New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Drifter

I'm of two minds on this. Psychedelic drugs effect serotonin receptors in the cortex, which is integrating sensory signals from the senses. So those signals get disrupted; my very very basic understanding of the process.

On the one hand this would very likely just make any psi powers harder to use. There might be a small change of great insight into using the power, but I really doubt that - it would be more like trying to drive a truck or figure out differential equations while on LSD.

On the other hand maybe the laws of this reality allow 'mind expanding' drugs to do just that. They provide the missing power to the right sections of the brain, along with activating the "correct" serotonin receptors to allow for psi powers. Its still a lot like driving a truck under the influence, so I'd give control rolls and such. To me this is the more game-able concept, fitting into the Psychedelic-60s motif. I don't know if it would work on people born outside this timeline, however, as its probably a mutation or even physical law change up.

Try this old chesnut. The drug that give you Psionic powers but only when you're too disconected from reality to understand what you're doing. You are powerful, you are also helpless and a threat to everyone near you.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Anders

Gavrilo Princip is run over by a cart on his way to assassinate the Arch-Duke. There is no World War I, at least not right then and there.

There will probably be one within a decade. The organisation of armies of the time, with large pools of reservists who take time to mobilise, and the need for pre-planning of the railway movements that get them to the right place make it advantageous to be the side starting a war, if it looks likely to happen anyway.

The alliance systems that drag in more parties to any dispute that gets serious, and the lack of wisdom of several of the governments of the time ("a big hand for Kaiser Wilhelm II!") mean that wars always look plausible.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anders

I haven't read all the pages, so pardon me if this one has been taken. Gavrilo Princip is run over by a cart on his way to assassinate the Arch-Duke. There is no World War I, at least not right then and there.

WWI would be fantastically difficult to stop. Yes, you could delay it a bit, but I really don't see it being stopped, and I don't see delaying it or even hurrying it along a few years measurably changing the outcome. The military technology won't do anything useful until the war actually happens, and any one of British tanks, American manpower, and Austrian collapse were enough to finish the war for Germany (all of them showed up in force at once).

I've actually thought trying to stop the war would be a fun campaign-- but ultimately a futile one, unless you start years before or get control of a major power's government. Even then, its only possible, not mostly done. My campgain would probably consist of going around putting out fires while IW agents in the governments try to finagle things out of the mess.

[adm]

The best way to prevent our WWI would be to prevent the construction of the German Navy. Germany and Britain had been loose allies of convenience against the French for an extended period, and the British had fought several wars with France for over a thousand years, the building of the Kriegsmarine ended that.

There are several ways to do this, the easiest being to kill Kaiser Wilhelm II early. Next would be prompt surgery on his father Fredrick's throat cancer, if he had five to ten years on the throne, Europe would likely look somewhat different, since he was far more Liberal than his father or his son. After that, it gets trickier, was Alfred von Tirpitz the only financial genius that put together a finance plan for a Navy that the German Diet would pass? Or could someone else, that Kaiser Wilhelm II trusted, do it?

IF this had happened, it is unlikely that Britain would have been prepared enough to intervene on the Western Front in time to affect the Battle of the Marne, if they had even felt a need to intervene at all. Could the French have held the Marne against a larger, (no Navy siphoning off men and material) and fresher (no fighting the British on their flank) German army? Even if the Marne still held, if the British, Canadians, and ANZACS (along with the Indians, Gurkhas etc.) did not strengthen the French line, how long could France have lasted? It gets even worse if Britain actively aligns with Germany, as several high ranking British MPs wished to do before the Kriegsmarine ended such thoughts, notably Joesph Chamberlain. A shorter WWI, with a clear winner, would likely have led to a better, or at least different, twentieth century.

[Astromancer]

Try this one, Queen Victoria was the object of an assassination attempt in 1840 by Edward Oxford.

If he succedes you can go several different ways. First Victoria's uncle Ernest Augustus of Hanover would have been heir to the throne. Ernest Augustus was a hard right Ultratory. The throne would have been bitterly anti-reform both under King Ernest and his son George V (he was GV of Hanover, here he'd be GV of England too). You could go several different directions with an anti-Liberal Britain. Ernest Augustus was supposed to dispise America, interference in the American Civil War would be highly likely. Revolts and violent agitation against right-right rule would be likely too. Ireland and Scotland would both be in for worse than what they got in our history, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would suffer too. There's also the chance of the Anglo-German wars staring early, perhaps in the 1870's. Picture Bismark and Louis Napolean teamed-up against Britain.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Ernest Augustus was a hard right Ultratory. The throne would have been bitterly anti-reform both under King Ernest and his son George V (he was GV of Hanover, here he'd be GV of England too).

Ernest Augustus was sufficiently unpopular at the time of Victoria's accession that he was advised to leave the country quickly and quietly before a mob caught up with him. I think Parliament would have used the precedents of the early 18th century and changed the succession rather than put up with him. No easy way of telling what they'd have done, though.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Ernest Augustus was sufficiently unpopular at the time of Victoria's accession that he was advised to leave the country quickly and quietly before a mob caught up with him. I think Parliament would have used the precedents of the early 18th century and changed the succession rather than put up with him. No easy way of telling what they'd have done, though.

You could play a big change in who sits on the throne in so many ways. Have someone kill Victoria after her first son is killed. Edward would be the King from before his first birthday. Would Prince albert be allowed to raise his son as a native German speaker? Would Edward be focused on his job? Or might his taste for high-living marginalised him, the throne, and the whole idea of Monarchy.

Killing Victoria early would radically change who sat on most of the important thrones of Europe. The whole context of late 19th century politics could change wildly.

Prince Albert is somewhat underrated these days. He was a major influence in British politics from the time of his oldest son's birth until his death. Either amplify his influence by making him Regent or have political opponents remove his son from his influence and kick him out of the nation and you generate big changes.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by (E)

What happens when WW1 is fought without the aid of the machine gun.

The lines would be more fluid, but indirect fire artillery (with and without forward observers) was the big killer.

A more interesting variant would have some of those lessons driven home earlier, with time to assimilate them before the fighting starts. African history is not my forte, but (for example) let Krupp back the Boers against the British, as a way of testing artillery under field conditions (a la the Spanish Civil War for WWII).

[patchwork]

Characterizing Evil Ernie as a "hard right ultraTory" does something of a disservice to both him and the Tories. He was a totalitarian, while the Tories were simply conservative aristocratic oligarchs; for example, Evil Ernie wanted to abolish the property requirement to vote (while keeping the franchise limited to communicants of the Church of England) on the theory that poor, uneducated Anglicans would vote as their priests and their King told them, thus actually increasing his power.

That said, what does Parliament imagine it can do about him? His son is incapable of personal rule (being blind, he will be heavily dependent on his assistants and advisors). There's not a lot of republican sentiment to work with.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by patchwork

That said, what does Parliament imagine it can do about him? His son is incapable of personal rule (being blind, he will be heavily dependent on his assistants and advisors). There's not a lot of republican sentiment to work with.

The same as it did with James II: remove an unacceptable monarch and pick another one. Parliament has that power in the UK. The political strength of republicanism is basically irrelevant: they wouldn't be trying to establish a republic, that not having turned out well last time.