N4 Setting Discussion - Principles

[Valles]

Since it seems to keep taking over the other threads, let's create one for it.

There are, as I see it, five main 'options' for the direction we can take.

First, we can make a 'living memory' alternate history, a strictly-enforced divergence that takes place not more than a century before game start, altering the outcomes of the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War, or what have you. This offers those seeking such positive reams of historical material to appropriate, but will critically limit those seeking more freedom.

Second, we can go with a much earlier divergence, such as my own 'minimum' speculations about a Japanese Shogunate taking a different course around the start of the seventeenth century. Played strictly, this should probably butterfly every historical person and non-geological event taking place by our game period, but in something that's a game rather than an attempt at a rigorous alternate history that can be gracefully ignored. While this approach does allow drastic changes, I think that those of us attempting to exercise such might be forced to strain plausibility to obtain our desired results, especially if the 'break point' is relatively recent, and that there would be a great deal of resultant argument about just what, exactly, the divergence allows.

Third, we can use a prehistoric or limited physical divergence, such as additional or changed prehistoric inventions of agriculture, relocated 'culture hearths', or the use of Earths with limited physical changes such as Turnovia or Dubia. This would place the 'burden of proof' issue from the second point on those wishing to use historical societies without making it a serious burden, while greatly freeing up the 'worldbuilders' room to maneuver.

Fourth, we can use a drastic physical divergence such as Seapole[/i], which would allow the essentially arbitrary creation of culture and history, while still retaining the ability to use online tools like distance calculators and resource maps.

Fifth, we can invent a completely new globe to suit whatever physical, ecological, and gameplay traits we desire. This will require everyone involved to either hold up their end of the worldbuilding or outsource it to others who actively enjoy the process, but allows everything from a genuinely original society to a thinly-veiled expy like those found in much of David Drake's work.

[Valles]

Issues with world.

1) if you alter world, like say higher sea levels, then issue comes of map to show new coast lines.  I kind like the idea of inland seas and additional islands.  Problem is maps, details and distance.

2) New world issues of #1 but even more so.

There is a reason for the push for un-altered geography.

By 1880's start it was my recollection that was a tech level not a hard date so much.

Having fantasy nations using current geography is fine and I think nearly assumed depending on number of players.  The idea was to map groups of 4 or 5 player nations near each other (Europe, North America, East Asia, whatever).  We wanted to avoid problems like having Orange Republic in South Africa where it has huge logistic advantage down there by itself. 

For example having a Mexican Empire, Greater Kingdom of Sweden or whatever sounds fine.  Some effort at trying to somewhat rationalize the history would need to be made but it wouldn't need to be perfect.

Michael

Just my $0.02 worth

1. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefreemask.gif

That took me thirty seconds to find. A couple hours of real research and I can have you as good a base image as anything we might use for a static earth - as though that doesn't qualify already!

Distances? Here. http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html I use it for calculations in the setting we've already got. Eyeballing an altered earth for parallel points is even more simple.

2. You're not being asked to do it. There are people, like me, volunteering to do the ground work because it interests them.

[Kaiser Kirk]

1.  Ok, so we have an ice free earth with altered sea levels. So instead of Mobile being a natural port, it's somewhere upstate. Bengahzi is gone and some point inland would be the spot. We now have shallow seas in many areas.  I see no gain in terms of playability or ease of use.

2. I fail to see how getting distances in an alternate earth isn't more simple.  Instead of picking two known points with known attributes in the current world and figuring the distance, you have to figure out where the points are in the new world, then figure the distance. That sounds more complex, not more simple.

3. I really doubt you'll sit down and write a "wiki" style description of each major new coastal city.  I wanted to know about Riga, it was easy to look up, I found there was a historic fortress on the south bank, that became 3rd Corp's HQ.  For the Wesworld Dutch, I can find a list of ports for Dutch East Indies and descriptions of the entry to Tjilatap, or the controlling depth east of Soerbaja, or Pacific Port's listings.  I can pan around in Google earth and find bays and harbors to tie my seaplane bases. Now, maybe you're prepared to supply all that...but even then I have to wait for you, instead of looking it up on my own.

[Valles]

...I'm sorry, I can't answer this without flaming. Suffice to say that I think every problem you have raised above is your own fault, rather than a systemic issue, and I am entirely without sympathy to the logic of your viewpoint.

[Kaiser Kirk]

...I'm sorry, I can't answer this without flaming. Suffice to say that I think every problem you have raised above is your own fault, rather than a systemic issue, and I am entirely without sympathy to the logic of your viewpoint.

Fair enough, I feel rather the same about your viewpoint. What you are suggesting does not appear to meet my requirements and you have failed to explain otherwise.

[Delta Force]

I don't see why there is such insistence on creating landmasses and such in places where there are none. If you create a new landmass of any significance out of thing air then you are going way beyond alternate history. You have to go and then explain how this new area has interacted with other areas throughout history, explain its  geology and domestic history, and a host of other things. You might even have to invent whole new political systems, religions, etc. When you start to add or take away landmasses, you are in effect doing world building, a much more complex task.

We have more than enough things that can happen on our Earth via points of divergence. The United States could fail to secure the West before the establishment of a Mormon state out West, Austria-Hungary could win the War of 1866, Japan could end its isolation a few years earlier and become a Great Power sooner, the United States could seize Canada in the Revolution or the War of 1812, etc.

I think that the role of politics in the game is being somewhat overlooked. Navies were heavily influenced by politics, at least as much as geography I think. Prussia could have built a navy on par with the French and British if they had desired (they certainly had the economy to do so), but they focused on the army instead. Geography is not quite as important as the political situation a country finds itself in, imperialist or colonial powers require a large fleet to protect their overseas interests, while more continental powers like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany can get away with little more than coastal battleships and torpedo boat flotillas.

[Valles]

When you start to add or take away landmasses, you are in effect doing world building, a much more complex task.

Isn't that what we've been doing from day one? I mean, seriously, I don't see any way to consider the game otherwise.

[Delta Force]

When you start to add or take away landmasses, you are in effect doing world building, a much more complex task.

Isn't that what we've been doing from day one? I mean, seriously, I don't see any way to consider the game otherwise.

Well, there is really a big difference in my opinion between building up the history of a world and going out and actually creating a whole new one, which is what you inevitably end up doing when you start adding or taking away landmasses. It can require some pretty large historical rewrites to the extent that you are pretty much creating a new world. I mean making another island to the Hawaiian islands or something wouldn't be too big a deal at all, but entire islands that go on to become significant powers kind of is. All that you have to do if you use a point of divergence is explain the new history, or even just what has changed in the history compared to OTL.

I can say all this from experience, I have made an alternate history game of my own, while a friend of mine created an alternate world game. He had to spend a significant amount of time explaining things outside of the official history in order to give the same level of information that someone with a general knowledge of history would be able to do from the start with my game.

[Valles]

I am not advocating adding new landmasses to an existing map of the Earth, and never did. Please don't misrepresent my arguments. The 'physical changes' I was suggesting boiled down to 'the icecaps melted two thousand years early and flooded a lot of low lying areas'. Nothing would have moved, nothing would have been added beyond some new seas and gulfs to play in.

Worldbuilding is the act of starting with a premise and working out its ramifications in detail. 'Alternate history' is the act of starting with a premise and working out its ramifications in detail. If people would say it's a question of which aspect of the worldbuilding they were interested in - as, for example, Sachmle did! - that would be one thing. Saying that doing a full course is too much work is just insulting.

Regardless, the mods have settled the question, so it's probably best for my blood pressure if no one else's if we dropped it.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Valles - is the ice free world asl +50 or +100 metres?

Borys

[Nobody]

The problem with a higher see level is that it not only removes pretty much any historic port but also alters sea routes drastically. Example: To get from England to Poland you could sail strait trough Germany instead of going around Denmark. So all port-to-port calculations would be wrong (aside from the fact that the ports themselves wouldn't exist).

[Kaiser Kirk]

The problem with a higher see level is that it not only removes pretty much any historic port but also alters sea routes drastically. Example: To get from England to Poland you could sail strait trough Germany instead of going around Denmark. So all port-to-port calculations would be wrong (aside from the fact that the ports themselves wouldn't exist).

There would be an additional complication in some areas- central highlands might not be that far under water. So you'd have to check the depth setting just before as well. Not a huge deal. That flood map is pretty nifty. Actually a little off on elevations for my area - my house is ~ 80ft above sea level, not 120ft...but pretty close and interesting to play with.  I will note that if sea levels came up 1000 years ago, sedimentation patterns would be different, refilling many of the low gradient valleys.