bay

Perhaps it would be prudent to compile a general timeframe within which technological advances can be made. Something like:

Early fighter aircraft, combat submarines, early tanks: not before 1910

Bombers, second generation fighter aircraft, second generation tanks and subs: not before 1930

Harmonized, dedicated assembly line mass production of military vehicles/equipment: not before 1935

Radar and semi-modern incryption/decryption devices: not before 1940

Third generation jet aircraft and semi-modern long distance rockets/missiles: not before 1945

The development of nuclear bombs, I suppose would look something like this:
atomic research: not before 1935
nuclear research (basic nuclear reactor, isotope experimentation): not before 1940
nuclear fuel, basic nuclear waste/hydrogen bomb: not before 1945, and if the country lacks the mass funding to dedicate to the project, not before 1950


Its a rough model, but in no way do I mean it to be our final guiding light in this matter. Its simply an example of how we could conduct the regulation of technological advancement.

A couple of other thoughts:

The Great Depression: Set the world back considerably when it comes to technological research and implementation. It can be hypothesized that, had the depression not occured, these advancements could have been achieved years earlier. Jet planes and nukes in the the mid-1930s, yum. :)
On the other hand, it can be argued that World War II forced the nations on both sides of the struggle in invest so much in research, and that such things as the jet engine, radar, cryptography, and nuclear power would have come much, much later if the war had not occured. We need to decide how to treat this issue in-game.

Industrialization: We need to come up with a way to calculate the industrial capacity of nations, and factors which can be manipulated in order to increase/decrease this capacity. I'd like to note however, that we should not discriminate against non-European nations in regard to industrial growth and research potential. We should assume that the undeveloped nations have the potential to become modern powers within the first thirty some years of the game, if they make the commitment in time, money, manpower, resources, etc. to make it happen. If you look at Russia or Japan at the turn of the century, it can be plainly seen that they made great leaps and bounds in their industrial capacity and technological level by the 1930s, bringing them abreast of their western neighbors. Again, we need a system to express this in-game.

Time Flow: I saw it suggested that we have a time flow of 1 month=1 decade, so that our game would take about 10 months to complete. I have little argument against this scenario, expect to say that we need to consider the fact that many participants may want to play this scenario for considerably longer than ten months. Furthermore, the individual years would be kind of lost in this system, which is kind of a shame. I wanted to propose an alternate system of 1 week=1 year, where the year would start monday morning and end sunday night. With such a system, 1 month would average out to about 4 years, so in a real life year from our start date, we would be in the year 1948. I'd like to get your opinions on this.

I also wanted to bring up one time flow issue. A roleplayed war, as I'm sure you all know, can take weeks, or even months, to complete. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could reconcile this fact with a rapidly progressing timeline?

Just some thoughts I thought I'd get out there for general discussion. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated. :)

Perhaps it would be prudent to compile a general timeframe within which technological advances can be made. Something like:

Early fighter aircraft, combat submarines, early tanks: not before 1910

Bombers, second generation fighter aircraft, second generation tanks and subs: not before 1930

Harmonized, dedicated assembly line mass production of military vehicles/equipment: not before 1935

Radar and semi-modern incryption/decryption devices: not before 1940

Third generation jet aircraft and semi-modern long distance rockets/missiles: not before 1945

The development of nuclear bombs, I suppose would look something like this:
atomic research: not before 1935
nuclear research (basic nuclear reactor, isotope experimentation): not before 1940
nuclear fuel, basic nuclear waste/hydrogen bomb: not before 1945, and if the country lacks the mass funding to dedicate to the project, not before 1950


Its a rough model, but in no way do I mean it to be our final guiding light in this matter. Its simply an example of how we could conduct the regulation of technological advancement.

A couple of other thoughts:

The Great Depression: Set the world back considerably when it comes to technological research and implementation. It can be hypothesized that, had the depression not occured, these advancements could have been achieved years earlier. Jet planes and nukes in the the mid-1930s, yum. :)
On the other hand, it can be argued that World War II forced the nations on both sides of the struggle in invest so much in research, and that such things as the jet engine, radar, cryptography, and nuclear power would have come much, much later if the war had not occured. We need to decide how to treat this issue in-game.

Industrialization: We need to come up with a way to calculate the industrial capacity of nations, and factors which can be manipulated in order to increase/decrease this capacity. I'd like to note however, that we should not discriminate against non-European nations in regard to industrial growth and research potential. We should assume that the undeveloped nations have the potential to become modern powers within the first thirty some years of the game, if they make the commitment in time, money, manpower, resources, etc. to make it happen. If you look at Russia or Japan at the turn of the century, it can be plainly seen that they made great leaps and bounds in their industrial capacity and technological level by the 1930s, bringing them abreast of their western neighbors. Again, we need a system to express this in-game.

Time Flow: I saw it suggested that we have a time flow of 1 month=1 decade, so that our game would take about 10 months to complete. I have little argument against this scenario, expect to say that we need to consider the fact that many participants may want to play this scenario for considerably longer than ten months. Furthermore, the individual years would be kind of lost in this system, which is kind of a shame. I wanted to propose an alternate system of 1 week=1 year, where the year would start monday morning and end sunday night. With such a system, 1 month would average out to about 4 years, so in a real life year from our start date, we would be in the year 1948. I'd like to get your opinions on this.

I also wanted to bring up one time flow issue. A roleplayed war, as I'm sure you all know, can take weeks, or even months, to complete. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could reconcile this fact with a rapidly progressing timeline?

Just some thoughts I thought I'd get out there for general discussion. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated. :)

I like it, although I would add that a lot of historians feel that the overheated economies of the 1920s were created by the Great War, and that caused the Great Depression so a Great Depression would logically come about 10 years after the end of a multi year multi nation great war between the big powers.

Just a thought.

I do have some books which cover military technology circa 1900 - Rifles; Artillery; Tanks. However, the main problem is what kind of additional technology - like methods of mass production and methods of producing iron, coal, oil etc. Maybe its not important, but think about this - the most technologically advanced nation-state has probably the best chance of surviving, of spreading its influence across the globe and winning the next war.

Not necessarily.

There are several possible counters to high-tech civ's.

1. Quantity over Quality. Example: Russia VS Germany during WW II.
2. Superior Tactics. Example: Gurriella warfare.
3. Sabtoage / Espionage. Example: Allies stealing German encryption machines during WW II.
4. Any Tech Kills. Example: Bow+Arrow can kill just as easily as an assault rifle or an advanced laser gun.
5. Sneaky Stuff. Example: Make "hidden" pits where tanks fall in, or spear pits where enemy soldiers fall in (no matter how tech, 1900, 2000, or 3000 AD).

There could be several other ideas and things I haven't thought of yet.


At any rate, we need to work out the invasion / annexation issue most of all. We need to make a system where players won't suddenly rush to invade everything and end up owning Earth by 1920 or 1930. We also need to come up with reasonable solutions and such to avoid IGNORE's or god-modding, as they can ruin this promising RP project.

I like it, although I would add that a lot of historians feel that the overheated economies of the 1920s were created by the Great War, and that caused the Great Depression so a Great Depression would logically come about 10 years after the end of a multi year multi nation great war between the big powers.

Just a thought.

After WW I, true.

However, afer WW II, there was no "Great Depression II". Or if there is, it hasn't happened yet, 60 years after WW II.

Good to see the useful contributions, thanks to everyone who opted to have a say in the group's creation. First off - we do need a ref. I am prepared to forgo an ic role in Earth 1900-2000 [E20 acronym anybody?] to provide the group with a fair, well-reasoned and unbiased moderator/referee position. However; since this will be a full-time job, I expect you to understand that I am as bound to the ugly, unwanted constraints of reality as you are - I need to work, sleep, eat and scratch certain parts of my anatomy. I'll do the best job possibly, but I'm only human.


I feel that this should just be an RP with a ref. We could, possibly, have a certain time where things such as nuke can be made. You can say that nukes cannot be made before, say, the 1940s. Other technologies should be less restricted in my opinion. Submarines should be available, but they lack torpedoes until their invention (which was WWI, I think). Aircraft, I think, were ready for military exploitation before WWI. It's just that no one realised their potential.

Some other rules that we need to consider are modernisation rules and population growth. Modernisation is a poor nation, such as my Korea, building factories and industrialising. Perhaps a certain time frame can be enacted for industrialisation. For population growth, perhaps you can use historical growth rates from the starting population with modifiers for industrialisation (positive) and negative modifiers for those nations that remain stagnant. This stops anomolies in growth, such as some nation's populations shrinking by millions due to wars that never happened, that would occur if we used the populations from every year.

I'll make sure to implement proper protocol regarding the case of growth anomolies.

On the question of Technologies. I feel that anything can be possibly to anyone right from the start of gameplay - provinding the nation roleplays doing research; building up industries etc. I dont want to see someone start this game and go "im researching atomic weaponry, it will be available to mean in 4 years [4 weeks]". That would just be wrong and grossly inaccurate. The infrastructure and knowledge needed to build something like the bombs that flattened Hiroshima & Nagasaki is not present in any nation circa 1900.

Its up to you to construct this. Needless to say, the first nation capable of fielding the world's first Tank Division; of piloting the first Jet Fighter; firing the first Guided-Missile etc will have a tremendous advantage over its rivals. Herein lies the beauty of this game. Nation's like The Netherlands for example, despite their territorial holdings across the globe in the East Indies, have small populations and meagre resources compared to those of the great powers - Great Britain, United States of America, France, Russia & Germany. If they could 'discover' technology that would put them ahead! Aha! Then they hold centre stage.

I think Crimson Sith's tech chart should be used as a guideline - I mean, I'm not saying if someone roleplays a very believable story of attaining atomic weapons by 1920 that they've godmoded or to stop bullshitting. More like, by 1910 your nation [i]should have the first prototype Tanks etc. This is what we can use to decide how Technologically advanced a nation is in the game.

Also I agree to adopting Crimson Sith's time-flow - 1 week being equal to 2 years.

Hrstovokia, are you going to RP in AMW or not? Just checking, because if not, we need to clear your slot...

Wait, Hrst, it is 1 week = 1 decade, I believe. I think it should be 1 week = 2 years.

One good way to avoid the "Technology mess" is the realistic RP'ing. For instance, my alternate Ottoman Empire is a very primative society which uses mainly horsemen, Jannisaries, etc.

I don't need A-bombs, since There is no way in hell I could get them.

You're nation doesn't need the be the best, only the most relistic.

Not necessarily.

There are several possible counters to high-tech civ's.

1. Quantity over Quality. Example: Russia VS Germany during WW II.
2. Superior Tactics. Example: Gurriella warfare.
3. Sabtoage / Espionage. Example: Allies stealing German encryption machines during WW II.
4. Any Tech Kills. Example: Bow+Arrow can kill just as easily as an assault rifle or an advanced laser gun.
5. Sneaky Stuff. Example: Make "hidden" pits where tanks fall in, or spear pits where enemy soldiers fall in (no matter how tech, 1900, 2000, or 3000 AD).

There could be several other ideas and things I haven't thought of yet.


At any rate, we need to work out the invasion / annexation issue most of all. We need to make a system where players won't suddenly rush to invade everything and end up owning Earth by 1920 or 1930. We also need to come up with reasonable solutions and such to avoid IGNORE's or god-modding, as they can ruin this promising RP project.

Sorry. I have an inherent characteristic to over-simply everything. I was think about what to do with NPCSs [Non-Player Controlled States] and what happens when they get invaded. I dont mind roleplaying as an NPC from time to time for added realism and for fun. I think given the state of world affairs circa 1900, most territory was claimed by somebody by that time anyway. Nobody could go crazy and amass a global empire without the reality of overstretching their resources whilst facing an ever increasing list of enemies and obstacles and losing it all eventually, take Britain for example. It 'aint so great anymore! Mwahahaha [bitter, deeply resentful laugh]

Hrstovokia, are you going to RP in AMW or not? Just checking, because if not, we need to clear your slot...

Check Telegrams!

Regarding the timescale, I think 2 RL weeks = 1 year is too extreme.

If we do adopt that... 1 RL year = 26 years in Earth 1900-2000. It'd take roughly 4 RL years to go from 1900 to 2000. I doubt many of us have that kind of patience to RP this until 2009 in RL.

I think a more reasonable time frame would be either...

1 RL week = 2 years
1 RL year = 104 years

OR

1 RL month = 10 years
1 RL year = 120 years


I believe 1 RL week = 2 years is best. As in exactly 1 year, we can go from 1900 to 2004, which is practically today's day. What's more, if we adopt that timescale, players can still play without getting bored or losing interest, while allowing ample time for RP's.

In 10 weeks from now if we start now, we can be RP'ing 1920's... then by end of summer, we can be RP'ing the 1930's - 1940's. 20 weeks for the exciting WW-II RP possibilities is far more preferable than waiting 80 weeks as per the "2 RL weeks = 1 year" timescale.



Thoughts? Feedback?

After WW I, true.

However, afer WW II, there was no "Great Depression II". Or if there is, it hasn't happened yet, 60 years after WW II.

the simple answer to that is that there was no real industrial slack after World War 2 (as it had been blown up or stolen or otherwise ruined) so the overproduction/supply and demand issues that were a big cause of the Great Depression didn't occur (my theory anyway, and some others) and everybody made damned sure it didn't happen again (no overly restrictive tarriffs for example).

My hats of to you Hrstrovokia for being willing to Ref this, if you need help, let me know.

Regarding the timescale, I think 2 RL weeks = 1 year is too extreme.

If we do adopt that... 1 RL year = 26 years in Earth 1900-2000. It'd take roughly 4 RL years to go from 1900 to 2000. I doubt many of us have that kind of patience to RP this until 2009 in RL.

I think a more reasonable time frame would be either...

1 RL week = 2 years
1 RL year = 104 years

OR

1 RL month = 10 years
1 RL year = 120 years


I believe 1 RL week = 2 years is best. As in exactly 1 year, we can go from 1900 to 2004, which is practically today's day. What's more, if we adopt that timescale, players can still play without getting bored or losing interest, while allowing ample time for RP's.

In 10 weeks from now if we start now, we can be RP'ing 1920's... then by end of summer, we can be RP'ing the 1930's - 1940's. 20 weeks for the exciting WW-II RP possibilities is far more preferable than waiting 80 weeks as per the "2 RL weeks = 1 year" timescale.



Thoughts? Feedback?

Huh? I proposed a 1 week=1 year timeframe....where is all of this coming from? :confused:

the simple answer to that is that there was no real industrial slack after World War 2 (as it had been blown up or stolen or otherwise ruined) so the overproduction/supply and demand issues that were a big cause of the Great Depression didn't occur (my theory anyway, and some others) and everybody made damned sure it didn't happen again (no overly restrictive tarriffs for example).

My hats of to you Hrstrovokia for being willing to Ref this, if you need help, let me know.

That's true for Europe and Western Russia.

However, the USA's factories and such weren't bombed, stolen, or ruined. The USA mainland was never bombed, (with the exception of Hawaii and Pearl Harbor). Yet, with the USA's factories intact, the USA didn't slide back into "Great Depression II".

Huh? I proposed a 1 week=1 year timeframe....where is all of this coming from? :confused:

Earlier Hstrovokia posted "2 RL weeks = 1 Year", but he must have made a typo or something as he edited his post to "1 RL week = 2 Years".

Rofl @ complete fucked up with time-flow. I meant 1 week to 1 year.

Earlier Hstrovokia posted "2 RL weeks = 1 Year", but he must have made a typo or something as he edited his post to "1 RL week = 2 Years".


Also I agree to adopting Crimson Sith's time-flow - 1 week being equal to 2 years.

Oh, I see. The model I suggested was 1 week=1 year. Tsk tsk. ;)

the only problem I see with the time frame is that some things, like a World War for example, are going to take longer than a week or two to RP out... how about Peacetime periods moving relatively faster with slower time frames for periods of intense activity (like a war for example)?

Also remember, like any NS RP, we will lose people from time to time.

The Referee should have the authority to replace critical countries if their players drop out, and to move the time scale along occasionally if needed for storyline purposes In my opinion at least.

(by the way, Galveston Bay is New Shiron, sorry I keep forgetting to switch screen names when I post on this thread... I am excited about the idea I will admit)

Acknowledged. We do need some sort of system for wars and such. Thing is, if we slow down time in the event of war, we'd have to apply that to nations which were neutral or out of the loop. That presents its own difficulties.

the only problem I see with the time frame is that some things, like a World War for example, are going to take longer than a week or two to RP out... how about Peacetime periods moving relatively faster with slower time frames for periods of intense activity (like a war for example)?

Also remember, like any NS RP, we will lose people from time to time.

The Referee should have the authority to replace critical countries if their players drop out, and to move the time scale along occasionally if needed for storyline purposes In my opinion at least.

(by the way, Galveston Bay is New Shiron, sorry I keep forgetting to switch screen names when I post on this thread... I am excited about the idea I will admit)

Yes well, I touched upon this issue in my post, but it seems to have been overlooked. ;)

I'm really not too sure how to work around this problem, and was wondering if anyone had any ideas....

Acknowledged. We do need some sort of system for wars and such. Thing is, if we slow down time in the event of war, we'd have to apply that to nations which were neutral or out of the loop. That presents its own difficulties.

Wow, I was just thinking the exact same thing, lol.

I was thinking that we shouldnt suspend or slow time in the event of periods of high activity, a war takes as long as it takes. Time is not on our side in real life, why should it be here? That way, Time will become a key factor in deciding battles ie people grew discontent of warfare, internal revolt, want peace etc. What do you think, too radical?

I was thinking that we shouldnt suspend or slow time in the event of periods of high activity, a war takes as long as it takes. Time is not on our side in real life, why should it be here? That way, Time will become a key factor in deciding battles ie people grew discontent of warfare, internal revolt, want peace etc. What do you think, too radical?

Actually, now that I think of it, a rapidly developing timeline would eliminate alot of things we've become used to in our RPs. Wars would have to be sweeping and sped up if we don't want them to drag on for years. Character development in the traditional sense of the word is pretty much out the window......I'm having a little difficulty wraping my mind around how this would actually work. Any thoughts?

If anyone wants to talk personally about anything going on here or just cybar with me -

MSN Messenger - Nevertake@hotmail.com or
AIM - TinFoil Town

If still possible to join, I shall take Norway.

The only issue that still needs hammering out is Time-Flow [held up by the problem with wars needing more time to roleplay because of the level of detail involved and the sometimes slow flow of battle due to evenly pitched opponents], i think the year should be set to one week. I dont want to be held up much longer by this, so lets make a choice here.

Once that's out of the way, I'm going to set up an off-site forum were you should all atleast sign up to. Then we can start rp'ing. There's enough players onboard now, and I can roleplay the rest until they're occupied by someone else. I'm also considering assuming command of NPCEs [Non-Player Controlled Entities] such as .... the Pope! Seriously, the Pope was a very powerful man around the time, influencing millions of Catholics.

If it's still possible, I'd like to be Persia/Iran. The question is what would my status be, because I think Iran was a protectorate of Britain or something.

Hmm i will take the oppressed people of Macedonia! if it is still possible to get a nation.

Iran re-gained its independence about in 1905 (limited constitution, making them a constitutional monarchy) and 1906 (first parliament). However, it was divided in "sphere of influences" between Russia and the United Kingdom. troops of both countries stayed there until at least 1921 for the russians. It is during Reza Shah Pahlavi reing as Shah (1925-1941) that he was able to free the country a bit more, but repulsing britain attempt to make them a protectorate. The last foreign troops to exit Iran were british troops after the end of WW2 (according to the Tehran conference promises) and russians troops coming from the north that began some revolts in the norther most states of Iran. they retreated in 1946, after Iran promised them oil concessions.

so, it IS possible to free Iran as early as 1905, but it will be quite difficult if russia and UK wants to keep the oil.

In reference to the timeline I think that 1 year per week should be about right. Any longer and it will take us ages to finish. Even at 1 week a year it is just under 2 years before we finsih which is the max that certainly I can foresee anyone RPing for.

As to Hrstrovokia RPing the NPC states thats also good as it means that there will be opposition to expansion and countries left incase anyone wants to sign on later. Also the Pope being controlled is a good idea as much of the world at this time was catholic and he was a very important guy.

Finally, I have no problems with signing up to another forum as this will seperate out all the different events going on and allow us to RP better.

I look forward to starting!

Under this system would it be possible to play Scotland, and attempt a bid for independance around 1980, when unemployment was high and revolt was in the air? I'm not Communist myself, but it'd be interesting to play.

Slightly worried by the amount of newcomers joining our ranks, but im sure it'll not be a problem.

Mindset - if you prefer, you could rp control of Scotland from 1900, as there is no knowing what state the world will be in by 1980. Its up to you.

you forgot me again :( Luxembourg, its a small country i know.

One thing's for sure, I'm NOT going to let the Sandinistas take over! :D

Okay... I just finished reading all the new posts, and I have several thoughts on the issues that were brought up.

1. Timelines:

War-time (WW I + II type of wars): 1 RL week = 1 NS year.
Peace-time (no major wars): 1 RL week = 2 or 3 NS years.

2. Warfare:

To prevent hang-ups, we need to adopt some kind of limit / regulation on warfare. Suppose someone doesn't respond or participate in a war involving him / her for a RL week? What then?

Would this mean that the entire Earth 1900 - 2000 community would be stuck waiting for the timescale to advance after a war is finished between two members? I don't see that working, because if there's no responses or lack of RP'ing in a certain war, it'd hold all of us back, preventing us from moving on with other RP's.

3. RP Forums:

I would like to know why we should move to an off-Jolt forum, instead of RP'ing it here?

If we RP here, our Earth would get many more views, feedback, and potential new members to replace the ones who quit or go poof. Also, some people may have trouble registering on off-Jolt forums.

What benefits are there to off-Jolt forums compared to RP'ing right here where more people are likely to catch wind of this?

I think that if we stay on the Jolt forums, then we need to have one central thread - sorta like the "International News/Events" threads used by some of the Earths - to keep track of the current year and the RPs that go off. This would need to be started by someone who was going to check each thread as it progressed and keep up to date on what year it currently is.

Hey! The Jolt things messed up so now I have this wierd [NS] thing around my name. I've been in a bunch of off-forum RPs tho.

Anyways... I think we should have an offsite forum because it's easier to see what's happening. That way instead of having all these random threads all over International Incidents we can have different topics all on one forum. We can also have more indepth OOC stuff and a world page or something. It would be too hard to see what had happened if we did it on the Jolt Forums. An easy Invison board would be good enough, and I'm sure there are plenty of people here who could make them.

/me quitely sobs to himself...

Ok. In the event of a major global conflict, involving more than say ... 3 players, we shall use 1 RL week to 1 NS year. With regard to warfare, if somebody drops out or cannot [for whatever reason] participate, then I'd be prepared to step in and take the helm, providing that everybody realises it is only a temporary measure, and I dont intend to take control permanently. Otherwise, its not a war, because as you all know it takes atleast two to tango, heh.

I thought having an off-site forum might be useful for storing factbooks etc, but there really isnt much of a point behind it. Also the creation of a "whats happening" index aka international events would be useful, and i could update it regularly.

1. Timelines:

War-time (WW I + II type of wars): 1 RL week = 1 NS year.
Peace-time (no major wars): 1 RL week = 2 or 3 NS years.

I'm not too comfortable with the peacetime timeflow you suggest. I personaly plan on doing quite alot with my nation, every year would involve crucial events in its socio-political development. If 1 week were to equal 3 years, I'd end up being enslaved to my computer, trying to keep up. :D

I was wondering, what are your objections to the basic 1week=1year pattern?

2. Warfare:

To prevent hang-ups, we need to adopt some kind of limit / regulation on warfare. Suppose someone doesn't respond or participate in a war involving him / her for a RL week? What then?

Would this mean that the entire Earth 1900 - 2000 community would be stuck waiting for the timescale to advance after a war is finished between two members? I don't see that working, because if there's no responses or lack of RP'ing in a certain war, it'd hold all of us back, preventing us from moving on with other RP's.

I couldn't agree more. I think that in the event of wars, we should adapt a system of 1 turn per day. If a player fails to respond to his enemies advance during a given turn, then he basically forfits that turn, i.e. his army went to lunch and he has left his nation at the mercy of the enemy. This doesn't mean that he has completely lost the war, he may still return to regain loses. It would be a strict system, but one which I feel would be absolutely necessary to implement if our rapidly advancing timeline is to be at all feasible.

3. RP Forums:

I would like to know why we should move to an off-Jolt forum, instead of RP'ing it here?

If we RP here, our Earth would get many more views, feedback, and potential new members to replace the ones who quit or go poof. Also, some people may have trouble registering on off-Jolt forums.

What benefits are there to off-Jolt forums compared to RP'ing right here where more people are likely to catch wind of this?

I agree with you on this. Keeping our game on the NS forums would give us plenty of much needed exposure and feedback. Lets admit it, once we start this thing, people are going to be droping out left and right. Not everyone has the patience or dedication to commit to an RP of this caliber for months on end. What we can do, however, is assure that the NS community recognizes our RP, and that there will be people eager to pick up where other players may have left off. Isolating ourselves to an off-site forum could very well lead to this RP quickly growing stagnant, or dying off all together. And that's not something any of us want. :)

/me quitely sobs to himself...

Ok. In the event of a major global conflict, involving more than say ... 3 players, we shall use 1 RL week to 1 NS year. With regard to warfare, if somebody drops out or cannot [for whatever reason] participate, then I'd be prepared to step in and take the helm, providing that everybody realises it is only a temporary measure, and I dont intend to take control permanently. Otherwise, its not a war, because as you all know it takes atleast two to tango, heh.

I thought having an off-site forum might be useful for storing factbooks etc, but there really isnt much of a point behind it. Also the creation of a "whats happening" index aka international events would be useful, and i could update it regularly.

chuckle... surely you didn't think this would be easy?????

I like the off site forum for storing fact books, nations could simply provide links as needed. Index is also good.. I would prefer to keep RP in this forum as much as we can, but I am willing to do either.

As far as warfare and missing players goes, my suggestion is that if the player isn't available or left, that country remains on the strategic defensive and merely defends itself and its territory (or territories) as best it can with whatever local forces are on hand. After a turn of this, it has a revolution and falls into anarchy (if a small third world type state) or changes government (if a big power) and becomes isolationist and neutral (or another player steps in and takes over). If being invaded, it accepts terms defined by the referee or surrenders (and is conquered and annexed).

Is it absolutely necessary to hold everyone to a timescale of an RP'd war between only a couple of people? For example, Sarzonia and myself plan on RPing the Boer War, and will probably plan out the course of events beforehand. If other players want to progress the timeline, there's no reason why they couldn't and then S. and myself continue to RP the war, and do any peaceful RPing "in the future," so to speak, using the conclusions that we've already come to for the war.

Just an idea.

I--I mean, er, We, Prince Karl von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, should like to claim the throne of Romania, as is Our right by election and the Grace of God, as King Carol I.
Are the alliances obtaining between various powers in 1900 also in effect? That would affiliate me with the Triple Alliance (Germany/Aequatio, Austria-Hungary/Kordo, and Italy/Carops). This could prove important very soon . . .

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I couldn't agree more. I think that in the event of wars, we should adapt a system of 1 turn per day. If a player fails to respond to his enemies advance during a given turn, then he basically forfits that turn, i.e. his army went to lunch and he has left his nation at the mercy of the enemy. This doesn't mean that he has completely lost the war, he may still return to regain loses. It would be a strict system, but one which I feel would be absolutely necessary to implement if our rapidly advancing timeline is to be at all feasible.

I like the idea of that. I mean, it obviously needs discussion and tweaking, but its an adaptable system and fits in well. Maybe I'm wrong, I dont think we're prepared to launch the community just yet...time-flow seems to be a thorn in our sides. But, you know if it takes us 2 weeks to work out it, it'll all be worth it in the end.

Galveston Bay said something that caught my attention -


I like to wear women's clothes...


Er...I mean ....


As far as warfare and missing players goes, my suggestion is that if the player isn't available or left, that country remains on the strategic defensive and merely defends itself and its territory (or territories) as best it can with whatever local forces are on hand. After a turn of this, it has a revolution and falls into anarchy (if a small third world type state) or changes government (if a big power) and becomes isolationist and neutral (or another player steps in and takes over). If being invaded, it accepts terms defined by the referee or surrenders (and is conquered and annexed).

In the event of somebody missing their turn, their forces would be assumed to be on the defensive and unable to commit any offensive actions, also morale would be lessened due to the apparent abandonment of troops by their commanders [the commanders & general staff being the player who hasnt participated], and enemy strikes launched during this period would incur far more damage and would be twice as successful. Perhaps we could even develop some sort of points system...but it might be too complex.

Tomorrow I'm going to start going through the history books so everybody can get an idea of what the geo-political situation was in 1900 and so we can atleast start with an authentic beginning.

I like the idea of that. I mean, it obviously needs discussion and tweaking, but its an adaptable system and fits in well. Maybe I'm wrong, I dont think we're prepared to launch the community just yet...time-flow seems to be a thorn in our sides. But, you know if it takes us 2 weeks to work out it, it'll all be worth it in the end.

Yes, absolutely. There's no point in rushing into this, lets iron out all the creases first, so once we do get this thing started, we can expect it to run rather smoothly. Better that then having the thing grind to a screeching halt part way in due to circumstances we did not foresee. Oh, and I'm glad you liked my idea.

In the event of somebody missing their turn, their forces would be assumed to be on the defensive and unable to commit any offensive actions, also morale would be lessened due to the apparent abandonment of troops by their commanders [the commanders & general staff being the player who hasnt participated], and enemy strikes launched during this period would incur far more damage and would be twice as successful. Perhaps we could even develop some sort of points system...but it might be too complex.

I like this system very much. You're right though, a point scheme would add unecessary complication to something which is, afterall, supposed to be freeform roleplaying. It would be better to simply have a moderator (I'm assuming that would be you) to monitor these wars and rule on disputes and/or absences using a rough guidline such as the one we seem to be outlining here.

Tomorrow I'm going to start going through the history books so everybody can get an idea of what the geo-political situation was in 1900 and so we can atleast start with an authentic beginning.

If you need help with any of the research, please, let me know. I'd be happy to help out. :)

Oh, by the way.

Galveston Bay said something that caught my attention -


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston Bay
I like to wear women's clothes...

FUNNYYY :D

I'm not too comfortable with the peacetime timeflow you suggest. I personaly plan on doing quite alot with my nation, every year would involve crucial events in its socio-political development. If 1 week were to equal 3 years, I'd end up being enslaved to my computer, trying to keep up. :D

I was wondering, what are your objections to the basic 1week=1year pattern?

I was only concerned about that because some players may not feel they want to RP detailed developments in their nations. Other players may not be interested in peace-time RP'ing so they want to rush to the next war.

I've seen those kinds of players, ones who warmonger for the fun of it, and ones who get bored fast if there's no "conflict" or intensity during peace-time.

I personally will RP my China through both War and Peace equally, as I like to RP all aspects of my China. I was only bringing this idea up to address any concerns other "non-intensive" RP'ers may have.




I'm really looking forward to this RP. I have several ideas how to set China on a different path, but I'm not sure if my ideas would be acceptable or not. One idea I have is to have some kind of immortal leader rise to power, exactly like in Civilization games. Another idea is to have something "force" a change upon the original leaders of China circa 1900, but the idea I have for this might border on crazy.

I've been thinking of those ideas since I don't know much of anything about the original Chinese politics / leadership at 1900. Thus, I can't think of any good and believable "point of divergence" events in 1900 that would set China on a different course instead of the historical one (in RL). I do have a workable knowledge of Chinese stuff after WW-II though.

Just to be a pedant, China in 1900 was on the verge of Civil War. The Opium Wars had parcelled China up into, I think, four or five 'Spheres of Influence' belonging to the Western Powers and Japan. The Manchu dynasty was still clinging to the throne, having outlasted several massive insurrections of the nineteenth century--the Taiping and Hui Rebellions in midcentury, and the Boxer Rebellion from 1898-1901, and at the turn of the century, before the arrival of foreign troops in August, the rebels still held the entire peninsula of Shandong. The disastrous (for China) Sino-Japanese War had taken place in 1894-5, resulting in the loss of Taiwan, its neighboring islands, the Liaodong peninsula in Manchuria, and all influence in Korea. Germans, British, and Russians all occupied strategic Chinese cities and controlled the Chinese economy, and Sun Yat-sen and Kang Youwei both made their first underfunded and ill-planned attempts at democratic revolution in August and October, respectively.
China's a mess--good luck with it.

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I've forgotten how to put pictures in posts, but there's a map (http://www.warandpeace.agnostos-theos.net/maps/imperialism.GIF) here.

Ooh, I own Korea! :D

Very handy map to start with - excellent find Vas Pokhoronim.

Yes China's in a hell of a mess at the turn of the century. There's rampant corruption in most departments (some historians think that more than half of the strength of provinsional military units only existed on paper, in that the battalion commanders drew pay for men who didn't actually exist), as well as that the government and emperess were rapidly losing power as decentralisation saw to it that the provincial leaders made most of the decisions and were open to bribery and other corruption.

The western powers (Mainly Britain, Russia, Germany, France, and the United States) did their best to undermine what they considered to be restrictive trading regulations; the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) example of that was the British smuggling of opium into Southern China. Other examples included the right for foreign navies to sail up Chinese rivers and waterways, and extra-territoriality law, which meant that if a British citizen committed a crime in China, he would be tried in a British council under British law in British territory. Most of these 'rights' came into being under a series of treaties that came to be known as the Unequal Treaties.

The West supported the government under the Empress as it allowed them tehse liberties. They even crushed the Boxer Rebellion for them (though they demanded compensation for it afterwards) to keep them in power. What the Western powers were interested in was the carving up of China for their own purposes, and that, paradoxically, required keeping China together.

In fact the only thing that kept the West out of China (and hence allowing it to stay a Republic after the 1911 rebellion) was increasing tension in Europe culminating in Archduke Ferdinand telling his driver to go down a street in Sarajevo he shouldn't have, and plunging Europe headlong into chaos.

Sorry that was so long :rolleyes: I guess I just like history and it should help the Chinese player to decide what to do. If you want it, do it, it should be fun, if a little hectic! Then again i'm RPing the Irish and that history isn't exactly easy!

Galveston Bay said something that caught my attention - .

chuckle.... and I ain't even a Lumberjack

Hey LR, I've got some info on Japan regarding their political state and military strength in 1900, but any information you could provide me with would be greatfully recieved as I may learn something new. :)

mmm i may join, is saudi arabia open

the Boxer Rebellion is a pretty good opening for RP... all the major powers get involved.

We have the Boxers (nationalist group), the Imperial Chinese government (which covertly and then openly supported them) vs the Americans, Austrians, British, French, Japanese, Germans, and Russians. The old movie "55 Days in Peking" is about the seige and it was the only successful multi national operation prior to the creation of the UN where even rivals worked together.

Of course they sacked Peking when they took it, but you can't have everything. Oddly enough, it isn't popularly celebrated much in China either.

Other events underway include the Philippine Insurrection and the Boer War and next year Teddy Roosevelt becomes President, he is lots of fun. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the city of Galveston is destroyed by as hurricane and somewhere between 6 - 10,000 people are killed (worst natural disaster ever to hit the US)

Hey LR, I've got some info on Japan regarding their political state and military strength in 1900, but any information you could provide me with would be greatfully recieved as I may learn something new. :)

the link I posted earlier in the thread on the Russo Japanese War should be a lot of help for both you and the Russian player

the link I posted earlier in the thread on the Russo Japanese War should be a lot of help for both you and the Russian player

Ahh, thanks. :)

May seem strange but is there any chance i cud get Northern Ireland?

Just wondering whether anyone could provide me with a source telling me the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1900 - all the sites I find deal primarily with the navy at the start of World War 1.

Re: Colonialism Map

Panama wasn't independant of Colombia until after Teddy Roosevelt became president, and basicly started a revolution there, just so the US could build the Panama Canal. I could be wrong about this, and Panama could be independant at that point, but at the very least, the canal is not yet built.

Re: Time Scale

I'm big on peacetime RPs, so I have no problem with 1 RL week = 1 game year.

When do we start?

See above question. I can't wait to get the show on the road!

Found a good, well detailed map of Europe for 1900 if anyone wants to look at it:Map 1900 (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1900.htm)

It shows all of the European countries (minus Scandanavia and North Russia) and shows down to North Africa and also all of the little principalities and dukedoms between.

Hey LR, I've got some info on Japan regarding their political state and military strength in 1900, but any information you could provide me with would be greatfully recieved as I may learn something new.

I'll dig out some books for you and give it a go.

By 1900 the following ships were in the Japanese Navy:

Battleships:
Fuso (1877)
Chin'en (1882, ex-Chinese Chen Yuen, captured 1895)
Fuji class
Fuji (1896)
Yashima (1896)
Shikishima class
Shikishima (1898)
Hatsuse (1899)
Asahi (1899)
Mikasa (1900)

Small Cruisers:
Sai Yen (1883, ex-Chinese)
Izumi (1883)
Naniwa class
Naniwa (1885)
Takachiho (1885)
Unebi (1886)
Matsushima class
Itsukushima (1889)
Matsushima (1890)
Hashidate (1891)
Akitsushima (1892)
Yoshino (1892)
Akashi class
Suma (1895)
Akashi (1897)
Takasago (1897)
Chitose class
Chitose (1898)
Kasagi (1898)

Large Cruisers:
Chiyoda (1890)
Asama class
Asama (1898)
Tokiwa (1898)
Izumo (1899)
Iwate (1900)
Yakumo (1899)
Azuma (1899)

That should be all of the big ships anyway (most of the major powers didn't bother with smaller vessels and tended only towards the bigger guns, destroyers (invented 1891) had yet to be developed for any universal useage and were only meant to discourage attack on the larger ships by torpedo boats and to launch torpedos of their own whilst being able to maintain the speed of fleet ships. They were put to good use in this role in the russo-japanese war, which I think you already have data on)

There you go Chrisstan, do a search on google or whatever for the names and it should bring up most of the stats for you. Again sorry for the length of this post.

Some quick facts about the Imperial Japanese Army for you Chrisstan.

In the early 1900's, the Imperial Japanese Army consisted of 12 divisions and numerous other units. These contained the following:

380,000 active duty and 1st Reserve personnel - former Class A and B(1) conscripts after 2 year active tour with 17 and 1/2 year commitment.

50,000 Second line Reserve - Same as above but former Class B(2) conscripts (ie. worse ability/training)

220,000 National Army split into the following:

1st National Army - 37 to 40 year old men from end of 1st Reserve to 40 years old.

2nd National Army - untrained 20 year olds and over 40 year old trained reserves.

4,250,000 additional males available for service and mobilization.

<snip>
There you go Chrisstan, do a search on google or whatever for the names and it should bring up most of the stats for you. Again sorry for the length of this post.

Hey, thanks a lot for that. :D No problem about the post-length.

This'll help quite a bit with starting out - seeing as I'll be directing Japan the later military strength will be more influenced by my actions, so I won't have to keep pestering people for stats at certain historical times. :)

Chronology of Military incidents 1900 -

China - Boxer Rebellion

Foreign influence in China grows as European countries and Japan build up trade to their own advantage and with little regard for the Chinese. This causes the formation of a patriotic society of discontented Chinese which soon becomes a popular movement against foreigners (especially Christians), encouraged by Empress Tzu Hsi. On 31st May a detachment of 340 American, British, Italian, Japanese and Russian marines arrive at Peking to protect their nationals against the 'Fists of Righteous Harmony' as the Boxers call themselves.

They are defeated defeated by a even large Chinese forces, but on 15th August a much larger force (18,700) takes Tienstin, then Peking on 21st August, relieves the legations and storms the Imperial City. The Empress flees and is forced to make peace by the end of the year. On 15th October anti-imperial forces under Sun Yat-Sen capute Mu-chan.

Manchuria - Russian occupation

Russian troops occupy large areas (eg Amur district) and Chinese are forbidden to live there. In August, Cossacks rout a large Chinese force. By November, Russia has completed occupation with more than 100,000 troops in place.

Phillipines - Rebel forces surrender to US forces

2,000 Rebels surrender to US forces in Luzon.

South Africa - Second Boer War

Continuation of the War which first began in 1899. On 10th January Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar assumes command of British forces. After a series of disastrous reverses the war starts to go Britain's way. On 28th of February Ladysmith is relieved by General Buller after a siege lasting 118 days. In March Boer offers of surrender are rejected by Britain. On 16th of May, Mafeking is relieved, while Lord Roberts continues his advance across the Orange Free State.

On 13th of June, Pretoria is taken, and the Boers are pursued into Portugese East Africa. Guerilla warfare continues. In September Roberts annexes the Transvaal. In November Kitchener becomes CinC. The conflict is notably for the first appearance of Concentration Camps operated by the British.

To those of you who firmly intend to stick to the Community; it'd be a good idea if you started brushing up on your chosen nation's history circa 1900. I know that whatever happened prior to 1900 will probably be ditched as you roleplay your own unique stories, but it would be prudent to know how your nation's got to where they are now [or should i say then]

Myself, I am currently trying to digest 319 pages of World War I. World War I is actually a good starting point, since most of the factors that caused the war had been persistent problems for well over 3 decades - Franco-Prussian War; Russian involvement in the Balkans; Nationalism in the Balkans; unchecked attitudes of racial superiority & hatred towards foreigners by most of the Great Powers; new, all encompassing powers gained by the State to wage War and Societies which were willing to bear the brunt of conscription & major rearnament programs....and thats to name a few.

To help you all, I'll be posting snippets of history which I think everybody either knows or ought to know.

Would you like me to perhaps post a general WWI timeline? I know the topic pretty well.

Yes, that'd be excellent Crimson Sith! *Hands Sithy a Cookie* Gooood Dawg!

Yes, that'd be excellent Crimson Sith! *Hands Sithy a Cookie* Gooood Dawg!

wtf :mad:

Nevermind then....

Lol - i'm kidding. I'll get onto it tomorrow, a timeline is a good idea alright. I hope you werent pissed at the cookie/dawg joke, im just joking :D

Lol - i'm kidding. I'll get onto it tomorrow, a timeline is a good idea alright. I hope you werent pissed at the cookie/dawg joke, im just joking :D

Uh....okay.

General Timeline of The Great War

Disclaimer: Of course, players will not be expected to play out the first world war according to this timeline. Actually, players will not be expected to engaged in a world war at all. This is more for your information and overall education on the time period. Read it or ignore it, but for those of you interested, here it is:

1914

28 June: Archduke Franz Ferdinand and wife assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian national.

5 July: Germany promises Austria-Hungary full support against Serbia.

23 July: Austria-Hungary makes demands on Serbia, to be settled with 48 hours.

24 July: Russia decides to defend Serbia in the event of attack by Austria-Hungary.

25 July: Austria-Hungary advises Russia: We do not intend to take any land from Serbia. Serbia's reply to ultimatum deemed to be unsatisfactory. Austria-Hungary begins mobilization.

26 July: Great Britain proposes an international conference to settle the dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Austria-Hungary and Germany reject the idea.

28 July: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.

30 July: Russia begins mobilization.

31 July: Germany sends warning to Russia: stop troop movements near German borders within 24 hours.

1 August: No reply recieved by Germany from Russia. Germany declares war on Russia.

3 August: Germany declares war on France. Italy announces her neutrality.

4 August: Germany invades Belgium. Great Britain declares war on Germany.

6 August: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia. Serbia declares war on Germany.

7 August: French troops enter Belgium.

8 August: Montenegro delcares war on Germany.

12 August: Russian forces invade East Prussia.

14 August: French offensive in Lorraine.

16 August: British Expiditionary Force lands in France.

20 August: German forces enter Brussels.

23 August: British retreat from Mons begins. Japan declares war on Germany.

29 August: Germans defeat Russians at Tannenberg (East Prussia).

6-15 September: Germans defeat Russians at Masurian Lakes.

29 October: The Ottoman Empire joins the war on the side of The Central Powers.

30 October: First Battle of Ypres (Belgium) begins.

5 November: Great Britain declares war on The Ottoman Empire.

11 November: German offensive at Ypres. Trench warfare begins on Western Front.

14 November: Russians advance westward through Poland.

16 November: Germans counter-attack. Fighting to early December leading to a Russian withdrawl from the area.

continued in next post

1915

14 January: General Botha crosses Orange River from Union of South Africa and captures Swakopmund in German South-West Africa.

15 January: Britain decides on invasion of Gallipoli Penninsula (Turkey).

19-20 January: First Zeppelin attack on Britain. Bombs dropped at King's Lynn (Norfolk).

2 February: Turks try to cross Suez Canal near Ismailia.

4 February: Germany declares waters around Britain a "war zone" and begins first unrestricted submarine campaign, which lasts until August.

1 March: Britain declares blockade on Germany.

18 March: Attempt by Allied fleet to sail through Dardanelles Strait (Turkey) fails.

22 March: Russians defeat Austrians, capture Przemysl (Poland).

22 April-25 May: Second Battle of Ypres. Germans use poison gas for the first time.

25 April: First Allied landings in Gallipoli at five places on tip of penninsula.

26 April: By Treaty of London, Italy joins war on side of Allies.

2 May: Austro-German offensive in Galicia. Germans win battle of Gorlice-Tarnow.

7 May: Lusitania sunk by German U-boat off Queenstown, Ireland. 124 Americans among the dead.

8 May: First phase of Gallipoli campaign ends. Allies have suffered heavy casualties, made little headway.

14 May: Germans capture Jaroslaw and advance into the Ukraine.

2 June: Italians cross Isonzo River, north-west of Trieste, and attack Austrians. Austrians withdraw.

3 June: Germans capture Przemysl (Poland).

9 July: British conquest of German South-West Africa is completed.

4 August: Germans capture Warsaw.

6 August: Further Allied landings on Gallipoli at Suvla Bay.

12 August: First enemy ship sunk by torpedo launched from a British seaplane during Gallipoli operation.

20 August: Italy declares war on Turkey.

6 September: Bulgaria enters war on side of Central Powers. Germans capture Vilna, capital of Lithuania.

25-30 September: Renewed French attack at Souchez towards Vimy Ridge.

25 September-4 October: British attack at Loos, in support of French.

28 September: Turks defeated at Kut-el-Amara.

6 October: Austro-German attack on Serbia. British and French troops now in Serbia.

9 October: Central Powers capture Belgrade (Serbia).

11 October: Bulgarians invade Serbia.

19-20 December: Some Allied troops are evacuated from Gallipoli.

continued in next post

1916

8 January: Allied evacuation of Gallipoli Penninsula complete.

21 February: Battle of Verdun (France) begins.

27 February: Austrians capture Durazzo from Italians.

9 March: Portugal declares war on Germany.

19 March-30 April: After Battle of Lake Naroch, Russians withdraw with heavy losses.

29 April: British and Indian forces surrender to Turks at Kut-el-Amara (Mesopotamia).

15 May-3 June: Austrians successful in attack on Italians in Trentino.

31 May-1 June: Battle of Jutland.

4 June: Brusilov Offensive against Hungary starts.

1 July: Battle of Somme begins.

11 July: Verdun: last German assault.

14 August: Brusilov Offensive comes to an end.

17 August: Rumania signs alliance with Russia.

27 August: Italy declares war on Germany. Rumunia declares war on Austria-Hungary.

28 August: Germany declares war on Rumunia.

29 August: Hindenburg and Ludendorff, successful commanders on Eastern Front, sent to command German forces on Western Front.

30 August: Turkey declares war on Rumunia.

1 September: Bulgaria declares war on Rumunia.

2-3 September: First German airship shot down over Britain.

15 September: Tanks used for first time by British on Somme.

7 November: Woodrow Wilson re-elected President of The United States of America.

18 November: Battle of the Somme ends.

5 December: Bucharest (Rumunia) captured by Germans.

7 December: New Prime Minister of Britain, David Lloyd George.

12 December: Nivelle replaces Joffre as French Commander-in-Chief. German Chancellor issues peace note showing Germany ready to negotiate peace.

18 December: Battle of Verdun ends.

30 December: Lloyd George rejects German peace proposal.

cont.

1917

1 February: Germany announces unrestricted submarine warfare.

1 March: Zimmerman Telegram published in USA.

11 March: British troops enter Baghdad.

12 March: Revolution in Russia begins.

15 March: Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, abdicates from throne.

27 March: Turks defeated by British at Gaza.

6 April: USA declares war on Germany.

7 April: Cuba declares war on Germany.

9 April: Successful British attack at Arras.

10 April: Canadians capture Vimy Ridge.

16 April-21 May: French attack in Second Battle of Aisne.

16 April: Lenin arrives in Russia.

10 May: First convoy sails from British port.

15 May: Petain succeeds Nivelle as French Commander-in-Chief.

19 May: US government decides to send army to France.

20 May: First German submarine sunk by an aircraft.

25 May: First big daylight raid by German Gothas on Britain.

29 June: General Allenby takes over Allied command on Palestinian Front.

16 July: Russian general retreat begins.

31 July: Third Battle of Ypres begins.

10 September: Kerensky becomes leader of Russia.

15 September: Provisional government declares Russia to be a republic.

4 October: British victory at Passchendaele Ridge. (Ypres)

24 October: Italians defeated at Caporetto by Austrians and Germans.

31 October: British attack Turkish line at Beersheba. In a week, the Turkish line is broken.

7 November: Third Battle of Ypres ends when British capture ruins of Passchendaele village.

8 November: Lenin announces soviet control of Russia. He is made leader.

16 November: New French Prime Minister: Clemenceau.

20 November: British victory at Cambrai using 381 tanks.

21 November: Russia asks Germany for peace.

5 December: Armistice between Germany and Russia.

7 December: USA declares war on Austria-Hungary.

9 December: Jerusalem captured by British.

22 December: Russia and Germany start peace negotiations.

31 December: Germans attack at Cambrai using flame-throwers.

cont.

1918

8 January: President Wilson announces a 14 point peace plan.

3 March: Russia signs peace treaty with Central Powers at Brest-Litovsk.

21 March: German offensive on Western Front begins with attack on Somme.

14 April: General Foch is appointed Commander-in-Chief of Allied forces on the Western Front.

23 April: Guatemala declares war on Germany.

7 May: Rumania signs peace treaty with Central Powers.

27 May: Germans break through Allied line on the Marne.

1 June: US troops drive back Germans at Chateau-Thierry.

14 June: German offensive on Western Front ends.

15 July: New German offensive on Western Front. It is to be their last.

18 July: Allied counter-offensive on Western Front.

8 August: Allies advance to River Rhine.

18 August: British advance in Flanders begins.

11 September: Allies break through Hindenburg Line.

26 September: New Allied offensive on Western Front.

30 September: Bulgarians sign armistice. British enter Sofia.

1 October: Ludendorff asks German government to negotiate for peace.

2 October: British capture Damascus.

3 October: French capture St. Quentin.

4 October: Germans ask for armistice.

8 October: Hindenburg Line captured.

24 October: Italians defeat Austrians in Battle of Vittorio Veneto.

25 October: Scheer recalls U-boats.

29 October: German sailors mutiny.

30 October: Turkey signs armistice.

31 October: War in the Middle East ends.

2 November: Hungary declares her independance.

3 November: Austria signs an armistice.

7 November: Hungary signs armistice.

9 November: Kaiser Wihelm II abdicates from throne of Germany. Germany becomes a republic.

11 November: Armistice with Germany signed by Allies. Fighting on Western Front ends at 11 a.m.

29 November: King Nicholas of Montenegro deposed. Montenegro unites with Serbia.

Notable Figures of The First World War

Viscount Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby (1861-1936): Served on the Western Front 1914-1917, starting as a brilliant cavalry officer. In 1917, he became commander of the British Army in the Middle East and in October-December advanced from the Gaza-Beersheba line to Jerusalem. He conquered Palestine and went on to capture Damascus on October 1918, after which the Turks sought peace.

Earl Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930): British statesman. He was First Lord of the Admirality from 1915, and as such was criticized for the way in which the outcome of the Battle of Jutland was made public. As Foreign Minister in 1916, he negotiated with the U.S. government about plans for the American entry into the war. It was he who stated in 1917 that Britain favored the setting up of a national home for the Jews in Palestine after the war.

Earl David Beatty (1871-1936): British admiral. At the war's start sailed into Heligoland Bight and sank three German cruisers. In January 1915, he chased German battle cruisers in the North Sea and sank the Blucher. At the Battle of Jutland, his battle cruisers fought the hardest sea action of the war. He succeeded Lord Jellicoe as Commander-in-Chief of the grand fleet in 1916 and became First Sea Lord in 1919. For his services at Jutland he was award 100,000 pounds and an earldom.

Louis Botha (1862-1919): South African general and statesman. First Premier of South Africa 1910-1919. He declared war on Germany in 1914, and agreed to the invasion of German Southwest Africa by the forces of the Union of South Africa. This provoked a revolt among the South Africans themselves, which he suppressed. In July 1915, German Southwest Africa was taken by his forces. He attended the peace talks at Versailles, but died on his return to South Africa and was succeeded by Smuts.

Alexei Alexeievich Brusilov (1853-1926): Russian Commander-in-Chief, June-August 1917. Brusilov's Offensive against the Austro-Hungarians in June-August 1916 was immensely successful, disposing of 600,000 enemy troops killed and captured.

cont.

Aristide Briand (1862-1932): Prime Minister of France from 1915 to 1917. In all, he was eleven times Prime Minister, 16 times Foreign Minister, three times Minister of Justice, four times Minister of the Interior, and twice minister of Education. As Foreign Minister, he strongly supported the League of Nations. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926.

Edith Louisa Cavell (1865-1915): British nurse. Was in charge of a hospital in Brussels in 1915 when German troops occupied the city; she helped 200 Allied soldiers to escape across the border to Holland. When the Germans arrested her, she admitted what she had done, and was executed by a firing squad.

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965): British First Lord of the Admirality in World War One. The attack at Gallipoli was his idea and when it failed he resigned, but, in 1917, became Minister of Munitions. During the 20s and 30s, he was out of office and out of political favor but in 1940 he became Prime Minister, steering his country through the years of defeat to victory in 1945. The Labour Party won the election in that year but in 1951, at the age of 77, Churchill became Prime Minister for the second time.

Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): Prime Minister of France, 1906-09, and 1917-20. He was a great speaker and an aggressive politician, nicknamed "The Tiger". He presided at the Peace Conference in 1919.

Enver Pasha (1881-1922): Leader of the Young Turks, whom he joined while he was in the Turkish Army. He made himself Minister of War in 1914, becoming more and more powerful as the war progressed. In 1915, he conducted a disastrous offensive on the Russo-Turkish border. When Turkey collapsed, he fled first to Germany and then to Russia.

Ferdinand Foch (1851-1929): French marshal. Proved himself a skilled strategist in battles on the Western Front and in 1918 became Commander-in-Chief of all the Allied armies on the Western Front. Under his direction, the great final German offensive was checked and turned at the Marne in 1918, and he followed this with the Allied offensives that led to victory.

Anthony Hermann Gerard Fokker (1890-1939): Dutch pilot and airplane builder. By 1913, he owned two airplane factories in Germany and during the war he supplied the German army with Fokker biplanes and triplanes. After the war, he established other factories in the U.S., Holland, and Spain.

George V (1865-1936): King of Britain, friend and supporter of Haig during the war. He spoke out against the clamour to "Hang the Kaiser" after the war.

Douglas Haig (1861-1928): Field Marshal, Commander-in-Chief of British forces on the Western Front from 1915. To some, he seemed to be incensitive to casualties, to others, he was a dedicated proffessional soldier who stuck to the task of Germany in a war of attrition.

cont.

I was just wondering how we were going to tackle the idea of Economics, as the state of an economy is going to affect the level of military build-up each country can do. Otherwise, It'll just end up as "who can build the most", which doesn't have as much scope for RP. I was quite looking forward to RPing things like a Global Depression or destroying another economy through blockades and stuff. :)

Also, I'm working on a factbook for my Japan Circa 1900, just organising the military for easier reference.

Paul von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg (1847-1934): German general who retired in 1911 and was recalled for World War I. With Ludendorff won victories over the Russians at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes at the age of 67. Moved to the Western Front with Ludendorff in 1916 and they were in charge of Germany's last offensive in 1918. Hindenburg was a national hero after the war and became President of the new republic in 1925-34.

Earl John Rushworth Jellicoe (1859-1935): British admiral. After an active and heroic career starting as a naval cadet, Jellicoe became Third Sea Lord in 1908, and at the war's start he was made Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. At the battle of Jutland in 1916, he was not prepared to run the risk of losing the war in order to destroy the German fleet and, afterwards, he was heavily critisized and relieved of his command, being made First Sea Lord. Yet he was awarded the Order of Merit and later both Houses of Parliament voted their thanks to him; he was also granted 50,000 pounds.

Joseph Jacques Cesaire Joffre (1852-1931): French Commander-in-Chief 1914-1916; said to have saved Paris in 1914, a gifted soldier who aroused jealousy of other generals. Replaced by Nivelle and made Marshal of France.

Alexander Kerensky (1881-1970): A Socialist, took a leading role in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became Premier of Russia in July. When the Communists took over in the "October Revolution" in November 1917, he fled to France. In 1940 he immigrated to the USA and died there.

Earl Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1850-1916): Victor for Britain at Omdurman in 1898, was made Secretary of State for War in August 1914. Won great praise for the way he built up the British Army. Drowned on his way to Russia when HMS Hampshire struck a mine.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924): who changed his surname from Ulyanov, was a Marxist revolutionary from his student days. In 1905 he took a leading role in revolt and afterwards had to live abroad. He settle in Switzerland and from there returned to Russia after the February Revolution of 1917. When the Communists seized power in November, Lenin became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and, within two weeks, he asked Germany for peace. Throughout the civil war of 1918-1921, Lenin retained power in the face of constant opposition. He died of brain disease and his body lies in a mausoleum in Red Square, Moscow.

cont

Hmm. I've been thinking...

Should we start at 1900? Or shake things up by starting right at the beginning of WW I?


That aside, do you guys have any recommendations for an alternate history path for the Boxer Rebellion? I was thinking of focusing on fighting Russia, then Japan as they appear to be the major threats. The USA, England, France, etc. are too far away to be of a major threat, as they'd have to sail over 8,000+ miles or take railroads for 5,000+ miles.

Would it be a good idea for me to employ different tactics in fighting aganist Russia, and push out its 100,000 troops, then work on the other powers / militaries like Japan, England, USA, etc stationed in China?

Then by that time, WW I starts up?

Would that work? Let me know! :)

Earl David Lloyd George (1863-1945): Prime Minister of Britain, 1916-22. He made his name as a dynamic Liberal politician and after becoming Minister of Munitions and Secretary of State for War, he replaced Asguith as Premier. Known as "the man who won the war", he played a leading role in the Peace Settlement, but at home he lost support and never held office again.

Erich von Ludendorff (1865-1937): German general, won battles of Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes on Eastern Front, 1914. He worked with Hindenburg because he was considered too young to command alone. After their success against Russia, they were moved to the Western Front in 1916 and directed Germany's final offensives in 1918.

August von Mackensen (1849-1945): German Field-Marshal. Fought in the Franco-Prussian war. At the start of the First World War, he commanded the 9th Army on the Eastern Front, with several victories against the Russians. In 1916, his army overan Serbia, and invaded Rumania.

Baron Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim (1867-1951): Finnish soldier and statesman, joined the Russian Army in 1889 and was a general on the Eastern Front in World War One. After the Russian Revolution, Finland became an independant country, and Mannerheim went home to raise an army to fight the Communists. He drove back the Communist forces with the aid of 9000 Germans in early 1918. Mannerheim retired in 1919 but in 1939-40 Finland was again threatened by Russia and he returned to command the Finnish forces. He was Commander-in-Chief 1939-44 and President of Finland 1944-46.

Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918): succeeded to the throne of Imperial Russia in 1894. By nature well-intentioned, he proved to be a deplorable ruler, forever wavering between half-hearted reforms and old-fashioned tyranny. During the war, he foolishly took over command of Russia's armies, allowing home affairs to be mis-managed by the Tsarina, who herself was dominated by a sinister monk named Rasputin. In 1918, the Tsar and his family were put to death by their Communist guards.

Robert Georges Nivelle (1856-1924): French general. Made his name in October-December 1916 when he recaptured forts in the Verdun area. He was made Commander-in-Chief in December 1916 but in May 1917 his offensive at Aisne failed and he was superseded by Petain.

cont

Hmm. I've been thinking...
<snip>



I personally would prefer to start in 1900 because:
A) I may not go into China this time
B) We may avoid WWI or it may happen at a later time

John Joseph Pershing (1860-1948): Commander of the US expiditionary force to Europe in 1917, having commanded an expidition to Mexico against Francisco Villa in 1916. He directed the first entirely American operation of the war in Europe in 1918, and in 1919, Congress recreated and gave to Pershing the rank of General of the Armies, held previously only my Washington.

Henri Philippe Omer Petain (1856-1951): Took over command in the Battle of Verdun, 1916, and became a national hero. In 1917 became Commander-in-Chief of the French Army. In post-war years, he supported the Maginot Line which was by-passed by the Germans in World War II. When France was overun in 1940, Petain became Prime Minister and made peace with the Germans. At the end of the war, he was tried for treason and sentenced to death. The sentence was changed to life imprisonment and he died in prison.

Raymond Poincare (1860-1934): French statesman, President of France 1913-20, he was also three times Prime Minister before and after the war.

Gregory Efimovitch Rasputin (1871-1916): Russian monk who from 1907 had influence over Tsar Nicholas II and his wife. He was hated by most Russians, including the nobility, and was murdered by a party of noblemen.

Reinhard Scheer (1863-1928): German admiral, commanded the German High Seas Fleet 1916-18, was in command at the Battle of Jutland.

Jan Christiaan Smuts (1870-1950): South African statesman and field-marshal. Fought in the Boer War and in 1916 led Allied forces against the Germans in German East Africa, leaving in 1917 to represent South Africa at the Imperial War Conference. At the Paris Peace Conference, he became one of the authors of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Prime Minister of South Africa 1919-24 and 1939-48.

Count Maximilian von Spee (1861-1914): German admiral, in late 1914 commander of the commerce-raiding force in the Pacific Ocean. In battle with a British squadron, he sank two warships. A force was sent to find him and he was brought to battle off the Falkland Islands. Six out of his eight ships were destroyed and von Spee went down with his flagship.

cont

Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930): German admiral. As Secretary of State for the German Navy 1897-1916, he raised a navy to challenge Britain's supremacy on the seas. He was Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy from August 1914 to March 1916, a ruthless advocate of unrestricted U-boat warfare.

Leon Trotsky, born Lev Davidovich Bronstein (1879-1940): A Russian Jewish revolutionary. After the rising in 1905, Trotsky lived abroad until returning to Russia in 1917. In the civil war of 1918-21, he raised an army of five million men for the Communists, but was forced into exile by Stalin, and was murdered by a Communist agent in Mexico.

Wilhelm II (1859-1941): Emperor of Germany 1888-1918, who personified the German generals desire for military glory and colonies. Having sacked Bismarck early in his reign, he supported von Tirpitz's plan for a navy to match Britain's and encouraged Austria-Hungary in her demands against Serbia. But he tried to draw back when he saw a world war was going to occur. During the war, he was only a figure-head, but was obliged to abdicate in November 1918. He died in exile in Holland.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924): President of the United States 1913-21. Preserved US neutrality until Germany declared unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1917 and began sinking US ships. Early in 1918, produced a 14-point peace plan which encouraged Germany to ask for an armistice. Was largely responsible for the establishment of the League of Nations and bitterly disappointed when Congress refused to allow the US to become a member.


Well, that's about it, I think. Feel free to add to the list if you feel so inclined. :)

I was just wondering how we were going to tackle the idea of Economics, as the state of an economy is going to affect the level of military build-up each country can do. Otherwise, It'll just end up as "who can build the most", which doesn't have as much scope for RP. I was quite looking forward to RPing things like a Global Depression or destroying another economy through blockades and stuff. :)

Also, I'm working on a factbook for my Japan Circa 1900, just organising the military for easier reference.

Its a very good question, and unfortunatly one which I have no ready answer for. Does anyone have any ideas?

I personally would prefer to start in 1900 because:
A) I may not go into China this time
B) We may avoid WWI or it may happen at a later time

I agree. That 14 years allows for variations on history too juicy to pass up, I think. I would even go so far as to suggest we start earlier, say 1875.

I agree. That 14 years allows for variations on history too juicy to pass up, I think. I would even go so far as to suggest we start earlier, say 1875.

Just throwing an idea up in the air, but if we were to start even earlier than that in 1860, then that opens up possibilities regarding the American Civil War - i.e. what if the Confederate States had succeeded in seceeding? It would be interesting to see the development of a world where North America had two power blocks, particularly as many European nations where better disposed to the Confederates (Britain especially)

But I have no problem in keeping with the 1900 start date. :)

I agree. That 14 years allows for variations on history too juicy to pass up, I think. I would even go so far as to suggest we start earlier, say 1875.

Hmm... 1875?

Hell, why not 1850? So we can split up the USA into the Union States and the Confederate States? :p

Hmm... 1875?

Hell, why not 1850? So we can split up the USA into the Union States and the Confederate States? :p

Hey, I just said that. :P

Holy shit, that's a lovely idea. :eek:

Well, I for one would support an 1850 start date. I don't know about the others though...

I believe the Confederates could have won the war if they played their cards right aganist General McCellan. IIRC, the Union intercepted secret messages between the Confederates, which possibly cost the Confederates the war.

If the Confederates knew what General McCellan was up to, they could have forced him to retreat, thus buying the CSA time to win the war (outright or via foreign intervention).

I believe the Confederates could have won the war if they played their cards right aganist General McCellan. IIRC, the Union intercepted secret messages between the Confederates, which possibly cost the Confederates the war.

If the Confederates knew what General McCellan was up to, they could have forced him to retreat, thus buying the CSA time to win the war (outright or via foreign intervention).

I wonder if Hrst'll warm to the idea? I think it sounds pretty good. :) Also creates another nation to be played as.

Not sure how Generic Empire'll feel about us taking away half his country, though... :)

Myself, I'd vote for 1900 as a starting date, although if I had to choose between earlier or later I'd definitely choose earlier.
If, for instance, we were to start with a North America divided into a Union and a Confederacy, the question of how to handle economics would become extremely important. It was a political and cultural aversion to industrialization that crippled the South's ability to wage the war, after all, despite its superior commanders. Had they won, their culturally endemic quasi-feudal racial caste system and its inevitable emphasis on primary production rather than industry would probably have led them down a developmental path more similar to Latin America than to the present United States.
Economic and technological development is going to be pretty damn important anyway, though, as this is, essentially, set during the latter days of the Industrial Revolution. And we don't have any neutral referents, such as imperfect-but-handy Thirdgeek, to tell us the effects (and effectiveness) of our policies.
I'll ponder over the weekend, and see if I can't identify some basic guidelines and issues regarding industrialization. I think if we can come up with a short list of generalizations about policy effects in various contexts, it'll at least give us something to go on.
Of course, ideally we'd have a system like NS's Dilemmas, where you have to make decisions based on your (in character) values without necessarily knowing what the result will be.

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I think we should extend the time to 1840. This way, North America is still up in the air for everyone. Texas is free (and if we all decide this I claim Texas in advance. ;) ), and Mexico still holds what is now California, I think. If we all decide the Civil War will break out, then the CSA is formed early and we get all kinds of crazy alliances.

If we went back to 1840, though, the map of Europe would be changed drastically, and a lot of us who signed on there (such as me) might find ourselves out of a country.

That is true, I suppose, so maybe we should go back only to, say, 1875. By then we have Europe close to its position in 1900, I think, but still plenty of room for upsets and strange powers rising.

How about a compromise between the 1900 people and the 1850-60s people?

I say 1870, because then we can do the Franco-Prussian war, and change European and world history in a big way. Depending on who wins, there may never be a World War I or II. Or the Great War could take place under vastly different circumstances. It's really up in the air.

Whoever signed up as Germany could play as Prussia until the 1871 unification, I guess. And if we do the Franco-Prussian war, I'll probably be sending a group of Boer volunteers to Germany, since not a whole lot is happening at the Cape at this point in time :p .

A don't think that altering the start date too much is a good idea. A lot of research and preparation has gone into the original start date nations and there are bound to be some map difference with an earlier date. 1900 gives a good start time with a nice technology base and developed militaries. For example the Japanese Navy before 1890 only consisted of 7 large ships comared to the 30 of 1900 and thats only over a distance of a decade. imagine how small the militaries of some pre 1870 contries are. The original idea was to "replay" and alternative hostory of the 20th century not the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of the resistance movements (eg. my Irish and Malkyer's South African) wouldn't have even existed in the 1870's let alone the 1850's. The South African Boers even fought alongside the British against the Zulu race in 1879.

As you Americans say: "Just my 2 cents"

Yeah, I'd still vote against any change of date. If a compromise is really necessary, I'd suggest that people who want to start earlier set up independent, player-specific RP's, the results of which could then be incorporated, on a case-by-case basis, into the general E20 thread.
Even that, though, might be monkeying around with history a little more than some other signatories might be comfortable with. I mean, what happens if the Germans lose the Franco-Prussian War? A total change of the global balance of power is what. Or if the Commune of Paris takes over the French government? A continent-wide war in the 1850's to stamp out Communism is what. Regardless of the outcome, that would undoubtedly have some pretty far-reaching results for the rest of us--especially Russia.
Besides, if somebody really desperately wanted to play, as an example, the Confederacy, they could always sign on as a nonstate white-supremacist independence movement with the objective of making sure the South really did rise again. Like the Klan.
Anyway. I don't mean to come across as vehement or aggro or anything, and I hope I'm not.

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I need help looking up information on the Korean military. The only information I can find is that from the 1500s, and that doesn't help much. If no one can find any information, should I just have a small military (50,000 troops, like 7 ships, a few artillery pieces)? Or will I have to build one from scratch after the RP begins?

Also, for the economies, I think we should just have the ref say what the GDP per capita of each nation is, after they provide, say, an end-of-the-week report on all of their policies for those two years and what's going on. A nation that is modernising is going to grow faster than a similar nation that is not modernising. A fully modern nation is going to be better than a less modern nation in economic terms. Once nations modernise, we can give them all a base economic growth rate--say 3%--to grow or decline based on the world around the nation. If the nation is blockaded by the world and the world is going into a ref-initiated depression, it is going to suffer. If the ref decides the world is undergoing boom times, and the nation has many trade pacts, it will grow faster. So the ref is not only in place to decide which nations grows, shrinks, or is stagnant, but also initiates world-wide events like war-related depressions. He doesn't start the war, but he projects the economic effects of the war onto the world. Or, perhaps we can have two refs: one for military, and one for the economy. Ideas?

i need help too, Wikipedia mentions Luxembourg 1863, then it tripps out and comes back in WWII

Here's an idea and a good compromise...

We can still start in 1900, but split up the USA into the Union and Confederate States. That way, we can have an interesting Earth, instead of "USA becomes Superpower! RAWRRR!".

By the way, do any of you guys know or read Harry Turtledove novels? I have all of them, and he does a damn fine job of "RP'ing" the Union and Confederates all the way from Civil War to WW II (He's starting WW II in that universe now, finished his 1st book of his WW II trilogy).

Here's an idea and a good compromise...

We can still start in 1900, but split up the USA into the Union and Confederate States. That way, we can have an interesting Earth, instead of "USA becomes Superpower! RAWRRR!".

I think thats gonna have to be up to Generic Empire, because he controls the USA right now.

snip

That's the great thing about an alternate history, though. The USA may not become an "OMG SUP3RP0\/\/3r!!!!1", as there might not be a WWII and Cold War. Any nation, theoretically, could do that. Hell, maybe even me.

The original idea was to "replay" and alternative hostory of the 20th century not the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of the resistance movements (eg. my Irish and Malkyer's South African) wouldn't have even existed in the 1870's let alone the 1850's.

Just for the record, Irish republicanism was very active in the 1800's so of course the Irish resistance movement would be in place, because it has been in place for 800 years now. Wolfe Tone was a major leader in the 2nd half of the 1800's.

Also, for the economies, I think we should just have the ref say what the GDP per capita of each nation is, after they provide, say, an end-of-the-week report on all of their policies for those two years and what's going on. A nation that is modernising is going to grow faster than a similar nation that is not modernising. A fully modern nation is going to be better than a less modern nation in economic terms. Once nations modernise, we can give them all a base economic growth rate--say 3%--to grow or decline based on the world around the nation. If the nation is blockaded by the world and the world is going into a ref-initiated depression, it is going to suffer. If the ref decides the world is undergoing boom times, and the nation has many trade pacts, it will grow faster. So the ref is not only in place to decide which nations grows, shrinks, or is stagnant, but also initiates world-wide events like war-related depressions. He doesn't start the war, but he projects the economic effects of the war onto the world. Or, perhaps we can have two refs: one for military, and one for the economy. Ideas?
That's not too dissimilar from what I came around to while pondering about it. Theories of economic development are all highly controversial, and inevitably warped by political ideology, so just coming up with a set of rules would be equally controversial and warped. I might suggest a Panel of Economic Moderators, though, rather than a single Referee: one Left, one Right, and one Center (as president with the power to issue final rulings). That would allow for there to be some appreciation for the various diverse paths that nations have taken towards modernization (and dependency). That would also split up the workload. I suspect that, once people have an idea of what kind of resources they have, both technological advancement and military strength will more-or-less follow naturally, but it may be a good idea to at least make provisions for naming Refs for those fields as well.
Maybe that's going overboard on organization, but that's my zwei Pfennig.
I don't know, that might be going overboard.
Oh yeah, and the Turtledove novels are reactionary swill for racist apologists. So says

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I would prefer to stick with the 1900 timeline myself. As far as economics goes... there is plenty of information on the net on population, and some digging will also give you information on how your nation doing economically at any given time. Regardless of your political view (Left, Right or in the middle), historical economic conditions are pretty easy to find out. Predicting is another thing.

The main thing is that your country either has resources, or it doesn't. If it isn't a Western nation, it also has very high illiteracy rates (I consider Japan a Western country for this purpose), a small or nonexistant middle class (where you get not only your business people, but also your revolutionaries in practically every case you care to name). In other words, without resources and a vast population of peasants (percentage wise) becoming a Western type industrial power is really, really hard. Japan is the exception that proves the rule on that one. Look at the Latin America, were industrialization is still uneven and limited in many of those nations, and they threw the Spanish out (or seperated peacefully from Portugal in Brazils case) in the 1820s and 1830s. The conditions for industrialization simply aren't there.

As far as the US not being a superpower if the CSA wins the Civil War (that is, survives). Well the North has 90% of the industry, twice the population (and even more by 1900 according to census data), all of the resources it needs except Oil (which would give the South something to sell besides cotton eventually). The South with slavery would still be an agrian cash crop economic dependency of either Great Britain or the North or both. Little more than a Banana Republic effectively. Being Southern, and a Texan myself, it pains me to say so, but the CSA winning the Civil War would have been even a greater economic disaster eventually than losing it turned out to be (setting aside the Racial issues, a much more complex issue). My theory is that a US that loses the Civil War focuses all efforts earlier on the transcontinental railroad (to avoid losing California and Oregon to seperatism and to keep an eye on those Mormons in Utah), and the US still proceeds as it did in the 1890s. In other words, it flexes its muscles and joins the Big Powers like Britain and France and Germany. The USA simply doesn't need the South to become the biggest industrial power on the planet by 1900. The book "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" will give you the stats on that one.

Actually Turtledove isn't bad, and he is very hard on the South and its racist policies. Having read all of them I can attest to that (although I can't really recomend any of them except Guns of the South). I sharply disagree with some of his projections regarding the North and South as well, but that is another thread.

Basically, although it would probably benefit me (playing Spain) to have a Colonial Empire in the 19th Century, I think we should stick to the 1900 start.

My opinion anyway.

Japan is the exception that proves the rule on that one.

Well, Japan went through a huge modernisation under the Meiji Emperor that involved an expansion in trade policies, massive investment in education and industry, and the development and purchase of numerous ocean-going vessels following their period of seclusion.

i think a 1900 is a best bet, its a nice round date for people and marks the turn of the century. also the date of many records, not many survive from countries earlier than that.

anyone know whats up in the middle east at the moment, i have a vague idea but not too great.

Spooty:

I found a bit about Luxembourg for you. There's not a lot out there though:

In 1846 the army increased to 1,602 men divided into two light infantry battalions. The reserve comprised two companies totaling 533 men and a 267-strong depot company. The first battalion was garrisoned in ECHTERNACH and the second in DIEKIRCH.

In 1866, the Austro-Prussian war resulted in the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation. When the Treaty of London was signed at the London Conference on 11 May 1867, the Grand Duchy ceased to belong to the Germanic Confederation. Luxembourg was declared a neutral nation.

The Prussian garrison left the fortress in 1867 and on 9 September of the same year the two Luxembourg light infantry battalions entered the capital.

The new corps established under the law of 16 February 1881 marked the beginnings of the wholly national Luxembourg Army.

The Gendarmes and Volunteers Corps were also established to act as a militia and comprised two companies under a single command:
a 125-strong company of gendarmes;
a company of volunteers garrisoned in Luxembourg comprising 140 - 170 privates and NCOs.
In times of crisis, the strength could increase to 250.

The officer corps numbered 9 officers:

1 major (commanding officer)
2 captains (company commanders)
4 - 6 subalterns.

The military band comprised 39 musicians including its director of music.

After 1881, the military organization remained unchanged until 1938 when the Grand Ducal decree of 30 September increased the number of volunteers to 300.

So in summary in 1900:
Main army, ~1600 men in 2 batallions plus 800 reserves
Militia types, ~300 men and up to 380 in times of crisis
Military Band, 39 men

The military organisation appears to be heavilt British based as it includes lance-corporals which, I think, only appear in British based armies. The main military camps were at ECHTERNACH and DIEKIRCH as previously. There was no structure for the high command as one never existed at this time but you can safely assume that if it did appear in an alternative history it would be based on the British system.


FluffyWuffy, i'll keep an eye open for Korean info for you.

Thank you, Lesser Ribena. I appreciate your help in looking for Korean stats. :)

Galveston Bay, your response to my needlessly inflammatory comments on Turtledove was apallingly mature--how dare you, sir, how dare you! Keep that up and you'll give Texas a good name.
Seriously, though, we're in agreement on the probable development of a hypothetical Confederacy, as well as, I think, economic development in general. Discovering data is easy, as you point out; prediction is where ideology tends to intrude. As you rightly bring up, though, modernization is highly dependent on social conditions and resources existing within a country--I think one of the reasons why Japan was able to modernize while China is still playing catch-up is that the Japanese had a much stronger central authority, with a Divine Emperor whose prestige was capable of breaking the power of the traditional conservative elites and achieving radical reform--there were rebellions, of course, but they were relatively minor and ineffective. It's hard enough to justify treason, but even harder to justify waging war against a god.
The Manchu dynasty, on the other hand, was reviled and oppressive, with endemic corruption in its administration and no prestige whatsoever.
The social conditions for industrialization can be created by state policy, though--regardless of what you think of their methods, the Bolsheviks really did modernize Russia in a way that Tsarist regime probably never could have, given its necessary prejudices and allegiances. And despite their ultimate failure to build a sustainable political economy, the Soviet achievements in modernization should not be underestimated, let alone dismissed, simply because they don't fit well into the laissez-faire model of development. That's what I was getting at with my comments on ideology. I mean, I'm no Marxist, but I do think the Washington Consensus is biased pretty far away from reality.
Anyway. Whoever handles industrialization questions should at least be a good historian.

I remain,
Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I'm assuming even if we choose a state, in example, Chad. We aren't going to be stuck with a poor and basically corrupt state for the whole game right? We can have reforms and modernization policies right?

If so, I'd like to be Thailand.

FAMOUS PEOPLE FROM WWI

T.E .Laurence (laurence of Arabia)
Thomas Edward Lawrence (August 16, 1888 – May 19, 1935), also known as Lawrence of Arabia, and (apparently, among his Arab allies) Aurens or Al-Aurens, became famous for his role as a British liaison officer during the Arab Revolt of 1916–1918. His very public image was in some part the result of U.S. traveller and journalist Lowell Thomas's sensationalized reportage of the Revolt, as well as Lawrence's autobiographical account, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Many Arabs consider him a folk hero for promoting their cause for freedom from both Ottoman and European rule; likewise, many Britons count him among their country's greatest war heroes.

*Cries*

1) The starting date for the game is 1900; and not withstanding a vote by the entire Community will remain so. The reason I choose 1900 was because the 20th Century was the most pivotal 100 years in the history of mankind - no period in our history has witnessed such change & development. It can be equally said that the period before 1900 was just as instrumental to our time-period [the causes of WW1 were sown in the 19th Century, but reaped in the 20th Century], but thats neither here nor there. We are for the 20th Century.

2) Economics - I am crap at Economics. It just doesnt make sense to me - I slept my way through Business Studies class during High School. It'll take my some time to grasp the basic factors, but until then I am not a prime candidate for Vas Pokhoronim's Panel of Economic Moderators - which I feel is the best way to go. We could work out some basic model suitable to us, something not too complex so we can work out a rough idea of GDP.

And not to drag up the past, but are we all agreed on the time-flow? [1 week=1 NS year]

Aiight.

I guess we're still keeping the 1900 timeframe, and the 1 week = 1 NS year timescale.

I've been thinking about how to alternate-history China in this RP. I could have a new leader emerge, or RP the decision of the Imperial Family differently. I know I have to push out Russia and Japan, as England, USA, France, etc. are too far away to commit any sizable force. After dealing with Russia + Japan, I can turn my attention on kicking out the other foreigner militaries and influences.

Then I can start working on how to modernize China, put it at par with Japan for possibly some nice RP during WW I, between WW I - II, and then during WW II.

Would that be workable and believable?


The reason I chose China is because I've always wondered if a 4,000+ year old civilization with extremely rich culture, tradition, and history would be able to conquer Russia and the dozen other Asian countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangledesh, Mongolia, etc. I would be fulfuilling Genghis Khan's goal, with far more stability and efficiency than he originally did way back during the Mongol Hordes.

But who's to say that a Second or even First World War sill take place? As this is an alternate history, both wars could be avoided all-together or we culd see more world conflicts. Anything goes really, we can't predict things.

The Manchu dynasty would definetly be for the chopping block Sharina. The corruption, decadence and unpopularity of the Manchu's, coupled with their appeasement [because they were too weak to do anything] of the Westerners should be enough to see them ousted. I'm in favour of a new leader emerging.

Kang Youwei
b. March 19, 1858, Guangdong province, China
d. March 31, 1927, Qingdao, Shandong province
Chinese scholar, a leader of the Reform Movement of 1898 and a key figure in the intellectual development of modern China. During the last years of the empire and the early years of the republic he sought to promote Confucianism as an antidote against "moral degeneration" and indiscriminate westernization.
Kang Youwei came from a scholarly gentry family in the district of Nanhai in Guangdong province. His teacher imbued him with the Confucian ideal of service to society, and his study of Buddhism impressed him with its spirit of compassion. He rebelled against convention, Neo-Confucian authoritarianism, and the demands of the civil service examination system. After reading about the outside world, he came to admire Western civilization. In the 1880s he began to conceive some of his basic ideas: ideas of historical progress, social equality, a world government, and the nature of the universe.

Kang's first venture in social reform was in 1883, when he tried to abolish in his village the custom of foot-binding imposed on women. The decay of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911/12) prompted Kang and other concerned Chinese to urge fundamental institutional reforms. After his plans for the salvation of China--submitted in 1888 to the Qing court--were ignored, Kang set out to convert the educated class to his views and to arouse the people from their lethargy. In 1890 he opened a school in Canton to teach new learning. Assisted by his students, among whom was Liang Qichao, who collaborated in his reform movement, he wrote The Forged Classics (1891), which reveals that the Confucian classics held sacrosanct as bases of the state cult had been tampered with in the Han period (206 BC-ad 220). This book was followed by Confucius as a Reformer (1897), which expounded Kang's belief that Confucius was concerned with contemporary problems and stood for change and that the progress of mankind was inevitable. His interpretation of Confucian teachings and researches on ancient texts later inspired modern scholarship in the reappraisal of China's past, although critics have charged that he invoked Confucius to further his aims and was undermining the established way of life.

When China was defeated by Japan in 1895, Kang mobilized hundreds of provincial graduates then in Peking to protest against the humiliating peace terms and to petition for far-reaching reforms to strengthen the empire. To arouse the people to the dangers confronting China, he and his associates published newspapers and founded the Society for the Study of National Strengthening, the archetype of political parties in modern China. The society was suppressed in 1896.

In 1898, when foreign powers threatened to partition China, K'ang and his followers suggested an alliance with Britain and Japan to check Russia's advance and insisted that only institutional reforms could save China. He urged the clearing of channels for the expression of public opinion, the convocation of assemblies, and even the acceptance of popular sovereignty and the separation of state powers, and he organized the Society to Preserve the Nation to marshal support. Finally, he prevailed upon the emperor Guangxu to launch the reform program. Among the many measures that were promulgated were the streamlining of the government, strengthening of the armed forces, new standards in the civil service examination system, the development of commerce and industry, the promotion of local self-government, and the opening of Peking University and modern schools.

The reform measures were annulled, however, when the dowager empress Cixi reasserted control. The emperor was placed in confinement, six of the reform leaders, including Kang's brother, were executed, and scores were arrested. Kang and Liang Qichao escaped to Japan. Unable to persuade the Japanese and British governments to intervene for the emperor, Kang went to Canada and founded the China Reform Association (popularly known as the Save the Emperor Association and in 1907 renamed the Constitutional Party) to carry on his plans.

After the failure of the revolts instigated by the reformers in 1900 in Anhui and Hubei provinces to restore the emperor, Kang resumed his writing in exile. His most significant work completed at this time was The Great Commonwealth, in which he envisaged a utopian world attainable through successive stages of human development, a world where the barriers of race, religion, state, class, sex, and family would be removed and where there would be an egalitarian, communal society under a universal government.

Kang emerged from his retreat in 1903. To help the overseas Chinese and to unite them in a common effort, he and his colleagues founded an international business firm and established schools and newspapers. These activities, conducted in the United States, Mexico, Japan, and Southeast Asia, brought them into sharp competition with the Chinese revolutionists.

During his exile, Kang traveled extensively. His stay in Europe and his study of Western history moved him to shun the violence and destructiveness of revolution as means of political change, and he proposed as an alternative course the promotion of science, technology, and industry to rebuild China.

After his return in 1914 to a weak and troubled China, he was soon involved in the campaign to thwart the monarchical scheme of the Chinese statesman Yuan Shikai. In 1917, in line with his idea of a constitutional monarchy to bridge the transition to a truly democratic republic, he participated in the abortive restoration of the Qing ruler. In the years that followed, animated by the fear of a divided country, he opposed the South China government of the revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925). He called for the preservation of the best of China's heritage and the establishment of a reformed Confucian Church to provide the people with spiritual guidance. Partisan writers have criticized him for holding to these views. In his later years, he renewed his philosophic reflections, completing his last book, The Heavens, in which he blends astronomy with his own metaphysical musing, a year before his death at Qingdao in 1927.

Besides prolific writings on the Chinese classics, politics, and economics, Kang also left travel accounts and an anthology of his poems; he was also a famous calligrapher.

Liang Qichao
b. Feb. 23, 1873, Xinhui, Guangdong province, China
d. Jan. 19, 1929, Beijing
The foremost intellectual leader of China in the first two decades of the 20th century.
Liang was a disciple of the great scholar Kang Youwei, who reinterpreted the Confucian Classics in an attempt to utilize tradition as a justification for the sweeping innovations he prescribed for Chinese culture. After China's humiliating defeat by Japan (1894-95), the writings of Kang and Liang came to the attention of the emperor and helped usher in the Hundred Days of Reform. During this period (summer 1898) the emperor acted on the advice of these scholars in an attempt to renovate the imperial system. The suggested changes included setting up modern schools, remaking the 2,000-year-old civil service examination system, and reorganizing virtually every activity of the government. When the empress dowager Cixi halted the reform movement because she felt it too inclusive, warrants were issued for the arrest of Kang, Liang, and other reformers. Liang fled to Japan. During his exile his iconoclastic journalism affected a whole generation of young Chinese.

Liang returned to China in 1912 after the establishment of the Republic of China. As a founder of the Progressive Party he sided with Yuan Shikai, the autocratic president of the republic, against the liberal nationalist leader Sun Yat-sen and his Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, Pinyin Guomindang). Liang, however, organized a successful resistance to Yuan's attempt to overturn the republic and have himself declared emperor.

Yuan Shikai
b. 1859, Henan province, China
d. June 6, 1916
Chinese army leader and reformist minister in the twilight of the Manchu (Qing) dynasty (until 1911) and then first president of the Republic of China (1912-16).
Yuan was from a landed military family of Xiangcheng in Henan province. In his youth he showed a propensity for pleasure-seeking and excelled in physical activity rather than scholarship, although he was obviously a man of remarkable astuteness. He failed to win even the lowest of the classical degrees but was to have the distinction of being the first Han Chinese to hold a viceroyalty and to become a grand councillor without any academic qualification. In the last days of the empire, he was made a marquess.

Yuan began his career in the Qing brigade of the Anhui army, commanded by Li Hongzhang, which was dispatched to Korea in 1882 to try to prevent Japanese encroachment in the area. The political crises of that remote kingdom repeatedly offered him opportunities to prove the correctness of his judgment and the promptness of his action, especially in military and economic affairs. In 1885 he was made Chinese commissioner at Seoul, and his energetic and loyal service to the throne contributed to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95.

With the destruction of China's navy and army by Japan in the war, Beijing was exposed to external and internal attack; in consequence, the training of a new army became an urgent task that fell on Yuan. As the division under his command was the only remnant of China's army that survived the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, Yuan's political stature became greater than that of all others, and in 1901 he was given the viceroyalty of the metropolitan province. In that office, and later as a grand councillor, he was to play a decisive part in China's modernization and defense programs; throughout, he enjoyed the trust and unflinching support of the dowager empress, Cixi. On the death of the empress (1908), his opponents, notably the regent for the infant emperor, stripped him of all his offices and sent him home. Nevertheless, when the tide of revolution threatened to engulf the Manchu dynasty, the throne was to need his service once more.

At this critical juncture, Yuan appeared to conservatives and revolutionaries alike as the only man who could lead the country to peace and unity; and so both the emperor in Beijing and the provisional president in Nanjing recommended Yüan to be the first president of China. The treasury then was empty; the provinces were in the hands of local warlords; a permanent constitution was still in the making; and the newly elected National Assembly was, to Yuan, too quarrelsome and too cumbersome for the good of the country. When his plan for a gigantic foreign loan was obstructed by the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) in the National Assembly, he ruthlessly murdered the chairman of the party and undermined the assembly, thus bringing about the revolt against him in 1913. His victory in that struggle marked the end of all hopes for parliamentary democracy in China. Thereafter, he contrived to make himself president for life and then boldly tried to create a new imperial dynasty in 1915-16. Though his aim was to unite the country and to strengthen its central leadership, Yuan's last attempt, ironically, sowed dissension even among the conservative civilian and military forces that had supported him. Widespread opposition, backed by Japan, rose to challenge his authority. Yuan found his European friends preoccupied by World War I and his old lieutenants unwilling to fight.

Lu Xun
b. Sept. 25, 1881, Zhejiang province
d. Oct. 19, 1936, Shanghai
Pen name of Zhou Shuren, writer commonly considered the greatest in Chinese literature of the 20th century.
Although he originally studied to be a doctor, Lu Xun became associated with the nascent Chinese literary movement in 1918, when, at the urging of friends, he published his famous short story "A Madman's Diary." Modeled after Nikolay Gogol's tale of the same title, the tale is a condemnation of traditional Confucian culture which the madman narrator sees as a "man-eating" society. The first Western-style story written wholly in Chinese, it was a tour de force that attracted immediate attention and helped gain acceptance for the short-story form as an effective literary vehicle. "The True Story of Ah Q" (in Chinese, 1921; Eng. trans. in Ah 2 and Others) is a representative work. A mixture of humour and pathos, it is a repudiation of the old order; it added the word Ah Qism to the modern Chinese language as a term characterizing the Chinese penchant to rationalize defeat as a "spiritual victory." Other stories in Na-han (1923; "Call to Arms"), the work that established his reputation as the leading Chinese writer, P'ang-huang (1926; "Hesitation"), and his various symbolic prose-poems, reminiscences, and retold classical tales all reveal a modern sensibility informed by a sardonic humour and biting satire.

Although Lu Xun is better known for his works of fiction, he was also a master of the prose essay, a vehicle he utilized more and more toward the end of his life. His Chung-kuo hsiao-shuo shih-lueh ("Outline History of Chinese Fiction") and companion compilations of classical fiction remain standard works. Translations, largely from the Russian, also occupy a large place in his complete works.

Forced by political circumstances to flee Beijing in 1926, he eventually found sanctuary in the Shanghai International Settlement. Increasingly pessimistic about the political future of China, in the 1930s he began to see the Chinese communists as the only salvation for his country. Although he himself refused to join the party, he became a fellow traveler, recruiting many of his fellow writers and countrymen to the communist cause. Considered a revolutionary hero by present-day Chinese communists, Lu Xun was adopted posthumously as the exemplar of Socialist Realism by the Chinese communist movement.

Final Comment
There is an absolute wealth of information out there on Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, and Mao Zedong. But these biographies (plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I have to admit) might give Sharina a starting point and some ideas. I apologize for the length of the post.

I am privileged to be
Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

Aiight.

I guess we're still keeping the 1900 timeframe, and the 1 week = 1 NS year timescale.

I've been thinking about how to alternate-history China in this RP. I could have a new leader emerge, or RP the decision of the Imperial Family differently. I know I have to push out Russia and Japan, as England, USA, France, etc. are too far away to commit any sizable force. After dealing with Russia + Japan, I can turn my attention on kicking out the other foreigner militaries and influences.

Then I can start working on how to modernize China, put it at par with Japan for possibly some nice RP during WW I, between WW I - II, and then during WW II.

Would that be workable and believable?


The reason I chose China is because I've always wondered if a 4,000+ year old civilization with extremely rich culture, tradition, and history would be able to conquer Russia and the dozen other Asian countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangledesh, Mongolia, etc. I would be fulfuilling Genghis Khan's goal, with far more stability and efficiency than he originally did way back during the Mongol Hordes.

the Dowager Empress (whose name escapes me) is the pivotal leader here....if she were to die, then a rather progressive Chinese Prince could have taken power instead of the little boy who became the Last Emperor when she actually did die. Easiest point of departure I figure for a more effective Chinese Monarchy.

Those pesky Reds are going to be a major impact though in the 1920s

Not sure if this was asked before, but are the alliances such as the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in place or will new ones need to be formed? I know the Triple Alliance came to be around 1882, but the Triple Entente as we know it didn't come to be until 1904, until then it was simply a duel alliance between the Russian Empire and France.

the Dowager Empress (whose name escapes me) is the pivotal leader here
Just to pedantic, the Dowager's name was Cixi.
Not sure if this was asked before, but are the alliances such as the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in place or will new ones need to be formed?
I asked it before, since it's of considerable importance down here in the Balkans. I'd be inclined to presume, however, that all diplomatic treaties and arrangements existing as of 1 January, 1900 will be in force, subject to change by the principals with the appropriate consequences. Anything coming into being after that, though, should probably have to be negotiated. Yes, this means that Russia could become the ally of Germany, and the two together could win the Great War (if it happens--hey, waitasecond, I'm the guy in the Balkans, it's up to me!) along with their hangers-on. Conversely, Germany could end up being partitioned by Austria and France, as its helpless ally Britain looks on.
That's my thought, anyway.

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

Okay, I haven't found much military information on Korea. I have, however, gotten some economic information. From the sites I've been to, Korea in the 1900s was on par with Africa--poor, agricultural based, society. However, this all changed in just over two decades--1960-late 1980s--via the use of a close relation between business and government and plenty of investment. I feel that I can replicate this by similar practices in the early 1900s and, by, say, 1930, I can have a strong, modern, economy. Korea is, in the few years of independence, an empire. So I suppose the Emperor/Empress can direct this policy at the expense of a military and similar programs. Does this sound realistic?

Everything prior to 1900 is taken into account and is included. Here are the following major European alliances circa 1900 -

Austro-German Alliance [1878 Austria-Hungary & Germany]
Triple Alliance [1882 Germany, Austria-Hungary & Russia]
Austro-German-Rumanian Alliance [1883 Austria-Hungary, Germany & Rumania]
Franco-Russian Allliance [1894 France & Russia]

I feel that I can replicate this by similar practices in the early 1900s and, by, say, 1930, I can have a strong, modern, economy. Korea is, in the few years of independence, an empire. So I suppose the Emperor/Empress can direct this policy at the expense of a military and similar programs. Does this sound realistic?
The Japanese were able to do it, though not without problems and financial crises (and eventually Fascism). They had some advantages over Korea (like a government of unimpeachable authority), but also some disadvantages (like a bunch of rebellious, reactionary samurai). They also had the luxury of not being anybody's bitch, which Korea may or may not have in the early decades of this game.
I'd say it's worth trying, though. None of us really want to be in charge of any Third-World pissholes, after all, not even

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I'll be Lithuania plz?

Don't think of them as "third world pissholes." Think of them as long-term investments that, when they mature, earn far more than those shorter-term investments. After all, it is far more rewarding to lead a poor, under-developed, nation to become a world power than leading already established powers. I suppose in the beggining I'll have to rely on alliances to protect me. Perhaps I can hold China and Japan at bay with alliances with random people. But I do have a plan to sieze a few small territories (a small nation that no one has even posted yet. You'll see when the RP starts) to bargain with my potential foes.

I'm not too sure about much in Persia, other than Britain holds much because of India, and even more later because of Oil and the Bolsheviks in the North (subject to change), and the Russians have been kicking my ass for a hundred years. Oh yeah, the Shahs are incompetant and eventually are forced to start a parliament. What are the possibilities of starting a radical Islamic revolt like in the 70s and then having Maoist like reforms to jump start industrialism? That is once oil is found so I'm not just some worthless track of desert in the middle of anything.

Oh yeah, and any ideas what the whole situation in the Mideast is? I know what it's like after WWI but then that might not happen ;)

Oh, and any ideas what the military is like for Persia?

Triple Alliance [1882 Germany, Austria-Hungary & Russia]

The Triple Alliance was Italy, not Russia. Despite this, Italy was neutral in 1914 and joined the Allies in 1915.

[NS]Parthini, I believe the situation in the Middle East in 1900 is something like this [though anyone please correct me if I'm wrong]:

The Ottomans, the sick man of Europe, hold Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (modern Israel and Jordan), Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), Kuwait, and the Red Sea coast of the Arabian peninsula.

Britain holds the Aden Protectorate (southern Yemen from Aden to the Saudi border, and east to Oman), Bahrain, the modern-day UAE, and has a heavy hand in Egyptian politics. Sudan is ruled as and Anglo-Egyptian co-dominium.

Saudi Arabia is independent, though with significant American and British influence.

Oman, Qatar, and Persia are independent, though with major British influence.

Afghanistan is independent, and sandwiched between British India and Russian central Asia.

I hope that helps.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my participation in this. I have too much other stuff on my plate, and just won't have the time. Sorry about this.

Parthini']I'm not too sure about much in Persia, other than Britain holds much because of India, and even more later because of Oil and the Bolsheviks in the North (subject to change), and the Russians have been kicking my ass for a hundred years. Oh yeah, the Shahs are incompetant and eventually are forced to start a parliament. What are the possibilities of starting a radical Islamic revolt like in the 70s and then having Maoist like reforms to jump start industrialism? That is once oil is found so I'm not just some worthless track of desert in the middle of anything.

Oh yeah, and any ideas what the whole situation in the Mideast is? I know what it's like after WWI but then that might not happen ;)

The Tobacco Riots of 1890 forced the Shah to back down from his policies in the face of combined opposition from the middle class and irate clerics, so your scheme of an Islamist revolt seventy years early (followed by modernization reforms) is at least just within the realm of plausibility.
Remember, though, that the Shahs lasted a long time in power--not because they were good for Persia, but because they were good for those who exploited Persia. I think somebody already mentioned that Persia was divided into British and Russian Spheres of Influence.
Oil was first discovered in Persia in 1872, and British prospectors identified a major field in 1904. Petroleum at this time was used chiefly for lighting (as kerosene, with gasoline as a by-product), I believe, though increasingly oil and its derivatives came to be used as engine fuel. The US Navy switched to oil-burning ships in 1910, the British in 1915, and most other navies after the Great War. The first gasoline-powered tractor was built in the United States in 1892.
I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern history of the time period, but I do know that the Ottoman Empire officially ruled most of the region until after the Great War. The Empire was largely a fiction, however, as local governors essentially set themselves up as petty princes independent of the Sultan's authority. It was during and after the Great War that the former Turkish dominions came into the hands of various invented Arab dynasties, such as the Saudis and the Hashemites, mostly sponsored by either the British or French.
Since I can't seem to stop answering questions, I supppose I'll volunteer myself for the Leftist representative on the Panel of Economic Moderators.

Carolus R.
Nihil Sine Deo

I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my participation in this. I have too much other stuff on my plate, and just won't have the time. Sorry about this.
America is up for grabs? Must resist . . . Greed, Power . . . Limitless Power!!!!

I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my participation in this. I have too much other stuff on my plate, and just won't have the time. Sorry about this.

Sorry to hear that.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my participation in this. I have too much other stuff on my plate, and just won't have the time. Sorry about this.

That sucks, sorry to see you go.

One of the major things we're going to need to keep watch over, since this is going to be a lot of RP'ing, over a longer period of time, is the fact that people may become bored with it, and withdraw from the RP. Perhaps we could develop some sort of 'leaving RP' for those who end up leaving? Say... the nation leaving creates an incident with a neighbor, and is invaded and defeated, though it can change for whomever is doing the invading.

Can we still sign up... I'd love to play, but I don't know what as..


EDIT: As Panama!!

we will definitely need to have a USA... I am game to play it. No matter what though, the US player is pretty damned critical.

we will definitely need to have a USA... I am game to play it. No matter what though, the US player is pretty damned critical.

Heh. In this Earth, the USA might end up a Third World nation. After all, WW I and WW II were what made the USA into a super-power. IIRC, the USA was like 7th strongest nation or less in 1900. :p

Also, are you really from Dublin? I lived there for about 2 years...

FAMOUS PEOPLE FROM WWI

T.E .Laurence (laurence of Arabia)
Thomas Edward Lawrence (August 16, 1888 – May 19, 1935), also known as Lawrence of Arabia, and (apparently, among his Arab allies) Aurens or Al-Aurens, became famous for his role as a British liaison officer during the Arab Revolt of 1916–1918. His very public image was in some part the result of U.S. traveller and journalist Lowell Thomas's sensationalized reportage of the Revolt, as well as Lawrence's autobiographical account, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Many Arabs consider him a folk hero for promoting their cause for freedom from both Ottoman and European rule; likewise, many Britons count him among their country's greatest war heroes.


/smacks forehead

Man, how good I forget Laurence the Great. :eek:

I would like to humbly forward my candidacy for the USA. :)

[OOC: Yes, I really am from Dublin. Lucky me.]

So, let me get this right - Crimson Sith & Galveston Bay both want to play as the US? *Picks Coin from pocket* Heads or tails? :D

We could hold an election . . .

I am skeptical of any outcome concerning an election in the United States...

The Ottomans, the sick man of Europe, hold Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (modern Israel and Jordan), Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), Kuwait, and the Red Sea coast of the Arabian peninsula.

Britain holds the Aden Protectorate (southern Yemen from Aden to the Saudi border, and east to Oman), Bahrain, the modern-day UAE, and has a heavy hand in Egyptian politics. Sudan is ruled as and Anglo-Egyptian co-dominium.

Saudi Arabia is independent, though with significant American and British influence.


ottoman empire holds nearly all of the middle east, although it is freed into the separate states by the arab revolt in 1916-18
check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt) for middle east news

Okay, so we need to decide on some Economic moderators and then create the Central thread for E20 for the international news, time-keeping and what-not.

Hmm...

Maybe we can split the USA into half, the Union and the Confederate States, then that way, both Galveston Bay and Crimson Sith can play the USA. :p

Can we still sign up... I'd love to play, but I don't know what as..


EDIT: As Panama!!


Please?

I am skeptical of any outcome concerning an election in the United States...

well, as long as Florida isn't the pivotal state we can usually reach a quick decision (chuckle)

seriously though, I think the thread starter should get to pick the US player if choices are available. I will accept whatever decision is made.

On the economic front, I can help with that. My degree is history, and I am good at research. I generally like to research military (particularly naval) history more, but economics are pretty central.

I have no formal economics training; everything I know is self-taught. Basically, I've probably got the basics down pat. Probably enough to help judge if a country is getting richer or not. Anyways, I'd also like to apply for an econo-mod position.

As for Artitsa, I'd say he gets Panama. But that's not up to me, it's just my $0.02.

Your never on MSN anymore... you break my heart fluffy.

I volunteered earlier, so unless there are objections (and with the kind permission of the General Moderator--just watch your language about our elections, Irish, or you might get a mouthful of FREEDOM!), or other candidacies, Fluffywuffy, Galveston Bay, and myself could empanel ourselves and begin business, with GB as President.

I will see what I can come up with tomorrow... too tired tonight, had a long, long day of Jury Duty (thankfully not in Santa Maria CA)

I will look up some things from Rise and Fall of the Great Powers to start with, as it has some important information on all of the Great Powers of the time.

some initial economic and military information on the top 10 powers in 1900.... British information is for Britian only, does not include its empire (same with others as well)
Basic economic data of the Great Powers 1900

Population millions
Britain 41.1
USA 75.9
Germany 56
France 38.9
Russia 135.6
Italy 32.2
Japan 43.8
Austria Hungary 46.7

percentage urban
Britain 32.8
USA 18.7
Germany 15.5
France 14.4
Russia 6.6
Italy 3.1
Japan 8.6
Austria Hungary 6.6

Industrial Capacity per capita (relative to Britain)
Britain 100
USA 69
Germany 52
France 39
Russia 15
Japan 12
Austria Hungary 23
Italy 17

Industrial Potential (relative to Britain)
Britain 100
USA 127.8
Germany 71.2
France 36.8
Russia 47.5
Japan 13
Austria Hungary 25.6
Italy 13.6

Global ranking (in market share)
Britain 18.5
USA 23.6
Germany 13.2
France 6.8
Russia 8.8
Japan 2.5
Austria Hungary 4.7
Italy 2.5

actual military power 1900 (regular forces only, doesnt count mobilized reserves in time of war)
military personnel (regulars)
Britain 624,000 (includes Indian Army and other Imperial forces)
USA 96,000
Germany 524,000
France 715,000 (includes colonial troops)
Russia 1.162 million
Italy 255,000
Japan 234,000
Austria Hungary 385,000

warship tonnage
Britain 1.65 million
USA 333,000
Germany 285,000
France 499,000
Russia 383,000
Italy 245,000
Japan 187,000
Austria Hungary 87,000

information for both posts taken from "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" Paul Kennedy, pages 200 - 210

Okay... just let me know when we can start RP'ing in this Earth.

BTW, any good info or sites for China in 1900's - 1930's? So I can start working out how to change history with China and the Boxer Rebellion thing.

Any idea on what China's population, military strength, economy, infrastructure, and equipment (guns for example) by 1900 - 1910?

GDP per capita in 1900
A lot of countries, I know, are missing, and it's not clear what kind of dollars they are. I would guess, since standards of living have largely improved over the past century, that they're modern dollars rather than contemporary ones. It'd be more convenient that way, anyway.

1. United Kingdom $4593
2. New Zealand $4320
3. Australia $4299
4. United States $4096
5. Belgium $3652
6. Netherlands $3533
7. Switzerland $3531
8. Germany $3134
9. Denmark $2902
10. Austria $2901
11. France $2849
12. Canada $2758
13. Argentina $2756
14. Sweden $2561
15. Ireland $2495
16. Spain $2040
17. Chile $1949
18. Norway $1762
19. Italy $1746
20. [Unspecified] $1729
21. Hungary $1682
22. Finland $1620
23. Portugal $1408
24. [Unspecified] $1218
25. Mexico $1157
26. Japan $1135
27. Philippines $1033
28. Colombia $973
29. Korea, South $850
30. Venezuela $821
31. Peru $817
32. Thailand $812
33. Taiwan $759
34. Indonesia $745
35. Brazil $704
36. Pakistan $687
37. China $652
38. Burma $647
39. India $625
40. Bangladesh $581
41. Egypt $509
42. Ghana $462
Weighted Average $1,162.09

There is no Panama, Artitsa.
In 1902 Phillippe Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer who had previously tried to build a canal across the isthmus for France, took employment with the United States in accordance with the Spooner Act and negotiated the Hay-Herran Treaty with Colombia for cession of the canal territory. The Colombian Senate declined to ratify the treaty, however, so the next year Bunau-Varilla bribed a few tinhorn military strongmen and persuaded them to secede.
On November 3, 1903, a revolutionary junta proclaimed Panamanian independence. Colombian forces were sent to crush the rebellion, but they were mired at Colón because the U.S.-administered railroad had strategically removed its trains from the northern terminus. U.S. naval forces also deterred reinforcements that were sent from Bogotá by land. The secessionist junta appointed Bunau-Varilla minister to Washington, D.C., with full powers to negotiate treaties.
You could just play Colombia.
And Sharina, did you notice that huge post of Chinese personages I put on Page 12? I didn't show economics or military or anything, but it should still help.

seems more like Panama was like Ireland at the time... it was under rule, not a soverign nation. But either way, I want control of that area, so if Columbia is where its at, then Columbia is where its at.

I'm sure that some sort of secessionist movement was taking place in Panama at the time. Perhaps Artitsa could RP as the resistance, and declare independence.

Ah, hellew! Sharina, I've just recently picked up a copy of 'Modern China' which is a very detailed history of the Chinese rise to power. I'll take a browse through it, along with my new copy of 'Rise & Fall of the Great Powers' [/me claps] and see what information I can find for you and post later.

So how exactly will the Panel of Economic Moderators judge economic performance by nations?

13. Argentina $2756
Weighted Average $1,162.09
17. Chile $1949


Three times the per capita income of my nearest competitor. I could work with that. Just that pesky economic collapse to deal with then.

I'm sure that some sort of secessionist movement was taking place in Panama at the time. Perhaps Artitsa could RP as the resistance, and declare independence.
Panama was ruled less like the way Britain ruled Ireland and more like the way the United States "rules" Idaho. There were disgruntled "secessionists" and "revolutionaries," of course, because there always are in Latin America (and who can blame them?), but there's very little evidence to suggest that
they ever would have amounted to anything without external interference.
So how exactly will the Panel of Economic Moderators judge economic performance by nations?
Speaking as a presumptive member of the Panel--why, arbitrarily, of course!
Actually, I was thinking that we would issue initial (probably very crude) ratings for various countires' economic health and revenues, people would tell us briefly what kinds of things they were doing that might affect them, we would discuss things, and then every week we would revise and update our ratings, posting them on another thread.
I think we'll probably need an independent Tech Mod, and there should be some provision for natural and general disasters, like the Spanish Influenza or the recent tsunami--I mean, anyone who plays Bangladesh should be prepared to be drowned regularly.

Does this take place on NS forum or a separate forum?

EDIT -- May I have Canada or something else available?

a quick and dirty tech level chart as of 1900

Tech level 0 -- primitive agriculture, examples New Guinea (currently owned by the Netherlands, Germany and Britian in 1900), cannot field an army but might have modern small arms if imported or supplied.

Tech level 1 -- agriculture, no industry, extractive economy, example Belgian Congo (later Zaire/Congo), can field a primitive army and might have modern small arms and primitive artillery.

Tech level 2 -- agriculture, very limited industry, central and independent government. example China, Spain, most Latin American states about 1900, can field a modern army but must buy modern weapons elsewhere although can produce black powder weapons sufficient for needs.

Tech level 3 -- industrial but not in the top 10. Not considered a Great Power. Can field a modern army and produces its own small arms, but large warships (bigger than a torpedo boat or destroyer), heavy artillery (bigger than 70 mm) must be imported. Can also build mines, produce barbed wire, and has a telegraph network built on its own, along with railroads. Netherlands and Belgium in 1900.

Tech level 4 -- a great power, industrial, and in the top 10 rankings previously posted. Can produce all of the weapons of war of a modern state.
Primitive aircraft and dirigibles are being developed late in this tech level. Wireless telegraph also late in the period. Also late in the period are dreadnoughts, battle cruisers, and poison gas. Moving from coal to oil as primary energy source.

Tech level 5 -- major powers around 1916. Primitive Tanks, ocean going submarines, combat and civil aircraft, voice radio all show up, as does light and submachine guns, anti tank weapons. Aircraft carriers and fast battleships show up. Oil is king, although coal is still very important.

Tech level 6 -- major powers around 1942. World War II era equipment, and late in the period long range missiles, intercontinental bombers, jets, and eventually nuclear weapons and atomic power. Capable of launching a satellite late in the period (although a primitive one) and primitive helicopters.

Tech level 7 -- major powers around 1960. ICBMs, supersonic military aircraft, armored personal carriers, body armor, Vietnam War era weapons and aircraft. Commercial atomic power available, and manned spaceflight, even a moon landing if enough money spent. First electronic computers.

Tech level 8 -- major powers around 1980. Microchip revolution begins. Cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, become available. The Industrial World as it is in 1990 basically.

Tech level 9 -- USA around 2010 in real life. Should we get that far.

(a more complete list)

<snip>

Good stuff, that's helpful.

I'll be columbia.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/south_america_1892.jpg

Can i play as the Basques

Looks good, GB, very nice.

To Artitsa:

My computer is malfunctioning. Because of such, I am downstairs on a cheap-ass laptop.

To everyone else:

As a self-appointed economic board member, here are some of my ideas:

I think we shouldn't just look at what the nation is doing militarily or politically (democracy, communism, etc.), but we should look at investment in certain programs. Education, I think, is a universal program that all nations should work to fund and improve. But from there, the road diverges. On one hand, you've got the major powers; on the others, the weaker countries.

I think the major powers should invest some of their money on research for better technology and basic technologies consumer industry may find useful. Because these countries are richer, they can work on both the economy and the military, but too much military spending produces negative effects. Failure to fund research and education, or not fund them enough, will result in almost no growth. Funding them gives you a normal growth rate. Greatly funding them makes you grow faster, but no where near the weaker powers when they industrialise.

Now we've got the developing nations, like my Korea. I feel that these nations, unless they forgoe all economic development and starve to death, will not have strong militaries. So most of these nations's budgets should go to industrialisation, modernising, education, etc. Failure to fund modernisation programs will result in stagnation rather than a rapid growth rate. Also, when industrialisation ends, there is a boom in population for a few years.

Perhaps a third type of nation can be created. It is the "second-world" nation, the one that is not quite Afghanistan but not quite America. Perhaps Poland, or some other eastern bloc nation is a good comparison; they are fairly modern when compared to, say, Africa, but lag behind, say, America. As with the others, they should fund education. However, a modernisation program to bring it up to speed should be funded and implemented. A military fully comparable to the great nations can be built, but at the expense of economic growth, perhaps leading to negative growth and eventual downsizing of the military.

Perhaps a third type of nation can be created. It is the "second-world" nation, the one that is not quite Afghanistan but not quite America. Perhaps Poland, or some other eastern bloc nation is a good comparison; they are fairly modern when compared to, say, Africa, but lag behind, say, America. As with the others, they should fund education. However, a modernisation program to bring it up to speed should be funded and implemented. A military fully comparable to the great nations can be built, but at the expense of economic growth, perhaps leading to negative growth and eventual downsizing of the military.

The situation that the eastern block nations found themselves in had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of investment in education. These nations suffered from a lack of industrial capacity before the war, and from a ludicrous communist economic system after it. Poland has always had one of the best, and most rigorous educational systems in the world. In the 50s and 60s, your average Polish student graduated high school speaking three languages fluently, namely Polish, Russian, and one of the classical languages (Latin or Greek). Even today, being tri-lingual is practicaly mandatory for any asspiring university candidate, though the classical languages have been left as the fourth language needed to gain a doctorate. The University of Krakow has rivaled such prestigious schools as Oxford for hundreds of years.

Poland "lagged behind" America due to 123 years of foreign occupation, 2 world wars which that nation bore the brunt of, and 40 years of economic neglect at the hands of the Communists. If it were not for those factors, Poland would have had ample opportunity and ability to be amongst the leading economic and technological powers of the world. Even today, after only 15 years as a capitalist nation, she is the success story amongst former Warsaw Pact countries, has the most robust economy in Eastern Europe, and is on her way to becoming the next big star of the European financial world. I must say that I find your assessment to be faulty.

could I be Rhodesia?( which was a crown colony of britain at the time i think.) or was it part of the Union of South Africa at the time. could i play as that colony or the resistance?

how would the system of gaining indpendence work??? would we R.p. a battle with whoever has the burden of running Great Britain at the time???

North and South Rhodesia were both crown colonies of Britain in 1900. They were separate from the Union of South Africa and gained independence in the sixties, I believe.

By the way, I'm going to RP as South Africa.

As for independence, I guess it's really up to you and Sarzonia (as he's playing as Britain).

Anyone know what the population/military capabilities of Persia were or really what tech level they were at? All it talks about it the government.

okies Im Rping as Rhodesia. i know cecil Rhodes was a bit of a tycoon in Real life ( he had the monopoly on the african railway network.) I need to do a bit more research on him. he was the founder of Rhodesia ( hence the name) and i will create an R.p. relating to Rhodesia soon. technically speaking malkyer Rhodesia didnt really gain independence untill 1980 because britain refused to recognize Jimmy Smits white puritan state. sigh only to be taken over by Mugabe with the same ideals only in the black Africans favour. sigh............ sad cycle isnt it? :(
im gonna change that for the better :)

what was the population of Rhodesia at the time... circa 1900???

I know present day Zwmbabwe has 10 million black africans and 300,000 whites

I would say that Persia is Tech level 1, like nearly all of the Mideast except for Turkey and Egypt, which are tech level 2. No nation in that area has any industry to speak, oil hasn't been found yet (although it will be in a decade, check the book The Prize, for details on that). Most of the nations are either Ottoman provinces, or in Persia and Afghanistans case, have central governments in name only.

Rhodesia and Botswana are extremely thinly settled, probably less than a million (black and white) in either place. Rhodesia has only relatively recently been connected securely by rail and the Boer War also slowed things down considerably as far as economic development goes.

Does anyone know where I can find information on South Africa at the turn of the century? I've got a fair idea of the military and infastructure, but population and economic strength are two big things I'm missing. Would I be right to assume that, until I get Dominion status, my economy would be roughly equal with Britain's? And that the military would be British regulars (however many Sarzonia decides to put in Cape Colony and Natal) and Boer irregulars and guerrillas for Transvaal and the Orange Free State?

snip .

I have to agree with you. In addition, Korea was industralized by the Japanese relatively late (1920s) and in 1900 was at most tech level 2, with no industry, some coal mining, but mostly a lot of peasants growing rice under a mandarin type civil service that ran the place for a royal family that would soon find itself out of a job when the Japanese really take the place over in 1904.

A very important thing to remember is that until the discovery of antibiotics, and the Agricultural revolution of the 1940s and 1950s, Europe and North America (including European Russia in this) had much larger populations than the rest of the planet put together (excluding British India and China). The largest cities were all in Europe or North America (once again exclusing a handful of Chinese, Japanese and Indian cities), and only those nations had industrialized economies except for Japan (which was hurriedly getting there).

For all practical purposes the rest of the world was acted on for most of the 20th Century, and could only guide its destiny to a limited extent.

um ok My population could grow though right???more so than projected. I.e. a sensible Irrigation programme and an Immigration scheme. that would help I suppose...

I would possibly try to gain Independence through peaceful means.... what would be the projection for a population growth over a year.... If i encouraged growth. about 2- 3% or something?? how would you record it also...

101 questions i know im not meaning to be irritating. lol :p

Hstrovokia, your help and input would be greatly appreciated! :D

Galveston Bay, I think I lost the Chinese Character info post, because there's so many new posts lately in this thread. :(


At any rate....

I've been working on an angle to alter history in the Boxer Rebellion thing. I've been thinking of having someone assasinate the Dowager Empress, then have a new imperial leader emerge. Afterwards, this new imperial leader is very interested in steam machinery, which could help China industrialize by 1910 - 1915, and use steam gadgets to create "steam-cars" and maybe steam-driven gliders.

Personally, I've always been fasincated with the possibilities of different steam machinery. Cars and tanks driven by steam power instead of combustion. Steam power + hydraulics = interesting stuff. One thing I've always wondered if it would even be possible to build realistically was the steam-powered spider machine from the movie "Wild Wild West" (The one with Will Smith).

I think it'd be interesting to try the steam power stuff out, as the Chinese are pretty inventive people, after all they were the first ones in a good many things like books, gunpowder, compasses, etc.

What do you think?

Hstrovokia, your help and input would be greatly appreciated! :D

Galveston Bay, I think I lost the Chinese Character info post, because there's so many new posts lately in this thread. :(


At any rate....

I've been working on an angle to alter history in the Boxer Rebellion thing. I've been thinking of having someone assasinate the Dowager Empress, then have a new imperial leader emerge. Afterwards, this new imperial leader is very interested in steam machinery, which could help China industrialize by 1910 - 1915, and use steam gadgets to create "steam-cars" and maybe steam-driven gliders.

Personally, I've always been fasincated with the possibilities of different steam machinery. Cars and tanks driven by steam power instead of combustion. Steam power + hydraulics = interesting stuff. One thing I've always wondered if it would even be possible to build realistically was the steam-powered spider machine from the movie "Wild Wild West" (The one with Will Smith).

I think it'd be interesting to try the steam power stuff out, as the Chinese are pretty inventive people, after all they were the first ones in a good many things like books, gunpowder, compasses, etc.

What do you think?


boilers explode. very easily

I think it'd be interesting to try the steam power stuff out, as the Chinese are pretty inventive people, after all they were the first ones in a good many things like books, gunpowder, compasses, etc

Not the best form of propulsion around, but reasonably feasable for China. I'd allow it, if only to add a little flavour and something different to the RP than all the same tech. It's good to have some variety and I think it'll improve the RP nicely.

I hate to jump the gun, but are we EVER going to start this thing, I mean come on......

I think we shouldn't just look at what the nation is doing militarily or politically (democracy, communism, etc.), but we should look at investment in certain programs. Education.

Indeed a peoples education greatly affects their econommic influence and hence that of their country. A wealthy country has more to spend on education and hence gets richer, a poor country has less and so cannot develop as quickly. This is a loop which I think should be encouraged (though unfair on the poorer countries) as it forces smaller countries to ally and gang up to defeat a rich country. This is more realistic and allows a greater RP potential. In addition a nation on war footing cannot put as much into education, social welfare etc. and so their economy should be affected. This allows more realism in that nations cannot be permenantly at war and there will be grumblings from home.

Now we've got the developing nations, like my Korea. I feel that these nations, unless they forgoe all economic development and starve to death, will not have strong militaries. So most of these nations's budgets should go to industrialisation, modernising, education, etc. Failure to fund modernisation programs will result in stagnation rather than a rapid growth rate. Also, when industrialisation ends, there is a boom in population for a few years.

Indeed this should also be encouraged by the moderation team so that poorer nations can forgo military development and aid their economies and home development. This will allow them to grow and progress into stronger nations with more diplomatic power. People need to realise that war is not everything and even though you might win a war and a bit of territory your country may be less economically well off for it as so much money and labour effort has been poured into this relatively insignificant gain. In fact a war will often weaken your nation and allow it to become easier to invade and conquer.

Perhaps a third type of nation can be created. It is the "second-world" nation, the one that is not quite Afghanistan but not quite America. Perhaps Poland, or some other eastern bloc nation is a good comparison; they are fairly modern when compared to, say, Africa, but lag behind, say, America.

Indeed most modern demographers use such a classification system (I'm studying A level demography and economics so this may get a little boring). The developed and "rich" world consists of MEDCs (more economically developed countries), mostly in the northern equator. The poorer world consists of LEDCS (less economically developed countries), broadly in Africa, Asia and South America.

The line between these two is fuzzy and not clearly defined. A country which has recently experienced great development and industrialisation is knwon as a NIC (newly industrialised country), industrialisation is often a result of MEDC involvement and usually entails the secondary (manufacturing) sector. Goods are produced cheaply and shipped around the world. An example would be Vietnam or Taiwan.

Further to this there are Emerging MEDCs these are countries which show clear signs of a MEDC economy (higher GDP per capita, more welfare spending and a large tertiary[services] industry) but which has still to fully develop into a MEDC. Your example of this would be Poland. So if we loosely base our classifications off this it should enable us to cover all possible nation economies.

Hope that wasn't too bad!

Perhaps I could help and maybe apply for membership of the Economic Board? I hope I could be of some help.

boilers explode. very easily

also the power to weight cost benefit of an internal combustion engine is far superior to a external (steam) combustion engine, which is why motor car technology didn't really take off until one was invented (good old Mr. Daimler and Mr. Benz) and internal combustion engines are far, far superior for aircraft, especially the early ones.

on the other hand, China with a stable government that isn't being invaded by Japan has a real shot at industrializing earlier with competent leadership, so I can live with an earlier industrializing China if the explanation is reasonable and makes sense

I hate to jump the gun, but are we EVER going to start this thing, I mean come on......

personally, I am waiting for the go ahead from our illustrious leader (who started the thread)... as we still don't have a USA yet and after all, it was his idea.

Although I sympathize, I am ready to start too...

same for me. its getting a litlle long for preparation. isnt the RP supposed to take longer then the invitation thread? :p

Did you know Mexico is part of North America? ;)

I need info about 1900's columbia :(

:( can i please be listed as Rhodesia???