User talk:Calthrina950



Your TL
Well that is an interesting question, but I think the question that really matters is what outcome do you want to happen in your TL? Mitro 14:51, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Calthrina950, you need to understand that it is not my duty to be around 24/7 to answer your questions. Besides my administrative duties to this wiki I am also deeply involved in the 1983: Doomsday timeline. Outside of the wiki I also have many other responsibilities. I go to law school and I am currently studying for the bar. I also work full time, plus I am planning a wedding and often help my parents take care of my elderly grandmother. I’m telling you all this so that you understand I cannot always answer questions sent to me immediately. I suggest in the future you show a little more consideration to the fact that people might have a life outside of this wiki. I will answer your question when I have the time to give to it. If you want your question answered sooner I would recommend starting a topic on our forum and hopefully someone else will be able to answer your question sooner than me. Mitro 14:50, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted my opinion on your TL, have the Americans still win. Axis win scenarios are a dime a dozen, rarely does someone actually have a famous battle go differently but have the outcome of the war remain the same. In fact one of the reasons that the US won WWII was not because of its better technology or superior leadership. The US won because they just had more of everything. More men, more raw materials, more factories, more ships, etc. There is a reason it was called the arsenal of democracy. However do some research. Make sure the facts support the conclusion of an amateur historian like me. Mitro 13:21, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? The Allies won WWII not because they had better technology or better leaders, they did so because they could make more. Germany and Japan were forced to only use the best and they were both constrained by limited resources and cash. Consider how dependent they were on the conquered territories during the war. The US, on the other hand, could afford to be wasteful. They had a large pool of men and natural resources. They weren't called the "arsenal of democracy" for nothing. The US alone could outproduce the entire Axis powers. The USSR was in a similar position, they could throw shoddy machines and untrained soldiers at better armed and trained Germans and still win because they had more. Germany and Japan had to win the war using knife, the US and the USSR could do it with a big freaking hammer.
 * Don't be trapped by the "major turning point" argument. In the alternate history novel Gettysburg the authors had the Confederates win the Battle of Gettysburg but still lose the war. Harry Turtledove in his Days of Infamy series had the Japanese take Hawaii and still get driven off by American forces later on. In your TL even if the Japanese win Midway, would they be in any shape to take the island or move on to Hawaii? How badly would they be hurt? Would the US really be cowed enough to throw in the towel, or would they come back a few months later with new ships, more men and a lot of guns? These are questions that need to be answered.
 * Also lets look at the Battle of Midway. It was a turning point in OTL because it was a major defeat for the Japanese. But in OTL the Japanese only meant it to trap the American carriers and extend their defensive permiter. The Japanese can still win the battle and not sink enough American carriers, thus making the alternate Battle of Midway hardly a turning point in the war.
 * Also my "ideas" were more like suggestions. I suggested you try something different instead of going down the same old path. Also is it safe for me to assume that English is not your first language? For example instead of using "since" you should have used "sense." Mitro 21:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful when you use absolutes. Only resources? You forget that America was attacked without warning at Pearl Harbor. When war was declared thousands of Americans volunteered. The Band of Brothers documentary told of a young man who committed suicide after he learned he could not serve in the army. The Americans weren't determined? Please.
 * And what is determination? Sounds incredibly intangible and no way backed up by known sources. Did the French really have no determination to defend themselves? The Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Danish, Polish, etc. as well? Such a statement ignores the active resistance movements and free units who worked with the Allies. Also I highly doubt it was "determination" that let Germany and Japan get as far as they did. Better training and more effective weapons did that.
 * Also why is an alternate Battle of Midway decisive? The Japanese could take the island without destroying enough of the American carriers and severely hurt themselves in the process. The Japanese might slow down the American advance, but once the Mahattan Project produced an atomic bomb the Japanese would not have a prayer. In this scenario Iwo Jima might be the first target instead of Hiroshima. Mitro 04:01, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * You could do whatever you want, I'm not stopping you. Just remember you asked me for my opinion. Good luck with your TL. Mitro 19:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

LCP
The LCP is a democratic organisation. It has no plans to overthrow a government or take over a site. Our goal is to win the election in a democratic way, having our members participate in the elections. We are honest and hardworking people, lead by me, comrade Scanderson. We have two more followers, comrade Serov and comrade Owen. We are not a bad party. We have the best intentions. And we can always use some support. You do not have to join any party or even the site in general if you do wish to do so. But I do not like people talking this way about me and my LCP, especially not people who do not know what they are talking about. All the best, Dr. Magnus 14:53, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Answers

 * 1) His name is Nik42, though he is no longer active.
 * 2) I don't know any TLs about Anne Frank offhand. I suggest searching for her name and see what comes up. Mitro 18:06, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

What game
read da rules and I well stop. considering you refuse to except rules, I have to actually go in a delete your stuff. On top of the one turn equals a year; you must wait one YEAR before posting agian, not just post a shit ton of times like you have been doing.--DaBigUn 03:14, May 1, 2010 (UTC) REMEMBER WHAT I SAID BOUT READING DA RULES....wait.....I thinks I fucked up here.......ooooo well.

I know, and see that. I well do my best not to kill off Russia. Can you post a picture of how the NEW Russia looks like?

cant, I need to go and wont be back on for a wile. ask someone else please. Thank you for understanding. Have a good day.--DaBigUn 19:02, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I didnt delete it in the new & improved map game, that was someone else sir.-- DaBigUn 17:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

New and Improved Map Game
Are you the one talking about Arthur the Great on the New and Improved Map Game? Fedelede 21:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Do you know it has few, if any, sense? Fedelede 21:27, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

The New Map Game
I have been hearing complaints about you at The New Map Game. To sum it up people are saying you are not following the rules and your additions are implausible. Is this true? Mitro 22:29, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would reccomend attempting to sort this out with the other players. If you tried discussing your ideas on the talk page first, you might find it easier to play. Also I have seen some situations of you not following the one year per turn rule. Please do your best to follow that. Mitro 23:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't want you to feel like you are being kicked out of the Map Game because we don't like your ideas, we just want you to follow the rules. The last thing we want is to make people feel like they can't play the Map Game.ProfessorMcG 02:01, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why should I not delete it? From my prespective the only reason you created it was so you can ignore the rules of the other games and do whatever you want. Meanwhile you continue to ignore the rules at the other games and you are starting edit wars with the other gamers. As for plausibility, what does it mean to be modern in the 13th century? In OTL it took the Russians almost 700 years to get where you have them to be now, and you did it in only 9 years. How did they move so quickly? They don't have cars or trains, and even horses would be slow. Who is building the roads and houses for all of these settlers you magic-ed into being? It takes time to consolidate new territory and the amount we are looking would take centuries, not a decade. Mitro 18:53, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is silly. Just have a tech edge does not mean you can conquer the world.  These Russians are going to have cannons, not muskets, which means they need good roads to move them over (which I have noticed you have not discussed at all).  It would take time to build the army for that and what happens when the Russians are cut off without any gunpowder and surrounded by angry nomads?  The sheer logistic of what you propose are improbable.  No matter how "wise" someone is, that does not make them a magician.
 * What is important is not the plausibility, but the reason you created this article in the first place. I feel you created it in bad faith and the way you have administered it shows me that you are unwilling to follow the rules that you yourself created and keep changing.  Instead of deleting it, however, I think the best thing to do is to rename it and treat it as a timeline you have created instead of a map game.  That way you can do whatever you want without anyone stopping you.  Mitro 19:06, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Expansion Timeline
Looks like you might want to focus on India and Indochina. Paaaad 00:47, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

India's Broken up into small states at the moment, you might want to put them together. Paaaad 00:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

You have Sri Lanka, Kamataka, Kerala, the Chola Empire, The Hindu States, Bengal, Malwa, Sindh, Nepal, and the Ghurid Sultanate. And Thats just in India!

Realism
Unless you don't care for realism, I would suggest that you take a moment to understand the realistic aspects of travel in the 13th century. It is impossible for an army to travel on foot, or even on horseback, and conquer that much territory in one year. You have 800 years ahead of you, take things slow. That is my first suggestion.ProfessorMcG 17:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Timeline
Hi, I'm a little too busy to look over your timeline, but at a glance I can't comprehend how Russia got so big, so fast. It's logistically impossible in the XIIIth century. Even by the XIXth century that would be impossible, especially over terrain like Siberia and Russia.

You might want to look into that.

Red VS Blue 17:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Exapanism Timeline
you focus too much on russia, the byzantines and china but forgot about india. Is russia under a tsar goverment like OTL or under a normal emperial goverment.

Ivan's timeline
I appreciate it that you came to me for help and advice. However, my expertise is mainly on 20th and 21st century Russia. I know very little about Ivan the Terrible, and I think I would be a bad advise giver for this timeline. So forgive me if I am not of any help. But good luck with the timeline. I am reading it, and I do find the idea interesting. Can't wait to read more. --NuclearVacuum 22:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, and I like how you're taking things slow. This is a good ideaProfessorMcG 00:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)