@FightinFrenchman you overestimated your population by 7 million. According to 1991 population statistics, you should have approximately 23 million people.
@FightinFrenchman you overestimated your population by 7 million. According to 1991 population statistics, you should have approximately 23 million people.
By my estimate, North Germany has around 70-71ish million people across its various territory, anyone getting anything different? Im not the best at using populstat and I'm trying to also account for the lack of world wars properly.
@Cybandeath I did the math (its a bit rough and isn't 100% accurate but should do the trick) and the 1991 North German population comes out to approximately 84.8 million. The math is in the spoilers below.
OTL German Empire Population 1913: 68m
Bavaria: -6.887m
Baden: -2.142m
Wurtemburg: -2.437m
TTL North German Population 1913: 56.534m
x1.5 (approximate rate that neutral nations like the Netherlands, Sweden, etc grew between 1910 and 1990)
TTL North German Population 1991: 84.801m
Any ideas for the US' population? It's only a third the size of OTL's, but at the same time it never went through the bust-then-boom of the two world wars.
Military wise, I'm gonna follow OTL Russia's lead (with a few minor tweaks) for...reasons that will become clear (who's ready for a Lady Putin analogue?).
Regarding your very well-written and detailed, @Kerensky, the Alyeskan Missile Crisis occurred into the Sixties, and the territory was still under the Russian Empire into the Seventies, so the exile of the Tsar, now in the so-called Empire of Russia of @HumanityDark, could not have happened until after the Seventies.
Any ideas for the US' population? It's only a third the size of OTL's, but at the same time it never went through the bust-then-boom of the two world wars.
Military wise, I'm gonna follow OTL Russia's lead (with a few minor tweaks) for...reasons that will become clear (who's ready for a Lady Putin analogue?).
An Iron Lady sounds amazing, and I look forward to it. I said this before, but it is worth repeating: I have no doubts the North Americas are inevitably going to become quite interesting.
Regarding your very well-written and detailed, @Kerensky, the Alyeskan Missile Crisis occurred into the Sixties, and the territory was still under the Russian Empire into the Seventies, so the exile of the Tsar, now in the so-called Empire of Russia of @HumanityDark, could not have happened until after the Seventies.
An Iron Lady sounds amazing, and I look forward to it. I said this before, but it is worth repeating: I have no doubts the North Americas are inevitably going to become quite interesting.
IIRC in the OG game the collapse of the Russian Empire/exile of the Romanov's to Alyeska was a recent development, akin to the OTL collapse of the Soviet Union around the same time OTL.
Regarding your very well-written and detailed, @Kerensky, the Alyeskan Missile Crisis occurred into the Sixties, and the territory was still under the Russian Empire into the Seventies, so the exile of the Tsar, now in the so-called Empire of Russia of could not have happened until after the Seventies.
Than clarify it in the main lore thread, yes? The lore in the main thread does not specify this, and you basically said in a wraparound way that I could make up the origins of the Russian Republic.
Than clarify it in the main lore thread, yes? The lore in the main thread does not specify this, and you basically said in a wraparound way that I could make up the origins of the Russian Republic.
Apologies, not being the author of the main lore I had an overall concept of the thread of the scenario but not a lock on specific details.
I believe this affects you and @naxhi24 in terms of posts already made, but all other participants should be aware that the Russian Empire's collapse and the exile of the Tsar did not occur until very recently, analogous to the collapse of the Soviet Union in our timeline.
Apologies, not being the author of the main lore I had an overall concept of the thread of the scenario but not a lock on specific details.
I believe this affects you and @naxhi24 in terms of posts already made, but all other participants should be aware that the Russian Empire's collapse and the exile of the Tsar did not occur until very recently, analogous to the collapse of the Soviet Union in our timeline.
Apologies, not being the author of the main lore I had an overall concept of the thread of the scenario but not a lock on specific details.
I believe this affects you and @naxhi24 in terms of posts already made, but all other participants should be aware that the Russian Empire's collapse and the exile of the Tsar did not occur until very recently, analogous to the collapse of the Soviet Union in our timeline.
Then state it outright, the Alyeskan Missile Crisis being an analogue to Cuba would imply that Alaska was being funded by someone else who was playing missiles on it, not that the Russian Empire as a whole caused the crisis.
Then state it outright, the Alyeskan Missile Crisis being an analogue to Cuba would imply that Alaska was being funded by someone else who was playing missiles on it, not that the Russian Empire as a whole caused the crisis.
While the scenario is most certainly not of my own invention, I should have made myself more intimate with the background of the nations, specifically the Russian Empire and its successor.
In any case, I apologize for any inconveniences this may have caused.
Name: The Empire of Mexico Head of State: Emperor Maximillian Iturbide (OOC: The first name, ironically, of the current claimant in OTL) Head of Government: Prime Minister Carlos Salinas de Gortari Type of Government: Habsburg Constitutionalism Population: 117,836,000
Capital: Mexico City
Domestic
Internal Events:
-The Emperor and his Progressive Prime Minister have agreed to meet in a series of closed talks to discuss reform. It is hoped they will be able to create an organized time table for reform but given the Emperor's unwillingness to consider several topics, including the Landowner's Franchise, it remains to be seen if any substantial ground will be gained.
Economic Status:
-Mexico, though possessing rich natural resources, has long suffered developmental problems due to its dependence on heavy taxes on the upper classes to maintain the military. These taxes are tolerated due to the extensive privileges given to the nation's elite. Given that the Emperor needs the support of both the Upper Classes and the Military to maintain his power and benefiting one will likely damage his relations with the other, many fear for the Mexico's long term future...
Military
-The Mexican military, faced with the certain probability of a war in the underdeveloped lands of Northern Mexico, has long favored a strong airforce to harass enemy incursion and to wage strategic strikes against major enemy installations, such as the US Pacific Fleet at Vancouver or Confederate forts across Texas. The Navy and Army have been considered secondary defensive weapons to pin the enemy while logistical strikes wear them down. The sole exception is the Army of Rio Grande, which bears a formidable armored section for proposed rapid advanced into Texas aided by airborne cavalry.
Army:
Active Duty: 1,178,000
Reserves: 4,713,000 (Demobilized)
Tanks: 3,930
Navy:
3 Aircraft Carriers
20 Attack Subs
8 Cruisers
25 Destroyers
Air Force:
40 Strategic Bombers
200 Air Superiority Fighters
300 Multirole Fighters
200 Ground Attack Fighters
500 Helicopters
Alliances, Agreements, Pacts, and Trade:
Diplomacy:
To: All Non-Confederate American States @ByzantineCaesar@Arthur Frayn@ChaoticGenius@Maugan Ra
With the breakdown of the Confederacy, there is a clear and present danger to the security of the Nicaraguan Canal. Any damage to it would sorely compromise the economies of all our nations. Mexico proposes that an international task force, consisting of units from all American states, should help secure the canal, with Britian's consent of course.
Very interesting how you were told Mexico was merely a regional power and thus shouldn't have such a large military so you decide to drop from 4 aircraft carriers to 3. Not to mention multiplying Mexico's OTL population by 50% for no reason other than because you have the American southwest, which was extremely sparsely populated when the Mexicans controlled it.
Mexico in 1990 had over 87 million people. California had 30 million in 1991. If anything I am underestimating it. Of course you would know that if you had bothered using populstat or looking how other numbers were reduced or noting that the GM actually didn't dispute the numbers on second glance. Now, unless you have something constructive to say I advise you find something better to do.
Mexico in 1990 had over 87 million people. California had 30 million in 1991. If anything I am underestimating it. Of course you would know that if you had bothered using populstat or looking how other numbers were reduced or noting that the GM actually didn't dispute the numbers on second glance. Now, unless you have something constructive to say I advise you find something better to do.
Why are you acting so petulant? I'm fully aware of the population statistics, which of course you would know if you had bothered scrolling up to see how I had helped some others with their populations.
Alta California and New Mexico were extremely sparsely populated territories during Mexican rule. There were some minor Anglo settlements in California and of course Texas, but it was otherwise empty. A Mexican victory in the Mexican-American War would only cement that, with Anglo settlers likely being prohibited from going into Mexico. Sure, you could have the land slowly fill up with time, but that would only spread out your existing population rather than magically give you 50% more population than OTL.
Also, you have the navy of an advanced great power, not a regional Latin American one like yourself. As it stands, you have a larger navy than the modern United Kingdom, which should say something.
4 carriers seems a bit extreme for a timeline where carrier warfare wasn't really prioritized and is seen as more of a novelty than an actual sub-doctrine of modern naval warfare. Especially given the price of building such ships en masse, the Mexican economy would be in very rough shape from just such a naval buildup compared to like, the United Kingdom, which this timeline would be an absolutely dominant power in the 'big battleships with big guns' department.
Why are you acting so petulant? I'm fully aware of the population statistics, which of course you would know if you had bothered scrolling up to see how I had helped some others with their populations.
Alta California and New Mexico were extremely sparsely populated territories during Mexican rule. There were some minor Anglo settlements in California and of course Texas, but it was otherwise empty. A Mexican victory in the Mexican-American War would only cement that, with Anglo settlers likely being prohibited from going into Mexico. Sure, you could have the land slowly fill up with time, but that would only spread out your existing population rather than magically give you 50% more population than OTL.
Also, you have the navy of an advanced great power, not a regional Latin American one like yourself. As it stands, you have a larger navy than the modern United Kingdom, which should say something.
I am acting "petulant" because I consider you a jerk and have for months. Consider that funny rating you gave my post against forum rules as an example why. Not to mention ignorant of how long it is been since the Californian War, how Mexico would develop sans a half century of civil wars or that a militarized state dependent on a strong military might have a larger military than a social democracy that has given up most of its empire.
4 carriers seems a bit extreme for a timeline where carrier warfare wasn't really prioritized and is seen as more of a novelty than an actual sub-doctrine of modern naval warfare. Especially given the price of building such ships en masse, the Mexican economy would be in very rough shape from just such a naval buildup compared to like, the United Kingdom, which this timeline would be an absolutely dominant power in the 'big battleships with big guns' department.
Now will you both please let the GM do his job? If you have an issue with my stats then I suggest you take it up with him. Because I am not changing them because of churlish mockery.
Now will you both please let the GM do his job? If you have an issue with my stats then I suggest you take it up with him. Because I am not changing them because of churlish mockery.
Kerensky hasn't mocked you though. He's been absolutely polite and just stated his opinion? Like, I know there's bad blood here, and it would be best not pour salt into the wound- but Kerensky hasn't done anything.
Anyway, this game looks very interesting, and I'm definitely going to follow it, possibly join in some turns if there's still spots and I have more free time.
All y'all need to calm down now, the game hasn't even started and we're in a pissing contest for no good reason.
And yeah @Kerensky is right, no one besides the UK, Japan, and maybe Russia and the US (and those are strong maybe's) should have carriers. Carriers are THE big stick force multipliers for when you want to project power and show everyone you are not one to be fucked with; a strong regional power like Mexico doesn't need them. Mexico need a decent sized fleet of cruisers and destroyers to show the flag, defend their Pacific trade routes, and contest the Caribbean with the Confederacy and the US. Its fleet should look something like a beefier version of OTL's Italy or France, minus the Charles de Gaulle.
Likewise, this is a world without either World Wars, where no one's fought a major naval engagement since like Not!Trafalgar. The value of carriers is clear, but naval doctrine ITTL is going to be radically different from OTL's. The UK's fleet should be similar to a (slightly) scaled down version of OTL's US Navy, with the Russian Federation basically being OTL's (doctrine's not gonna change if you're fighting the US or the UK in the North Atlantic and the Japanese in the Pacific).
*EDIT* Honestly, given the lack of world wars to demonstrate how effective the carrier is at killing ships, its entirely possible that you'd see competing doctrines between carrier based fleets and ones based around Kirov style battlecruisers (basically long range battleships with a fuckton of missiles).
Why are you acting so petulant? I'm fully aware of the population statistics, which of course you would know if you had bothered scrolling up to see how I had helped some others with their populations.
Alta California and New Mexico were extremely sparsely populated territories during Mexican rule. There were some minor Anglo settlements in California and of course Texas, but it was otherwise empty. A Mexican victory in the Mexican-American War would only cement that, with Anglo settlers likely being prohibited from going into Mexico. Sure, you could have the land slowly fill up with time, but that would only spread out your existing population rather than magically give you 50% more population than OTL.
Also, you have the navy of an advanced great power, not a regional Latin American one like yourself. As it stands, you have a larger navy than the modern United Kingdom, which should say something.
4 carriers seems a bit extreme for a timeline where carrier warfare wasn't really prioritized and is seen as more of a novelty than an actual sub-doctrine of modern naval warfare. Especially given the price of building such ships en masse, the Mexican economy would be in very rough shape from just such a naval buildup compared to like, the United Kingdom, which this timeline would be an absolutely dominant power in the 'big battleships with big guns' department.
I am acting "petulant" because I consider you a jerk and have for months. Consider that funny rating you gave my post against forum rules as an example why. Not to mention ignorant of how long it is been since the Californian War, how Mexico would develop sans a half century of civil wars or that a militarized state dependent on a strong military might have a larger military than a social democracy that has given up most of its empire.
Now will you both please let the GM do his job? If you have an issue with my stats then I suggest you take it up with him. Because I am not changing them because of churlish mockery.
Allow me to intervene: I believe there is a compromise to be made here.
Regarding population, the scenario has made it clear that in the absence of white settlers, there have been an influx of Japanese and Chinese immigrants, not to mention the white settlers who were mentioned to have shown up during the gold rush, leading to the Californianos, the separatist citizens of the Mexican Empire. This means that a populated Empire of Mexico is not as far fetched as one might believe.
But in terms of the navy, I will have to agree with a reduction of naval units, specifically the carriers, as the Empire of Mexico is indeed a regional power, and the British Empire is the global superpower, so the numerical accounts will inevitably have a large gap.
Now for participants @Ceslas and @Arrow, I am unsure whether there is a pre-existing bad blood between you two. Either way, I suggest you direct it into diplomacy, otherwise I will have to consider moving one or both of you into different nations entirely. I do hope we can all enjoy this scenario, and that disagreements don't stop us from participating with the intent of enjoyment.
