Talk:Victoria (1983: Doomsday)

I would like to suggest that Seattle and the metroplex there were a recent addition to the Republic, and I would also suggest that Victoria had skirmishes, if not war, with the warlords in Spokane. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing what you come up with! Louisiannan 16:04, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about the . Mitro 17:18, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * and I would expect a fair amount of unrest among the refugees, short of an extensive police state/martial law for the first 5 years until things were settled. Louisiannan 17:50, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to figure out some ideas to incorporate the warlords in Spokane during the construction of Fort Bennett in Mt Vernon in 1996, but the Navajo nation article implies they were mostly wiped out after 1993. Ideas? --Oerwinde 23:02, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting about San Juan. Will be mostly concerned with consolidating power and reclaiming BC until early 2000, after San Juan's establishment.

According to already established canon, Canada makes contact with Vancouver Island in 1995. I'm altering the page to make room for your republic. --DarthEinstein 19:35, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

oh man, I must have missed that.

The City of Kelowna survived as a citystate? That is good news, as I have family in Kelowna. --Yankovic270 17:28, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I was planning for it and the Okanagan region to join Victoria around mid to late 2010, while Kamloops will remain independant. Resentment from Victoria taking so long to send aid. Whether or not Prince George eventually takes control is up in the air.--Oerwinde 18:31, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes sense that they survived, I don't see why the Soviets would nuke these cities and contact would be hard after Doomsday because of the mountains. Oerwinde, why don't you create a separate article about the Okanagan Confederation? They are a separate political entity from Victoria. --DarthEinstein 23:43, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Contact
Considering that the MSP had contact with the Pacific nations as early as 1991, it seems odd that it took Victoria until the 21st century to make contact with them when they are in the relatively same place as the MSP and Alaska. I think contact would have happened earlier for Victoria, most likely sometimes in the 90s, maybe even when the went on its world voyage. Mitro 13:05, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

-Well, reading the MSP article, it seemed they didn't have much of a presense until they actually formed in 2006, so I figured official contact shouldn't be made until then. I should change it so official relations were established in 2007. --Oerwinde 18:32, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Contact and official diplomatic relations are two different things. The cities of the soon to be MSP had contact and even some trade with the Pacific nations but there was no official diplomatic relations until the MSP was formed. Victoria on the other hand has a stable and united government much earlier. There is no reason why the ANZC would ignore them until 2007, especially with their presence in Alaska starting when it became an associated state. Mitro 19:02, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully fixed. Very thankful for the feedback, theres so much already established and a lot to read so I miss a lot. Hence why this is a work in progress.--Oerwinde 20:33, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being willing to "play by the rules". QSS and QAA aren't always the most straightforward things, but I think you're getting the hang of it quite well. Louisiannan 22:20, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'd think there would be contact with the NAU by now - especially with the Canadian part. SouthWriter 20:38, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to have the Premier do a tour negotiating the reconstruction of the CP railway with provisional Canada, and strengthening ties with the ANZC but with King Andrew arriving in Victoria that would be rather rude.Oerwinde 20:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy
How did Victoria react to contact with ? Mitro 14:18, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * They would react positively. Knowing which monarch the Lieutenant Governor was representing would be good. I'm not sure when I would have them make contact. They're literally on the other side of the world.--Oerwinde 18:58, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Military
Why woulf the military operate an old carrier and a missile submarine? it does not make sence!--HAD 10:05, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

The nuclear subs do more than just carry nukes, they can be used for recon as well as being able to go places ships can't. The Canadian military was heavily reliant on their american allies, with them gone the remnants need to defend themselves. I don't think a single Sub and Carrier is that bad.--Oerwinde 18:03, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

true about the sub, but carriers are useless without there air groups. if the carrier is heavily damaged, what about the planes? are any still flyable?--HAD 09:59, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * All the planes were destroyed, but there were some at the Whidby Island Naval Air Station.--Oerwinde 10:12, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Are they carrier Capable?, ie not maritime patrol aircraft. --HAD 12:56, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Whidby Island mostly had A-6 Intruders and EA-6B Prowlers. Which by the pictures on wikipedia of them parked on Aircraft Carriers, I would think are carrier capable. --Oerwinde 18:17, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed. Victoria keeps it carrier then! --HAD 08:32, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii
Hawaii probably also has diplomatic relations with Victoria. Hawaii still prides itself as Australia-New Zealand's link to the American mainland, so any interaction with the ANZC woul probably pass through Hawaii, anyway. Benkarnell 04:02, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed--Oerwinde 05:42, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Questions
I'm not so sure about this one... it is, after all, centered on the one thing on Canada's west coast likely to draw a nuclear strike. I think its a safe assumption that 1.1 million people in British Columbia survive Doomsday and the following winter, but most of them are far away from the island. The largest urbanized area in the province is NOT going to be a place where people will not starve. Most will flee in search of food and die trying to find it. If we have a country starting here, shouldn't it be located to the north along the coast and only recently have expanded that far south?--Loughery111 18:22, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, having read more of the history page, we can accept a much lower population but the same geographic center. A state with a starting base of 60,000 is not going to reach 1.1 million in 25 years. And Victoria is the last place refugees will head for. They're going to be headed away from population centers, assuming they've been destroyed, and towards the plains provinces looking for farmland and food. Coincidentally that takes them straight away from the coast and towards the UAR. So we have two options, in my mind. First, we have a state, centered further north and inland, with about the current population. Or, alternatively, we have the current state, where it is, but with a population of 300,000, maximum.--Loughery111 18:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * The greater Victoria area alone has a population of over 300k And much of Vancouver Island is agricultural land. With focused agricultural development as well as fishing and incorporated washington territory there is enough food supply. The 1.1 million isn't just the BC territory. BC territory is more like 600-700k total.


 * The North/Inland state is here: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Republic_of_New_Caledonia_%281983:_Doomsday%29--Oerwinde 18:52, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the area can't support that many people in the long run. I'm saying that in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday there was little chance they would have gotten a large enough population base to justify the current numbers. Even if we assume everyone who lived there and made it there lived, that's still only 360,000. They definitely won't get significant migration for a long time, because no one is going to go towards a destroyed, irradiated Vancouver from inland. So natural population growth is all that this state likely gets to boost its numbers. Thus, there are two real options if you're looking for realism: either we keep the same state with a smaller population (half million or thereabouts), as well as the northern state with a smaller population (another half million), or we have one larger northern state (1 million). There certainly won't be three states totaling half the province's pre-Doomsday population in British Columbia. At best, maybe a fifth survived, and they might be back up to a quarter or a third now.--Loughery111 20:27, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, based on your assumption of a 5th of BC surviving and it being up to a quarter or a 3rd now, we have the combined populations of the BC parts of Victoria, the Okanagan, and New Caledonia totaling around a million. Pre DD pop of BC was 2.8 million, about half of which lived in metro Vancouver, not everyone in metro Vancouver will die from the nuclear strike, but most will, so lets say total surviving population of 1.6 million in BC. The total population of the 3 territories account for about a million, leaving nearly 600k to die from fallout, starvation, etc. The numbers aren't unrealistic. 2/3rds of BC's pre-DD population is gone. The Republic of Victoria's population includes 3-400k from Washington state.--Oerwinde 22:19, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... between this and the other two states there are what, about 1.4 million people here again? I guess its possible, it just seems unlikely that that many people would have survived the collapse in infrastructure. If we tack on 350,000 in Washington, I still say the population is more likely to be 700,000, not 1.1 million. It just seems impossible for natural population growth to account for much larger, and I really do think people won't migrate towards a place they know has had at least one nuclear strike nearby.--Loughery111 03:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm just starting to get frustrated. You're completely ignoring everything I've said.--Oerwinde 03:27, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the OTL population of Vancouver Island is 740k, Since I can't find the stats, I'm assuming a Pre-DD pop of about 450-500k Add to that the population of the northern coast of BC, which is around 2-300k, as well as refugees from the metro vancouver area, which I was being conservative with about 100k, likely there would be more, that leaves a population of native BC residents at about 700-900k, of which I took the smaller number to account for radiation deaths in refugees, unrest, starvation, etc. Vancouver Island is quite self sufficient when it comes to food, its finished goods that it would lack, so starvation deaths would be few. The numbers I've used for population haven't even taken into account population growth. I could realistically raise the population to take into account refugees from southern Washington, asia, spokane, etc. but didn't want to wank my country.--Oerwinde 04:00, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to see what you mean. Someone earlier said the population for the island at that point was 300,000. And I didn't realize they established control over the coast that quickly? If their initial population base was 700,000, then I can see the present population being reasonable. If it was 350,000, then I can't see more than 750,000 counting Washington. Can we figure out which it was to begin with?--Loughery111 04:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I had been working from a total population base of 600,000 following Doomsday and resultant starvation, and using that to figure population distribution and growth. If Victoria has 700,000 survivors itself, and the inland republics another 200,000 between them, that changes things quite a bit. Sorry about that.--Loughery111 04:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * So google is useless for finding demographic stats below the state level, but using Canada's overall growth to regress the island back to 1983 I'm arriving at a population of 550,000. If we assume that some people die, but refugees balance that out, and tack on 150,000 survivors from the coast, we have 700,000, to which we can add 125,000 or thereabouts for population growth, and 300,000 for Washington... which gets us almost exactly to where you started at. Stupid argument, GIGO proven yet again. Sorry.--Loughery111 04:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, if we didn't have people questioning this stuff we'd have a Republic of Superior with 7 million people and an army large enough to reconquer the continental US.--Oerwinde 07:32, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * True. I can see a higher population there than what is currently assigned, maybe even twice as high. But there's no way 7 million people survived in that area. Also no way they have that huge an army. Too many people are farming, given the quality of the land. Anyway that's a debate for a different page. One which I'm currently working on, on said page. I think we have the demographics here nailed down well, but now I'm beginning to question the MSP's, since it's so low.--Loughery111 14:51, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Republic?!?!
why does Victoria call its self a "republic"? republlics don't have to be deomcrcays, but they ain't constituiotal moarchies either.--HAD 15:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't think of it at the time. Assumed any government where the people elect representatives to form the government was referred to as a republic.Oerwinde 18:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

i think "commonwealth" would be better and more acccurate. HAD 19:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but its all over the place already. I'll change it when they adopt the federal system.Oerwinde 19:51, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * make it "federated commnwealth of victoria", cos its super accurate then!HAD 20:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that, or Commonwealth Federation or Victorian Federal Commonwealth or whatnot. Federated Commonwealth sounds good.Oerwinde 09:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

i thought of the other two before offering the one i did. the others don't roll off the toung thAT well. --HAD 09:08, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought of Commonwealth Federation of Victoria, after you suggested the change to Commonwealth, but I agree Federated Commonwealth sounds better. Victorian Federal Commonwealth also sounds good, but it sounds more like an organization rather than a country. Federated Commonwealth it is. Not that it really matters as everyone will just refer to it as Victoria.Oerwinde 09:32, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

yeah.--HAD 11:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

is the change in system due soon, Oerwinde? --HAD 11:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

If people are just going to call it victoria i think it should be called victoria Owen1983 12:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

i'm talking about the offical name(Republic of Victoria-Federated Commonwealth of Victoria). also, i'm going to edit the article to show that the army bases have now been built and that the army has now recived training. is this okay, Oer. --HAD 14:01, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

someone will also have to edit the map now that the washington protecturate has become a fully integeral part of victoria. --HAD 16:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The election is next wednesday, I should have mentioned it in the news probably. The federal system won't be fully in place until probably the 2015 election, but next week will be the date its officially adopted.Oerwinde 19:24, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a funny debate, since "commonwealth" is just the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Latin "republic", and plenty of languages make no distinction between the two. But you're right, to a patriotic Canadian (or any subject of HMtQ), "republic" probably sounds scandalously American; commonwealth safely leaves room for a theoretical monarch. St Lawrence and Saguenay are also "republics", but they sort of pride themselves on bucking the British/Canadian system; Victoria, definitely not (just look at its flag!). Benkarnell 22:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, on looking up "Republic" its specifically a representative government where the head of state is not a monarch. So Victoria is not a Republic. I didn't do my research. Oerwinde 09:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

hence my point. republics aren't monarchies. commonwealths can have monarchs as their heads of state (Australia, New Zealand, etc)--HAD 10:57, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Dominion" be more apropriate for a Canadian survivor state? Because Canada's official name is not the "Commonwealth of Canada", but the Dominion of Canada.

Supersonic91 18:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

True, but Canada had been phasing out use of the title since the 1950s. Most people nowadays don't even realise its the official name.(Such as myself, I had to look it up as its not even on the Canada wiki page.)Oerwinde 19:58, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

can someone edit the page so that it reads "the flag of the...". there aren't any "the"s in the flag description. Also, Canada is not a Dominion anymore, but a Commonwealth Realm. HAD 15:30, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think their official title nowadays is just "Canada", no "Something of". But I think that Commonwealth is a perfectly British thing for Victoria to call themselves, wot. Benkarnell 15:54, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its still officially the Dominion of Canada, they've just been phasing out use of the title to distance itself from the idea of British rule. Its not used anymore but its still on the constitution and such.Oerwinde 17:52, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Olympia, Washington
How did the capital of the state of Washington end up under Victorian control? Most likely it would have maintained control over at least part of the state. Why did you have one state government collapse in this article and in the Oregon article it remained in control? Arstarpool 17:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Because Washington was much more heavily hit. Olympia would have received many more refugees than Salem due to both nearby Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton being hit. Walla Walla, and several other places in eastern washington would also have been hit, so Olympia was cut off from most of its resources. It didn't collapse entirely, it maintained a presence in the area around the Olympia metro district, but due to refugees and lack of resources was unable to expand beyond that.Oerwinde 17:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

And I know this is unrelated, but did you ever iron out how part of Oregon went to the MSP? Arstarpool 19:04, July 13, 2010 (UTC)