Wikia

Alternative History

Talk:Organisation of British Nations (1983: Doomsday)

31,902pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Archives: Talk:Organisation of British Nations (1983: Doomsday)/Archive

Celtic Alliance bordersEdit

After the message left by Fegaxeyl at 20:39, on the April 12, 2011 (UTC) Arstar responded:

Ah! I am sorry I've taken so long to respond.

I don't have much time, but I am agreeing to hand over editing responsibilities to you and whoever else wishes to pilot the article for the time being, although I should be back by July 2nd. Arstar 02:37, May 21, 2011 (UTC) So, as Arstar has handed over editing of the CA to the OBN editors (or Fegaxeyl at least), and since returning has not asked for it back, I was hoping that we could agree on the CA borders in England and Wales (Scotland and former France have official borders) so I can update the map.

The CA page states in England - Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Glostershire, North Dorset, West and North Wiltshire, Merseyside and West Cheshire are in CA hands - does everyone agree with this or does the border want moving so that the CA has more or less land?

In Wales it states that Powys, Pembrokeshire, Gwyneed, Anglesey, Conway, Ceredigion, Denbighshire are CA territory - same as above, does everyone agree/disagree?

Personnaly I think that Flintshire should be included in the CA as it links CA controlled Merseyside and CA controlled Wales together and i'm debating wether Powys would be part of the CA as the article states coastal Wales and Powys can't really be described as Coastal and it has never appeared on the CA map previously.

Also would Wales have reverted to pre-1974 counties? in which case Powys becomes Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and Breckonshire.

Or does anyone think we should ask Arstar again, just in case he's changed his mind?

--Smoggy80 18:37, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting Arstar, there. He's allowed you guys to edit it as you see fit, but retained the role of caretaker for himself.... which given what he's said, means you need to talk to me a bit if he's not around, lol. Not that I think you guys should be in charge of the CA, at all, given the competing interests of your own nations.

You'll note that I added to each of the territorial sections on the CA article "...and small areas of neighboring counties" as well.

Flintshire is included in the CA on all maps, and really, has been for a very long time.

As has been the case with Powys, by and large, though even your map of the CA - and rightly so - did not include all of it.

Don't forget about the Celtic Base in the western areas in/around London, too, as well as the fact that they influence an area far larger than they actually outright control.

And that the CA would also control parts of southeastern Wales and more territory in the Liverpool region.

Lordganon 19:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Celtic AllianceEdit

Arstars been in touch with me and it appears that he wants to hand over control of the Celtic Alliance page to me, however LG seems to have a problem with it. So i've put it to Arstar that the OBN editors would run the CA page by committee, so that any major changes to the article would have to put to a vote before it can be changed, that way not one editor can run the CA to their advantage.

does everyone agree?

i'll wait till the end of the month for any comments and then i'll get in touch with Arstar with the result.

--Smoggy80 17:18, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You, as the Anti-Catherine, are the best choice for caretaker of the article. We wouldn't want LG to get another article to extend his ironfisted rule over, now would we? ;)

Yank 17:29, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Don't care if that comment was in jest or not, Yank, but you need to quit making them.

I object wholesale to this concept. That does nothing to solve that problem.

As I said to Arstar: he either needs to keep it, or to pass it off to an editor that is not from the area.

Lordganon 19:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the 'threat' of purely British editors controlling the British part of the timeline. But then there's the advantageous side of 'hometown syndrome': it will ensure it gets the necessary attention paid to it. And I doubt we'll be trying to run in a completely unrealistic direction, because input can still be made from community members who are interested readers but not interested in editing (as I imagine most would be). I make a conscious effort to make the timeline appear bleak and depressing, as it should. Surely just some active consideration of that will offset any bias? After all, there's never been any necessity to get other editors involved in US nations. I agree with Smoggy. Fegaxeyl 22:04, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Almost every time since you guys were allowed to edit the thing you guys have been seeking to lessen and ignore the article in favor of your own nations. Heck, look at this page for some of it.

You cannot compare this to in the US. In the British Isles, you have two opposing forces: the CA, and the rest (mostly, the OBN) And by any rights, the CA is far, far, stronger. By simple virtue of that, it will dominate the islands. Yet, you guys have ignored that in the majority of discussions about it.

As I said, nothing in her proposal solves anything.

Lordganon 05:25, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the CA and OBN are at loggerheads to one another; and that the CA is stronger. I agree we may have ignored that to some extent but we haven't actively written anything against it. And, of course, the OBN is formed to show solidarity against the CA, so naturally their decisions are made to be in blatant disregard of the Celts!

The point is, though, that beyond our 'own' nations, we have the interest of realism of the entirety of Britain at our hearts, and therefore will be more prepared to give time to group discussion about the CA, its actions and their consequences, than an editor from somewhere else might. That's not to say that only we can do the job right. But it's saying that we, more than others, will have the time, effort, and existing friendship to cooperate well. I think on that point friendship is important since it will allow us to more readily swallow the CA's strength against our nations. Fegaxeyl 08:06, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

True, nothing has been written in the article yet, but in nearly every discussion you guys have been going on like that. And, the map ignores a fair chunk of their territory and doesn't expand their holdings like the OBN states do - or, recognize their influenced regions, either. Has always been so. The actions of the OBN states is not relevant - the views expressed by their editors on here, and elsewhere, is, however. Note that I do not mean anything insulting by this, but if you read over things it is a common event.

You're missing what I'm saying. I think that you are incorrect in saying most of that second paragraph - some of it is actually quite.... rude? And that it also shows my point - that is, that you guys will never have it actually be what it is, and instead what you want.

Its interests are directly opposite of the OBN states in many cases - yet, in most discussions you guys have, this is ignored, to the benefit of the OBN states.

Note, that I do agree that you guys are the best local knowledge, and for that reason should always be able to edit it. But, that is also exactly why actual control is the absolute last thing that should be granted.

Lordganon 09:23, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel the reason the Celtic Alliance hasn't expanded in years is because it's gone between several caretakers, and that we (British editors) weren't fully clear that it was ours. Nonetheless it has expanded and Smoggy has made edits to do with representation. Granted we haven't paid it full attention but I don't believe we have done anything relating to the CA that is unrealistic. There is, of course, plenty of time for retconning and if we local editors, who are the most aware of the region's past, are deeply involved in or in control of that process, then a more realistic result will occur.

I must admit that I can't speak for all us British editors since I'm dimly aware of discussions relating to Lancaster and the Celtic Alliance, which I believe attracted some attention. Nonetheless an atmosphere of recognising our limits - which I believe is reasonably common amongst us British editors - exists and, as said, can be applied to retcon changes as necessary.

I'm interested as to how local knowledge can be construed a bad thing. Could you give an example of where it has interferred with creating a realistic timeline? As I mentioned there is 'hometown syndrome' but again a conscious effort to instill a dystopian attitude is perfectly fine when coupled with local knowledge.

I apologise if my earlier comments can be seen is rude. I didn't mean to them to insult at all and didn't feel them to be so as I wrote them but if that's the case, then I'm sorry. Fegaxeyl 16:07, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that surely we aren't local. We need Irish people to control the Celtic Alliance pages surely? And the reason I haven't updated the map for the Celtic Alliance because it was never made clear to me if or where the Alliance expanded. What I think is that the primary issues should be what was radioactove immediatly after DD and what is radioactive now? My last tuppence is surely if Arstar wants to hand over to us, there should not a veto from on high. Mumby 16:36, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

very little has been written on the CA page about expansion of territory, the only time its been added was when I added territory after the Ur Alba war and in Northern France, personnally I do think that the CA would've expanded into south west of former England and control the majority of Wales (and possibly Shropshire and some of the surrounding counties).

As for the OBN nations taking over, I think this was obviously going to happen sooner or later due Arstars absence from editing the CA page for so long, as LG says it is the most powerful nation in the former UK and it should be edited more frequently.

Also I can't see how LG can stop Arstar handing it over, after all its not like the OBN editors have stong armed him into it. He's handing it over freely and its not like we're going to make the CA dissappear or anything. The OBN editors all have a history of writing nation articles that make rational sense and all conform to canonical rules (and other rules) so why would there be a problem?

--Smoggy80 17:44, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this was going to become such a problem. While I am back in full swing in terms of editing I realized that with 50-something proposals under my wing that I was leaving many of the key nations inactive while I payed attention to other articles. I am a writer or caretaker or co-writer of many key nations, such as the South American Confederation, Taiwan, Spain, much of Italy, a chunk of the ANZC, North Germany, the Celtic Alliance, and Superior. And those are the big ones.

My idea was to half the amount of nations I write for and hand them over to those who would know them better than me. Honestly I've been to the British Isles twice and that was to Edinburg which was nuked in the ATL so obviously I am not an expert on the area. Smoggy who is one of the more level headed members would be able to keep it active in the ATL. Before you say that the OBN authors cannot keep their better interests out of changing what they please, Lg and Oer, remember that the three of us wrote for both sides of the Saguenay War Rewrite so it would be hypocritical to say they would be biased.

I have my full faith in Smoggy and she can decline if she pleases. I will not fully withdraw but I will still minorly contribute to keep harmony if needed. I have respect for LG but what Yank said above about Lg's rule is an exxagerated truth at worst. While I don't think you rule with an iron fist as quoted you tend to debate until they give up as with GB. Remember LG that I was the one who got you elected to the TSPTF. Also remember that this is a community project and if one caretaker wishes to hand over primary control it is not something that needs to be disputed so long as it is a legitimate transfer.

With that I say that I would prefer if Smoggy assisted in care taking but should it become a major issue I will abort mission and take are of it myself. Have a nice day everyone. Arstar 22:31, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

...It's amazing how my point continues to be lost, here.

Each discussion about the Alliance on this page, among others, has you guys going on about "retconning" it - which, by and large, is against the rules anyway. That is exactly why I'm objecting. Because I feel that your hometown syndrome, along with your own creations being the states most directly opposed to the Alliance, means that the state will get screwed over in favor of the OBN nations nearly every time. Yet, that is entirely unrealistic. You've not done anything "unrealistic" yet, true enough. But your discussions, in my opinion, mean that this will happen. The backflowed Lancaster expansion, for an example.

It's not a question of it being edited more frequently. Heck, you guys have had the permission to do edits - though not control - for months, and only smoggy has done anything. Don't blame Arstar or anyone else for that one. Nor does it help your cause.

Arstar, read the discussions here and elsewhere before you talk about their interests.

As said, however, I am in favor of the OBN editors doing most of the editing for the page. But not control, at all.

Arstar should either keep the article under his control, allowing the OBN editors to edit it as is currently the case, or give it to the community and let changes to it be done by community consensus, as Oer proposed on Arstar's talk page. I prefer the second option.

Lordganon 10:35, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

My nation of Newolland may well be anti-Celtic, but that fits with their parochial attitude and backwardness. They fear the Alliance's disproportionate power in the Isles. Ultimately, I believe that all of the British Isles will fall under Celtic control in some form, but more as a 'United States of Avalon' (strictly a provisional name to try and cover the whole of the British Isles). Mumby 17:53, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

If i'd have known it was going to cause this much hassle I would have left this as it was!

If Arstars ok with it, we can leave it as it is, with Arstar as 'official' main editor and I can be a kind of deputy editor (or babysitter if you prefer as LG is with my DD Egypt page), any major changes I will check with Arstar (and LG, if he wants) before anything is changed on the CA page and also check with the OBN editors for boundaries, any claimed land in unclaimed central England etc.

Also to put to rest any rumours the CA will not loose any territory, in fact it will gain some territory in SW England and Wales.

is everyone ok with that? --Smoggy80 18:05, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

No, no, let's not get argued into a corner as so often happens.

Separating control and 'majority editors' is baseless. I don't understand what the point is of the differentiation, since naturally if we don't have control we'll have no motivation to edit. We'd basically be subordinates. And putting it up to community control is a bad idea; it will just massively slow down anything.

Furthermore, I don't understand the issue with retconning. If anything it is a good idea, and I've always wondered why we're so against it. Lots of good and plausible ideas throughout the timeline have been squashed because of the fact they collide with another article but what's to stop us going back and rewriting it? Ultimately that would make the entire timeline richer, with more chronology, more stories, and more plausibility.

As for permission to do editing, as I believe I said before, we haven't been clear on the fact we had permission.

As for bias - well, we're all mature editors. We recognise the fact that this timeline's world is crap. We may not have explicitly written as such but there's the QAA. Mumby just demonstrated that. We'd know that we can't make our little upstarts super-powerful, crushing the CA. I feel patronised saying this, but - we can be trusted to behave like adults! Fegaxeyl 18:38, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the Celts will one day rule the entirety of the Isles is a touch... silly?

Retconning is against all of the rules of the timeline, and, indeed, the wiki. And it's like that for a good reason. And given the discussions that have taken place with the CA, I've no doubt that if control was handed over it would be attempted.

Community control - as in major changes must be discussed with the community. As in, not having such things just happen.

It has been made perfectly clear several times now that you guys have had permission to do edits for months. Any lack of clarity falls on your own doorsteps.

For how often Mumby comments on things, I don't really see why you're bringing him up, his comment aside. And, as I've said already: by and large, you guys have a track record that runs counter to what you are saying, Feg. Nor should anyone hold the articles for nations on both sides of such a matter, if it can be avoided at all.

Arstar holding final control, with smoggy holding some is good. Really, Smog's edits have been good, though some of her posts on the talk pages really haven't helped your cause here at all. Boundaries are also something that needs to be discussed with someone outside of the OBN. Heck, that aspect is where most of my problem with the thought of you guys getting control lies.

Lordganon 11:39, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

But these aren't major changes. They take place in an isolated part of the world that has very little bearing on anywhere else.

Track record? I believe our work is no more flawed than anyone else's here, and we are a set of very good and realistic editors with excellent knowledge and a recognition of the timeline.

Arstar himself admitted he had many other major articles to work on; Smoggy has additional work too. Verence, Mumby and I aren't so committed and can contribute to the timeline. All of us are grounded in reality, or so I would hope, and definitely mature enough to consider the timeline as a whole rather than any one individual nation. We will be good editors and we will consider the future of the timeline reasonably, intelligently and realistically.

LG, I have to say it. I'm deeply insulted that you can't trust us. Fegaxeyl 18:19, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the CA taking over the whole of the former UK, or even all the uncontrolled territory in the former UK. The CA only started exploring the mainland of the UK in the 1990's (Liverpool in 1995, Cleveland and Wales in 1997 and Southern England in 1998 and New London after that), so by now the CA contolling the whole of South West England, all of Wales and Shropshire and Hertfordshire would be likely, we would have to decide where New London is, I'm guessing it is located west or north west of Old London? mainly due to where the radiation from the nukes would've blown east.--Smoggy80 19:19, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Major Changes in the islands. As I've said repeatedly.

I have not once said anything about your articles. Where my problem lies is the opinions stated by you guys in discussions. How many times do I have to say that, Feg? Sheesh.

Don't know where you're getting those dates from, Smog - the CA started exploring well into the 1980s. The Liverpool date is far later than it occurred, and that history page is definitely not in order, as it would be nonsensical for that to actually be it.

New London and its environs, in the west of the city, no doubt.

Lordganon 10:42, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Latest Map Edit

Is this accurate?

New1983britmap

And hows this?

83britmap

Seems about right to me Verence71 20:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

...Except that it ignored New London, again. And no mention of Celtic-influenced areas, either, though that part is a kettle of fish to be discussed later on, as even I've no idea exactly what areas lie in that.

A touch more like this.....

1983ddformerukmaplg

Lordganon 10:47, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

The LG map is good as it shows county boundries like I said a big chunk of SW England and all of Wales would be probably Celtic by now, so say the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, Glostershire, Somerset and Avon, Herefordshire, Shropshire, Oxfordshire, Worchestershire and probably the western halfs of Hampshire (with a border with Southern England, depending on fallout areas from Southampton), Warwickshire and Berkshire, southern and western parts of Staffordshire, as well as all of Wales.

New London would be probably be in Oxfordshire or Berkshire as its unlikely it would be in the Greater London area, mainly due to the fact of not really enough land for farming to hold such a large population, but also possible residual radiation (as we don't know where the nukes actual fell, might be a good idea to decide where they detonated)

340px-1983ddformerukmaplgnew

so something like this with light green being land Celtic land now

And i'm taking the dates from History of the Celtic Alliance (1983: Doomsday) page. it appears to be arranged in date order?, the section on Southern England will have to be ammended to including nations of Southern England, Essex and Woodbridge and Celtic interactions with those areas.--Smoggy80 12:44, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

If the Eastern edges of London are intact for Essex, then the same is true of the western edges for the CA base.

Have a look at earlier in that article, Smog. The western areas are in contact with the CA well before the 1990s - they formally take over Liverpool in the timeframe you mention, but they are active there well before that.

The Wales section, given what it says earlier in the history, must be assumed to be out of place. Simply put, it's not possible for them to do such things without being in Wales in the 1980s at least on some level. At a minimum, the islands of the Welsh coast would have joined the CA, or at least be aligned with them, before or around the time Glasgow joins in late 1980s. The rest follows.

Lordganon 10:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Added more or less Smog's zone to my version, with a section extending to New London as well. Lordganon 11:45, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ok so in addition to my list of CA controled counties above, all of Berkshire (not just western end) and southern Buckinghamshire, we need to decide where the border with Southern England in Hampshire is--Smoggy80 11:58, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

New London, does Uxbridge/Slough area sound ok? might be a bit close to Heathrow airport which i'm guessing will have been nuked (with it being the largest civillian airport in the country at the time) but does have a good water supply and access to open spaces for farming or alternatly Windsor castle is nearby, along with Eton College--Smoggy80 12:18, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the Southern English border, I had not envisioned the Southern English controlling anything in Hampshire except perhaps districts 5,6 and 7 in the east. The southern area that the map shows it controling had in my mind mostly been avoided due to the bombing of PortsmouthVegas adict 13:05, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've been using this map, looking at it i can imagine the southern part of 3 and 5 is pretty radioactive


Hampshire Ceremonial Numbered

with 12 being Southampton and 13 being Portsmouth (both hit with 150KT bombs plus another 1 or 2 200KT bombs) so irradiated and also 10, 1, 2, and 4 will be uninhabitable.

so if the CA controls 11, 9 and 8 and the northern part of 3, it'll have a border between the CA and Southern England just east of Basingstoke. sound ok to you Vegas? --Smoggy80 13:14, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, That sounds fine to meVegas adict 13:22, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

So using a very roughly made map

Hampshiredivided

Orange radioactive - uninhabited, Blue - southern England, Yellow - CA

--Smoggy80 13:32, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

We should mark on what is radioactive on the map, so we know what is possible and what isn't. Any map from a world which has suffered nuclear war would have that. I like LGs map, but I have never been sure of New London. Mumby 13:50, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less where the spot on my map is for NL, Smog, lol

Logically, outside of areas that still remain radioactive today, Southern England is going to control Southern Hampshire, in an arc around Portsmouth - for them to not control the coast right next to their capital and center of power would be a touch.... sketchy. While the area may entirely have once been radiated, that is not going to be the case now. Radiation from fallout would be more or less gone.

How could they control that part of Hampshire, in the northeast? They've never had any borders anywhere near there. That area of the Celtic control/influence, as well, is slightly toned down on my map in that area, compared to Smog's, too.

Too many little strikes in Britain to make an addition of them to a map like this all that feasible, in my mind.

Lordganon 14:40, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

New Map of Essex

A tentative map for Essex

I think I may as well flag it up here if we're going to be considering New London, I made this tentative map of Essex's final borders, at which point I doubt any more expansion is possible. As you can see it's currently on top of where New London was mentioned. So that leads to the following options:
  • New London is somewhere else, or
  • Essex absorbs New London, or
  • You make me redo this map which took me hours!

​I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion and any future mapmaking. Fegaxeyl 18:23, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Redo it. Not like it'd be a big edit, anyways.

If it helps any, you're still got room for expansion north of the city, even past what your map there shows. You could easily add more there.

But, too, though, that map of yours is for the future.

Lordganon 10:46, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

So can we agree that New London will be based in Windsor? it seems the most logical place, easy to defend (what with the Castle and all), water source, land for farming surrounding, woodland for fuel etc. Once thats agreed then we need to decide its structure, future etc.

It would make sense for Southern England to get all of Hampshire and make the border between them and the CA the old Hampshire border.

sound ok? --Smoggy80 16:44, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

  • looks thoughtfully at Lordganon's map, specifically the unclaimed area east of the CA and south of Lancaster* *sighs* If only you weren't radioactive.Tessitore 22:25, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Bet on Slough instead of Windsor. Windsor would be where looters aimed for, and devastated because of it. Slough would be contaminated for the first couple years from radiation, so it would be in much better shape. Though Windsor would definitely be under their control.

All of Hampshire would be unlikely. The northwestern portions are are closer to the CA, and likely would end up with them.

Tess, I've little doubt it would go to Lancaster.

Lordganon 02:52, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Slough is an absolutely massive industrial park. I was expecting the Soviets to drop a nuke simply to destroy Slough alone, seeing the massive concentration of services and industry there. Fegaxeyl 07:46, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Just thought, what about OBN influence, as a whole. There is a precedent for the OBN to work together to recover areas, for example the Lincolnshire Assimilation project and the Codominions.Mumby 14:15, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I should prob point out that I have no plans to extend Cleveland, Northumbria, Newolland and Southern Scotland beyond what they have already claimed.

Therefore the unclaimed area from Buckinghamshire northwards can be divided between Lancaster and the CA, the only major nuked areas will be around Manchester and Birmingham.

--Smoggy80 16:50, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

340px-1983ddformerukmap2lg

Ok roughly done this map, Southern England (Vegas) is that ok for full extent?, Essex (Fegaxeyl)- i've done to the borders with the CA in London and border with Southern England, it still leaves room to expand to the north (Bedfordshire, southern Northamptonshire etc) however you'll have to decide between yourself and Woodbridge (Verence) who gets what as Southern Cambridgeshire is already earmarked for Woodbridge. LG it that ok for extent of CA?

--Smoggy80 17:18, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

About setting up in Slough or Windsor, in my mind both these areas are flooded to some extent, since the local reserviors may have overflowed or breached or... whatever... since Doomsday. I've been running on the assumption that central London is flooded from the destruction of embankments and the slowing of the river as it passes through the ruins - and I've made small adjustments on the map I produced to represent this. Would this be something to bear in mind? Fegaxeyl 19:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Smog, if you're going to make alternate versions of my map, please remove "LG" from the name.

The lighter green is the areas that their camps are set up in, as per what the article says. In all likelihood, they will go further inland.

The problem overall, mind, is that Essex and Southern England are not that size. In the future, maybe. But not right now. Same goes for Woodbridge in the northeast. Basically, it's good to know the future extent, but it's not something to put on a current map.

Not really, Feg. We can't predict at all where/how bad flooding would be, exactly. Assume it exists, but not exactly where. Something to remember, but not worry about all that much. As you say, Central London would no doubt have suffered flooding, but we really can't know exactly where. After all, these things are designed for heavy flooding and to last a long time with maintenence. They aren't going to collapse overnight, even with nuclear damage. Heck, the nukes may even have made the river bottom deeper, helping prevent flooding, for all we know.

Smog, it's kinda illogical that Newolland and Cleveland wouldn't expand at least a little further. The CA will have Lancaster blocked off from expanding soon, so them not doing expanding into the gap is basically giving it to the CA.

Slough is not recorded as a hit, and judging from what I read, it's not the kind of industry that would be targeted.

Lordganon 02:40, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to wait until wikipedia comes back online before I can discuss that particular point in detail! :P Fegaxeyl 07:53, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Slough would've been hit, the industry there would pose not threat to the USSR (no aircraft or missile building works there), Heathrow definately would've been hit though. As for flooding, if the resevoirs nearby Windsor had overflowed the water would be well and truely gone down the Thames by now, and Windsor is on a hill.

LG sorry about using your map, I just thought we were going to use it from now on. The map I made shows either claimed lands or planned extent, as well as the land they currently control. it was produced just purely so we can decide on future borders etc, thats why I mentioned about the Essex/CA/Woodbridge border--Smoggy80 16:55, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Woodbridge has certainly does intend to expand into the rest of Norfolk at some point in the future. When it does that the name of the nation might well be changed to the Republic of East Anglia or something similar Verence71 23:54, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Redarding the empty area I've got my eye on, after a bit of cross referencing it appears that apart from the Peak District (which Smoggy and I have agreed will go to Lancaster), most of it is taken up by cities that were nuked. So it's all pretty much either radioactive or MAMBA.Tessitore 02:18, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Nono you misinterpreted me, Smog. Use it as you wish, all I ask is that when you upload a new one, that you remove "LG" from the name it is saved under. Lordganon 09:32, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the little white blob on the Norfolk coast on the latest map is meant to signify Norwich which was the subject of a 100KT blast on Doomsday. However where the blob is situated is actually the coastal town of Great Yarmouth. Norwich itself is about 21 inland from there Verence71 17:05, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Er the little white blob was a bit i forget to colour in, oops. (Oh and for those who dont know what MAMBA stands for it means Miles And Miles of Bugger All) LG i'll remove the LG part of the name tag. sorry again.--Smoggy80 18:08, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and as for the map how about, area already controlled one colour and area claimed or partially controlled etc a slightly lighter shade of the same colour, like we did with the CA on the map?--Smoggy80 18:31, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, Smog.

The CA is really the only state in the Isles that controls more territory than its official boundaries. And the claims overlap, as is usually the case - makes little sense to put them on a map, if it's more than a map with just the one nation on it.

Lordganon 02:14, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Newolland has more territory under its controls than it offical boundries (Rutland, north Cambridgeshire, Eastern Leicestershire adn eastern Northamptonshire) Woodbridge has Northern Norfolk which is under their control (administer) but is not part of Woodbridge proper. As far as i can see there is little to no overlap as neighbouring nations have helped each other to gain territory.

LG I may be incorrectly reading between the lines here but are you saying something like "eveything that isn't fully part of another nation WILL be part of the CA (wether we like it or not!) and parts of the other OBN nations as well"? or am I reading this discussion wrong?

--Smoggy80 12:17, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Woodbridge doesn't control North Norfolk. We have just place a claim to the area for further expansion at some point in the future. You're confusing NN with that little bit of West Norfolk and bits of East and South Cambridgeshire Verence71 14:14, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

You may want to have another look at that map I made, Smog. All those areas are inside their borders. And Verence has it for Woodbridge.

No, that is not what I'm, saying, Smog. Celtic and OBN claims - and the OBN states with themselves - overlap. What I'm saying is that because of that fact, there's no point in including claims on a map, unless we do a single map for each nation. The Celts will likely get their influenced areas, and a bit further, with the OBN taking the rest.

Lordganon 18:57, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Of course the number of representatives in the CA parliment for SW England will have to be increased from 9, does 14 or 15 sound ok? or do you think there should be more as i'm expecting that the population in SW England despite DD will be larger than for mainland Scotland.--Smoggy80 14:01, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

The map should also show that the western part of currently Clevleish South and West Yorkshire will go to Lancaster,(i'll decide on boundries with Tess).

I would imagine that as Manchester was nuked, keeping Gt Manchester as a county name wouldn't happen so the land would revert back pre 1974 Lancaster, West Yorkshire and Cheshire counties, so what was Lancaster in 1974 will also go to Lancaster and Prob north western Derbyshire (say districts of High Peak and the northern part of Derbyshire dales as well as districts of North East Derbyshire, area around Chesterfield, and Bolsover) with Matlock in the south of the Derbyshire dales that shouldn't be a problem as Matlock doesn't control much territory. The CA would contol all of Cheshire (including the bit that was GT Manchester) and so have a border along the old Cheshire border with Lancaster.--Smoggy80 14:07, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it would be more people in SW England than in mainland Scotland. Northern Scotland would basically have gotten through intact, which is something that we cannot say for SW England, at all.

...Yes, that's more or less where the borders would end up.

Lordganon 14:16, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

SW England has large amounts of extremely fertile farmland (Far more than all of Scotland put together) and so it can support more people, even after you take into account the radioactive fall out over the area--Smoggy80 14:26, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Being home to more potential farmland doesn't mean too much if almost everyone died off.

And, according to data established elsewhere, the CA population in what was once England is around 200k. In mainland Scotland, it's without a doubt going to be higher than that. If anything, the number of Scottish reps there needs to be increased, imo, as it's population will be far above 200k.

Been watching you and Tess, Smog, and I have to say: Lancaster is not going to be able to get to Southern Yorkshire, in all likelihood. It's just too far away, through radioactive lands.

Lordganon 10:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first off, by now the radiation levels would've dropped a fair bit. Secondly, even if they can't do much with the land, there's nothing stopping them from calling dibs and working out who gets what for the sake of tidiness.Tessitore 22:10, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest does the town of Uttoxeter in Staffordshire belong to anyone?? I

Verence71 19:58, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Tess (and Smog, who obviously saw that post) - calm down.

Aside from a small corridor in Yorkshire, nearly the entire area between SY and Lancaster is either taken by the CA, or the Manchester deathlands. Say that the Cleveish are letting them have it - not that that makes any sense at all, but I digress - all you want, but it's just not very feasible for them to actually get it. Nor does it make any sense.

Looking at maps, Ver, that town is outside of anyones control by a reasonable distance. Though, it does lie in the CA-controlled/influenced area on these maps.

Lordganon 03:03, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

The Yorkshire 'problem'Edit

I am not recommending people living and farming there, it prob is too radioactive for that, but mining the area for salvage of valuble materials like lead, copper, zinc, whatever else they can find, would be feisable at least, then there is the fact that the area has large numbers of rivers, hydro power is a possibility, and if radioactive land is flooded whats the harm! wind turbines are also possible, short term exposure for the 'miners' would still be a risk, but Cleveland in particular has a history of using life-term prisoners for such work.

--Smoggy80 10:23, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

...You're missing my point, Smog. Lordganon 11:06, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

everything inside the M60 Manchester ring road is wrote off, too radioactive, only say 1 mile from any 200KT bomb and 1/2 mile or less from any 100KT bomb (take biggest value for multi hits) is still dangerous, and say 5 miles (or 2.5 for 100KT) for any long term habitation limit, any smaller nukes will already be safe (10KT or so). The 100KT blast zone you should be able to get fairly close to safely. So big safe (ish) passage from Blackburn (Lancaster) between Rochdale (100KT) and Huddersfield (100KT) down towards the peak district with only Sheffield (200KT and then 100KT blasts) in the way, as well as another slice north of Sheffield through Barnsley and Doncaster to the Humber River and Newolland territory.

The only 'dangerous areas' are 10 miles or so from Manchester (downwind longer, but not much) 10 miles from Leeds (Bradford to the west 100KT) and Sheffield (downwind longer, but not much) The maps show the area (roughly) abandoned circled.

West Yorkshire Countyabandoned area

South Yorkshire Countyabandoned map

as you can see there are large areas that will be safe for travel and/or salvage work--Smoggy80 12:39, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

And also as for radiation, the CA has two towns, Glasgow (CA capital of Scotland) and Liverpool (De facto capital of CA controlled NW England), near to 200KT blast sites.

and to be honest I can't see what your problem with the area? it not more radioactive than Liverpool or Glasgow--Smoggy80 13:00, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're not getting my point, though your data even illustrates it.

Between the radiated zones around Manchester/Rochdale and Huddersfield/Bradford, you've got about a five mile gap. At most. No large areas. Nor would Lancaster be crazy enough to try it.

Will Lancaster control eventually pass through it? No doubt, and they're already working on it, I'm sure. But the situation as you describe it is not realistic.

And, you guys need to quit being so blasted hung up on referendums.

As for Liverpool and Glasgow? The Glasgow strike hit a spot about 15 miles northwest from the outskirts of the city. Most of it remained very intact. Liverpool's strike hit around 7 or so miles away from the city center, also leaving most of it intact, though as has been indicated, causing more damage than happened at Glasgow. Both cities retained a fair portion of their populations, as well as much of the buildings.

The area between Manchester/Rochdale and Huddersfield/Bradford is far more radiated than either Liverpool or Glasgow.

Lordganon 20:15, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else apart from LG have a problem with Cleveland and Lancaster dividing up South and West Yorkshire between them to use as a resource mine, NOT for habitation or farming as it is too radioactive?

--Smoggy80 18:13, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

If you're extracting resources then you're underground, right? What's the harm? ;D Nope, I believe it'd be perfectly plausible to use for mining or some kind of penal colony. Fegaxeyl 18:25, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not in the context they're talking about. It's more so scavenging on the surface.

Using it for mining/scavenging means that there must be some sort of residence for these people.

And, my point is still being missed, here.

I've no net issue with the dividing it up, though Cleveland doing so in the South makes little sense, to me.

My problem is that assumption that Lancaster could take the area. That just makes no sense at all. It's just not feasible.

Lordganon 01:50, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I side with LG on this one. Any mining/scavenging operation in the area will require habitation to make it viable. And that simply isn't plausible (not impossible) in an irradiated area. And besides, why does Lancaster want a strip of irradiated land anyway. It isn't worth much. Yorkshire is vastly the preserve of Cleveland culturally and influentially. I find the idea of Lancaster moving in odd. Mumby 09:24, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Fine, scratch that idea then--Smoggy80 16:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

So can we all agree on this map, CA total extent, Southern Scotland, Cleveland, Northumbria and Newolland current full extent, Southern England possible future extent, Woodbridge, Lancaster (with the WFA hashed) and Essex extent with room to expand at a later date. With a big uncontrolled part in the middle, to be divided up between the OBN nations, depending on radiation levels.

83ddukmap

Although I still have problems about New London being CA, I Personally think it would be part of Essex, (as its offical name is Combined Communities of Essex, Hertfordshire and London) either by now or shortly in the future along with whether the CA would be in charge in Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire as it is called the Celtic Alliance not the Celtic Empire--Smoggy80 17:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The CA is not conquering people. Though that "Empire" line more or less agrees with what I've been saying about the need for outside control of that article, lol.

Remember, too, that the English can also be included, after a fashion, as being "Celtic." Not in language, but in identity. Have a look at the article on Celtic nations on wikipedia. Heck, even Galicia in Spain counts itself as being a bit Celtic.

To answer what you said on Arstar's page:

I'm aware of what intentions he's made known in the past. Which are decidedly not what he just told you, which isn't even plausible.

It also doesn't make much sense that unless a vote for it happened, the CA would return the territory to SS. It is without question a Celtic area, after all.

As for your post here...

One of the last things we should do is assign future territory. You'd also need to draw a line - a touch figuratively, at least, as it would not be a line outright - from CA territory near New London to up by Lancaster. The zone where the Celts have their stations set up isn't going to stop growing, though I'm sure it will slow down, as areas are outright incorporated, after all. And, New London wouldn't be just a spurt into Essex like that, it would cut off that Essex bit northwest of it. Such a border as on your map here doesn't make much sense, if you think about it, Smog.

Lordganon 21:52, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The area of Scotland in question was unclaimed when Ur Alba invaded it and took control, I'm not talking about the section around Stranraer, which is CA and has been for a while. It also has presendence as Northumbria handed back territory given to it after the Ur Alba war after the governmentof Southern Scotland was offically voted in.

I think I can probably talk for the other British/English editors by saying we catagorically do not think of ourselves as 'Celtic' in any way, most people who live in England, Britain, whatever, think of ourselves as seperate, even the Welsh and Cornish have distinct national identities and within England we have distinct regional identities, very much seperate from the others. Otherwise when we started out articles on the DD page we would've been a lot more Celtic orientated. What you said is a lot like saying American's are like Canadian's or Mexican's.

--Smoggy80 18:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Also as Arstar is still editor for the CA, (as you will not allow the OBN editors or myself to take over, despite him asking me in person) can he not do as he wishes with the CA? (within reason obviously, no conquering the Nordic Union or anything stupid and within canon also) if he doesn't want as much land for HIS nation what is stopping him refusing the land? or even setting up independance movements in sectors of the CA? or do you want to take over the Celtic Alliance full time LG?--Smoggy80 18:35, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest the Celtic Alliance's interpretation of 'Celtic' is closer to the English reinterpretation of the 19th century. Few people in Britain actually consider themselves to be Celtic, though a few pig-headed English might refer to Wales-Scotland-Ireland-Cornwall as the Celtic Fringe. And Smog is right about regional identities. I am proud to identify myself as a Fenog. Thats the thing about Britishness. Its all things to all people. And by the way, Any land annexed by the Celts from Ur Alba has been Celtic for what, less than a year? Yeah, REALLY Celtic. You make it sound as if everyone went from being Scots to being Celts at some turning point, when in fact there are many groups of people with differing opinions. Liberators yes. Rulers maybe not. After all, other British nations nearby also provided aid. But lets not argue. Lets have a constructive debate about the issues at hand, not wiki politics like you're doing Smog. Mumby 09:35, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for some reason, Mumby.

Smog, calm the heck down. What on earth is with you today?

You guys both missed my point about the annexed area of Scotland. Yes, it's only been Celtic territory a short period. But, that is not at all what I meant.

In the CA, and to Celtic peoples, the Scots are Celtic. Not that the annexed area consists of Celtic citizens, but a Celtic People. Without question, this is a truth.

Given the large number of Scots in the CA already, and that the Scots are a Celtic People, in therefore makes little sense for the CA to even consider giving them up. And, they'd be better off in most regards with them as well.

Guys, read the blasted link I quoted. Look at the links inside that article, too.

I'm well aware that only a small, minuscule, percentage of English consider themselves Celtic in any way. What I'm saying is, however, that if you stretch what "Celtic" entails, as some do, and no doubt more do atl, you can easily include England in its definition, at its broadest. Think about it: the original people in England, before all of the conquests, introductions of other peoples, etc., was Celts.

That knowledge would easily be used to justify any such movements. That is what I'm saying. Not that the English are Celtic - I'm not stupid - but that they do have some Celtic roots, which could easily be used and promoted by the CA. And, in the west of England, that this would be even easier to accomplish.

And, that was also rather insulting to all three of those countries, Smog.

I have stated my very justified opposition to any complete takeover of the CA by the OBN editors. Heck, Smog's last post before those.... rants? furthered my argument in this regard.

I will say this again: what Arstar is now saying is not what he has said in the past. What he is now saying is just not plausible, in many regards.

I admit, I debated taking it over from Arstar a few months ago, in order to at least get something done to it. Changed my mind several times, and ended up deciding not to, if nothing else to avoid this trash, plus the fact that I did not actually want to. Couple weeks after that, the current setup was installed, which I don't mind at all, as it gets updated, yet prevents implausibility, or excess, from happening. Right about now, I'm definitely regretting my choice, given all of the garbage of the last little bit.

Lordganon 10:09, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster's Application to Join...again Edit

I've copied this from further up as it appears we've forgotten about it!


A referendum has been held and the results were in favour of joining, partly because Lancaster seems to have a habit of copying Cleveland, but largely for the economic advantages and because Lancaster shares a border with the CA and while things are civil at the moment, it never hurts to have some back-up when you've got a much stronger next-door neighbour. Tessitore 20:48, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I vote we retcon in their admission to coincide with Cleveland and Northumbria's admission. Provided Mumby can provide an updated, 7-star flag - out of his infinite kindness and charity :D - then I would be happy to sort out the situation. Fegaxeyl 20:53, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Would that really work, given that Lancaster applied some time after Cleveland and Northumbria (the referendum was on 3rd November, so the application wouldn't have be sent off until about the 5th)? Tessitore 21:11, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Their applications both turned up around the 1st or 3rd, so it wouldn't be impractical for the Lancastrian application to be seen as part of the same package. Fegaxeyl 21:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

When will Lancaster be made part of the OBN? and do we back date it? as the application was made well over a year ago, maybe make it part of the OBN mid 2011?--Smoggy80 17:59, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


Also does the WFA get accepted at the same time? as it is a protectorate of Lancaster--Smoggy80 18:03, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


Ah, you had me worried there that I'd been hacked, I couldn't remember posting those messages! Um, certainly, let's retcon Lancaster in. As for WFA, well, that depends whether or not it's the legal successor to Rheged, which I believe was also in? Fegaxeyl 19:37, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Errr..... Huh?

Lancaster is a member according to the flag of the OBN. Just hasn't been written in yet. No retconning, just someone actually has to write it.

Why would the WFA be a member when it's a protectorate? Especially when the stated end goal was likely annexation by Lancaster anyways.

Lordganon 21:04, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The WFA broke away from Rheged because it thought the government in Carlisle was becoming to close to Northumbria and Cleveland, the north of Rheged then became part of Northumbria.

I guess its up to Tess to decide exactly when Lancaster was accepted, and any ceramonial stuff associated, so Tess writing that section might be best, as for the WFA I did mean was should it be brought in at the same time as Lancaster (as its a protectorate of Lancaster) or does it get included when it become a full part of Lancaster (which may be this year, or next year) --Smoggy80 13:13, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Go with it becoming part whenever it actually joins Lancaster. Lordganon 17:59, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Railways Edit

I'm not sure what you guys think, but I'm certainly under the impression the best way of getting round Britain currently is by train. So what and where are the main rail lines? Is there a project to build a single coastal railway uniting all the nations, which can then intersect the one between Cleveland and Lancaster? Is there a need to do this? Does coastal shipping provide a better alternative?

By extension, are these trains coal-fired, or are they diesel, or are they electric? How developed are train networks within each nation? Would it be economically feasible for our nations to do so?

Food for thought; I'd love to hear everyone's ideas. I imagine there's some interesting ground to be covered here due to Britain's rich locomotive heritage. Would there be some sort of symbiosis, with the north building the trains and the south providing the diesel? That would certainly give my economically doomed Essex something to do with itself - massive biofuel growth! Fegaxeyl 12:28, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Currently Albion Railways has a line from Glasgow (CA) through Southern Scotland, Northumbria, Cleveland, over the Humber Bridge along the Lincolnshire coast of Newolland as far south as Bourne, Newolland.

There is a line between Cleveland and Lancaster and between Carlisle and Alnwick in Northumbria, as well as extensive lines throughout Cleveland.

Northumbria and Cleveland both have steam locomotive works there are also lots of coal mines in Cleveland, Northumbria and Newolland.

--Smoggy80 13:16, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Given my understanding of things, coastal shipping would be more efficient. However.... these states also have a shortage of merchant shipping of that nature, and a low port capacity in most cases. Trains are going to be better for now, but not likely long-term.

Lordganon 14:31, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it already canon that there's a rail line from Bourne following on to Chelmsford? The same line would inevitably follow on to Southend. I suppose a train ferry could carry over into Kent and from there go all the way to Southern England... so the OBN is basically already connected. Essex, though, still sounds like it's doomed, unless there's suddenly a big demand for diesel! @LG, I agree that coastal shipping is plausibly superior (as it was in the medieval ages) but I imagine the invention of the train meant that historically their usefulness dropped. Unless you have evidence to the contrary - that'd be interesting to discuss. Fegaxeyl 14:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

The further inland you go, the better rail is.

Coastal shipping of one sort or another is still very much a going concern today. Have a look at this article and the sources it cites for some figures.

Past that....

Trains held little impact on coastal shipping otl. Rather, it was shipping on canals that they screwed over, putting all but the largest or best placed ones out of business - and these last ones got screwed over by road transport after the 20s/30s. By and large, coastal shipping is going to be slightly faster, though this depends greatly on the distance, and geography. For example, if a ship has to go around a peninsula, but a train does not.... train's going to be faster, barring a canal. If the train needs to take a ferry, the ship will be faster.

Obvious, something from Cleveland to Lancaster, train is faster. But, something from Woodbridge to Cleveland, the ship will take a bit shorter trip, or about the same. And, ships can carry more.

Basically, short trips, trains. Longer ones, it'll be ships. Not always the case, and very dependent on the geography, but as a general idea.

Have a look around, and you'll get what I mean, I think.

Lordganon 15:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Here's a map of the rail lines in Woodbridge. They are currently building some new lines:

  • Woodbridge to Stockmarket
  • Stockmarket to Brandon

In order to connect the Woodbridge lines to the one that runs down the east coast it would probably be necessary for there to be a connecting line from Brandon to Bourne. All the trains in Woodbridge run on bio-diesel

Suffolkrailway

Verence71 14:58, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

It also depends on what you're transporting, obviously anything perishable, like milk or fish, trains would be best, because they are faster, unless there are fast refridgeraded ships out there. Passengers trains would be more likely unless the person doesn't mind it taking a while.

anything bulky and non perishable, stone, timber, steel, machinary e.t.c. then ships are better. --Smoggy80 17:55, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

At a broad generalisation, then, one could say that the more agricultural south relies on trains more than the more mining/industrial north (except for inland stuff, obviously). Fegaxeyl 18:16, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Again, trains are not a given to be faster. In many cases, they are actually slower. Depends on geography. And, as noted, merchant shipping can hold an enormous amount of goods by comparison.

As an example, an average sized ship today holds in the range of 250 rail cars of product. And a train, especially with the engines in question here, wouldn't even manage a third of that. It's cheaper, too. Of course, shipping sizes are smaller here, but.... you can tell.

Really, the north is going to be more dependent on trains, with the south more so on shipping, except for short distances in a few spots. Fish can be salted and shipped easily, along with it being a more short-range good, and milk is a short-distance good at best. Most shipped goods in the south would be grains, or similar items. Easily transportable. Really, the north is dependent on inland things, and the south is on seaside things.

Lordganon 00:17, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know if added on the Northumbria page that Albion Railways are starting to renovate the old west coast Main line, the first section will link Carlisle and Lancaster (expected completion date of August 2012) followed by a section linking Carlisle with Glasgow.--Smoggy80 12:24, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Relations with LilleEdit

Are you guys aware of the nation of Lille? It's a survivor state made up of northern France and bits of Flanders (no surprise if you haven't heard of it, basically no editing has ever happened in that region for years). I'm wondering what relations would be like with this nation - it's geographically very close to Britain, and has many historical links with England (trade in cloth and lace, and of course the Ypres Salient). Unfortunately the article is very lacking in detail so we can't be certain about it - unless someone wants to adopt it, of course. But yeah, I just wonder what you guys think the relations would be like? Certainly Southern England and Essex, which both control Kent, would be very close to this nation. Fegaxeyl 21:43, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Relations almost non-existent, on all counts. SE and Essex would be the only ones talking to them, at all, the CA aside. Lordganon 05:23, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think Lille has resources and services it can offer. After all, Lancaster could well ship its flax, wool and linen produce to Lille, which it can make into lace and cloth. I'm not entirely sure but this could be used in ropemaking too, which then has a market in Cleveland. Fegaxeyl 08:00, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

.... Resources and Services does not relations make. Lordganon 08:40, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Lancaster Trading Company has them on their list of 'people we're flogging stuff to', although I'm not entirely sure what is being traded (I reasoned that doing business would be easier if there wasn't a language barrier and that French was the language most likely to have at least one Lancastrian who could speak it, so I basically just put down all the French survivour nations that could be reached by sea).Tessitore 15:44, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

After decoding that statement, LG, we have to remember that this is a post-Doomsday world. Nowhere is equipped to do everything well. High-quality textiles coming from Lille would be valuable for the OBN nations, so the British states would wish to keep the trade lanes open. With trade comes good relations. Indeed, the history of the region proves this - the Flemish towns of Ghent, Ypres and that region were close to Britain even before WWI because of historical trade links.

I've no idea what the LTC could be trading, Tess, though I imagine it could have a go at flax, linen and wool if the government of Lancaster isn't trying. Fegaxeyl 07:48, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what world it is, Feg. What I'm saying is that any large things of that nature is a bit of a stretch. Lordganon 09:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine Southern England and Essex would have tradelinks with lille, it is only over the channel after all, Woodbridge also, although it is that little bit further north. Newolland, unlikely as it doesn't have a strong merchant navy, Cleveland, more than likely as they are trading with the Nordic Union, North Germany and Prussia, so going south wouldn't be difficult, The Celtic Alliance would be the most likely to trade with them as they are in former France in Brittany and Normandy. Then of course there are the trading organisations such as the Cleveish Singleton Clan and the Lancaster Trading Company.--Smoggy80 12:26, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Smoggy, and while I agree it could be a stretch for some, LG - Lancaster being an example which in retrospect is on slightly plausible - the other nations would be all over it. Perhaps even Newolland - this stretches plausibility somewhat but Lille does control the Flemish Lands. The Dutch there may be drawn to 'New Holland', seeing how the rest of it is lightly irradiated from Brussels and any other nuked towns in the area. This would obviously help Newolland with settling its massive landgrab. Fegaxeyl 17:11, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

NorfolkEdit

I have a few ideas about the current situation in "unoccupied" Norfolk and I was wondering whether it would be worth creating a completely new page about it or just place the information in a sub-section of the Woodbridge page?? Verence71 16:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether any other nations would be involved apart from Woodbridge, there is a page Invasion of Norfolk (1983: Doomsday) it could be included as a subsection?--Smoggy80 17:16, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Well, a reasonably detailed page would add nice flavour to the timeline and be some kind of snapshot/overview of what life is like in uncivilised, post-DD Britain. Fegaxeyl 17:26, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Smoggy, the "Invasion of Norfolk" only dealt with the west of the county so, as you say that could perhaps be a subsection of any "Norfolk" page

Feg, one of the ideas I have at the moment is to have various towns and villages along the east and north coasts of the county as bases for various pirate clans, the major ones being based in Great Yarmouth and Cromer/Sheringham Verence71 19:28, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean some of your research on Somalia will be useful here, then? After all, both Somalia and Norfolk have pirate-held towns on the coast... (Wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.) Fegaxeyl 20:09, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough that did occur to me and like Somalia (in both this ATL and OTL) Norfolk hasn't had a single government for more than 20 years Verence71 20:21, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should do another article - Woodbridge will need some help, I'd imagine. After, of course, finishing the similar one you currently have in progress. Lordganon 23:12, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Republic of Somalia?? That could certainly do with bringing up to date a bit if only very basically. Verence71 23:25, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

More like this one... The Ipswich Incident. Lordganon 23:28, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

That one's actually my responsibility, it got interrupted by exams and I never really picked up momentum on it again. Fegaxeyl 09:12, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

All areas clearly state that it's both of yours. Lordganon 09:44, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Verence was writing the political side, I was writing the military side. No need to get tetchy, LG, I know my own agreements. Fegaxeyl 10:15, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

....Which concurs with what I just said. Lordganon 11:04, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I was being specific. Take a chill pill, LG. Fegaxeyl 11:18, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

A page about the wild uncivilised parts of Norfolk would be useful, and interesting. Cleveland had dealings with pirates in that area in the past, although those areas are now part of Newolland (I think?).

Using Sheringham/Cromer or even the smaller towns of Blakeney or Wells-next-the-Sea as basetowns for the pirates would be a good idea, I think Great Yarmouth would be a little too close to Woodbridge to still be pirates--Smoggy80 17:22, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right about Great Yarmouth

There's plenty of coastal towns/villages in an easterly direction from Wells that could be pirate bases.

The B1159 road could prove a useful reference point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1159_road

Verence71 18:31, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yes that page gives a good list of coastal towns in that area, a very good start point! If the OBN nations are going to be used, Newolland, Cleveland and Northumbria will be able to help with any military or engineering help.--Smoggy80 14:06, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

I've also found that the district of North Norfolk was orginally to be known as Pastonacres, but the council changed their mind on the name at the last minute in the 1974 boundary changes, but could be a good name the Pastonacres Pirates saying that it does that sound more like an American football team! lol--Smoggy80 14:12, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the Bacton Gas Terminal could be a useful base for a pirate/bandit clan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacton_Gas_Terminal

Verence71 19:45, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Surely it would have been nuked? Fegaxeyl 21:14, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of it on the list of nukes that hit Britain on Doomsday but who knows... Verence71 23:26, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

There's really no reason to hit it. Lordganon 23:52, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's a key economical target? Cities aren't nuked just for being cities, they're targeted for their key industrial areas - the fact that the rest of the city is destroyed is mostly just collateral. Likewise, important parts of the economy, such as ports, gas refineries, and power stations, are priority targets. Indeed, targeting the energy infrastructure will arguably have the greatest effect of all, since it renders most industry useless. Fegaxeyl 08:02, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

...read the quoted article, Feg.

Only a few small fields were producing in 1983, and the majority producing today, while discovered by 1983, only started producing in the 1990s or later.

Only a tiny amount of fuel was going through the largely empty facilities at the time.

Heck, the network in Britain that connects to those plants wasn't even complete in 1983 - to say nothing of the pipelines to elsewhere, which weren't even a concept at the time.

There is entirely no reason to hit these plants. As there's only a shell there with no use.

Furthermore, cities are sometimes nuked for just being cities.

Lordganon 10:18, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

So the shell itself could be used as a base?? Verence71 15:20, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. Shelter, I assume some sort of docks, and very likely that they could pull fuel out of the place for a long time, though not in any large amounts (especially after no more oil enters).

Would be a very good spot for a base, truthfully.

Lordganon 15:42, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LG, I can't find anything in the article that supports what you said. But I'm not complaining because if you're right then Essex got hit with at least one less nuke! :P That said, though, my personal belief is that it would have been hit. Perhaps we should take this to the community to resolve?

And you're also right about cities being occasionally nuked for specifically counter-value reasons but again I'm tempted to believe that they will be targeted on basis of crucial industries first. The only example I can think of a mostly counter-value target in this timeline would be the excessive bombing of London. Fegaxeyl 16:40, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Feg, from what I understand of the article only the Indefatigable, Leman and Hewett fields were on-line at the time of Doomsday which is what Lordganon is saying Verence71 18:26, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now and take the point. Though I wonder what this means for the oil refineries and so forth in the Thames Estuary? Fegaxeyl 20:29, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Like the one at Coryton?? Verence71 22:47, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there's a lot more than London, lol.

Verence has it dead-on.

The Thames refineries, however, are for a different purpose, refining oil from overseas. And, are under the Port of London. Odds are they'd have been targeted.

Lordganon 00:31, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Dayum. Alright then, no retconning needed. Fegaxeyl 07:52, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are no dock facilities at Bacton itself. However I don't think it's completely unfeasible that a clan that took over the Terminal post-Doomsday would decide to construct some form of dock.

There are some other options though:

  • The small village of Walcott, which is pretty much part of Bacton has a slipway called the Walcott Gap which allows access from the B1159 to the sea. They could construct several more gaps along the beach so as to allow more boats to be launched at one time. Then any pirate "loot" could easily be taken to the road and transported to Bacton
  • The villages of Happisburgh and Mundesley, 3 miles either side of Bacton both have lifeboat station which could serve as bases and then, as with Walcott "loot" could be transported along the B1159.

In both those cases the "clan" based at Bacton could supply weaponry and security to the pirates in return for a cut of the action. Verence71 14:56, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Google Maps/Earth, I can see that now. Makes no sense at all, but it's true.

However, the pipes that do exist would make a very good basis for a dock.

Call it secondary bases at the other sites.

Lordganon 03:22, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

There could be one possible problem with Bacton, coastal erosion. Its built on cliffs on one of the most eroded coastlines in the UK, in OTL the bottom is reinforced with concrete, which will more than likely failed by now, and with storms being more common in ATL sections of the plant could be under risk of collapse into the North Sea.--Smoggy80 19:47, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

That could be awkward, but the terminal is fairly large and maybe as the coast erodes the clan could possibly extend the base's exterior fences.. Verence71 23:54, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Way I figure it, that'd make it a little more attractive to use as a base, Smog. Lordganon 06:09, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Coastal erosion Edit

Out of sheer curiosity, what do you think's been done about coastal erosion? Pretty much every single OBN nation is located on a stretch of coastline which faces erosion OTL. Obviously it's not a humongous threat except to a few coastal towns but how is it being dealt with? I can see groynes as the only possible way of dealing with it, unless Essex maybe rents out its dredgers to do some sediment nourishment on various stretches of threatened coastline. Feg 11:06, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

East Yorkshire (Holderness) suffers badly from erosion, parts of Norfolk suffers also, there would also be flooding of areas in Somerset and Cambridgeshire as the flood barriers would fail and the areas would return to fen.

Cleveland is leaving the Holderness coastline (where there are no towns) to nature, farmers can be relocated inland into unfarmed areas, individual houses owners will be compensated for loss. However some towns had been damaged, the village of Mappleton, for example, was so badly damaged that the villages population was moved to nearby Hornsea, rather than the remains of the village defended--Smoggy80 11:29, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

The Archers in Doomsday Edit

As we probably all know, the Archers is a long-running radio show of rural bumpkins. To put it simply. Basically, do you think it's possible that the show has been restarted in New Britain? With whatever surviving cast members (or new voice actors - I imagine that it would take a while to restart the show and people would've forgotten what exactly the cast sound like) and new characters, both black and white. It could return to its original mandate of education in farming techniques and other such education for British to adapt to their new environment but obviously still with plenty of drama and so forth.

I'd hope we could at least make a stub article out of this! Any input, guys? Feg 15:07, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine so, every OBN nation has radio stations, it could be a OBN wide programme. Restarting it again in, maybe, Newolland or Woodbridge as they have large farming communities, there is also the possiblity of surviving cast members being used. However it is based in an fictional area south of Birmingham (It is also recorded in Birmingham), so moving it into a more civilised territory may be a good idea.--Smoggy80 19:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. With TV not existing post-Doomsday I would imagine there would be quite a call for radio drama of all sorts Verence71 18:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

The thing was I was expecting this to be in New Britain but you guys have assumed it would be done in the OBN. That's cool, I just wonder whether the shows would end up doing a crossover (maybe back with King Andrew's visit)? Feg 20:01, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

The radio service in New Africa starts up a radio series "inspired" by the Archers that features colonists running farms in rural New Africa.

IF there was ever to be a crossover with the OBN-based Archers it could perhaps turn out that one of the colonists was one of the characters from the Archers who lost their memory as a result of trauma after Doomsday and found themself on the fleet heading south?? Verence71 22:39, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Looked into this slightly for you guys - most of the actors don't seem to have much info known about residences, etc.

Did find out a few things, mind.

Arnold Peters, who plays "Jack Woolley" on the program, lives in the town of Wollaston in Northamptonshire. Given age, job, etc., he likely did so at DD too. While he would have survived the blasts, Northhampton, just to the west, was hit - radiation would have been bad there. Wouldn't entirely rule out survival, but it's unlikely. Add to that a fair distance between them an a state post-DD. If anywhere, he's have made it to Newolland in some capacity. More likely would be something to do with the TBA, like the author of the Beatles article has done with one of the Beatles, given this is TBA country.

Terry Molloy, who plays "Mike Tucker" on the program, seems to have lived in the town of Bawburgh, near Norwich, by then. Would have survived the blasts, and not been in the path of direct radiation. A position from which he could get to Newolland or Woodbridge, possibly. Better odds than Peters, by a country mile.

Not that she was on the program yet - not by a long shot - but Kellie Bright, who plays "Kate Madikane" on the program, seems to have lived in Essex somewhere at the time. Could be useful.

Pebble Mill Studios, where the program was shot until 2004, would have been within the direct pressure effects of the Birmingham blasts. Anyone in the area is gone.

A lot of the cast seems to have lived in London, too.

Nor do I see any way that any of them could possibly have gotten to the area the NB people left from, as an fyi.

Lordganon 00:34, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the cast are probably dead, not a problem however, in ATL many cast members leave, but the charactor continues on with a different voice, I suppose its simpler than TV as its only the voice that will change, so wholescale recasting the entire series could happen very easily--Smoggy80 14:57, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Some people who could appear on any OBN-based version of The Archers could be

Karl Theobald

Zeb Soanes

Olivia Coleman

Verence71 18:55, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Olivia Colman seems to have been in Norwich at the time of DD. Lordganon 23:34, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Whether she survived Doomsday or not might depends on which of the two schools mentioned on her Wikipedia article she was at on Doomsday. If she was at Norwich High School for girls then she would obviously have been a goner but if she was at Gresham's School in Holt (which is 23 miles north of Norwich) then she surely would have been okay?? Verence71 12:13, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Gresham's doesn't, going by their wikipedia article, seem to have been taking female students her age until 1984. I'd also add that the order of the two on here page, which is not alphabetical or anything, is likely the order she went to them in. Lordganon 20:49, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's forget about her :) Verence71 22:07, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

London Edit

I remember reading, somewhere on the timeline, that there were plans to explore London in 2012. What would be found there? Some thoughts of my own:

  • Epping Forest will have grown over most of the north/northeast of the city that Essex doesn't have any direct control over
  • The Thames will be horrendously flooded, as will tributaries such as the River Lea
  • There will be at least one or two blast craters where bombs detonated as groundbursts (particularly Heathrow)
  • Any survivor communites that managed to last this long will be located around parks
  • There will be very few survivor communities left

Ideas, guys? Feg 15:59, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the point you made about the expansion of Epping Forest, would that have expanded into Enfield?? Verence71 17:59, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I imagine it would, yeah - creeping around the various reserviors around there which, I've always assumed, would've formed one big lake. Feg 18:36, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I only asked cos my sister and her family lived there until late last year Verence71 22:26, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Not only Epping forest, but any of the surviving parks would've overgrown and spread out into surrounding urban areas.

Map-3d-3

The nice little map shows it well, any green are would've spread (where it wasn't nuked obviously!) To give you an idea British broad leaved woodland can spread roughly 300 m per year (Birch, Willow, Alder, Ash and Sycamore etc), it takes roughly 10-15 years to get complete canopy cover and become true woodland.

The area roughly 1 mile north and south of the Thames in London would've returned to its natural state of open water and marshland, also many underground rivers [1] like the Fleet (under Fleet St) and the Tyburn would've come back onto the surface as the culverts would be blocked by now--Smoggy80 16:40, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

You fail, however, to take into account the fires spreading outwards from the blast zones. And, that there was at least 12 separate detonations in the city.

While the trees are likely overgrowing the region now.... I would bet on them being burned down in the blasts and the week or so afterwards.

Lordganon 07:59, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Flash fires yes, forest fires probably not, British broadleaved trees aren't very flammable, not like Conifers of California or Eucalypts of Australia. Plus the trees in parks across London aren't very packed together, so chances of a forest fire burning the lot is very sparse. the city would burn around them but in particular the larger parks would've survived relativily well.

It was coming into autumn so leaves would be already falling, covering seed that had already fallen between August and DD, protecting them from some of the heat of the blast, add to that the ground would've been damp under the leaf litter, that is as long as they were more than a mile away from a blast! (they would've been BBQed if they had) so they would've grown the following year.

On average British natives take 10-15 years to get mature enough to start seeding themselves, once that happens they start spreading roughly 300m per year, this means by now the parks could be nearly 3km from their former borders.

Even trees blown over or split from their root balls would've regenerated the following year, in which case the spread would be quicker.

the only problem being, if the city was burning and the parks weren't, thats exactly where any survivors/refugees would've gone and they would've cut down any trees to light fires to keep them warm through the autumn nights.

--Smoggy80 14:40, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

London map 1

I would imagine that the majority of the blasts would've occured within the circled area (about 20km or 12.5 miles across), this is where the majority of the government buildings and other important buildings such as international banking centres, the stock exchange etc are, as well as highly populated, there also would be strikes on Heathrow Airport, (maybe 2 x 10kt airbursts nukes would so the trick)

Outside the circle it is made up of mainly residential areas, minor industrial parks, not a good target for nukes as they're not valuable enough military or economic targets

Survivor parks would prob be Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Bushy Park, Hampton Court Palace Gardens, Osterley Park, parts of Hamstead Heath, Epping Forest, Mitcham Common and possibly parts of Blackheath Common.

In the west Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common would've taken over a good chunk of the southern banks of the River Thames, with Bushy Park and the Gardens of Hampton Court expanding to cover the northern bank, in the north Epping forest would've increased it size by maybe 3km on all sides, any smaller parks in that area would've increased its spread further.

--Smoggy80 14:54, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that 14 nuclear warheads (the canonical number) would be needed on London, then! Maybe two extra groundbursts at Heathrow, not more than three warheads in central London of limited kilotonnage (no more than 50), and beyond that... would they want to drop groundbursts on the major railway stations? I can't really see any point to hit the docks, they'd been out of action for ages. Feg 15:42, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the trees are more immune to fire than those ones, Smog - it's that the environment is wetter.

Forest fires can jump across six-lane highways. And you're talking about trees, in an area surrounded by fire, which are going to be dried out really fast. Distance won't do you any good.

Smog, the leaves are going to be pretty dry. Fire would spread through them too.

Yes, the seeds stand a reasonable shot of making it. Won't help during the fires, mind.

I'd also note that the fires would cook/smoke the people in the parks to death. Smoke inhalation, and excessive heat.

Many of the strikes in London would be directed towards the population. Also, what would be the point of nuking a small area that many times? There would be none.

Feg, think of it as the London metro. If it's the city itself, then excessive would be an understatement.

The port of London is the second-largest in the UK. And as far as I know, it's shrunk since the 1980s. The railway stations, probably the centers of several of the blast zones. Add another on the London City Airport.

It's pretty easy to justify a dozen blasts on the London metro. It's spread out, a industrial, economic and transport center, and a major capital city.

Lordganon 17:00, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

The Ports were closed between the 60s and 80s because they couldn't containerise; the LCA was part of the redevelopment process that only kicked in long after the ports closed, and besides, it wasn't open until 1988 - it hadn't even begun construction in 1983! And the 'Port of London' today encompasses the containerised ports on the north of Kent and the south of Essex, like Tilbury (nuked, ATL) - that's the only way it's the 'second largest' in the UK. Discount that and London's only merit for shipping are the handful of marinas and the Thames ferries.

As for fires, I think we should take the word of Smoggy - seeing how she's intimately involved in forestry!

As for 'metro', well, that's a term which I've never heard applied to a British city, so you'll have to clarify. If you're talking about the London metropolitan area, then while I fully agree there's guaranteed to be stuff of value somewhere out there, it's going to be incredibly spread out. And there's no point going for industrial parks - if Slough wasn't a target (as you and I discussed a while back), then there's no way London's many, smaller industrial parks will be targetted. Remember, London's main value has been for the longest time a financial centre, and that will all be in the city centre - trust me, I came from Stratford, which is right on the top-right side of the circle Smoggy suggested, and had nothing of industrial value and only some credit unions as 'important' financial stuff there! There'll be no need for bombs out there.

That's of course ignoring the phenomenal panic and organisational breakdown of trying to control an entire city that's been hit by a handful of nukes in the centre - the sheer volume of fallout, the fires, the social unrest and collateral damage from the bombs is going to deal with the rest of the city automatically, without need for wasting nukes purely against civilian targets.

So overall, we'd have about three nukes over the city centre, two on Heathrow, possibly a few groundbursts on major stations (if the sheer heat of burning London doesn't melt the tracks) and possibly a handful further out, though I don't there's anything out there worth wasting a nuke on. Feg 17:52, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Feg, you need to have a better look at the Port of London article. Your statement's not as accurate as you think. There was many portions of the port still in use at the time.

Feg, Smog obviously knows a fair amount about the trees - but I'm sorry to say she's wrong on the fires.

Simply put, fires of this magnitude are not going to be stopped like that, and the smoke/heat would kill anyone inside of the parks. As I said, fires on this scale cross six lane highways. And a forest, which will dry out as fires get close, will be like a matchstick, no matter how separated the trees are. Sparks and flames, especially when backed by even a slight breeze, will mean the entire park erupts.

Yes, that is what I meant, Feg. Metro = metropolitan area.

As has been established elsewhere, several times, large areas of civilians are targets. The London metro is full of that - and small clumps of government and industry. It's a legitimate target, and is exactly the fate of other similar cities. Slough is not governmental, a smaller population, and only some industry - not a comparison to London at all.

Dozen nukes. And almost nothing left standing in most of the former city.

Lordganon 09:10, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that counter-population strikes would've occured... there is no value gained from wasting a nuke on a population centre, when the collateral damage of a handful of nukes at the city centre would have done so. And as a Londoner, I can assure you that the only government is borough councils, and there is no heavy industry.

LG, while the Port of London article says a few things to the contrary, I can tell you from numerous trips to the area and museums around the docklands that there was nothing going on there by the 80s. All the important ports have been located in the Estuary for decades now. The wharves along that stretch of the river are completely bereft of any industrial capacity and the only continually-functioning industry there is the Tate & Lyle factory - and I doubt Soviet planners have a pressing need to destroy Britain's syrup supply! Feg 09:56, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Said nothing about heavy industry. And counter-population strikes have occurred in several cities - and London would be another.

The article states that the port authority itself, and its port facilities, were in the process of shuffling around at the time. But, even more clearly, what it says is that private firms hung around the area for decades longer. That's in addition to the facilities there having great potential to be useful still.

Lordganon 10:53, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Tactically it has always been known that airbursts do more damage than groundbursts, something about reflecting shockwaves, so the Soviets would be aiming for airbursts, however there may have been groundbursts due to malfunctions.

There are two 1.5MT blasts for certain, they would've been aimed directly at Whitehall and the City of London.

Of the other blasts the record say 10 or so multi-KT blasts, but its a guess, there could've easily been 5. Damage would still be catastophic either way.

I don't know where the major port area in London would be in 1983, but I would imagine they would bomb between Gravesend and Dagenham, at least a couple of the multi-KT (100KT) bombs would be aimed there.

Plus the two 10kt blasts at Heathrow. London City Airport didn't exist in 1983

As for the parks, they have always been a refuge from major urban fires, (London has been more than 25% burned over three times) be it in Great Fire of London of 1666 or in the blitz of the 1940's, since 1940's the government focused on keeping parks for that reason, due to the fact that they are safe from fires.

Once the nuclear blastwave heat has happened (a couple of seconds per blast, if that) then only the buildings would be burning due to fractures gaslines, trees would be singed and probably crispy round the edges but not burning.

Then the fires revert to a firestorm similar to what happened in both the Blitz and 1666, (or in OTL Kobe in 1995 or San Fransico in 1989) in both occasions parks turned into refuges from the fires. {C}--Smoggy80 16:43, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Talking of the Blitz, this may be a stupid idea inspired by a certain Russian novel but would there be any possibility of people hiding in the London Underground, specifically the deep-level tunnels (Bakerloo, Central, Jubilee, Northern, Picadilly, Victoria and Waterloo & City) and the attached air raid shelters (Belsize Park,Camden Town,Goodge Street,Chancery Lane,Stockwell,Clapham North,Clapham Common andClapham South)? Tessitore 17:53, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Would they hide there? Quite probably - but I have the sick feeling they would asphyxiate as the oxygen gets sucked into the firestorm. And if there's a groundburst in a certain place, then maybe you'll have some of that overpressure blasted into the tube system. Maybe. Feg 17:58, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Smog, I've looked before, and I've looked again. There's nothing supporting the idea that anyone hid in those places during those fires.

In 1666, the fires didn't even reach the parks - not even close. The flames barely made it outside of the city walls. And in the process, the fire jumped a small river.

The parks were off-limits, and full of military equipment during WWII. Big targets, in other words.

In both cases, people did flee outside of the city and took up residence in the parks - fleeing well ahead of the slow flames in 1666, and getting away from the Biltz in 1940. Those parks caught by the flames burned just like the built-up areas around them.

People didn't flee to the parks for safety from the flames - and the short span of the one in 1940 would mean that there was no way for it to occur. The parks served as a temporary refuge for people who fled the cityscape long before that, simply because it was available. Not because it offered protection from flames.

Really, when it comes down to it, hiding in a forest is probably the second-worst idea someone can have to try and protect themselves from fires like that. About the only thing worse would be standing next to something explosive.

The expansion of parks following the war is both a result of the demolition of destroyed structures, and a global increase in parkland within cities. Nothing to do with it making things safer, with regards to fire.

Anyone caught in these forests within range of the flames around DD is not going to make it. Odds are good the fire will get them outright - and if that is not the case, the smoke and heat will.

Nor were parks refuges from fires in Kobe or SF. Smog, you're mistaking where refugees ended up and were gathered for areas within a fire risk zone, with regards to their safety.

A 1 MT blast has a diameter of a bit more than 31 miles. A blast over (roughly) the center of Smog's circle lights several of the major forests on fire outright, incinerates a lot more, and sets off electrical, gas, and coincidental fires from the damage.

Now, in addition to that, virtually that entire blast area is going to be marked by small fires (originally) started by heat given off a a fairly long range. And with no way to put them out, or the other fires.... Not pleasant.

Even worse, there is that nuclear fireball. That, too, will touch off fires - big ones.

Now, that's not to say that it won't burn out eventually. Of course it will. But....

Factor in all of the blasts. We can probably assume that the two 1 MT blasts weren't directed at the same spot - that would be silly, and a waste. Same target intent, but from different sides of it. Something like the east and west (or north/south, w/e) edges of the city itself.

Add to that the others, no matter their size.... Most of London is going to burn. With parks, while they will obviously return and start to dominate the land, they are going to go up in smoke. The nearest one of any decent size to survive would likely be Lee Valley Park, in the north.

Tess, that would likely end badly. Between the bombs and fires, the tunnels themselves are likely going to have air sucked out of them, or filled with smoke. Either way, not ending well. As for the deeper tunnels and shelters, survivors would be trapped. The upper levels or entrances would be deathtraps - fire, smoke, radiation, blocked by debris, or even more disturbingly, literally melted shut by a blast. Overpressure from the blast would also play a role in the tunnels, though its debatable as to what would get you first in that context.

Basically, people will hide there - but it will not do them much good. Such places are only useful if someone remains to aid you. Not the case here.

Let's put it this way - I would not want to be involved with any teams investigating these shelters and tunnels in the future. What the finds would be.... well, let's just say that disturbing is likely not a good enough word to use.

Lordganon 11:25, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine. At best it'd be like what happened at Herculaneum. At worst...*shudders*.

As I said, I only thought of it because I flicked through the novel 'Metro 2033' a while ago.Tessitore 14:25, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Any shallow tunnels would collapse due to the blast pressure on the surface, deeper tunnels would have all the air sucked out of them at the point of blast, either the people would suffocate or the tunnels would collapse, if the survived that then the blast wave would propogate down the tunnels within a couple of seconds causing extreme over pressure (maybe 15-25 psi) that would kill any remaining survivors and also collapse tunnels.

The only good thing for people taking shelter down there is that they got buried while the people on the surface got cremated.--Smoggy80 14:58, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at a good website for blast patterns check [2], 1.5mt is equivelent to 1500kt, pressure/structural damage guidelines are at the bottom. Centre in on the City of London or Whitehall.

Anything under 7 psi woodland got 100% cooked, between 7 and 1 psi it got charred around the edges and maybe 50% survived, between 1 and 0.25 psi 75% survived and 0.25 psi and under all of it survived. --Smoggy80 15:10, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Bit like I was thinking, Tess - but add in that anyone surviving down there, even if uninjured, will likely have no food or water. Think about it. As I said, not pretty.

Unlikely, Smog, that the blast itself would get down all the way. With all of the twists, turns, and bends, the blast wave will be severely curtailed.

That simulator only shows pressure damage, Smog. Not one smidgen of it mentions anything to do with fires, at all. Nor does your specs save any parks in any real form.

Lordganon 10:36, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Dresden1945www

'Park'? at top

Any self-respecting dystopian timeline - like 1983:DD - has to have this whole tunnel thing covered in lovingly macabre detail when we get round to writing this up as an article.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this into the discussion: this is a picture of Dresden after its firebombing. As we all know that produced a pretty nasty firestorm. But, at the top of the picture, what appears to be a (heavily forested) park exists at the top. I tried looking for other pictures of this but couldn't find much - although a picture of Tokyo after its firebombing has several trees sans leaves. Make of that what you will. Visible here: http://www.internationalist.org/dresdenmasscre.html

I'll keep trying to put more research into this! Feg 15:39, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well, I found this article. It's not the most... ah... even-handed of historical essays, but it does have this important lines: "The second wave was designed to spread the raging firestorm into the Grosser Garten." (The Grosser Garten is a large park in Dresden.) While it goes on to imply that the firestorm eventually took hold in the park (for which I can't find any further evidence for), this also states that it required direct attack to do so, and prior to this it was safe enough for civilians to flock to. It also took 1,700 bombs to set the park alight, if indeed this is what historically happened. Just thought I'd throw that in...

And oh, yeah: http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/28/76528-004-22682C6D.jpg

Feg 16:00, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

To start, Feg, you need to consider the sources. All of those refer to it as war crimes, massacres, etc, and are very inflammatory. Really, they accuse the Allies of specifically targeting hospitals, and intending to cause the firestorms, among other atrocities.

That's not a forest, Feg - it's the burned out hulk of the city on the other side of the river. If you look at a map, you'll see that there's really no parkland on the river, too. What there is, as your later shot shows, is tiny and minuscule.

Feg, I can tell you right now that those trees in the Tokyo picture are blackened. As in a major fire has torn through them. Seen that many times in the aftermath of forest fires. Some trees always stay standing, but they are very dead nevertheless.

From my understanding, the intent of the first raid was to attack the north side of the river - the Garten is a bit away from the river on the south side.

The Garten managed to escape the fires in the first raid, true - but that's because they were nowhere near there, and hadn't got there yet. One of the goals of the second was to expand it into there, because it was a tinderbox. Feg, your own source states that the fires swept into it minutes after the bombs were dropped in the second raid. Add to that that there was several areas of the city where they were dropped at that time.

The last picture isn't even of the Garten, but other small parks on the river.

Besides all of that, there were people fighting those fires, and some water to help it. In a nuclear-destroyed London, none of that exists.

Lordganon 09:26, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Changing the name of a political party Edit

One of the four major political parties in Woodbridge is the Veterans Party, founded by ex-members of the military of Woodbridge. They originally campaigned for such things a stronger military and veterans right. Over the years they have developed policies on the same issues as the other main parties and it occurs to me that members of the party would begin to think that the party's name was a bit too narrow.

I'm trying, therefore to think a of a new name for the party, any suggestion??? (By and large the party is right-wing if that helps) Verence71 13:23, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss the name - there has been a political party with that name in the States. It was definitely a veteran's party.

Other similar parties are the Estonian Vaps Movement from the interwar period in Estonia, and the Silver Badge Party from around the end of World War One in the UK. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party Modern Whig Party] in the states likely also could be called a "Veteran's Party," given its membership.

The Vaps Movement was more or less fascist, the Silver Badge Party had no set ideology but its membership leaned left, the Veterans Party of America was right-wing, and the Modern Whig Party is mostly moderate.

Namewise.... The Vaps Movement is short for, more or less, the original name of the veteran's group that it originated in, the "Union of Participants in the Estonian War of Independence." The Silver Badge Party's name comes from the Silver War Badge, issued in the United Kingdom to service personnel who had been honourably discharged due to wounds or sickness during World War I. The Modern Whig Party's name descends from the old Whig Party, and the Veteran's Party is obvious in its name.

Basically, have its name originate in some military item, name of a founder, old party, or such thing.

What I'd do is have it name for the old Silver Badge Party, myself. Should be people around in the area who know the name.

Lordganon 08:16, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

weird weatherEdit

been thinking about the weird weather we've been suffering lately in the UK, would it be different in a post DD world? could it be better or worse?

With all the rain we've been having this summer the arable farming would've suffered, as well as the hay/silage harvest for the farm animals being hit, diseases like potato blight could hit more severely with fewer chemicals to deal with it, I was thinking this could lead to a possible food shortage in areas and the associated social problems caused by hunger.

what does everyone think?

--Smoggy80 (talk) 19:32, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that since it's canon that the weather cells shifted, the weather would naturally be massively butterflied, so for all we know the people in DD's UK have had some lovely weather for the past month. To say that they have the same weather as us in spite of vast climate changes just seems... wrong, to me. That said, we certainly need to consider the effects of the weather. But I don't think we can come up with weather predictions of every day since DD and extrapolate the results of that, so really, we're back to square one: should we take OTL's weather as the on in TTL, or not?

I'd probably say yes, in which case, Smog has some very good points!

Feg (talk) 19:41, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

It's possible for it to be the same as otl, but... I'd think not.

Go with weird weather still, but in another way - hotter/drier.

Lordganon (talk) 20:39, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Could go another direction, cold and dry, if the jet stream was significantly further south then the rain would pass to our south, over the med sea maybe? that would make us drier, but it would also draw the air directly from the arctic (Greenland, Iceland etc), the temp could be mid teens celsius during the day and as low as 4 to 5c during the night in June, July and Aug, this could lead to overnight frosts which would cause havoc with arable crops, but also could lead to large scale deaths of upland farm animals. Was thinking of using the 1815 - 16 (AKA the year without a summer) as a basis, OK i know theres been no massive volcanic eruption but the effects of cold on the crops should give us an idea of what to expect as many of the OBN nations are at 19th century levels of agriculture.

what do you think?--Smoggy80 (talk) 19:57, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

...Except that the stream has not shifted.

Colder like that isn't happening.

Lordganon (talk) 00:33, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

But LG, this is exactly the weather pattern that affected the UK over the last few months! :P Feg (talk) 08:18, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

...And the DD world is skewing somewhat warmer and wetter than otl. Lordganon (talk) 08:25, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

And this weather event is an aversion to that trend, that's the point! Feg (talk) 17:57, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Smog's last post isn't possible. And with climate conditions post-DD, it would not happen, either. Lordganon (talk) 01:05, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything you don't say you know everything about? If you're right, LG, you're an expert at history, politics, science, climatology, the secrets of nuclear targetting.... Feg (talk) 07:58, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Now now, I have never said, nor implied, that I know everything. Nor would I ever - such a thing would be a baldfaced lie.

Feg, messing with the stream at all like that means the temperature of all Europe falls dramatically, to the point where Canada would seem warm - not that anything could mess with it like that.

The cool period around 1815 was due to a combination of a low period of solar activity - a small drop in temperature, about 2C - and, primarily, a series of volcanic eruptions. Most important, however was the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. The largest eruption the globe had seen in more than 1300 years, volcanic ash built up in the atmosphere to the point where it even fell in eastern Europe throughout the next year. It so lowered the global temperature by blocking out the sun that crops failed on a global scale.

That's the event Smog is comparing to. And is also why it's just not possible.

Lordganon (talk) 08:43, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

As i said i know there have been no volcanic eruptions! i was only going to use the temperture data and the effects on farming. if the atmospheric cells have enlarged over the former UK then it is possible that the jet stream could go as far south as the Med and if it had a large enough kink in it then colder drier weather is a distinct possiblity.

Saying that, i've always wondered how a nuclear war (even on the DD scale) would cause the atmospheric to get changed so much--Smoggy80 (talk) 14:54, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

...And that fact alone means that that data is not in the least bit possible.

The cells have not enlarged. Nor has the stream shifted. Not is there any way whatsoever that they could do so.

There has been slight changes due to the massive amount of crud thrown into the atmosphere at and around DD, the lack of pollutants, the redirection of water, and a few mountains being leveled. Really, the removal of cities in the north would have a major impact in this regard.

Lordganon (talk) 21:39, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Siege of New London Edit

Hi guys! As you're probably aware I have the 'White Death' storyline in Essex going on at the moment. Eventually it'll reach the point where one member of the government (I'm thinking Bob Russell) will realise that the OBN simply can't offer sufficient help and will turn to the the Celtic Alliance instead. The Celts, though, will not be entirely happy, having been snubbed already. In order to try and regain diplomatic trust, Essex will have to do something. I propose that we have a bandit army, a southern fragment of the TBA but no longer under the TBA banner, if you get my drift, having laid siege to New London and either intending to plunder it or seize the Celtic equipment there and use it as a base. Due to geography and the fact the Celts are only so strong I posit that in this case they can't lift the siege entirely on their own, so Essex decides to send out a regiment of border guards to help lift the siege; the political goodwill generated by this allows the two nations to reconcile and let Celtic Alliance aid in, along with changing Essaxon-Celtic relations in the long term.

Are there any comments and thoughts on this chain of events? Feg (talk) 09:55, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a fragment of the TBA would be able to lay seige succesfully. If they tried to, the Celtic Air Force could just bomb them.

You could always have the white death spread to New London, which would renew the possibility of the Essexians asking for the aid. I donno, just my idea. Arstar talk 20:38, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then a successful occupation, which would make the Celts nervous to do an airstrike? And in the chain of events I have planned out the White Death is mostly contained within OTL Essex and Kent, which then leads to a rebalance of power in the nation so that the annexed Hertfordshire bit is less screwed over and a more equal part of the nation. Feg (talk) 20:57, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that the TBA could besiege the city, let alone occupy it. Honestly, the idea doesn't even make much sense, Feg.

As we've discussed elsewhere, it is likely the elements of the TBA have cooperated with the Celts at some point, as well, which would be another strike against it.

Really, the Celts would still help Essex with their problem.

Though you'd be better off appealing to the International Commitee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent or the International Health Organization for help. That would be far more in line with your plans to join the LoN, too.

Lordganon (talk) 01:26, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki