Eurofed
Banned
Exactly. Amazonian territories (but not Mato Grosso or Goias) must be united in the Amazonia Territory.
United States of the Americas and Oceania Version 2.0
- Thread starter Eurofed
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. Amazonian territories (but not Mato Grosso or Goias) must be united in the Amazonia Territory.
Eurofed
Banned
I prefer to use Klondike. It does not risk the potential confusion that Yukon does and calls fond memories of Uncle Scrooge deeds. Officially approved and adopted by the TL.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
Concerning the ongoing debate about African map borders and the variant map proposed by Darth Raven, I have this much to say, so far:
- Italy and Germany are indeed the best of allies, a partnership perhaps similar, necessary differences with 'Victorian' Age taken into account, to the modern Anglo-American or Franco-German ones. These are not powers that are going to haggle about every last inch of land, especially about a poor-value area like desert, in an age when oilfields and gasfields are not known yet. If a simple, functional option is available as a border, they are going to adopt it.
- Previous maps up to the 1862 one were originally done Helios-Ra for the first version and only modified by me to make them compliant with version 2.0. I value the work of H-R greatly and I think he made an excellent overall job of translating my TL descriptions into a map. This does not mean I necessarily regard it as perfect. E.g. my main guideline about the postwar Russo-Turkish border is that it must leave the 'Six Armenian Vilayets' in Russian hands, following natural borders if any. By looking at wiki maps, it looks like such a border comes fairly close to, but is not entirely, a straight line. Therefore, depending on how we look at it, a straightish line may be an acceptable compromise but if one has the skills and cares to devise and draw an even more accurate border, it is fine and probably better.
-As it concerns the 1875 and 1898 maps, they were done by me (except for Sub-Saharan Africa where I used the work of Dr.Tron and for some US states borders where I used the ideas of Tubby.twins and others) with the 1862 map as a template. I am far from a very skilled mapmaker, and when I had to draw the new US South American state or Asian international borders, typically I hand-drew them by making reasoned guesses at plausible regional divisions (US South America) or by trying to reproduce OTL ethnic/administrative/historical borders (East Asia). This means that for a more skilled map-maker than me, there is certainly ample ground for improvement.
-As it concerns jointly-ruled areas, ITTL there are some long-standing areas in Turkish Straits and in the Levant, and Helios-Ra indicated them by the UCS canon method of alternating dot-stripes, to what IMO seems like a graphically-acceptable result (probably because the colors of the co-owners are three or more in those cases). When I had to add Italo-German colony of New Guinea and Russo-Japanese protectorate of Manchuria to the map, I followed the same method. Darth Raven has made a slightly different variation, by using thicker stripes, and admittedly the result seems a bit better graphically (because there are only two colors to be used for the co-owners or co-overlords).
- In any case where we agree that borders need to be changed in the 1898 map and this would create an inconsistency with previous maps, previous maps should be retroactively changed to keep them consistent. Unfortunately, I cannot replace them in their original posts close to old TL updates, and this annoys me considerably, but map inconsistencies annoy me even more, so I would have to repost all the edited maps together.
- Alternatively, such border changes ought to be justified in the TL by events like border-revision treaties, limited wars, territorial purchases, etc. Such events should fit with the narrative to be acceptable. E.g. I originally used the OTL modern Thai-Indochinese border when I established the one between Italian Siam and German Indochina. Later I changed my mind and deemed somewhat closer to the precolonial Siam-Vietnamese border would be more fitting. So I used the butterfly of Germany ceding some bits of Indochina (the ones claimed by Siam IOTL, southwestern Laos and northwestern Cambodia) to Italy as compensation for Germany annexing a piece of China (Hainan) and Italy getting none. Of course, such justifications are not appropriate in many cases.
- Italy and Germany are indeed the best of allies, a partnership perhaps similar, necessary differences with 'Victorian' Age taken into account, to the modern Anglo-American or Franco-German ones. These are not powers that are going to haggle about every last inch of land, especially about a poor-value area like desert, in an age when oilfields and gasfields are not known yet. If a simple, functional option is available as a border, they are going to adopt it.
- Previous maps up to the 1862 one were originally done Helios-Ra for the first version and only modified by me to make them compliant with version 2.0. I value the work of H-R greatly and I think he made an excellent overall job of translating my TL descriptions into a map. This does not mean I necessarily regard it as perfect. E.g. my main guideline about the postwar Russo-Turkish border is that it must leave the 'Six Armenian Vilayets' in Russian hands, following natural borders if any. By looking at wiki maps, it looks like such a border comes fairly close to, but is not entirely, a straight line. Therefore, depending on how we look at it, a straightish line may be an acceptable compromise but if one has the skills and cares to devise and draw an even more accurate border, it is fine and probably better.
-As it concerns the 1875 and 1898 maps, they were done by me (except for Sub-Saharan Africa where I used the work of Dr.Tron and for some US states borders where I used the ideas of Tubby.twins and others) with the 1862 map as a template. I am far from a very skilled mapmaker, and when I had to draw the new US South American state or Asian international borders, typically I hand-drew them by making reasoned guesses at plausible regional divisions (US South America) or by trying to reproduce OTL ethnic/administrative/historical borders (East Asia). This means that for a more skilled map-maker than me, there is certainly ample ground for improvement.
-As it concerns jointly-ruled areas, ITTL there are some long-standing areas in Turkish Straits and in the Levant, and Helios-Ra indicated them by the UCS canon method of alternating dot-stripes, to what IMO seems like a graphically-acceptable result (probably because the colors of the co-owners are three or more in those cases). When I had to add Italo-German colony of New Guinea and Russo-Japanese protectorate of Manchuria to the map, I followed the same method. Darth Raven has made a slightly different variation, by using thicker stripes, and admittedly the result seems a bit better graphically (because there are only two colors to be used for the co-owners or co-overlords).
- In any case where we agree that borders need to be changed in the 1898 map and this would create an inconsistency with previous maps, previous maps should be retroactively changed to keep them consistent. Unfortunately, I cannot replace them in their original posts close to old TL updates, and this annoys me considerably, but map inconsistencies annoy me even more, so I would have to repost all the edited maps together.
- Alternatively, such border changes ought to be justified in the TL by events like border-revision treaties, limited wars, territorial purchases, etc. Such events should fit with the narrative to be acceptable. E.g. I originally used the OTL modern Thai-Indochinese border when I established the one between Italian Siam and German Indochina. Later I changed my mind and deemed somewhat closer to the precolonial Siam-Vietnamese border would be more fitting. So I used the butterfly of Germany ceding some bits of Indochina (the ones claimed by Siam IOTL, southwestern Laos and northwestern Cambodia) to Italy as compensation for Germany annexing a piece of China (Hainan) and Italy getting none. Of course, such justifications are not appropriate in many cases.
Last edited:
Just one last thing about space exploration while the current TL isn't exactly developed enough to have reached that moment:
I think FTL should be held off until we can agree on two things:
1. That Einstein's field equations will also be held as correct as OTL.
2. That Miguel Alcubierre's theory will hold true in TTL (right now, unless someone just made a Nobel-prize worthy discovery, there is no known way to artificially create such a "warp bubble" as hypothesized by Alcubierre.)
That wraps up my discussion about space until TTL reaches the point where it should be discussed again. Cheers!
I think FTL should be held off until we can agree on two things:
1. That Einstein's field equations will also be held as correct as OTL.
2. That Miguel Alcubierre's theory will hold true in TTL (right now, unless someone just made a Nobel-prize worthy discovery, there is no known way to artificially create such a "warp bubble" as hypothesized by Alcubierre.)
That wraps up my discussion about space until TTL reaches the point where it should be discussed again. Cheers!
Eurofed
Banned
Just one last thing about space exploration while the current TL isn't exactly developed enough to have reached that moment:
I think FTL should be held off until we can agree on two things:
1. That Einstein's field equations will also be held as correct as OTL.
2. That Miguel Alcubierre's theory will hold true in TTL (right now, unless someone just made a Nobel-prize worthy discovery, there is no known way to artificially create such a "warp bubble" as hypothesized by Alcubierre.)
That wraps up my discussion about space until TTL reaches the point where it should be discussed again. Cheers!
As TL author, I have already agreed that development of FTL in all likelihood goes beyond the near-future sci-fi technological boundaries that I plan for the end of the TL (early 21st century), unless perhaps there is a strong readers' call or compelling story justification for me to include it.
Just to let you know where I stand, I am convinced that there is sufficient room in the theoretical physics involving Alcubierre's theory to regard it as a scientifically sound and plausible possibility. Barring radically new evidence, at the moment, IMO there is no known technological way to artificially create the "warp bubble", but there is also no compelling reason to regard it as physically impossible. Therefore, I have no plausibility objection whatsoever to have Alcubierre's warp FTL be developed and used in a non-ASB Future TL. I have more or less the same stance as it concerns wormholes.
As far as I'm concerned, all it probably takes is to master the high-energy and exotic-matter speculative technologies that should make them feasible. Of course, this requires a helluva lot of technology development, and it might involve different points of the Kardashev scale. But I'm really not convinced that the physics of this universe as currently understood make c an unavoidable barrier whatever the technological level and method.
If we instead take other types of FTL proposed and often used by science-fiction authors, such as hyperspace and inertialess drives, I can see nothing in theoretical physics that might justify regarding them as possible if we throw enough technology at them, so I'm driven to regard them as ASB stuff.
Having said that, I gladly agree to close the argument about space until the TL reaches the point where it becomes relevant.
Last edited:
As TL author, I have already agreed that development of FTL in all likelihood goes beyond the near-future sci-fi technological boundaries that I plan for the end of the TL (early 21st century), unless perhaps there is a strong readers' call or compelling story justification for me to include it.
Just to let you know where I stand, I am convinced that there is sufficient room in the theoretical physics involving Alcubierre's theory to regard it as a scientifically sound and plausible possibility. Barring radically new evidence, at the moment, IMO there is no known technological way to artificially create the "warp bubble", but there is also no compelling reason to regard it as physically impossible. Therefore, I have no plausibility objection whatsoever to have Alcubierre's warp FTL be developed and used in a non-ASB Future TL. I have more or less the same stance as it concerns wormholes.
As far as I'm concerned, all it probably takes is to master the high-energy and exotic-matter speculative technologies that should make them feasible. Of course, this requires a helluva lot of technology development, and it might involve different points of the Kardashev scale. But I'm really not convinced that the physics of this universe as currently understood make c an unavoidable barrier whatever the technological level and method.
If we instead take other types of FTL proposed and often used by science-fiction authors, such as hyperspace and inertialess drives, I can see nothing in theoretical physics that might justify regarding them as possible if we throw enough technology at them, so I'm driven to regard them as ASB stuff.
Agreed..., we're not even a Type I civilization for now to make FTL travel possible by the early 21st century... I don't expect TTL timeline to miraculously make it possible because this is far fetched...
A near-Type II civilization can make this possible... and in our case... It would still take hundreds of years for us to make it into Type II... And it's already the physicists that are talking about this...
Ah, I knew I forgot something. No problem to fix. I had a question for you. Should Amazonia include two or four of the existing territorial regions on the map? In other words, are the two unorganized territories in northern South America (former regions of Gran Colombia bordering the states of Boyaca and Orinoco) be included in Amazonia?
Eurofed
Banned
It should include those ex-Gran Colombian territories too (and if you check current revised version of my 1898 map in post #534, Amazonia Territory already includes them). I see no good reason to let them stay separate, given that those areas are part of the Amazonian region.
So you want me to make a map following the red borders, with the coasts to the North obviously going to Russia?
Map 2.0
-fixed egyptian border, German Italian border, and papal andora
-new Turk Russo border
Can you give me a post number? I am having trouble finding the above comment
-fixed egyptian border, German Italian border, and papal andora
-new Turk Russo border
Can you give me a post number? I am having trouble finding the above comment
Eurofed
Banned
Essentially yes, of course if there is an obvious natural border someplace close one may use that too. The new Russo-Turkish border in your 2.0 version seems OK.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
As per last TL edit, Bermuda has been merged with North Carolina. The other changes seems like an improvement. I'm still uncertain about that color.
Eurofed
Banned
I hope all of us may come to a constructive agreement on the map.
Your opinion on the color issue ?GAH! LOGIN ISSUES!
Whatev. I'm in now. SO, pertinent questions about the TL:
What is the ultimate fate of Madagascar? F-I colonized it, so they're on the wrong side of the upcoming war. Who snatches it? USA or CP Europe?
Regarding territories/states: I don't know if this is just me, but I generally prefer statehood to territories if at all possible. I know that TTL USA is very particular about meeting population/development requirements and such, but I have a couple of suggestions if you'll entertain them:
I remember reading about a Klondike state in USAO version 1 that covered all of the northwest territories, Yukon and Alaska. Do you have something like that planned out? It'd be a big state, geographically; gigantic, actually. But it'd have a population between 1 and 2 million people, so... it'd meet the requirements for statehood. Maybe you could include Greenland, if that population is too small for you.
As for the whole Amazonia thing that's going on, do you think we could just split up the territory between the already existing states surrounding it? I like the idea of protecting the rainforest, but maybe you could just split it up into a bunch of national parks or something.
You seem set on Amazonia, though, so I won't get my hopes up.
Whatev. I'm in now. SO, pertinent questions about the TL:
What is the ultimate fate of Madagascar? F-I colonized it, so they're on the wrong side of the upcoming war. Who snatches it? USA or CP Europe?
Regarding territories/states: I don't know if this is just me, but I generally prefer statehood to territories if at all possible. I know that TTL USA is very particular about meeting population/development requirements and such, but I have a couple of suggestions if you'll entertain them:
I remember reading about a Klondike state in USAO version 1 that covered all of the northwest territories, Yukon and Alaska. Do you have something like that planned out? It'd be a big state, geographically; gigantic, actually. But it'd have a population between 1 and 2 million people, so... it'd meet the requirements for statehood. Maybe you could include Greenland, if that population is too small for you.
As for the whole Amazonia thing that's going on, do you think we could just split up the territory between the already existing states surrounding it? I like the idea of protecting the rainforest, but maybe you could just split it up into a bunch of national parks or something.
You seem set on Amazonia, though, so I won't get my hopes up.
@tubby.twins: I know this is a little belated, but could you make a clickable world map of the world in 1781? It is, after all, the year that Britain recognizes the sovereignty of her 15 colonies.
Proposed government building architecture for Liberty City:
Do you think we could just put all of the bigtime government offices into a bunch of big ol' skyscrapers? Three skyscrapers, representing the three major branches of the federal government. One for the POTUS, one for the SCOTUS, and one for Congress. That would be epic.
And I was also thinking that the President's official residence has got to have an oceanside view, hands down. The new location of the capital is gorgeous; it needs to take advantage of the natural Caribbean attractiveness.
Liberty City is gonna have it all. It's a beautiful place, it's economically important(because of the canal and because it's a port city), it's politically important... I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it blew right past New York in terms of wealth.
I was thinking of something else also: How big is DC going to be? Will it just be the whole city? Or will it just be the part of the city containing the federal government buildings? Because this city is going to be big.
EDIT: Wait, is it a port city? You actually didn't specify that.
Do you think we could just put all of the bigtime government offices into a bunch of big ol' skyscrapers? Three skyscrapers, representing the three major branches of the federal government. One for the POTUS, one for the SCOTUS, and one for Congress. That would be epic.
And I was also thinking that the President's official residence has got to have an oceanside view, hands down. The new location of the capital is gorgeous; it needs to take advantage of the natural Caribbean attractiveness.
Liberty City is gonna have it all. It's a beautiful place, it's economically important(because of the canal and because it's a port city), it's politically important... I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it blew right past New York in terms of wealth.
I was thinking of something else also: How big is DC going to be? Will it just be the whole city? Or will it just be the part of the city containing the federal government buildings? Because this city is going to be big.
EDIT: Wait, is it a port city? You actually didn't specify that.
Did I miss an uptime? This is a good TL but its been some time since there has been update.
- Status