The Council of the Multiverse I (P2TM RP Group/Chat Thread)

[Mirakai]

Yep. It doesn't matter how old they look, it's how old they are. Anime characters can usually look younger then they are

For example:
This character is

(Image)

This character is

(Image)

And this character is

(Image)

Those are all little girls.

Nope. Though I kind of cheated with #1 and #3, considering they have supernatural reasons for almost never ageing physically. #2 is just the art style

[Finland SSR]

How do you know so much stuff about little girls?

I wonder...

I have a dungeon full of them.

This explains everything.

The last piece in the puzzle of Rob. The results are extraordinary.

[New Neros]

How do you know so much stuff about little girls?

I wonder...

I have a dungeon full of them.

I noticed most of my characters have a D in them, thanks, Rob.

Daud, Dapp, Dranon, Dread, etc.

I'm starting on the M's with Max and Mir, though.

[Imperialisium]

Alternate history is a tricky mistress, that's why we historians tend to avoid it.

Though, I have to say, even without USA for support to Entente Germany didn't have that much chance at winning. The entire German strategy (Schlieffen Plan) was based around miscalculations and hopes of being able to crush France quickly, Franco-Prussian War style. But it failed at Marne, and that's where it all went to hell. Remember, this is no WW2 - both sides believed the war will be over by Christmas, and thus were not prepared for a four year long bloodshed. However, the Central Powers were in a worse position for such a war - they were smaller and less populous, had less resorces to fuel their industry in time of embargo, had less colonies and their populations grew more and more divided every day, with ideological split in Germany and national in Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

Yet they still almost defeated the Entente in the Spring of 1918. It was the failure of Operation Michael that put them in the final disadvantage of numerical inferiority on the Western Front. If Operation Michael managed to succeed then France would have surely collapsed and the British would be cut off in Belgium and probably forced to retreat 20 years earlier than Dunkirk.

It's all tricky given how even tiny factors can skew any of these scenarios. History can diverge at almost any point. What if Italy didn't switch sides and joined the Central powers? What if Verdun did bleed the French army white and France exited the war in 1916 or 1917? What of Russia was successful in 1914?

1901 sounds good to allow room for the histories to diverge.

[New Rnclave]

Alternate history is a tricky mistress, that's why we historians tend to avoid it.

Though, I have to say, even without USA for support to Entente Germany didn't have that much chance at winning. The entire German strategy (Schlieffen Plan) was based around miscalculations and hopes of being able to crush France quickly, Franco-Prussian War style. But it failed at Marne, and that's where it all went to hell. Remember, this is no WW2 - both sides believed the war will be over by Christmas, and thus were not prepared for a four year long bloodshed. However, the Central Powers were in a worse position for such a war - they were smaller and less populous, had less resorces to fuel their industry in time of embargo, had less colonies and their populations grew more and more divided every day, with ideological split in Germany and national in Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

I think they're in a worse position now, the Quadruple Alliance is : German Union, USA(Not much of anything due to the brewing revolution) CSA, Ottomans, Chinese State and the Brazilian Empire

The Grand Entente, while large, is full of conflicting governments and ideologies, making it incredibly volatile in nature, while the CSA and USA are the only enemies within the Quadruple Alliance

[New Rnclave]

Alternate history is a tricky mistress, that's why we historians tend to avoid it.

Though, I have to say, even without USA for support to Entente Germany didn't have that much chance at winning. The entire German strategy (Schlieffen Plan) was based around miscalculations and hopes of being able to crush France quickly, Franco-Prussian War style. But it failed at Marne, and that's where it all went to hell. Remember, this is no WW2 - both sides believed the war will be over by Christmas, and thus were not prepared for a four year long bloodshed. However, the Central Powers were in a worse position for such a war - they were smaller and less populous, had less resorces to fuel their industry in time of embargo, had less colonies and their populations grew more and more divided every day, with ideological split in Germany and national in Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

Yet they still almost defeated the Entente in the Spring of 1918. It was the failure of Operation Michael that put them in the final disadvantage of numerical inferiority on the Western Front. If Operation Michael managed to succeed then France would have surely collapsed and the British would be cut off in Belgium and probably forced to retreat 20 years earlier than Dunkirk.

It's all tricky given how even tiny factors can skew any of these scenarios. History can diverge at almost any point. What if Italy didn't switch sides and joined the Central powers? What if Verdun did bleed the French army white and France exited the war in 1916 or 1917? What of Russia was successful in 1914?

1901 sounds good to allow room for the histories to diverge.

Yup, the only real history divergents before then is the Mex-Amer war loss, and the CSA managing to win

[Finland SSR]

Alternate history is a tricky mistress, that's why we historians tend to avoid it.

Though, I have to say, even without USA for support to Entente Germany didn't have that much chance at winning. The entire German strategy (Schlieffen Plan) was based around miscalculations and hopes of being able to crush France quickly, Franco-Prussian War style. But it failed at Marne, and that's where it all went to hell. Remember, this is no WW2 - both sides believed the war will be over by Christmas, and thus were not prepared for a four year long bloodshed. However, the Central Powers were in a worse position for such a war - they were smaller and less populous, had less resorces to fuel their industry in time of embargo, had less colonies and their populations grew more and more divided every day, with ideological split in Germany and national in Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

Yet they still almost defeated the Entente in the Spring of 1918. It was the failure of Operation Michael that put them in the final disadvantage of numerical inferiority on the Western Front. If Operation Michael managed to succeed then France would have surely collapsed and the British would be cut off in Belgium and probably forced to retreat 20 years earlier than Dunkirk.

It's all tricky given how even tiny factors can skew any of these scenarios. History can diverge at almost any point. What if Italy didn't switch sides and joined the Central powers? What if Verdun did bleed the French army white and France exited the war in 1916 or 1917? What of Russia was successful in 1914?

1901 sounds good to allow room for the histories to diverge.

The Spring Offensive of 1918 was doomed from the get go. It was far too ambitious for the German Army - an undersupplied, tired flock of disgruntled mobilized Germans who could revolt at any second. I recommend "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Remarque for a grasp at the situation they were in. It was far worse than what was on the opposite side of the war.

The best chance for Germany to win was in 1914 - if the Schlieffen Plan worked. But it didn't, and a country who was not prepared for a long and brutal war was now involved in one.

And you see, this is why we historians don't do AH. It's a subject way too ambitious for it's own good.

[New Rnclave]

Yet they still almost defeated the Entente in the Spring of 1918. It was the failure of Operation Michael that put them in the final disadvantage of numerical inferiority on the Western Front. If Operation Michael managed to succeed then France would have surely collapsed and the British would be cut off in Belgium and probably forced to retreat 20 years earlier than Dunkirk.

It's all tricky given how even tiny factors can skew any of these scenarios. History can diverge at almost any point. What if Italy didn't switch sides and joined the Central powers? What if Verdun did bleed the French army white and France exited the war in 1916 or 1917? What of Russia was successful in 1914?

1901 sounds good to allow room for the histories to diverge.

The Spring Offensive of 1918 was doomed from the get go. It was far too ambitious for the German Army - an undersupplied, tired flock of disgruntled mobilized Germans who could revolt at any second. I recommend "Nothing New at the Western Front" by Remarque for a grasp at the situation they were in. It was far worse than what was on the opposite side of the war.

The best chance for Germany to win was in 1914 - if the Schlieffen Plan worked. But it didn't, and a country who was not prepared for a long and brutal war was now involved in one.

And you see, this is why we historians don't do AH. It's a subject way too ambitious for it's own good.

The rp actually begins in 1901, before the Great War

[Imperialisium]

Yet they still almost defeated the Entente in the Spring of 1918. It was the failure of Operation Michael that put them in the final disadvantage of numerical inferiority on the Western Front. If Operation Michael managed to succeed then France would have surely collapsed and the British would be cut off in Belgium and probably forced to retreat 20 years earlier than Dunkirk.

It's all tricky given how even tiny factors can skew any of these scenarios. History can diverge at almost any point. What if Italy didn't switch sides and joined the Central powers? What if Verdun did bleed the French army white and France exited the war in 1916 or 1917? What of Russia was successful in 1914?

1901 sounds good to allow room for the histories to diverge.

The Spring Offensive of 1918 was doomed from the get go. It was far too ambitious for the German Army - an undersupplied, tired flock of disgruntled mobilized Germans who could revolt at any second. I recommend "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Remarque for a grasp at the situation they were in. It was far worse than what was on the opposite side of the war.

The best chance for Germany to win was in 1914 - if the Schlieffen Plan worked. But it didn't, and a country who was not prepared for a long and brutal war was now involved in one.

And you see, this is why we historians don't do AH. It's a subject way too ambitious for it's own good.

In Spring 1918 the German Army was in perfect position to deliver one final strike. The problem the German Army had was time and the limits of technology for the period. Initially the offensive was hugely successful, but the problem was that logistics could not keep up with the pace of advance, and once it stalled it put the German Army short of its objectives and did not justify the high casualties. It was not under supplied in the Spring of 1918, but after the offensive failed it was definitely short supplied. Nor was it a tired flock, it was a professional military and at the time of the offensive was in extremely high morale. The defeat of Russia and the transfer of one million troops to the West sky rocketed German morale.

Also General Ludendorff kept switching and adding objectives that caused delays and spread the German troops out thin. Logistics and High Command getting too ambitious ultimately signaled the failure of the operation.

I have read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and my ancestors fought for Germany on the Western, Eastern, Italian, and in East Africa under Von Lettow-Vorbeck with relatives also fighting for Austria-Hungary.

Germany could also do a long war, but the primary concern and the whole reason for the existence of the Schlieffen Plan was the danger of a two-fronted war. That Germany could not fight for long. The defeat of Russia and a successful Spring Offensive would have given time for the Eastern territories to be put into good use so that the British Blockade would have been pointless.

Good discussion but I must turn my attentions to other activities. Cheers!

[New Rnclave]

The Spring Offensive of 1918 was doomed from the get go. It was far too ambitious for the German Army - an undersupplied, tired flock of disgruntled mobilized Germans who could revolt at any second. I recommend "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Remarque for a grasp at the situation they were in. It was far worse than what was on the opposite side of the war.

The best chance for Germany to win was in 1914 - if the Schlieffen Plan worked. But it didn't, and a country who was not prepared for a long and brutal war was now involved in one.

And you see, this is why we historians don't do AH. It's a subject way too ambitious for it's own good.

In Spring 1918 the German Army was in perfect position to deliver one final strike. The problem the German Army had was time and the limits of technology for the period. Initially the offensive was hugely successful, but the problem was that logistics could not keep up with the pace of advance, and once it stalled it put the German Army short of its objectives and did not justify the high casualties. It was not under supplied in the Spring of 1918, but after the offensive failed it was definitely short supplied. Nor was it a tired flock, it was a professional military and at the time of the offensive was in extremely high morale. The defeat of Russia and the transfer of one million troops to the West sky rocketed German morale.

Also General Ludendorff kept switching and adding objectives that caused delays and spread the German troops out thin. Logistics and High Command getting too ambitious ultimately signaled the failure of the operation.

I have read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and my ancestors fought for Germany on the Western, Eastern, Italian, and in East Africa under Von Lettow-Vorbeck with relatives also fighting for Austria-Hungary.

Germany could also do a long war, but the primary concern and the whole reason for the existence of the Schlieffen Plan was the danger of a two-fronted war. That Germany could not fight for long. The defeat of Russia and a successful Spring Offensive would have given time for the Eastern territories to be put into good use so that the British Blockade would have been pointless.

Good discussion but I must turn my attentions to other activities. Cheers!

I take you and or Finland may be interested

[Imperialisium]

In Spring 1918 the German Army was in perfect position to deliver one final strike. The problem the German Army had was time and the limits of technology for the period. Initially the offensive was hugely successful, but the problem was that logistics could not keep up with the pace of advance, and once it stalled it put the German Army short of its objectives and did not justify the high casualties. It was not under supplied in the Spring of 1918, but after the offensive failed it was definitely short supplied. Nor was it a tired flock, it was a professional military and at the time of the offensive was in extremely high morale. The defeat of Russia and the transfer of one million troops to the West sky rocketed German morale.

Also General Ludendorff kept switching and adding objectives that caused delays and spread the German troops out thin. Logistics and High Command getting too ambitious ultimately signaled the failure of the operation.

I have read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and my ancestors fought for Germany on the Western, Eastern, Italian, and in East Africa under Von Lettow-Vorbeck with relatives also fighting for Austria-Hungary.

Germany could also do a long war, but the primary concern and the whole reason for the existence of the Schlieffen Plan was the danger of a two-fronted war. That Germany could not fight for long. The defeat of Russia and a successful Spring Offensive would have given time for the Eastern territories to be put into good use so that the British Blockade would have been pointless.

Good discussion but I must turn my attentions to other activities. Cheers!

I take you and or Finland may be interested

Mitteleuropa here we come!

[Finland SSR]

^ I have only a few things to say:

The Germans probably wouldn't have held the East for long anyway, with independent nations foming all over and them losing influence over them every second. So it's not that relevant here.

And actually, it was an undersupplied tired flock, to an extent. Most of the troops were mobilized recruits, and with the blockade and trying to satisfy both the people and the military, the industry had a hard time keeping up.

Not to mention that the entire country was on the edge on falling into revolution anyway, which did happen eventually and nearly turned Germany into a communist state.

[New Rnclave]

I take you and or Finland may be interested

Mitteleuropa here we come!

Your allies are America, the Confederacy, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, the Chinese State and the Brazilian Empire

[Finland SSR]

Mitteleuropa here we come!

Your allies are America, the Confederacy, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, the Chinese State and the Brazilian Empire

USA and CSA allies?

wat

[New Rnclave]

Your allies are America, the Confederacy, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, the Chinese State and the Brazilian Empire

USA and CSA allies?

wat

Both want revenge against Mexico and England, and know that they can go at eachother the second the war begins, Germany will be to preoccupied to act against them

[Imperialisium]

^ I have only a few things to say:

The Germans probably wouldn't have held the East for long anyway, with independent nations foming all over and them losing influence over them every second. So it's not that relevant here.

And actually, it was an undersupplied tired flock, to an extent. Most of the troops were mobilized recruits, and with the blockade and trying to satisfy both the people and the military, the industry had a hard time keeping up.

Not to mention that the entire country was on the edge on falling into revolution anyway, which did happen eventually and nearly turned Germany into a communist state.

That is your opinion. I disagree but that is the glory of freedom of speech on the internet.

[Finland SSR]

^ I have only a few things to say:

The Germans probably wouldn't have held the East for long anyway, with independent nations foming all over and them losing influence over them every second. So it's not that relevant here.

And actually, it was an undersupplied tired flock, to an extent. Most of the troops were mobilized recruits, and with the blockade and trying to satisfy both the people and the military, the industry had a hard time keeping up.

Not to mention that the entire country was on the edge on falling into revolution anyway, which did happen eventually and nearly turned Germany into a communist state.

That is your opinion. I disagree but that is the glory of freedom of speech on the internet.

Those who study History in university do not do opinions.
They do research.

[Imperialisium]

That is your opinion. I disagree but that is the glory of freedom of speech on the internet.

Those who study History in university do not do opinions.
They do research.

Well given your lack of first hand experience on the subject (which I also lack) we can only form opinions and analysis from the data given to us. But all data interpretations are prone to human errors and judgement of data.

So, your research formulates an opinion on past events due to your interpretation of said events.

Those who study history, recognize it as such.

[New Jordslag]

>Is gone for a bit

>finds everybody discussing something completely different

What's happening?

[New Rnclave]

>Is gone for a bit

>finds everybody discussing something completely different

What's happening?

I asked for assistance with an rp where the US lost the Mex-Amer war to England and Mexico, and so on

[New Jordslag]

>Is gone for a bit

>finds everybody discussing something completely different

What's happening?

I asked for assistance with an rp where the US lost the Mex-Amer war to England and Mexico, and so on

I just read the Assistance Request.

Well, if the RP is created, I know I'll side with Japan.

[New Rnclave]

I asked for assistance with an rp where the US lost the Mex-Amer war to England and Mexico, and so on

I just read the Assistance Request.

Well, if the RP is created, I know I'll side with Japan.

The Grand Ententes is a very volatile alliance though, they're more likely to turn on themselves once the war heats up

[New Jordslag]

I just read the Assistance Request.

Well, if the RP is created, I know I'll side with Japan.

The Grand Ententes is a very volatile alliance though, they're more likely to turn on themselves once the war heats up

Doesn't matter.

Japan will win, because they have and infinite number of giant space mechas piloted by High School Students to fight with.

[New Rnclave]

The Grand Ententes is a very volatile alliance though, they're more likely to turn on themselves once the war heats up

Doesn't matter.

Japan will win, because they have and infinite number of giant space mechas piloted by High School Students to fight with.

Fair enough

[New Rob Halfordia]

The Grand Ententes is a very volatile alliance though, they're more likely to turn on themselves once the war heats up

Doesn't matter.

Japan will win, because they have and infinite number of giant space mechas piloted by High School Students to fight with.

Anime is retarded.