Edit: Ignore the post in Characters :P My mistake.

@Monkeypants
@Nerevarine
@Jig
@Willy Vereb
@Isotope
@Inkdrop
@Brink_
@Shorticus
@Taeryn
Alright, two announcements. First check out the OP as Iso has vastly improved it. And that sometime Tomorrow will be the IC starting date. So this is your final chance to claim any territories before borders are locked, if you guys are satisfied now, then good :). And to note new players are always welcome.

@Taeryn

Nation sheet wise: changed Franco-Iberia from being covertly allied to the NAU to the USHR instead, seeing as it would make much more sense for the the Franco-Iberian political system to seek to maintain secrecy of this sort of union rather than with another, similarly democratic state whose real-life parallels practically modeled their governments after each other.

Not entirely sure EXACTLY what that means, but go for it.

On the subject, largely closed, of the history - its obviously hugely paraphrased. I imagined, and it has been established at least, an initial slow decline, the bloody period that i touched upon that was significantly longer than written, of course, and the re-emergence. Making a lot of largely irrelevant events that don't add much other than just because seemed largely silly.

Also to note, just an interesting idea.

Anyone in the Mediterranean area interested in controlling pieces of that island off the coast of Africa, have a sort of East/West Germany situation, if not, that's ok, probably may make an NPC or leave it open for a short while for a potential player.

Why post?

I was interested in the roleplay but didn't fully understand the premise.

@The Nexerus
Is the RP interesting enough for you or do you think you might just pass it up?

@The NexerusThe point of this game not to be post apocalyptic rebuilding of nations story. Rather than an outright reset where pieces of technology and culture can be used as justification why history at times repeat itself (or for whatever weird tech we have).
Fallout is actually not the inspiration here. Something much more terrible than nukes struck the Earth and left civilization in ruins. But more importantly the point is to start from a clean slate. During the interest thread it was asked if medieval, age of sail, early modern or 1950s setting was preferred and the latter was chosen. The fact we have 1950s inspired tech is just a coincidence.

@The Nexerus

Nex, this is what has been agreed upon, more or less:

<Snipped quote>

If you don't like it, then why post? The rest of the players here obviously have no problems with the setting and I HIGHLY doubt the GM is going to alter the entire RP to gratify you.

I get what you're trying to say but you're a wee bit too abrasive here. This method of talking is what straightens the hair on my back during OOC discussion. There's a way to explain things without antagonizing anyone.
I have nothing against you and actually that's why I wished to make a warning against such attitude. It never does good to a game.

@JigGiven how we're practically neighbors I see no reason why I can't sell equipment to you. Especially surplus from the Great War. I suppose you remained mostly neutral during it, right? (WW1+WW2 equivalent)
I can also sell more recent development so long they don't count as military secret.

@SigmaGiven retro-futurism would fusion reactors be alright to make? I mean they would be new and highly experimental but technically the first fusion reactors were made in the 50s. They just didn't produce any power (rather ate it away). Which we can change in the view of retro-futurism into something actually practical.

@Willy Vereb
Yup, had several ideas for the setting, between medieval fantasy, modern, retro, etc. Felt the option chosen would be fun, since as far as I can tell, it hasn't been touched upon. Usually it's the 40s, early 20th century or 19th Century for steampunk/dieselpunk settings. So why not go a bit further in time?

As for Fusion Reactors, sure thing :)

@Willy Vereb
Yup, had several ideas for the setting, between medieval fantasy, modern, retro, etc. Felt the option chosen would be fun, since as far as I can tell, it hasn't been touched upon. Usually it's the 40s, early 20th century or 19th Century for steampunk/dieselpunk settings. So why not go a bit further in time?

As for Fusion Reactors, sure thing :)

They would be big and very expensive to build but in the future it could replace fission-based reactors (not in the military application, though. Unless they get REALLY advanced.)

Also strangely enough this crazy project is actually going to be viable without nuclear weapons to worry about:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Well, without nuclear warheads.

If you want to poison thousands of square miles with every flight O.o

If you want to poison thousands of square miles with every flight O.o

You say it as if that's a big number compared to the size of countries. Not to mention other factors.
Actually the shockwave of a mach 3 skyscraper flying close to ground would be far more grave than any concern about spreading some radioactive materials in the vicinity.
Acquiring lethal dose of radiation is both extremely hard and too easy. Layman guesses tend to be between these two extremes of mistake. In case of radioactive fallout of nuclear devices it's almost assuredly the former.

That and there's absolutely no need for the engine to be in contact with the reactor like Project Pluto did. Well, earliest methods may do that in order to make the design lighter/simpler but later developments can pretty much eliminate this. The only one threatened by radiation would be the pilot which is why a cruise missile is a good idea with it.

You don't have to make it a lethal dose, you'd still cause light rad poisoning and cancer for all the villagers to go with their birth deformities.

That said, can we not have radiological weapons? I mean, smashing a nuclear reactor into something with a huge warhead behind it is pretty serious and would spread radioactive material everywhere even if it wasn't a proper bomb. I mean there comes a point where you can just have your weapon spew radiation everywhere like an advanced dirty bomb, making the whole no nukes thing null given we were trying to avoid WMD's in general with the policy if I recall.

Up to Sigma tho.

I don't want WMDs either. That's gonna allow a lot of manipulation and gives someone way too much say at the bargaining table.

I'm shortly gonna plough through everybody's sheets and try to work out potential relationships between Jodesia and everybody else. I'll probably struggle to come up with anything for nations that are too far East or too Southern, but I've not looked properly yet.

@JigGiven how we're practically neighbors I see no reason why I can't sell equipment to you. Especially surplus from the Great War. I suppose you remained mostly neutral during it, right? (WW1+WW2 equivalent)
I can also sell more recent development so long they don't count as military secret.

I'm struggling to find details for the Great War beyond a reference to it in your sheet. Depending on when it was (not sure how it took place in the 21st century when this is set in 1520) and what it was about, there could be some historical precedence for my Eastern territories to have weighed-in unsuccessfully, hence their modern-day reticence. Have I missed some crucial detail? Like, are we using Great War for as a synonym for the Cataclysm? I can't see any mention of it in the OP, so I'm not sure if it's region-specific.

Selling equipment to my Eastern Territories would absolutely definitely be a thing nowdays (we're talking, last five years) as the current King is trying to modernise his backward home countries. West Lamonia, however, is probably desperately trying to court the markets in the Americas, and so it would seem more likely that they would arm themselves over there.

either watered down or older weaponry would be freely sold. Just like the IRL America, it's still some of the highest quality stuff the NAU has but not -the- highest.

Awesome. In which case, I might genuinely just say in my sheet that West Lamonia's military is basically plagiarised from yours (both IC and OoC), if that's alright? :P

You don't have to make it a lethal dose, you'd still cause light rad poisoning and cancer for all the villagers to go with their birth deformities.

That said, can we not have radiological weapons? I mean, smashing a nuclear reactor into something with a huge warhead behind it is pretty serious and would spread radioactive material everywhere even if it wasn't a proper bomb. I mean there comes a point where you can just have your weapon spew radiation everywhere like an advanced dirty bomb, making the whole no nukes thing null given we were trying to avoid WMD's in general with the policy if I recall.

Up to Sigma tho.

Dirty bombs are neither that lethal nor anywhere close to an actual WMD. If you wish to kill as many people as possible by effecting their biology, toxins and pathogens are still your best bet. Even then nerve gases are hardly economical for such things and actually quite easy to protect against.

While it's a bit more problematic to defend against radioactive pollution it's also far less effective. Generally unless you rack up a huge amount of them to one place it would only effect you through skin contact or ingestion.
Even if a nuclear bomb would accidentally fall on the road next to your house at best you need ask your neighbors to take you in until the cleanup arrives. Radiation does not spread far without some medium carrying it away. And even if it's spread you need considerable amount of it to be anywhere close to dangerous via skin contact, far more so if you want it to endager the target by just being within its vicinity.

For all purposes dirty bombs are more like terror weapons rather than anything effective. Poison gas is kinda the same, especially when the target is at least remotely prepared against it but at least they can be far-far more lethal than radiation. They also cause far worse deformities.

So yeah, a missile with radioactive trail might be an environmental concern, even more so if the missile crashes into the water supply. But thinking those as their main effect as a weapon is a big fat joke. They only terrify people who have no idea how these work.
Again, they can be dangerous and have negative environmental effects. But so is firing lead bullets.

That's fine, just say that west lamonia primarily uses purchased equipment and vehicles from the NAU.

That'd give you plenty of leeway.

And for your navy, keep it simple, just put down that they use modern navy vessels. One line still gets the point across.

<Snipped quote by Isotope>Dirty bombs are neither that lethal nor anywhere close to an actual WMD. If you wish to kill as many people as possible by effecting their biology, toxins and pathogens are still your best bet. Even then nerve gases are hardly economical for such things and actually quite easy to protect against.

While it's a bit more problematic to defend against radioactive pollution it's also far less effective. Generally unless you rack up a huge amount of them to one place it would only effect you through skin contact or ingestion.
Even if a nuclear bomb would accidentally fall on the road next to your house at best you need ask your neighbors to take you in until the cleanup arrives. Radiation does not spread far without some medium carrying it away. And even if it's spread you need considerable amount of it to be anywhere close to dangerous via skin contact, far more so if you want it to endager the target by just being within its vicinity.

For all purposes dirty bombs are more like terror weapons rather than anything effective. Poison gas is kinda the same, especially when the target is at least remotely prepared against it but at least they can be far-far more lethal than radiation. They also cause far worse deformities.

So yeah, a missile with radioactive trail might be an environmental concern, even more so if the missile crashes into the water supply. But thinking those as their main effect as a weapon is a big fat joke. They only terrify people who have no idea how these work.
Again, they can be dangerous and have negative environmental effects. But so is firing lead bullets.

No wmd's. Just no. Fission power is cool and very appropriate but please no to anything that is nuclear, be it radioactive dirty bombs or true nuclear bombs... Please no.

Or Chem or bio. Unless seriously agreed upon by two parties. (mustard gas can be fun to write about for some reason.)

I'm shortly gonna plough through everybody's sheets and try to work out potential relationships between Jodesia and everybody else. I'll probably struggle to come up with anything for nations that are too far East or too Southern, but I've not looked properly yet.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I'm struggling to find details for the Great War beyond a reference to it in your sheet. Depending on when it was (not sure how it took place in the 21st century when this is set in 1520) and what it was about, there could be some historical precedence for my Eastern territories to have weighed-in unsuccessfully, hence their modern-day reticence. Have I missed some crucial detail? Like, are we using Great War for as a synonym for the Cataclysm? I can't see any mention of it in the OP, so I'm not sure if it's region-specific.

Selling equipment to my Eastern Territories would absolutely definitely be a thing nowdays (we're talking, last five years) as the current King is trying to modernise his backward home countries. West Lamonia, however, is probably desperately trying to court the markets in the Americas, and so it would seem more likely that they would arm themselves over there.

As I said Great War is the equivalent of WW2 or WW1. It happened one or two decades ago.
I basically assumed that the current date is literally the 1950s, according to the new calendar our nations use. Makes things far more convenient.
I feel something akin to World War is neccessary to make the politics, military hardware and national structure much more relatable to what we plan to play. Which is why I invented the Great War.
BTW, Great War was originally the name of WW1 until the second World War came and the new term retroactively stuck.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

No wmd's. Just no. Fission power is cool and very appropriate but please no to anything that is nuclear, be it radioactive dirty bombs or true nuclear bombs... Please no.

Or Chem or bio. Unless seriously agreed upon by two parties. (mustard gas can be fun to write about for some reason.)

Fear of chemical weapons was the WMD of the time between 1910s to mid 1940s.
I don't really plan to use them for many reasons (OOC reasons, nation's rep and mutual deterrence) but it was worth mentioning since Isotope was getting squeezy at the idea of nuclear propulsion.
In general it bothers me how absurd people's fear of radiation. Especially when you're unknowingly getting exposed to some on a constant basis.
Radiation =/= poison
Their mechanism is rather different and thankfully anything that emits harmful radiation is rather heavily limited by things like inverse square law and particle physics.
The threat of radiation is hardly nonexistent but it only gets truly bad when an actual nuke is involved.

Anyone in the Mediterranean area interested in controlling pieces of that island off the coast of Africa, have a sort of East/West Germany situation, if not, that's ok, probably may make an NPC or leave it open for a short while for a potential player.

I would of claimed it, but didn't want to go crazy with the land area, but you can split it between two people if you like or have an independent polity.

On the subject of WMD's, its worth noting that their intent, after all, is never to be used. If anyone cares to indulge in a variant of Cold War type roleplay in this setting, after all, without the threat of mutually assured destruction, that type of roleplay of brinksmanship becomes near impossible.

I mean.. There could be pre-cataclysm WMD's out there of varying types, but no doubt difficult to use and most likely known to be far more devastating that even saying you possess one would invite a mass invasion, so you'd be in a position of having a few neutron bombs or something but absolutely no delivery method.

I expect its most likely that the only WMD's of note that were not expended or have been developed would be biological considering thats how RL history went. Having Nuclear Power, of course, doesn't mean we have Nuclear weapons, perhaps a simple technological leap wasn't made.

<Snipped quote by Sigma>

I would of claimed it, but didn't want to go crazy with the land area, but you can split it between two people if you like or have an independent polity.

On the subject of WMD's, its worth noting that their intent, after all, is never to be used. If anyone cares to indulge in a variant of Cold War type roleplay in this setting, after all, without the threat of mutually assured destruction, that type of roleplay of brinksmanship becomes near impossible.

There could be pre-cataclysm WMD's out there of varying types, but no doubt difficult to use and most likely known to be far more devastating that even saying you possess one would invite a mass invasion, so you'd be in a position of having a few neutron bombs or something but absolutely no delivery method.

The problem is two-fold with WMDs, and by that I mostly mean nukes.

1.) Most players don't like Cold War politics at all. The idea of any large scale invasion can potentially escalate into nuclear exchange can seriously hamper the intention of people who might wish to see such events to play out.

2.) Unlike real politicians nukes WILL be used in NRPs. It's like giving a sweetooth the keys to a candy store. And then the one on the receiving end of the nuke is generally frustrated and do not wish to cope with the effects such strike would have on his or her nation in the game.

That's why people don't like nukes and in a number of games this is perfectly okay. That's why I came up with a reason how to avoid such scenarios while avoiding to invoke some equivalent of the Fantasy Gun Control.

Being said, pre-nuke WMD equivalents are fine because as experience tells us with WW2 large scale wars could broke out without everyone and their dear mother poisoning population centers. AFAIK the only ones to utilize chemical weapons were the Japanese and even those were for cleansings rather than actual combat purposes or any sorts of first strike.
Partially because you don't have too many ways to deploy toxic gas more effectively than you'd do with conventional bombings.
And yeah, there's also the whole mutual deterrence thing which was strong enough that even Hitler wasn't crazy enough to break it.
(Granted he was actually treated after a Mustard Gas attack during WW1 so the reason might be also personal)

I think chemical weapons would be alright but please, no nukes. Also, nerfed my country's technology again, so if you based anything off of my military tech I recommend re-evaluating it.