Talk:Axis vs Allies (Map Game)

Where is the map?
I usually don't enter the realm of the map games but I was skimming the recent edits and I came to this article and I could not help but notice...there is no map! How can you have a map game without a map?!?!?!? Mitro 21:17, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

yeah I will add one PitaKang 22:36, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pita I found a good map. just have to change the colors and such.



I can fix the colours. I just need everyone to say whether they're going to be allied or axis. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I did this quickly and it likely has inaccuracies, possibly in German and English empires. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:16, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Are we using it or not? It took a lot of work. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:58, February 17, 2011 (UTC)



The Picture to the right is what I believe the map should look like after 1953.Anonymous History Guy 03:03, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

New users?
Do you still accept new users in the game?Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, you are welcome to. PitaKang 20:48, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * There are still vacant countries?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Great Britian is still vacant, as well as France, Norway, Demark, Spain, Portugal, maybe a newly independent India, An independent Australia, almost all South American nations, and more! PitaKang 21:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would take Britian or France. Roguejedi 21:23, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * anyone have pros and cons for Brazil?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:57, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to be the Congress for India (for now) and eventually Independent India,Batmanary 03:56, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I join as Australia? God Bless the United States of America 14:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Like I said, It's never too late to join. Remember to declare independence, though. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I replace Baconton as Britain? He doesn't seem to be responding much Batmanary 00:50, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone give me the pros and cons for Columbia? I joined, but I don't really have many options at this point. Michael Douglas 21:56, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: [Pros: large oil exporter, self-sufficient, fast-growing population][Cons: fairly undeveloped, lack of hi-tech industries, small navy & air force). I think it's pretty accurate, but I'd ask Fedelede as he's Columbian. Matt 22:10, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * From now on, please spell it as Colombia with an O. It's the correct spelling. Columbia is in western Canada. As for the pros and cons, they are mostly correct, although oil, of what I know, was discovered relatively late. I'd also consider Colombia's great food-producing industry and it's rich minerals as a great pro, with the cons that it's still undeveloped and rough, and many natural resources are in areas in which it's hard to extract them. Fed (talk) 22:14, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol I'm sorry bout the spelling; it's just in our nature. The self-sufficient thing sort of ties into the whole agriculture and such. What are the main crops in Colombia? (Other than the happy happy plant :D) Matt 22:25, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse me for getting it wrong. It's not agriculture, but just plants outright. Colombia produces bananas (hence the term "banana republic"), coffee, flowers (it's one of the largest flower producers in the world), and clothing-making plants. By the way, Colombia is very rich in other minerals, such as emeralds, copper and nickel.
 * As for the spelling, yes, that's right. In English, the pronunciation of Colombia's name would be written with U, but in Spanish it's with O. Fed (talk) 22:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey PitaKang, tell me if you like my edits, I'm new here. I started Spain and Greater Persia, if you don't mind. Anonymous History Guy
 * Yes, but please do not edit the archives. They are history archives, the old years. Also, if you don't mind, please sign your posts with four tildes, by clicking the "Signature" button, or by typing four tildes, like this: ~ Flag_of_South_Korea.pngang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:52, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to go back and do that for tis post, but it did not work, sorry I am new at this. I will not edit archives further, I just found it more plausible to start earlier. Anyway what year are we at now? Anonymous History Guy 00:58, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy
 * We are on 1953 now. Flag_of_South_Korea.pngang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to go back and do that for tis post, but it did not work, sorry I am new at this. I will not edit archives further, I just found it more plausible to start earlier. Anyway what year are we at now? Anonymous History Guy 00:58, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy
 * We are on 1953 now. Flag_of_South_Korea.pngang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

WW2
I think WW2 should be nuke-free. Say I if you are with me. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe have a nuclear war to end the map game...Batmanary 23:34, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

The WW2 restriction, yes. The nuclear war, no. Fedelede 23:36, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, who will control Soviet Union? It seems the whole of Europe is in the Italian Alliance...Batmanary 01:43, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, our OTL World War II was a nuclear war (It only takes one nuke for it to be a nuclear war, kids!) I would love to restrict nukes until after the war. However, we should step out of our comfort zone (but keep it plausible!) I think that superpowers like the US should get nukes first. A few turns later, nations that have been working since 1940 on the Manhattan Project like West Cuba can join the nuclear family (and I'm giving Cuba leeway since they've got spies working on the project in America. CrimsonAssassin 21:32, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but West Cuba isn’t going to join that particular club anytime soon. It just doesn’t have enough resources, and I’m sure everyone else agrees. How would the top scientists in the Manhattan Project be Cuban spies? That’s just implausible. Oh, Cuba may join in maybe 20-30 years, but not in 5 or 6. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's possible for a Cuban Spy to be a chief scientist. In fact, that's the best place I could put them. Yes, Cuba has little resources. They can't produce the nukes, but if their spies worked on the atom bomb, they're already lightyears ahead of several other countries by just KNOWING how to build an atom bomb. Without America's help, it would take a long time for a cuban nuclear program. However, with America's (up until now unwilling) help, Cuba could have nukes by 1950.

However, the topic of this section is whether WWII should be a nuclear war. I say yes, with limitations.

CrimsonAssassin 15:37, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, Nukes are not really that devistating. We should at least allow tactical nukes in the game. I say maybe a 3 atomic bomb limit. But we should allow Bio/Chemical Weapons, like would'nt a pandemic like the Spanish Flu be interesting to add to the game? Anonymous History Guy 01:02, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

Map
Hey, somebody is noting that the last map was posted in the 1940 section and we are almost in 1945?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:02, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Codes and stuff I've seen
Although I haven't been playing this, looking through recent stuff I have seen some things that I feel I need to say about.

1. The Italians land in Gibraltar. This is near impossible by themselves. Gibraltar is a Fortress, designed to hold out for months, if not years. Not to mention that any naval invasion would have to get past the coastal defense guns, and withering fire trying to climb the slopes. Even then, as I've said before, the fortress is designed to last months in a seige, and as long as Spain isn't in the war, they are going to sit there and wait for the british navy to show up and destroy your landing force.

2. Codes. I see that there were lots of arguments about who knows what. As everyone knows, Germany has the Enigma code. No one could break this until the Brits managed to get a working copy of Enigma, and then build their own computer to decipher it. Even then, they had to act like they had another reason for acting on information from Enigma, lest the Nazi's realize their codes had been broken. The Italians have Enigma, so ditto for them. British codes got broken by the Germans, but the Germans were crippled by the fact that there was no central command like in the UK. In Japan, only the diplomaic code was broken first. The military codes came after the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. And everyone knows about the US codes. These are probably hard to break, since you need to get someone who can translate the Navajo, then figure out what they are saying. as for Russia, I don't really know, but I bet you could find someone who does.

Just my piece, thankyou for your time

Azecreth 21:46, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Azecreth you know your codes and that is one of many things that impresses me. BlackSkyEmpire 21:52, March 5, 2011 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

Thank you. I also do parties and Bar Mitzvahs. Azecreth 22:11, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Azecreth, want to be our official neutral implauisibility inspector?Batmanary 00:21, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That's fine with me. Just don't expect me to be forgiving. Azecreth 01:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I've decided on a better role. Basically, if there's a big argument over implausibility, just call me, and I will give my judgement. is that cool with you guys? Azecreth 17:28, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already given you Mod powers. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 17:33, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can I join
Can I be South Africa

Can I join
Can I be South Africa.

Yes, and please sign your post with 4 tildes (PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)). PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jer1818 00:20, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Nation profile
I want to know which should be the pattern to the pages for the nations that you've talked about.Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:21, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Axis and Allies
Put your nation in those categories

Allies
United States

India

Britain (and the rest of the Commonwealth/Imperial Federation.)

Korea

Axis
Spain

Greater Persian Union

Possibly:

Germany

Japan

Italy

Britain vs Turkey discussion
Please sign your posts!!!


 * Buuut the Kurds already have a state in parts of Turkey and Iraq. I highly doubt they would like to be restricted to only Iraq, as the majority live in what was formerly Turkish territory. There's no point in having two Kurdish nations either, and one already exists that includes both regions. It makes no sense whatsoever to found a new state.- Matt 22:45, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you totally, but of course I can't because I'm supposed to be on Britain's side in the war :) PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * PitaKang has seen the light, Batmanary. The question is, will you? BTW Peter which came first; Koryo or Choseon? Matt 22:52, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, seen the light. Also, Koryo came way, way first. It was founded in 918, while Choseon was founded in 1392. Go hereand herefor more info on them. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. I have a big history exam tomorrow so I'm just studying up on the most inaccurate history site here on the web. Matt 23:04, March 10, 2011 (UTC)\
 * Haha, true. Hey, there was some guy on the Alexander's Empire article that didn't know this was alternate history so he corrected all the "inaccuracies" in it before he left. Then I reverted it. Hahah. :) PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 23:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! One might think that the whole "alternate" thingy in "alternate history" might have some meaning, but I suppose not. Matt 23:18, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Anyways, back to the discussion. So, we need to get more people to decide what's plausible about this situation. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:45, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Yeah sure buit they are a British Dominion, which is actually advantageous for a small landlocked state, to have a powerful country ensure proper trade into the region and promising stability. Batmanary
 * True, but Turkey has already really sort of done that. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 03:10, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * But at this point, Britain leads to total stability, plus I am planning on giving actual independence to all my colonies, and then having them in the Commonwealth of Nations. Not all the countries in it recognize the Queen as head of state. India, or Brunei for instance.
 * It makes absolutely no sense to create two different nations claiming the exact same area with the exact same goals. I think seniority would prevail in this case, so the one founded first would most likely be recognized by the majority of people.Matt 19:58, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * True, as that Turkey is also a stable nation, with a leader known for his greatness. However, Great Britain is much the same, but also, I think they would identify themself with Turkey more, as that first, Turkey is closer, and second, there are lots of Kurds living in Turkey. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:33, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Persia incorporated Kurdistan into their Union in 1953(Kurds were afraid the Arabs or Europeans would invade them). Persia wants to ally with Turkey, or else Persia will likely declare war. Anonymous History Guy 04:29, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

Siam's War of Aggression
Hey, Batmanary here. I wanted to talk about the whole implausibility of the Siam-India War and hopefully you guys can help mediate the situation. Detectivekenny constantly tries to take Tenasserim from India, and charges me with threatening Siam. I countered that he could expand anywhere east or south of Siam, but he says that he cannot expand there. Here are the rough estimates of India's population in the 40s and Siam's today.

400 000 000 ( India's population in the 40s) and 66 000 000 (Thai population as of 2010). I said my army size is 2 million, which is plausible for India at this time, but he says that his armed forces are also 2 million strong, which is totally impossible, since Siam's population today doesn't even come close to India's in the 40s. Please share your thoughts and comments as to who will win this argument. If the majority of you agree with Detectivekenny, I will gladly back out and give Tenasserim. Batmanary

Okay here's my argument: 1) Economics: Siam has a lot more to gain from Tenasserim, including more access to the ocean, versus India where it is a drop in the bucket.

2) Location: Tenasserim is a day's walk from the capital, Bangkok, versus over a thousand miles from Delhi.

3) Geopolitics: Siam is a relatively compact nation, with ability to control nearby areas, versus gigantic India, which would have difficulty in moving large numbers of troops to extremeties

4) Manpower: Siam's army does have two million, plus added Japanese and Malays. I checked, and the population of Siam was pretty close to 20 million at the time. That's one in 10 people in the army, very close to the ratio in North Korea, or Japan in OTL WWII.

5) Religion: Simply put, Thais are like 99% Theravada Buddhist, while India has no religious unity, split between antipathic Hindus, Muslims, Buddhosts. Under a single relgion, the army has a common enemy and has much higher morale.

6) Nationalism: India has many seperatist movements due to cultural diversity. India was never unified until the British. Thus, nationalism would make a unified movement difficult. Thailand does not have any seperatist movements excep some southerners, who could be categorized as Malays.

7) Tehnology: Check old posts, and you will see that Thailand has borrowed from Japan almost all of their technology, as well as developped its own significantly. Japan defeated Britain in WWII, and Indian tehnology might be sligthly inferior to British technology. India has not developed its technology much, so we can assume Siamese technology is pretty close to Indian technology.

8) Government: India is ruled by a prime minister who is disliked by many Hindus, who make up around 90% of the population. On the other hand, Siam has a single figurehead who represents most Thais.

9) Geography: Thailand has good control of the Karen mountains just east of Tenasserim, making high ground invasion easy.

10) Support: Most Southeast Asians welcomed the Japanese as liberators from European rule, even though much later they decided the Japanese were worse. The inhabitants of Tenasserim would definitely show support for Asian liberators rather than a European-created nation. Unless India could mass-distribute hundreds of millions of (present-day US) dollars in propaganda to everywhere in the country within five years or so.

11) Existence: This is a slight red herring, I admit, but did anyone find the idea of India completely unified with no riots a bit fishy? Not to mention being coupled with a Buddhist nation (Burma) with its own culture.

12) Sovereignty: One point for India.

Disputes? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:19, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Asian Trade Union
These are the members of the Pan-Asian Union, at the moment: The Pan-Asian Union is a cultural and economic union that would guarantee the economic stability and interests of Asia in the world. It would have relief programs for the impoverished, and would develop welfare between all states. All Pan-Asian Union members would have free trade between each other as well, and the Bombay Stock Exchange, as well as Tokyo SE and Hong Kong's would serve as the centre of many Asian enterprises.
 * India
 * Korea
 * Australia
 * Malaysia
 * Phillipines
 * British Mandate of Hong Kong
 * Portuguese Mandate of Macau
 * Siam (proposed)
 * Japan (proposed)
 * China (proposed)
 * Saudi Arabia(proposed)
 * Turkey (proposed)
 * SAR (proposed)

United Nations
NPC. Countries with no player who are in the UN or are being assessed for it '''Belgium is part of Germany at this time. Batmanary 18:12, March 12, 2011 (UTC)'''
 * Britain and its Dominions
 * France
 * Turkey
 * Sweden
 * India
 * USA
 * Germany
 * Italy (only allowed in if they stop the war with France)
 * Saudi Arabia
 * DSAR (proposed)
 * Korea
 * Brazil (proposed)
 * Spain
 * Persia
 * Switzerland
 * Kurdistan
 * Portugal
 * Japan (proposed)
 * Netherlands

How the UN would function
This is how I think the UN should function:

A permanent council that proposes proposals and the like, which would consist of: These countries would vote on proposals. Depending on what type it is. Declaring war on another country, would require 100% of the votes. Other motions, such as currency, mediating wars already in motion, or discussing economics or whatever else would be decided by a majority vote. - cheers,Batmanary 18:17, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Britain
 * US
 * Germany
 * India
 * Turkey
 * Brazil

Perfect! And we'd make a UN proposals/voting page for it, so we can do stuff and basically be a government in this map game! This would be the first map game (created by me, of course :) to have stuff llike that. I'm so excited about that! And I'm going to make an actuall TL off of this, so this'll help too. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 18:20, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to wait until the game ends, until making a TL about everything, as each page would be that much better.Batmanary 18:31, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

That was my plan. However, we should do this NOW. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 18:37, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

The image has been reverted to its original picture - the UN building - and removed from here. Bat, upload it as something else. Lordganon 20:06, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Problem: Germany annexed Austria and Sudentland, I posted it around 1939 or close to that year. 174.60.86.95 00:49, March 13, 2011 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

No worries, Germany Batmanary 02:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that France should be in the Council because it has major land claims in Africa.-Ocelot9011 01:09, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

It will not be a permanent member. It will be one of the non-permanent members of the SC, which will rotate, due to not wanting the SC members to outnumber everyone else in the Map Game. Besides, this adds a Polycentric dynamic to the whole thing Batmanary 02:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hey how about a revial to the UN, for the axis? Anonymous History Guy Anonymous History Guy

Actually, even Axis members are in the UN. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:51, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

'''ATTENTION ALL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!  Go to this link,United Nations, to vote on resolutions!!!!!!''' Batmanary



Italian-French War Peace Talks
You accept proposals for a treaty? i mean, somebody think that would be fair if the war ended and Italy got Tunisia and Corsica and a territory in mainland France up to Nice, but it would have to pay war reparations and give the Aouzou Strip to France?Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:50, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that no territorial gain should be made.-Ocelot9011 21:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd NEVER agree at that. Fed (talk) 22:24, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

What about this proposal: I gain PACA, Rhone Alpes, Corsica and Tunisia. You recuperate Algeria, I give you the Aouzou Strip and a war compensation. Fed (talk) 22:58, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I will give you Corsica but that is it!-Ocelot9011 04:27, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Then we'll continue the war. Fed (talk) 22:59, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

How bout i give you PACA and the Rhone Alps and a 20 year lease to Corsica?-Ocelot9011 01:39, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I want the three regions. Fed (talk) 01:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Deal-Ocelot9011 03:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Britain's Dominions
This is just a heads up to show all of Britain's dominions. Yes, some them are controlled by other players, but they are still Dominions:
 * Newfoundland
 * Canada
 * South Africa
 * Australia
 * New Zealand
 * Egypt
 * Sudan
 * Rhodesia
 * Malawi
 * Zambia
 * Botswana
 * Kenya
 * Uganda
 * Tanzania
 * Palestine
 * Malaysia
 * West Indies
 * Guyana
 * Belize
 * Congo

I thought we had agreed that Kurdistan was fully independent. Your whole arguement for its existance as a Dominion makes no sense whatsoever. Matt 13:30, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there we go, but I think the borders are too big. I say make Kurdistan have a bit less of Iraq, because that's a huge chunk of Iraq. Batmanary 17:58, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the maps. However, that is a pretty good estimation of Kurdish-majority areas in previously Iraqi territory. I'll add in more of Turkey to make up the difference. Matt 18:23, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. BTW the reason I wanted it as a dominion, is because I literally gained nothing for either of my countries. Well...until gaining Congo, that is.Batmanary 18:46, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

The nation of Canada, and that of Newfoundland which actually should have joined Canada by now, are Dominions onlyin name. They're actually full independant. Its a common mistake. Michael Douglas 20:48, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Batmanary vs Detectivekenny
Why does User:Batmanary keep switching countries? First it was India and Malaysia, then India and Kurdistan, and now India and Britain? Both of which are superpowers? 05:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I never played as Kurdistan. And I quit playing as Malaysia, so you could conquer it, remember? Since then (about a week or two ago), I've been exclusively playing as India and Britain(which I asked permission to play as) Batmanary

Okay, but they can't both be superpowers. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:55, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that India is a real superpower. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:21, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

India is more of a regional superpower. The only reason they are SC is to represent Asia. (-unsigned)

What's SC? Also, if it's a regional superpower, then keep it that way. Although I'll point out that it's made out of five OTL countries, three of which are in the top 8 in the world, and the others are 24th and 56th, it's still really big. Maybe it doesn't have power on a worldwide scale, so I don't want to see this "India will crush Siam." Because Siam was intended as a semi-superpower… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intervene, but SC means the UN Security Council.and sorry again, in case that you already know.Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:21, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I've never had "India crush Siam". There was war because you invaded sovereign territory. India never even went past Tenasserim, other than one bombing. In fact they didn't even threaten you with war. Britain declared war on you for taking over the Maldives, which is British sovereign territory.

Okay. Just keep in mind, Britain did the same thing against Japan. And Japan took over all of Burma. PLUS the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. PLUS a bunch of British Pacific Islands. PLUS Hong Kong. And that's full control. And British Territory was only a small part of Japanese invasion. Not only that, but the British LOST. Siamese technology is more than Japanese, because they have Japanese technology plus the technology the Europeans gave them before the war. So keep that in mind when you try to declare war over a couple of small atolls. Also, Siam wasn't technnically launching an invasion. Some "volunteers" went over there to help out the protesters who wanted independence. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:22, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Japan's attack was when the majority of British forces was divided between different fronts, whereas this is Britain against Siam. No distractions. Batmanary

Distractions? You're changing government in like 20 different territories around the world, founding an international organization, and dealing with a ton of separatist movements. Plus trying to defend from Germany's nice beachhead in Belgium, attempting to buy Suriname, etc. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:43, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Britain is at peace with Germany. In fact it is currently one of the members who is against Siam becoming a UN member with its meddling in other countries territory, and before your actions in Maldives, Britain was willing to let you join the UN. Batmanary

Okay sure. By the way another point to bring up is that all of Europe plus the United States and China were against Japan. For this game it's mainly Britain. And again, it's not invasion. Its support for independence movements. Don't say Britain OTL has never done that before . Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:57, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. But there is a stark difference between supporting independence and actually establishing a republic for someone else on another country's land and then making them swear allegiance to Siam, which is not strategically a good thing anyways.

Anyways, can we continue this later? It is 1 AM here for me, and I need to catch up on some sleep. Bats

Okay. I'll just leave the comment: Stark difference? Who says the Siamese won't eventually allow the Dhivehis republic independence? It's just that when they know they have the support of fellow Asians it gives them a surge of hope that one day they will be able to rule themselves without having to respect a foreign king. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:06, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Even countries like India and Pakistan had a period of Dominionhood just after 1947, where they sorted everything out. Without this crucial step, it would descend into anarchy, and it is self-government.

No to sound offensive but at independence India were British kiss-ups because of Gandhi (not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out what happened). And again, the question is not what's better for the country. It's what people want for the country. If they don't want the UK flag in/above their flag or white people in their government buildings, then clearly they would support Siam. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:28, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Again, clearly, it wasn't just India and Pakistan, it was all the colonies, with the exception of the US. Plus there was no obligation to have the Union Jack in the canton, and in the end it is self-government. Just saying. Batmanary 18:48, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my deal. I don't mind giving independence to my colonies. I don't. But I DO mind when another user, instead of simply having written "Siam is influencing the independence movement", instead directly acts as if he is playing as Seychelles and Maldives, and Mauritius. You can't just up and decide if you want land, then you just write that that colony of a nation wants independence and wants Siam's help! It's unsportsmanlike. Plus he only seems to invade my countries' lands! Batmanary 01:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Dominions and Unions
I propose that all colonies must become dominions after 1960, and every dominion must be totally free by 1989 Batmanary 21:19, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a UN resolution concerning this.Anonymous History Guy 18:59, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

Colombia
about my editing and putting the name of the user Michael Douglas in the nation's list.well, he has been playing as Colombia recently, but he didn't put his name on the list of nations,nor added Colombia to the list.Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:44, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't put my name on the list of nations or add colombia too the list was because I haven't found any pros or cons. Not a good region not to sign my name, though. While it was a good idea to avoid putting Colombia on the list until I've found the list of pros and cons, so it'd look like the rules are more strictly inforced to new players, I should have at least told someone before hand. Thanks for fixing it. Michael Douglas 20:46, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Michael, look under the "New Users" section; Fed and I had a little discussion over them. Matt 20:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Mod Vote Time!!
It's a mod vote! since Bat and DK have been fighting, let's have a vote of the mods to see what's plausible.

1956 Olympics in Persia
Anonymous History Guy 03:46, March 23, 2011 (UTC) Anonymous History Guy thankfor your support guys!

Founded by Persia.

'''I don't think the Olypmics should be in Persia. Perhaps Germany, Malaysia, or Britain or the US, but not Persia, simply because of it being aggressive. '''

'''True it is agressive, but Persia needs some way to show off their imporvements in 1957, some nations can boycott the Olympics that year and wait for 1961. Remember the US boycotted the Olympics in the 1980's in real life. Also Persia is holding the first Modern Olympics since it was their idea. '''

The International Olympic Commitee wouldn't delay the Olympics for one year.it has to be in 1956 or in 1960.

Ok, fine I'll change it to 1956.:)  No, actually; the "modern" Olympics were first held in 1896. They would be currently scheduled for 1956 in Australia.

'''That is true, but they were not previously mentioned in this Alt Hist, plus at this point many nations are signed on to the idea having it in Persia this year, you can vote for antoher selection later, unless you wanna go back and vote for a location for '56, I find it quite tedious everything is set up, I mean the UN security council is not even correct in this Alt Hist, that is why it is an Alt Hist. Lets just assume it was all normal till 1956, then we can vote for new locations.'''

Feel free to join the Olympics( Summer and Winter are held in same place for convienience) and prove yourself on the World Stage. Make suggestions on how the Olympics should be run. Post your nation below.

Paticipants in the Olympics:
Greater Persian Union

Spain

Britain

India

France

SAR

United States

Korea

All the separate Dominions

To vote for a Olympic Location in 1960 Add a Nation below:
Spain

France

Britian

India

1962 FIF(La Federación internacional del fútbol) World Cup in Spain
Anonymous History Guy 03:47, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy Thanks for all you support guys!

Founded by Spain

Feel free to join the Football World Cup in Spain. We can all unite in sport. Think of it as way to prove your nation and advance you people's morale. FIF will be run using a probability system(Random.org) that gives all teams a fair chance. To Join Type Your Nations Name Below...

FIF(La Federación internacional del fútbol) World Cup Participants:
Spainish National Team

Great Royal Team of the Shah(Persia)

British Football Team

Indian National Football Team

France Football Club

Brazil

Yugoslavia

SAR Football Team

United States

Korea

To vote for World Cup Location in 1966 Add a Nation below:
Including your name in this this means that you're a candidate?

'''Including your name in any of these contests will make you a regular member(not admin) and participant in the contest you entered. Inclding your nation's name in the location box just means you want the game to be held in the nation you provided. Including your nation's name in the participant box means you want to compete. You can vote for the same location and compete if you want, but only participants can become regular members. WorldVision Song Contest, which is another topic, only allows winners to be the next location.'''

Persia

Britian

India

France

Brazil

1962 Concilio internacional de Críquet (International Cricket Council or CIG) World Cup in Britian
Founded by Spain

Anonymous History Guy 03:50, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous Thanksfor all your support. This will work using Random.org to fairly decide a victor for each mathc and eventually the final champion.

Feel free to join the Cricket World Cup, its a great sport that will enhance your people's morale and improve diplomatic relations. To join just Add Your Nations name below:

Concilio internacional de Críquet (International Cricket Council or CIC) World Cup Participants:

Spanish National Team

Great Royal Team of the Shah(Persia)

British National Team

Indian National Team

Brazil

French National Team

South Asian National Team

To vote for World Cup Location in 1966 Add a Nation below:

1.Persia

2.Britain (only joining because Spain is an ally)

3.India ( COME ON!!! INDIA IS THE KING OF CRICKET!!!)

4.France

5.SAR

1957 World Fair in Kabul, Persia
Anonymous History Guy 04:10, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

COME ONE AND ALL TO THE PERSIAN WORLD FAIR IN KABUL!

NATIONS ATTENDING:
Persia

Spain

Yugoslavia

US

Korea

France

SAR

Vote for next World Fair in 1961:

Spain

Former Axis Trade and Defense Pact and 1959 Axis Summit 1959
Anonymous History Guy 04:12, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

Accept your invitation at the very bottom if you are Italy, Japan, or Germany.

=== Former Axis Trade and Defense Pact:===

Spain

Persia

Possible members:
Germany

Invited to 1959 Axis Summit in Granada, Spain:
Germany

Japan

Persia

Spain

Italy

Persia

Accepted Invitations:

Spain

Persia

Appolistic Palace
Anonymous History Guy 04:25, March 23, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy

Appolistic Palace

Join this Appolistic Palacae if you are a Catholic Nation.

Leader: Vatican

Residents:

Spain(Andulasia/Valencia only)

1954 WorldVision Song Contest in Munich
Founded by Persia, Persia is asking if the Germans will be co-founders and allow the contest to be held in Munich?

Prove your nation's talent

Sign your nation up below:

Persia

International Recreational Commitees
Join any of the following commitees, to have more of a say in FIF(World football)/CIC(World Cricket)/Olympics/WorldVison Song Contest

'''Everything cannot be in Spain and Persia. CIC should be in Britain, the founder of cricket, and WorldVision, in SAR or France. Don't give yourself all the major events.'''

Fine I will Put Cricket in the UK

Olympics:

Administered by: Persia

Members:

Spain

Britian

India

France

SAR

US

Korea

World Fair Planning :

Admistered by: Persia

Members:

Persia

Yugoslavia

US

Korea

France

SAR

FIF:

Administered by: Spain

Members:

Persia

Yugoslavia

Britian

India

France

SAR

US

Korea

Brazil

CIC:

Administered by Spain:

Persia

Britian

India

Brazil

France

SAR

WorldVision Song Contest:

Admisitered by Persia:

Members:

Spain

Anonymous History Guy Statement of Apology and Authorship Defense
I do not think this is a random history. I have uch expirience in History and I am learning the game,and I only made two changes, could we please just accept the changes and move foward, It is plausible that Persia could host the Olympics, and coould have orignated it, or 1896 could be its origin and we could stick to history, but I autovoted Persia at least as the host. I assumed giving France founder credit would be illegal because I would be speaking for France, and I put alot of work into all the sport compettions alredy, could we just move foward. I promise to play everything to the book, I am allowing 2 year vote periods for locations like OTL,. and I am allowing the games to occur on their correct past years and intervals, and anyone is free to participate and vote on locatrions. I appologize for my conduct, but I am new and have worked hard on this alt hist.

Sincerlely,


 * Anonymous History Guy 05:56, March 24, 2011 (UTC)]]Anonymous History Guy

Persian argument
Mod Vote
 * Palestine is a self-governing Dominion of Britain. Look in the talk page.
 * You can't just have a huge military after six months. At least two to three years, since Persia never had a strong one during WWII.
 * Indeed. Not to mention that it's general operating procedure that you have to spend 5-6 years working on something before actually fielding it. I see no evidence of Persia ever researching such a weapon. Not only that, but you cannot change important international events like the Olympics without consent of the other nations involved. According to the Olympics website, the 1956 games happened in Australia, putting the ball(more or less) in Batmanary's court. Also, could you give us details concerning this "Sandstorm Environmental Weapon" as well as your solar power initiatives?
 * THIS IS AN ALT HIST.(things are different than real history) so Persia thought of the Olympics in this case and restored them, therefore the 1st Olympics will be held in Persia, Only Persia was involved in the Olympics until everyone else joined, I see no prior evidence of Olympics in this alt hist. Before PitahKing informed me stop editing the archieves, I added in 1936 and 1939 that Persia was building a large army to aid Germany in WWII, also the Persians were trying to modernize thier nation, and develop ENVs. Persia did little combat in WWII, but they continued developing because they were opposed to European colonial influence that continued in Asia even after WWII. I changed it to ask Brtian for the land then, Persia plans on making Palestine an independent nation for the Jews, perhaps a UN resolution should decide this. Persia has been modernizing and militarizing for 27 years, and the ENV will be complete after a total of 31 years of research. The Sandstorm ENV is a weapon that manipulates weather conditions(i.e, makes it windy) to create sandstorms(only if sand is present, it planned use is in the Middle Eastern deserts, hence sandsorm). It is a possible weapon because there was experimentation with environmenatal weapons in 1944 to 1945 called Project Seal(Tsunami Bomb). Well Persia has a much weaker Sand Stom bomb in the Project ENV. Persia plans to use solar power to replace fossil fuels, they want to create Solar Plants and cut emissons by 20% by 1963, this is part of the Arbil Protocol and a Persian UN proposal. Persia is yet to find the enough resources to bulid solar power plants, but they hope by 1963. Meanwhile Persia is investing other froms of alt energy.
 * In map games, you DO NOT edit the past, when you join. Persia is exactly the same as OTL, until you joined. There was no point in time where they suddenly became a Great Power. You cannot change the past. The only thing you can do is mold the present.
 * What is done is done. Just Let Persia be, there will be no further changes. There was no previous discussion of Persia anyway, so for all you know Persia could have been modernizing all that time. Plus Persia really did in reality participate in WWII and suffered only minor damage from an Anglo-Soviet invasion. Persia could have in this alt hist been gearing up to prevent a repeat.
 * Implausibility detector here, to settle controversy. The place of the Olympics is decided by international committee, therefore, Persia cannot by itself decide to hold them there, only a moderator event. sandstorm weapon is a no-no in my opinion, since if the USa or someonelike that can't do it, you can't. even in modern days, we don't have anything that can accurately control sandstorms, going beyond the 20 years event. A Tsunami bomb and a sandstorm bomb are not the same thing. Plus, I don't think anyone here has the technological capability to create solar power, especially not in the 50's. So only research, there's probably no way for you to actually make solar power yet. Plus, how can Persia, who apparently fought off a weak invasion, have the best Mobile SAM in the world, when they didn't even really dfight in the World War? I can see it, but it doesn't really make sense, compared to France, Germany, and the Italians, who actually had large periods of arial combat to develop SAM's. I don't advise retconing everything, just the parts I pointed out.' 'Azecreth 18:45, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Azecreth. However, my biggest sticking point is that Persia edited the past. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since AHG joined as Persia around 1952-ish, all posts by him in previous years should be deleted. Whether he knew it or not at the time, editing the past is a major violation of basic rules in general, and his argument for the mods to "leave it be" holds no merit. I vote we delete any of AHG's posts in years before he joined so as to not set a precedent that not only would allow people to edit the past but to eliminate canon history altogether, which is what Persia did. Matt 18:58, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also motion that he only have 1 of the nations in Spain, and not all of them, just for balance, you know?Azecreth 20:46, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

For Reversal

 * Matt
 * Azecreth
 * Flag_of_South_Korea.pngang- (Talk | Contribs)

Against Reversal
Anonymous History Guy 22:56, March 24, 2011 (UTC)Anonymous History Guy