1850 : Alternative Divergence [AH][OOC][CLOSED]

[Eurasian Hegemony]

Errr.... Kosovo, history?

Oh and there has been an outcry against those "wip" or "reserve" posts. It apparently makes everyone hard... and for me personally... I had to backtrack and see edit dates to settle disputes precisely because of this "wip" stuff.

Unless you are Benuty and loves to write lengthy paragraph... please don't in the future ^^;;;

---

Oh and folks~ sorry! T^T I had course registration for my sister and for my juniors (I apparently have the twitchiest mouse speed in all of university, and peeps keep asking me about this) and I wasn't able to be active. I will be starting tmw, so if you have ANY map changes, please let me know.

In other news... I have noted that Andalusia (Spain dude), Belgium... and since Kosovo moved... Texas and Mexico... are now vacant. I'll make necessary changes and reboot the OOC sometime tmw. After that, I am officially kickstarting the event... so... if you had or have ANY questions, please let me know!! (probably via TG... it is easiest way to reach me without OOC bumps swamping the thread XDDD)

Can you expand my controlled territories to include the bit of sudan that is white, I took it on page two and it remains white.

[Cymrea]

Can you expand my controlled territories to include the bit of sudan that is white, I took it on page two and it remains white.

Git to posting a response to mah diplomacy in the meantime!

[Benuty]

Can you expand my controlled territories to include the bit of sudan that is white, I took it on page two and it remains white.

Git to posting a response to mah diplomacy in the meantime!

I have noted your post, and wonder if we should take some of this to the telegrams in order to present a more fine tuned version in the IC?

Otherwise we might take up most the next page in the IC .

[Cymrea]

Git to posting a response to mah diplomacy in the meantime!

I have noted your post, and wonder if we should take some of this to the telegrams in order to present a more fine tuned version in the IC?

Otherwise we might take up most the next page in the IC .

Yes. I've done that before and it works quite well. We can back and forth in TGs and post the finished product in two pieces.

[Benuty]

I have noted your post, and wonder if we should take some of this to the telegrams in order to present a more fine tuned version in the IC?

Otherwise we might take up most the next page in the IC .

Yes. I've done that before and it works quite well. We can back and forth in TGs and post the finished product in two pieces.

I suppose you should go first since I know Cambria will have quite an extensive list. That way we can work toward negotiating over them.

[Suekiva]

Non-aggression pact? Louisiane only has 2 million people

I'd say Mexico has a population of 11 million if they kept Texas, and kept hold of all their territories

Populstat says Texas had 200,000 in 1850.

[Garwall]

Checking back in to see if anything else has since become available.

[Of the Quendi]

It's been my experience that alliances like that usually make for more stable RPing, instead of the more common invasions and wars for little to no reason; those tend to burn bright and burn out quickly.

I am by no means a fan of a bunch of nonsense wars being fought all over the place for absurd reasons but having an alliance for no reason doesn't seem like an improvement at all, and AEGIS seem very lacking in raison d'être.

A similar bloc in a Brazilian-led South America would be very useful...*hint* *nudge* *wink*

A Brazil-Argentine alliance is hardly comparable to a united Europe.

Besides from the fact that an alliance like that in the 1850's would be completely unrealistic, it pretty much stops us from doing anything. As an example, I intended to attack Jerusalem, but it seems like Christendom, probably followed by AEGIS, wants to stop me. I can't win a war against three quarters of Europe.

The AEGIS alliance to my understanding only takes effect in a defensive war. If Christendom goes on the offensive against you AEGIS does not necessarily get involved.

Which compels us to be more creative in our diplomacies and foreign affairs. Not a bad thing in my book. I'm certain we are all of us capable of that high quality RPing.

Perhaps not, but the vibrancy of the diplomatic community in the 19th century was based on the fact that rather then multilateral super alliances nations entered into bilateral (or small multilateral) alliances fraught with internal problems and conflicting goals. AEGIS does none of this.

I am officially announcing my intention to create an alliance that will oppose AEGIS. Everyone is welcome, and suggestions for the name are also welcome.

An alliance formed simply to oppose another is just as stupid as AEGIS itself. Brazil isn't a fan of AEGIS but as it is clearly a defensive alliance allying with other powers just to destroy it would never cross even the most belligerent aristocrats mind. But if you set up a plausible alliance with an actual purpose (and give it an acceptable non-acronym name) in which Brazilian interests can be accommodated I might be game.

Can we just make Populstat the final authority on everyone's populations? If everyone isn't playing by the same rules, then people are incentivized to exaggerate their populations. The last thing I want is a boring numbers race where people repeatedly say "X just raised their population; I should too!"

I must disagree. Forcing people to use RL stats for their OTL nations defeats the entire purpose of Alt History. Its for the OP to accept people with the populations they app with, or ask for a reduction before accepting them.

That being said I must obviously oppose letting people suddenly mid game adjust their populations. Then it will become impossible to assess the strength of a potential ally or rival if its population can suddenly rise or fall dramatically.

Mexico would technically be one of the major powers on the continent, they had a population of 5 million in 1810, so I'd say 15-20 million in 1850

Thats absurd. How on earth would Mexico triple or quadruple its population in forty years? In RL the Mexican population in 1850 was 7,500,000 according to Populstat. In 1810 it was probably around six million.

[Lenyo]

Did that war in the Balkans ever get resolved? Is it ongoing? Finished? On hiatus? I'm confused.

And on the map, I just realized that I hold British Guyana, not French Guiana. I should have noticed that a month ago.

[Cymrea]

I am by no means a fan of a bunch of nonsense wars being fought all over the place for absurd reasons but having an alliance for no reason doesn't seem like an improvement at all, and AEGIS seem very lacking in raison d'être.

AEGIS' raison d'être is mutual security, stability, and prosperity. I get that you're staunchly opposed to it for your own reasons, though.

A Brazil-Argentine alliance is hardly comparable to a united Europe.

South American bloc is probably a poor choice of terms. The bloc need not be limited to South America.

The AEGIS alliance to my understanding only takes effect in a defensive war. If Christendom goes on the offensive against you AEGIS does not necessarily get involved.

I agree completely.

Perhaps not, but the vibrancy of the diplomatic community in the 19th century was based on the fact that rather then multilateral super alliances nations entered into bilateral (or small multilateral) alliances fraught with internal problems and conflicting goals. AEGIS does none of this.

And why must it? Alternate history, right? We're forging our own destinies here, tailoring them to suit our choices. We need not adhere to the follies of RL history. Realism and alternate reality aren't always compatible.

An alliance formed simply to oppose another is just as stupid as AEGIS itself.

Disagree. Particularly if the opposing alliance is formed for its own mutual defence in opposition to the other, for ideological or martial purposes.

Brazil isn't a fan of AEGIS but as it is clearly a defensive alliance allying with other powers just to destroy it would never cross even the most belligerent aristocrats mind. But if you set up a plausible alliance with an actual purpose (and give it an acceptable non-acronym name) in which Brazilian interests can be accommodated I might be game.

Brazil isn't a fan...or you aren't? Or is that the same thing anyway?

Or you can decide what a plausible alliance looks like to you and work on forming that instead of simply pissing all over AEGIS.

I must disagree. Forcing people to use RL stats for their OTL nations defeats the entire purpose of Alt History.

This statement appears to pull a one-eighty on all your realism arguments against AEGIS. So, to paraphrase, forcing people (okay not forcing, but arguing vehemently and ceaselessly) to use RL historical compulsions for their OTL alliances defeats the entire purpose of Alt History. In my opinion, of course.

[Cymrea]

Did that war in the Balkans ever get resolved? Is it ongoing? Finished? On hiatus? I'm confused.

And on the map, I just realized that I hold British Guyana, not French Guiana. I should have noticed that a month ago.

Suriname is mislabeled, which may be part of the confusion.

[Of the Quendi]

AEGIS' raison d'être is mutual security, stability, and prosperity. I get that you're staunchly opposed to it for your own reasons, though.

I oppose it purely because its an anachronistic aberration with no purpose. For of course mutual security, stability and prosperity isn't actually a reason for anything. Since AEGIS has no enemies it does nothing security wise

And why must it? Alternate history, right? We're forging our own destinies here, tailoring them to suit our choices. We need not adhere to the follies of RL history. Realism and alternate reality aren't always compatible.

It mustn't. But then don't try to sell AEGIS as something that inspires creative foreign policy maneuverings when clearly it does the exact opposite of this.

Disagree. Particularly if the opposing alliance is formed for its own mutual defence in opposition to the other, for ideological or martial purposes.

There is no shared ideological position between the non-AEGIS powers and since AEGIS to my knowledge has no plans to take over the world banding together against it would serve no purpose.

Brazil isn't a fan...or you aren't? Or is that the same thing anyway?

Or you can decide what a plausible alliance looks like to you and work on forming that instead of simply pissing all over AEGIS. [/quote]
Oh please. An alliance of European powers calling calling dips on large colonial territories in the Americas. Clearly there is amble reasons for Brazil to not be a fan of AEGIS that has nothing to do with my personal misgivings.

As for alliance building Brazil so far has had no cause to make any alliance beyond its attempt to get the American countries to agree to a Monroe type doctrine. Unlike AEGIS nations apparently Brazil has a whole range of foreign policy goals that would be impossible with a foreign policy tied up to a single military alliance and its agenda. And I reserve the right to criticize what I see as a damper on RP'ing possibilities and an anachronism.

This statement appears to pull a one-eighty on all your realism arguments against AEGIS. So, to paraphrase, forcing people (okay not forcing, but arguing vehemently and ceaselessly) to use RL historical compulsions for their OTL alliances defeats the entire purpose of Alt History. In my opinion, of course.

Nonesense. For starters those of my arguments on AEGIS that you responded to focused mainly on how AEGIS makes the RP less interesting and had little to do with my (other) argument that AEGIS is an anachronism so there is no discrepancy. That aside its a perfectly coherent position to oppose forcing people to play by stats that might make no sense to the development of their histories and object to the fact that AEGIS seems more the equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact or another 20th century alliance then the alliances of the 19th century and the Congress of Vienna era. Just like everything else, international politics and alliance building has developed from the 19th to the 20th century and organizing an alliance on 20th century principles in a 19th century RP is little better then claiming to have developed nuclear weapons.

[Lenyo]

Since AEGIS has no enemies it does nothing security wise

Just like NATO!

[Gurland empire]

There is a
Perfectly good reason for a anti aegis alliance because aegis has free
Rain be cause no one can object them and they are expanding like crazy

Aegis is only good for those on the inside and I for one wouldn't mind havering 3 or 4 different alliances in this rp as it would make it more interesting

[Suekiva]

There is a
Perfectly good reason for a anti aegis alliance because aegis has free
Rain be cause no one can object them and they are expanding like crazy

Aegis is only good for those on the inside and I for one wouldn't mind havering 3 or 4 different alliances in this rp as it would make it more interesting

Yeah! I want free water from the sky too!

[Tracian Empire]

So, I am going to create an alliance. It's primary objective will be to oppose AEGIS, of course, but it will also be an alliance in which the member states will help each other militarily, politically and economically. The name... that's hard. It has to fit the era.. The Sovereign Powers? The League of something? I don't know, I'm bad at choosing names.

[Cymrea]

I oppose it purely because its an anachronistic aberration with no purpose. For of course mutual security, stability and prosperity isn't actually a reason for anything. Since AEGIS has no enemies it does nothing security wise.

Security can't be pre-emptive? It also provides a great deal of influence to the bloc, does it not? And anachronism is almost meaningless in alt-history.

It mustn't. But then don't try to sell AEGIS as something that inspires creative foreign policy maneuverings when clearly it does the exact opposite of this.

Only in your very narrow interpretation. Others might not be so limited and intractable.

There is no shared ideological position between the non-AEGIS powers and since AEGIS to my knowledge has no plans to take over the world banding together against it would serve no purpose.

That you can discern. Again, others may not be contained by such a limited perspective.

Oh please. An alliance of European powers calling calling dips on large colonial territories in the Americas. Clearly there is amble reasons for Brazil to not be a fan of AEGIS that has nothing to do with my personal misgivings.

Fair enough, but Brazil's reasons don't appear to differ from your own. Plus, an alliance of European powers callings dibs/dips on territories abroad should fit snugly into your desire for more realism.

As for alliance building Brazil so far has had no cause to make any alliance beyond its attempt to get the American countries to agree to a Monroe type doctrine. Unlike AEGIS nations apparently Brazil has a whole range of foreign policy goals that would be impossible with a foreign policy tied up to a single military alliance and its agenda. And I reserve the right to criticize what I see as a damper on RP'ing possibilities and an anachronism.

I'll be the last one to deny you the right to criticise, and despite my disagreement with you on a number of things, I trust you'll continue pointing out these perceived flaws. I may not agree, but I do appreciate the opposing perspective; I think it provides us with a catalyst for critical thought that could improve our roleplay. And you should of course play Brazil in the way you see fit.

Nonesense. For starters those of my arguments on AEGIS that you responded to focused mainly on how AEGIS makes the RP less interesting and had little to do with my (other) argument that AEGIS is an anachronism so there is no discrepancy.

I will re-assert here that anachronism is almost meaningless in AH. Not entirely, of course - technologies and certain ideologies I could see, but acronymed multi-party alliances like NATO aren't outside the paradigm of the era.

That aside its a perfectly coherent position to oppose forcing people to play by stats that might make no sense to the development of their histories...

Here we agree.

...and object to the fact that AEGIS seems more the equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact or another 20th century alliance then the alliances of the 19th century and the Congress of Vienna era.

Just because a NATO style alliance didn't exist in RL 1850 doesn't mean it couldn't have.

Just like everything else, international politics and alliance building has developed from the 19th to the 20th century and organizing an alliance on 20th century principles in a 19th century RP is little better then claiming to have developed nuclear weapons.

Those developments evolved in a world without a Roman Empire, Papal nation, American Commonwealth, or Asian Khanate. It's impossible to calculate the butterfly effect these things would have on an AH, so we make it up as we go. Creativity need not be so strictly constrained.

[Of the Quendi]

Just like NATO!

Exactly. And ever since the end of the Cold War NATO has had something of an identity crisis trying to redefine its purpose in the modern world.

But NATO's post-Cold War continued existence doesn't make AEGIS emerging without an enemy and without a purpose in the 19th century at all realistic. The modern world, at least in the mindset of NATO and its member states, has abandoned power politics, territorial expansion, wars of aggressions etc. etc which has meant an end to resolving international disputes through military means. This has meant that there is no reason for NATO to be discontinued, even if there isn't really much of a reason for it to continue either.

But since presumably the AEGIS countries hasn't adopted the postmodern liberal foreign policy mind view that NATO espouses I don't see NATO's continued existence as justification for AEGIS.

There is a
Perfectly good reason for a anti aegis alliance because aegis has free
Rain be cause no one can object them and they are expanding like crazy

Aegis is only good for those on the inside and I for one wouldn't mind havering 3 or 4 different alliances in this rp as it would make it more interesting

Who has AEGIS done anything to so far?

Security can't be pre-emptive? It also provides a great deal of influence to the bloc, does it not? And anachronism is almost meaningless in alt-history.

Even a pre-emptive alliance has to have a potential enemy.

If anachronisms are meaningless then I guess Brazil just conquered the whole world by threatening to use the nuclear arsenal it suddenly has against people.

Only in your very narrow interpretation. Others might not be so limited and intractable.

You are the only one who thinks AEGIS does anything to create creative foreign policy maneuverings and apparently you can't even make that argument.

That you can discern. Again, others may not be contained by such a limited perspective.

No clearly some people can make alliances for no apparent reasons. Others actually prefer to develop a complex foreign policy with numerous goals and aspirations and then try to balance between those.

Fair enough, but Brazil's reasons don't appear to differ from your own. Plus, an alliance of European powers callings dibs/dips on territories abroad should fit snugly into your desire for more realism.

I just explained how the reasons differ. And no neighboring countries suddenly deciding that they have no outstanding issues with one another doesn't fit my sensible desire for realism.

I will re-assert here that anachronism is almost meaningless in AH. Not entirely, of course - technologies and certain ideologies I could see, but acronymed multi-party alliances like NATO aren't outside the paradigm of the era.

The acronym is not the problem. Its certainly not something I am particularly fond of but the real issue is not the name, its the introduction of what, is indeed an approach to foreign policy that lies beyond the paradigm of the age. That paradigm must be the Vienna system of international relations. It is hardly possible in the context of that system to imagine most of Europe setting up a permanent purposeless alliance.

Just because a NATO style alliance didn't exist in RL 1850 doesn't mean it couldn't have.

In what way can that argument not justify any sorts of anachronism, including my aforementioned nukes. I am not saying that people should model their alliances one hundred percent on what was done in 1815-194 (though there are amble good examples to look into) but at least casting a passing glance at some of them before inventing NATO is hardly asking much.

Those developments evolved in a world without a Roman Empire, Papal nation, American Commonwealth, or Asian Khanate. It's impossible to calculate the butterfly effect these things would have on an AH, so we make it up as we go. Creativity need not be so strictly constrained.

Again why not nukes then? In fact why not have Heron of Alexandria's aeolipile kick start the industrialization in the 1st century leading to the current century being long into the space age and beyond. If everything is up in the air then there is nothing historic about the RP and we would have no common frame of reference within which to RP. Besides the OP has made some rulings on this. He has clearly capped technological developments pretty strictly to 1850, why would all sorts of other forms of human development be different?

[Lenyo]

The acronym is not the problem. Its certainly not something I am particularly fond of but the real issue is not the name, its the introduction of what, is indeed an approach to foreign policy that lies beyond the paradigm of the age. That paradigm must be the Vienna system of international relations. It is hardly possible in the context of that system to imagine most of Europe setting up a permanent purposeless alliance.

Our RP may have a variant of the Vienna system of international relations. We haven't had a continental war since 1815, just like in RL. Relative international peace has been maintained by the diplomacy of Europe's great powers: UK, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and the area that will become Italy. In the 19th century Iberia and the Ottomans were excluded from the Concert of Europe, just like in our RP. (Andalusia and Byzantium)

The Vienna system was greatly weakened by the 1848 Revolutionary Wave, the Crimean War (1853–56), and nationalism in the 1860's and 1870's. Looking at all OOC posts, only the French and Taurican apps even mention the 1848 Revolutions. Presumably in our alternative history, 1848 didn't matter nearly as much. So that crisis didn't destabilize Europe. We haven't experienced a Crimean War (yet), and the recent Balkan Crisis didn't fundamentally shift the balance of power in our RP. And of course the 1860's and 1870's haven't happened yet.

Our RP may take place in a timeline when diplomacy was less tense, at least during the 1850's. Our system of diplomacy could completely collapse in the near future, but in the meantime, this RP's Vienna system of international relations is proving very successful.

[Tracian Empire]

The acronym is not the problem. Its certainly not something I am particularly fond of but the real issue is not the name, its the introduction of what, is indeed an approach to foreign policy that lies beyond the paradigm of the age. That paradigm must be the Vienna system of international relations. It is hardly possible in the context of that system to imagine most of Europe setting up a permanent purposeless alliance.

Our RP may have a variant of the Vienna system of international relations. We haven't had a continental war since 1815, just like in RL. Relative international peace has been maintained by the diplomacy of Europe's great powers: UK, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and the area that will become Italy. In the 19th century Iberia and the Ottomans were excluded from the Concert of Europe, just like in our RP. (Andalusia and Byzantium)

The Vienna system was greatly weakened by the 1848 Revolutionary Wave, the Crimean War (1853–56), and nationalism in the 1860's and 1870's. Looking at all OOC posts, only the French and Taurican apps even mention the 1848 Revolutions. Presumably in our alternative history, 1848 didn't matter nearly as much. So that crisis didn't destabilize Europe. We haven't experienced a Crimean War (yet), and the recent Balkan Crisis didn't fundamentally shift the balance of power in our RP. And of course the 1860's and 1870's haven't happened yet.

Our RP may take place in a timeline when diplomacy was less tense, at least during the 1850's. Our system of diplomacy could completely collapse in the near future, but in the meantime, this RP's Vienna system of international relations is proving very successful.

Oh yes, so I am practically isolated diplomatically from most of Europe. Another reason to create an opposing alliance.

[Cymrea]

Et al.

The real life world. You keep cutting back and forth between the real world and our alternate history as it suits your rather caustic argument. Why not nukes or the aeolipile kickstarting the Industrial Revolution? You answer this yourself by acknowledging the OP ruled a tech cap. But why must all other forms of human development be the same?

I guess after all the pissing and moaning about shit you don't like or find unrealistic or can't even acknowledge as creative license, what the hell would you allow? How does this RP need to go in order to satisfy you enough that you'll play along or allow others to do as they would? Because if all you're going to do is shit on the ideas and initiatives of others that contravene your own, and denigrate an apparent inability to argue against your already made up mind that won't be convinced of anything contrary, then why bother playing at all?

EDIT: Credit where it's due. Your own RPing has been great. And I don't disagree with a desire for some realism. But I disagree that creative license needs to be as strangled as you appear to demand.

[Lenyo]

Our current RP seems to revolve around causus belli PIRATEZ!

[Benuty]

So what would an Islamic Cuba look like?

Given the Andalusian's settled it I would hope there would be a name oriented toward Andalusian language, and culture. Saying this because of the fact certain interest are preparing to subjugate the free peoples of a certain island.

[Of the Quendi]

Our RP may have a variant of the Vienna system of international relations. We haven't had a continental war since 1815, just like in RL. Relative international peace has been maintained by the diplomacy of Europe's great powers: UK, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and the area that will become Italy. In the 19th century Iberia and the Ottomans were excluded from the Concert of Europe, just like in our RP. (Andalusia and Byzantium)

Except that AEGIS is nothing like the Vienna system. The Concert of Europe was not an alliance but rather a kind of forum in which the great powers would settle disputes and decide upon issues, almost like a very rudimentary precursor to the UN. AEGIS isn't that at all as far as I can tell.

The Vienna system was greatly weakened by the 1848 Revolutionary Wave, the Crimean War (1853–56), and nationalism in the 1860's and 1870's. Looking at all OOC posts, only the French and Taurican apps even mention the 1848 Revolutions. Presumably in our alternative history, 1848 didn't matter nearly as much. So that crisis didn't destabilize Europe. We haven't experienced a Crimean War (yet), and the recent Balkan Crisis didn't fundamentally shift the balance of power in our RP. And of course the 1860's and 1870's haven't happened yet.

Our RP may take place in a timeline when diplomacy was less tense, at least during the 1850's. Our system of diplomacy could completely collapse in the near future, but in the meantime, this RP's Vienna system of international relations is proving very successful.

Well obviously for numerous reasons events in this RP couldn't have possibly allowed for the establishment of the Vienna system or the more chaotic later half of it. All countries have had more or less radically different histories so it doesn't really make sense that there would be a Vienna system. But when the OP has said that everything that isn't specifically mentioned as being different in someone's app stays the same I assume the same applies to the international system. If that is not the case what then is the international system in this RP?

The real life world. You keep cutting back and forth between the real world and our alternate history as it suits your rather caustic argument. Why not nukes or the aeolipile kickstarting the Industrial Revolution? You answer this yourself by acknowledging the OP ruled a tech cap. But why must all other forms of human development be the same?

The fact that the OP has set a specific tech cap, doesn't equate to their being no other caps. If so its certainly a very arbitrary and illogical cap to set. Technology is just one aspect of human development that is closely related to all others. Technological, philosophical, political and other advances always fuels each other. If we have a 20th century international system why not a 20th century economic system? If we have a 20th century economic system why not technology?

I guess after all the pissing and moaning about shit you don't like or find unrealistic or can't even acknowledge as creative license, what the hell would you allow? How does this RP need to go in order to satisfy you enough that you'll play along or allow others to do as they would? Because if all you're going to do is shit on the ideas and initiatives of others that contravene your own, and denigrate an apparent inability to argue against your already made up mind that won't be convinced of anything contrary, then why bother playing at all?

EDIT: Credit where it's due. Your own RPing has been great. And I don't disagree with a desire for some realism. But I disagree that creative license needs to be as strangled as you appear to demand.

Please calm down and drop the strawmen.

First of all this isn't about what I will allow, I have no authority to allow or disallow anything but I reserve the right to call out what I perceive as anachronisms. Since you already agreed that debate is not a bad thing in your previous post why do you make it into a problem now? The OP decides what people are allowed to do, I merely comment. Secondly I am not arguing against ideas because they contravene my own, I am arguing against ideas because I generally don't believe in them and I resent the implication that I have some sinister motivations behind my arguments. Thirdly if you would actually bother to create an argument for the historic plausibility of the AEGIS in a 19th century setting instead of misrepresenting my views, and if the argument make sense I will of course consider it.

That aside, to answer your question. I will "allow" anything that is conceivable within the context of our 19th century setting. Any of the vast arrays of ideas and thoughts that people of this interesting age could have conceived of I am perfectly fine with. And if you can't RP within that immensely wide frame of the 19th century but have to include 20th and 21st century concepts then I have to turn your question around and ask what you are doing in a historic RP? Isn't the point of it all that we develop our nations from a basis of actual history?

[Oscalantine]

Quedi... dude, back off. I love your points, but you are getting into beefs with others almost every day. I need you to be a bit more considerate of others... please ^^;;;

Oh and folks, officially back after 2 days of madness. ANYTHING happened to the map, remind me again and Ill make a triple note of it and put it on the map.


In addition, Spain, Texas, Mexico, Belgium and all her colonies, and China and Mongolia is now open territory. I am making that official on this update.