Worldbuilding-Adventure Friendly Cold War/Alternate Earth

[Sciencezam]

So! I'm running a game set in a sort of alternate earth, with the players being russian soldiers, and I'd like some help getting it a bit more well developed.

The game itself borrows somewhat from the anime Strike Witches-it follows a group of people who are basically flying infantry. They're like what would happen if the Rocketeer was mass-produced. (They don't have access to magic like in the anime, though-the explanation I've been running with is that some people are just THAT AWESOME.)

In terms of technology, there are bits of nazi superscience floating around, though currently they're in the realm of not-fully understood technology. People can maintain and repair them, but not grok how they work.

This is the realm that Nuclear Reactors fall under currently; they are weird, mysterious things that kill people who try to fix them and that produce huge wads of energy. So TL 6-7^, basically.

Aside from the tech, though, I'd like ideas on how the countries and politics of the world would look. Geography I figure is much the same as the real world. I haven't done too much set in stone, but things I have in mind so far are:

-Russia and England are the main communist powers in europe/asia
-What would normally be France is also part of England
-Actual France moved over to south america
-France and America are total bros and teaming up to fight communism
-Nuclear weapons do not exist
-Names of everyone and everything is changed relentlessly; I'm only using the above ones because they make things easier to refer to in the thread.

So, if anyone has ideas, or suggestions on things I should think about, that'd be grand. The whole flying soldiers thing was around during the WWII analogue, so that probably changed stuff around.

[David Johnston2]

With a set up like that, Communism will be fighting itself. England and Russia are going to be more concerned with who's in charge between them, than with the opposite hemisphere.

[sn0wball]

I don´t feel that moving France to South America fits. There has never been any connection between those. Why not move France to North America, like, say, the historical Virginia? North Africa would be another option or Southeast Asia.

Alternatively, with England having obviously swallowed anyway, why not make Spain or Portugal (or a united state comprising both) the SOuth American ally of the US?

[Ashtagon]

Portugal would make a much better "refugee European power" in South America, considering they actually did that for a time.

If France were to do this, believable options would be Quebec, Louisiana (depending on N American butterflies), or North Africa (depends on a suppressed Islamic identity).

What's the USA doing in all this?

[ericthered]

I'm thinking that the "cold war" aspect of the setting will have to rely on the ocean to drive it, though you could divide up asia and africa. other wise I'm not sure why the parties would hold back.

And if you want to send france to a south america analouge, thats fine enough. Why did you pick south america though. As another thought, in what sense have they moved? its an impressive country that can pick itself up, cross and ocean, and remain in world politics.

[Sciencezam]

Hrm. I figured it would be something where a french colony had grown to be relatively important, while normal european france got conquered. It hasn't really come up in-game yet, so I might just use portugal or france instead.

As for the cold war aspect, this is mostly setting things up in terms of backstory. In-game, they shifted to open war last session.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

I don´t feel that moving France to South America fits. There has never been any connection between those. Why not move France to North America, like, say, the historical Virginia? North Africa would be another option or Southeast Asia.

If going for a government in exile in the Americas, you could do worse than something like the Republic of Britain. Essentially Taiwan in Canada. Possibly playing host to one or more European exiled governments.

Interesting related note, during WWII one Canadian hospital was temporarily declared Dutch territory so that Princess Margriet would be born in the proper country.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Sciencezam

-Russia and England are the main communist powers in europe/asia
-What would normally be France is also part of England

What state is Germany in? How did WWII finish? Did England become communist before or after that?

Originally Posted by Sciencezam

-Nuclear weapons do not exist

Not yet invented, or actually impossible given the world's physics? The latter seems safer, and can be rationalised to the standard necessary for this world.

[Sciencezam]

Originally Posted by johndallman

What state is Germany in? How did WWII finish? Did England become communist before or after that?

Originally Posted by johndallman

Not yet invented, or actually impossible given the world's physics? The latter seems safer, and can be rationalised to the standard necessary for this world.

The details on the finish of the war I'm not too sure on, myself. Probably less american involvement as things wrapped up-I figure England got to be communist before the war started, so there's that.

After talking with a friend I think I have a fair handle on the Japan situation-land invasion happens, huge casualties, constant fighting, and some guerrillas even after the government fragments/surrenders. Russia helps with the land invasion, and keeps some chunks of Japan to itself. The americans sort of slip out thanks to the whole guerilla nightmare going on, and China starts taking over for them there. (Incidentally, China would still be democratic. Because I think it makes things more interesting that way.)

As for the nuclear weapons, I had been going with "not invented yet", though I was also considering making it much harder to get the necessary materials, due to less of them sticking around in the crust. Though if there's some way to make nuclear weaponry impossible while still allowing for nuclear reactors, that'd be interesting.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Sciencezam

The americans sort of slip out thanks to the whole guerilla nightmare going on, and China starts taking over for them there. (Incidentally, China would still be democratic. Because I think it makes things more interesting that way.)

You're going to need a pretty radical historical change to make China organised enough to take over even a mostly-defeated Japan. Deleting the Chinese Communists would only be a start: you'd need more to make it plausible.

Originally Posted by Sciencezam

As for the nuclear weapons, I had been going with "not invented yet", though I was also considering making it much harder to get the necessary materials, due to less of them sticking around in the crust. Though if there's some way to make nuclear weaponry impossible while still allowing for nuclear reactors, that'd be interesting.

It's rubber physics, but it is fairly subtle rubber physics. Understanding it requires knowing a bit about how nuclear reactions work:

When a uranium nucleus fissions, you get neutrons produced. Those can fission more nuclei, producing a chain reaction. Provided at least one neutron from each fission causes a further fission, the chain reaction continues. This condition is called "cititicality" - a critical reaction continues or accelerates, a sub-critical one dies away.

Real-world uranium produces two-and-a-bit neutrons on average, so if most of those cause further fissions, the number of fissions increases rapidly, and you get an explosion. This is an atom bomb

In a reactor, you arrange things so that about one neutron per fission causes a further fission. You arrange for the rest to be lost or absorbed. A reactor's control rods are absorbers. When you pull them out a bit, they absorb fewer neutrons, so the number of fissions increases, and the reactor generates more heat.

There is a subtlety in that not all the neutrons from a fission are released immediately. Most of them are, and those are called "prompt neutrons". But a few percent of them are released a little later, a few tens of milliseconds. that isn't long, but the prompt ones are released on a timescale of nanoseconds.

Those delayed neutrons are important for a reactor. If you arrange things so that the reactor is only just critical, because of the delayed neutrons, things happen slowly and can be controlled by humans. A bomb is critical on the prompt neutrons alone, and everything happens in a millisecond or so. You can't throttle it - it just goes off.

Now, if you want your world to have reactors, but not bombs, you tweak the physics so that there's only an average of 0.9 or so prompt neutrons per fission, and another 1.2 or so, on average, delayed neutrons. This is rubber physics because I can't tell you what else in physics would have to change if this was true. But it has the effect you want: it's absolutely impossible to build an atom bomb, but reactors are possible. As a bonus, they are easier to control.