Remove ads

The World Turned Upside Down - A 20th Century Nation Game (HIATUS?)

Reader mode
It behooves me to state that as moderator, I am absolutely beaming with enthusiasm in the amount of research put into these first few turnposts.

When diplomacy and war or espionage plans begin, I look forward to hearing the grand concerto of geopolitics with this scenario.

Anticipate a few events of engaging proportions, participants. After all, this is a world turned upside down.
 
Tbh the NGF's military numbers do seem a bit high. Esp those reserves. You can have the Prussian army with a state ideal, but your economy probably isn't Great if you have that many men under arms.
 
Im mainly working off the 2.5% I use for Victorian or ww1 era games with how there has not been any world wars and an intensification of Prussian militarism due to the dangers of the great game between Britain and Russia entering into war, but if people think it needs to be lowered I would like a larger consensus on peoples thoughts.
 
Remove ads
The Factions During the Great Game
  • Threadmarks
    • To be fair, this is in the immediate come down from TTL's Cold War, so the various Great/Regional Power militaries are going to be beefy-but-creaky, if you know what I mean.

    Come to think of it, is there an official breakdown of who was in the various camps? From what I gather, it's:
    • European Concordat/Imperial Commonwealth (UK)
      • UK
      • Canada
      • France
      • Portugal
      • DoI
      • North Germany
      • South Germany (Maybe? I could see South Germany and Croatia being the European Neutrals)
      • United States of America (not a member, but UK-leaning)
    • Russian Empire
      • Finland
      • Bulgaria
      • Hungary
      • Serbia
      • CSA
    I think that's it?
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Note on the State of Militaries
  • Threadmarks
    • If possible, I'd like to note that this scenario begins at the end of a cold war between two superpowers, meaning standing armies are going to be less appreciated, more so than usual.

    That being said, some nations can have the case made where perpetual militarization is the culture, but not all.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Arthur Frayn said:
    To be fair, this is in the immediate come down from TTL's Cold War, so the various Great/Regional Power militaries are going to be beefy-but-creaky, if you know what I mean.

    Come to think of it, is there an official breakdown of who was in the various camps? From what I gather, it's:
    • European Concordat/Imperial Commonwealth (UK)
      • UK
      • Canada
      • France
      • Portugal
      • DoI
      • North Germany
      • South Germany (Maybe? I could see South Germany and Croatia being the European Neutrals)
      • United States of America (not a member, but UK-leaning)
    • Russian Empire
      • Finland
      • Bulgaria
      • Hungary
      • Serbia
      • CSA
    I think that's it?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Im actually unsure on if my nation is in the Concordat or not I could find anything about it in the North Germany spoiler
     
    Cybandeath said:
    Im mainly working off the 2.5% I use for Victorian or ww1 era games with how there has not been any world wars and an intensification of Prussian militarism due to the dangers of the great game between Britain and Russia entering into war, but if people think it needs to be lowered I would like a larger consensus on peoples thoughts.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Arthur Frayn said:
    To be fair, this is in the immediate come down from TTL's Cold War, so the various Great/Regional Power militaries are going to be beefy-but-creaky, if you know what I mean.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    On one hand yes, but even if you look at European militariesat the tail end of the cold war (before their drawdowns) it was about 1-1.5% (post-drawdown they went to like 0.5%).
     
    Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to get my turnpost up tonight, but will have it up by tomorrow. However, here's the gist of it (@Maugan Ra feel free to comment/offer changes if this doesn't jibe with what you're going for):
    • America was in a weird place in the 30's and 40's following the Progressive Party's radical restructuring of the country (10's and 20's were actually pretty good though). Didn't like Russia but fucking hated the UK (given them propping up the Confederacy).
    • Suddenly, things start to shift in the 60's and we get quasi-detente between the US and the UK. The Anglo-Southron split just speeds things up, and there's a "Anglo-Yankee Memorandum of Understanding" is akin to TTL's "Nixon going to China" ("Only <some guy> could go to London").
    • The 60's and 70's are, in a word, awesome. Suddenly the US gets to trade with the UK and the rest of the Concordat/Commonwealth, minorities are finally integrated and racism is stamped down, people can visit Canada, the works. Basically, it's like the polar opposite of OTL's 60's and 70's.
    • Shit hits the fan in early 80's and the party stops hard. Economic downturn meets overblown military budget, major cuts, a lot of disaffected young people and a Boris Yeltsin-esque President who is absolutely not up for the job. The end of the Great Game (and the collapse of the CSA) gives things a boost, but it's a band aid. Politics are fractious as hell, people want Someone To Do Something.
    • Yankee Yeltsin is about to end his term, enter The Iron Lady. It's an...interesting...time in Yankee politics.
     
    Last edited:
    a note, because it kills me:

    Southron is a noun, not a descriptor. It describes someone from the South and is an antiquated version of Southerner. Someone from the South is a Southron in the same way someone from Great Britain is a Briton, but just as there was not a Briton Empire there should not be a Southron America.
     
    Added Zeppelins to Egypt because no Great War means that Zeppelins are technically still considered viable.
     
    Harpsichord said:
    Would it be fair to say Canadian immigration would be slightly above OTL given the state of the USA TTL?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That would be a fair assumption to make, but then you would have to deal with the way the United States might feel about American minorities in the Dominion of Canada, a situation that would be less than ideal for Anglo-American relations especially in the strained environment they rest at now.

    mcclay said:
    Added Zeppelins to Egypt because no Great War means that Zeppelins are technically still considered viable.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    There were bloody, violent, and destructive regional wars in the scenario that I can only imagine brought about the doctrines of the modern area in a metaphorical cram session of military experience. So while Zeppelin applicability may be possible as scout vehicles, do not expect them to last long in a conflict with jet fighters.
     
    ChaoticGenius said:
    That would be a fair assumption to make, but then you would have to deal with the way the United States might feel about American minorities in the Dominion of Canada, a situation that would be less than ideal for Anglo-American relations especially in the strained environment they rest at now.



    There were bloody, violent, and destructive regional wars in the scenario that I can only imagine brought about the doctrines of the modern area in a metaphorical cram session of military experience. So while Zeppelin applicability may be possible as scout vehicles, do not expect them to last long in a conflict with jet fighters.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I could also see Zeppelins being used as air to ground platforms, albeit ones that rely very heavily on fighter coverage. However you can say the same thing about most of the modern US's CAS so :V
     
    ChaoticGenius said:
    That would be a fair assumption to make, but then you would have to deal with the way the United States might feel about American minorities in the Dominion of Canada, a situation that would be less than ideal for Anglo-American relations especially in the strained environment they rest at now.



    There were bloody, violent, and destructive regional wars in the scenario that I can only imagine brought about the doctrines of the modern area in a metaphorical cram session of military experience. So while Zeppelin applicability may be possible as scout vehicles, do not expect them to last long in a conflict with jet fighters.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    there is also the fact western Canada has historically wanted to separate and join the US though that died down in the cold war OTL (though not entirely) I dont that happening with this timeline. Further, of any part of Canada I would think the more open and available land of western Canada would appeal to the frontier and entrepreneur spirit if American immigrants which might further intensify western Canada and American Colombia territorial tension.
     
    Last edited:
    ChaoticGenius said:
    That would be a fair assumption to make, but then you would have to deal with the way the United States might feel about American minorities in the Dominion of Canada, a situation that would be less than ideal for Anglo-American relations especially in the strained environment they rest at now.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Cybandeath said:
    there is also the fact western Canada has historically wanted to separate and join the US though that died down in the cold war OTL (though not entirely) I dont that happening with this timeline. Further, of any part of Canada I would think the more open and available land of western Canada would appeal to the frontier and entrepreneur spirit if American immigrants which might further intensify western Canada and American Colombia territorial tension.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I wasn't really referring to immigration from the USA.

    I'm also not sure if annexationists were ever more than a small fringe movement, particularly in a timeline where by all appearances the Commonwealth remained a tight transnational alliance.
     
    Arthur Frayn said:
    Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to get my turnpost up tonight, but will have it up by tomorrow. However, here's the gist of it (@Maugan Ra feel free to comment/offer changes if this doesn't jibe with what you're going for):
    • America was in a weird place in the 30's and 40's following the Progressive Party's radical restructuring of the country (10's and 20's were actually pretty good though). Didn't like Russia but fucking hated the UK (given them propping up the Confederacy).
    • Suddenly, things start to shift in the 60's and we get quasi-detente between the US and the UK. The Anglo-Southron split just speeds things up, and there's a "Anglo-Yankee Memorandum of Understanding" is akin to TTL's "Nixon going to China" ("Only <some guy> could go to London").
    • The 60's and 70's are, in a word, awesome. Suddenly the US gets to trade with the UK and the rest of the Concordat/Commonwealth, minorities are finally integrated and racism is stamped down, people can visit Canada, the works. Basically, it's like the polar opposite of OTL's 60's and 70's.
    • Shit hits the fan in early 80's and the party stops hard. Economic downturn meets overblown military budget, major cuts, a lot of disaffected young people and a Boris Yeltsin-esque President who is absolutely not up for the job. The end of the Great Game (and the collapse of the CSA) gives things a boost, but it's a band aid. Politics are fractious as hell, people want Someone To Do Something.
    • Yankee Yeltsin is about to end his term, enter The Iron Lady. It's an...interesting...time in Yankee politics.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That seems pretty solid to me. Honestly one of the lingering questions I'm trying to sort out in my background and understanding of the world is why the UK backed the CSA. We apparently spent a not insubstantial amount of time, money and effort propping them up, and I don't see much advantage in it outside of a general 'keep the Americas disunited so they do not become a rival'.
     
    Maugan Ra said:
    That seems pretty solid to me. Honestly one of the lingering questions I'm trying to sort out in my background and understanding of the world is why the UK backed the CSA. We apparently spent a not insubstantial amount of time, money and effort propping them up, and I don't see much advantage in it outside of a general 'keep the Americas disunited so they do not become a rival'.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Cheap cotton and tobacco, same as OTL the UK wanted the CSA as a banana republic agricultural state.
     
    Getting information about how the government of Hungary would look like has been difficult, so might take a while to make a turn post.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top