New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Crimea-2

This parallel diverges early in the Crimean War. The British forces were led by a different officer because the originally assigned officer died of food poisoning. Where in Homeline history the opportunity of a surprise attack was dismissed, in this Q6 Low Mana parallel, it was taken. The city of Sebastopol fell with shocking speed.

The lessons that the western allies learned from this war in Homeline history were ignored here. Except in Russia. As in Homeline history the Czar and the Russian court pursued industrialization and the modernization of the military.

The local year is 1890. Although America learned brutal lessons from the ACW Europe's militaries are surprisingly old fashioned, except for Russia.

Florence Nightingale still modernized nursing but logistical support of Soldiers (outside of the USA and Russia) resembles the 1840s on Homeline.

Centrum is trying to modernize the British military. Homeline is trying to keep Centrum from taking over the parallel. The Cabal is more focused on gaining influence in the USA. Hollywood is coming. They have plans for that.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Thus in the century to follow, there would be far more states, none larger than North Carolina -- upward of 100, at least 11 of them in Alaska.

Oh, and side issue I didn't notice the first time, but the largest state isn't North Carolina when half the states were admitted, Virginia was bigger until West Virginia separated in the Civil War. Arguably Georgia was the largest state from 1792 or 1795 (depending on your view of its dispute with Spain) to 1802, and prior to that Virginia again - Kentucky was part of Virginia until 1792, and only 7 later states would've been bigger at admission than that combination). It was bigger yet when it joined the Confederation - if the states are for some reason considering physical size important at the time they are writing the Constitution, convincing them to give up their western claims in 1787 as they mostly did historically becomes a lot harder to justify.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by malloyd

if the states are for some reason considering physical size important at the time they are writing the Constitution, convincing them to give up their western claims in 1787 as they mostly did historically becomes a lot harder to justify.

That could be an alternate in and of itself though: the states being much larger and aggressive about new territory.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by malloyd

That seems nonsensical - states are weighted by population, not area.

(SNIP)

You'd have to go with populations, otherwise you'd have an increasingly unsustainable conflict between increasingly wealthy, densely populated urban areas, and the disproportionately represented rural communities.

The disproportionately high representation enjoyed by rural America in the U.S. Senate, and in the electoral college, is a persistent source of conflict in U.S. politics, today.

Were we to (say) double the number of sparsely-populated states, which still enjoyed the same two U.S. Senators as any state and at least three electoral college votes each, we'd have had a second Civil War within 100 years of the first, to "correct" the situation.

Only allowing territories to convert to statehood once they reach a population threshold, on the other hand, might actually address some of the real-world problems currently experienced, because you wouldn't see situations such as the Dakotas.

There, the territory was specifically divided and made into four states, instead of one, so as to satisfy the desire for Democrats and Republicans to maintain a balance of power in Congress -- especially, the U.S. Senate.

However, the voting population in the entire Dakota territory was barely 100,000 people, in the second half of the 1800s. so a population threshold might have, instead, resulted in a single huge state that encompassed not only what is today North and South Dakota, but also Montana and most of Wyoming.

That huge state would have only two U.S. Senators, instead of eight; and perhaps four (or even three) electoral college votes, instead of 12.

While those 12 electoral college votes don't mean a whole lot in day-to-day politics (or even all that much in presidential election years), the significant reduction in the number of rural U.S. senators would do much to address the disproportionate power and influence exercised by rural states, in U.S. politics.

However, since role-playing settings require conflict, and violent conflict is the most fun, going with the instability caused by the unwise decision to use area instead of population might make for a more interesting game.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

Were we to (say) double the number of sparsely-populated states, which still enjoyed the same two U.S. Senators as any state and at least three electoral college votes each, we'd have had a second Civil War within 100 years of the first, to "correct" the situation.

So splitting off rural parts of states would up the number of rural congress seats. Useful fact.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

So splitting off rural parts of states would up the number of rural congress seats. Useful fact.

Right. Every state gets at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of population (not that big of a deal, most of the time).
However, they also get two U.S. Senators -- the same as every other state -- and that's hugely impactful.

The number of electoral college votes equals the number of House districts, plus two for the senators, so the minimum number is three, regardless of the population of the state.

(By comparison, California has 55 votes in the Electoral college. Texas has 38, and New York and Florida have 29 each, followed by Illinois and Pennsylvania, with 20, each.)

The larger population states would still decide the presidency, in most cases.
However, when it came to federal law and federal budget expenditures, as well as appointment confirmations, the 100 U.S. Senators are hugely influential, and the chamber has usually been very evenly split.

Make membership in the U.S. Senate more sensitive to population, and the wealthier, urban states with more people receive a significant advantage.

Spawn off a bunch of low-population rural states based on land area, though, and a small minority of the U.S. population would, effectively, dictate the agenda to the larger, wealthier, majority.

There's no way that would last long, and with so much at stake in a rapidly-industrializing 19th Century United States, the fight would get ugly.

That said, the outcome would be even more predetermined than that of the Civil War of the 1860s.
In modern warfare, population, wealth and industry matter far, far more than the bravery and skill of individual soldiers -- although armies do need at least some of that, too.

[dcarson]

In theory states with 17% of the population can keep a bill from passing. That leads to tensions. So PCs need to arm twist Senators or find blackmail info or such depending on the campaign setup.

[Astromancer]

Suez-1

The Suez worlds are parallels where events around and effecting the Suez canal are the main change elements. In Suez-1 the Israeli attack on the Sinai peninsula in 1956 was far more successful and the Israelis were at the Suez canal before the joint Anglo-French statement was made. So the fact that the British and French were working with the Israelis was far from obvious. Soon the Suez canal was being run by a joint Anglo-French occupation. Egyptian authorities smell multiple rats but can't prove anything. Eisenhower is furious but unable to focus on the British, French, and Israelis, because of the Hungarian crisis. Russia is suspicious but likewise busy. Nasser, meanwhile, has lost all prestige.

Basically, this is an espionage game. Centrum, by aiding the Israeli army is strengthening the British Empire. They are also working to improve British society in the UK by improving education for the working class and building up the local industry, both of which are being opposed by entrenched local interests.

Homeline likes what Centrum is doing in Britain and is focused on aiding working class Egyptian resistance to the Anglo-French occupation. Meanwhile, the Cabal sees Centrum's British plans as bad for them. So they're trying to stop Centrum from saving British industry and reforming British Educational systems to make them fairer.

[Astromancer]

Areo-3

The Aero worlds are defined by anomalous aerospace technologies. In the case of Areo-3, a Low Mana Q6 parallel, that technology is airships. The local year is 1863 and only the USA and the CSA have airships. Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Brazil, and Japan, all want the technology and access to the resources to make them. Russia, Prussia, and Japan, are backing the Union. Britain, France, Austria, and Brazil, favor the CSA. But the UK is holding back because its leadership fear a revolution if they back a slave holding society.

Centrum wants to break up the USA and head off anti imperialism (which the USA was always a hotbed of that philosophy). Homeline wants to thwart Centrum and find out when and where this TL5+1^ world diverged.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Homeline wants to thwart Centrum and find out when and where this TL5+1^ world diverged.

The things that need to be added to have practical airships in the 1860s include:

• Internal combustion engines.
• Fuel for those engines.
• Suitable materials for the structure of rigid airships. That means aluminium or magnesium, available in bulk and with decent quality.

Refining aluminium or magnesium needs industrial-scale electricity supplies, which have all kinds of other uses. So do internal combustion engines. This world will continue to diverge, quite quickly.