• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I find it amusing that you can get onto this list of brutal leaders just by being an obxious egotist.

Nice spit reference with Tiso by the way. :cool:

Putin used his connections with the Russians on the team to get trump a spot on the team (his official reason for membership read: admitted as 12th man (backup fielder) because of his amazing catching skills due to the size of his hands, the only man who can play wicketkeeper without gloves)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To the dealer of the drug known simply as 'the butterfly effect'

Dear sir

It has recently come to my attention that you have missed a significant opportunity to improve your product, as my company produces the finest example of this improvement I would suggest you engage with us to find a solution beneficial to both parties

Mr Pip I give you THE 1939 RUGBY WORLD CUP. Now I know what your thinking, we had plans for that year, we were going to watch Germany not invade Poland. And while I know that is a very enjoyable pastime the great thing about RWC 1939 is that it can be done at the same time as watching Germany not invade Poland

I see your interested, let talk business. RWC 1939 would be hosted by England (no one else has the requisite influstructure and isn't French) with Scotland and Wales each getting a token quarter final plus a couple of pool matches to stop them from whining. There would be eight teams: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, South Africa, Australia (boo) and New Zealand. These would be divided into to pools, Pool A (the British Isles) and Pool 2 (the Rest). After a round robin where everyone played all the other teams in their own pool quarter finals would be played. The first place getter in Pool A (probably England) would play the forth place getter in Pool 2 (probably France), the second place getter in Pool A would play the third place getter of Pool 2 etc. The bracket would work so that the top teams in each pool would not meet until the final. The pool matches would be held all around the UK (if their very good Northern Ireland might get one). The quarter finals would be held in four locations: Twickenham, Cardiff, the winner of a fight between Glasgow and Edinburgh and finally in a marginal constituency the conservatives were worried about at the next election (so the game will be played in Southampton or a similar place (before you ask I checked that is a marginal seat it only went Tory by 31 votes). Semis and Final at Twickenham. And that's it, I anticipate a 2% drop in production during the tournament due to workers knocking off early to go watch the games, but substantial ticket revenue for the crown (plus if the broadcasting rights are sold well in the US that will bring in more money as well as possibly bringing America back to the light)

To conclude UPDATE THIS AAR then I will be to busy reading to think up stuff like this

Also update your Norway AAR, just read it and very funny (apart from one bit which I left a comment about how to repent for), but it needs an update (the last comment before mine was from 2011)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Mr Pip I give you THE 1939 RUGBY WORLD CUP.

I am impressed by your 1939 Rugby World Cup scenario (even though I know absolutely NOTHING about rugby).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am impressed by your 1939 Rugby World Cup scenario (even though I know absolutely NOTHING about rugby).

I take it you are American by your flag. To get to rugby, take american football, remove the girly pads, remove the stoppages every play, take out the budweiser commercials. Now you are on your way to rugby. Some basic rules: each team has 23 players, 15 starting payers and 8 reserves unlike american football where there seems to be a seprate team for attacking and defending and kicking and receiving a kick in rugby each reserve can only be substituted once (except for blood bin, concussion and a couple of other obscure senarios). Every starting player has a position that corrasponeds with the number on their jersey (no they don't just get to pick their number)
No.1 is called the loosehead prop he binds on to the opposing tight head prop at scrumtime with his head on the outside of the scrum. He is on the left hand side of the front row of the scrum
No. 2 is called the hooker, not because he receives money for certain favors but because in the scrum he is responsable for hooking the ball for his side, he is in the middle of the scrum. He is also resposable for throwing the ball in at lineout time
The ball may not be passed forward, 5 points are awarded for a try (think a touchdown except the ball must be grounded in the end zone), 2 points are awarded for a conversion (think if the kick after the touchdown was worth 2 points), when a penalty is awarded insteed of getting penalty yards (oh another note rugby uses the metric system so 100 centimeters to the meter, 1000 meters to the kilometer) or a first down the non-infringing team has 4 options: they can kick for touch (therefore getting the throw in at the lineout), they can take a scrum (where each team's forwards bind together in a 3,4,1 formation and push against each other the ball is rolled in to the 'tunnel' between the two sides and the players in the front row attempt to hook the ball
upload_2018-2-13_17-26-0.jpeg

A scrum with 17 red having replaced 3 red as tight head prop, red have the put in

will be edited and finished later, have stuff to do now
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you mad?! This is the Butterfly Effect there is no such thing as off topic!

And an update please Pip. The ripples of chaos emanating from Spain is very interesting. The question is, where will they stop?

Yes I am mad, mad at El Pip for not posting an update. He does have time though, I am currently trying to explain the rules of rugby. That should occupy the thred for a coupe of weeks at least
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I take it you are American by your flag.

*nods head*

I am currently trying to explain the rules of rugby. That should occupy the thred for a coupe of weeks at least

Ah, so that is what this thing people call "rugby" is. I don't suppose I can ask you to explain this thing people call "cricket", can I? :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
*nods head*



Ah, so that is what this thing people call "rugby" is. I don't suppose I can ask you to explain this thing people call "cricket", can I? :p

It is sort of like baseball.

El Pip please update before I am forced to expand on that.

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should update For King Haakon and the Fjords
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It is a highly civilized version of "Gangs of New York", where you wear gang colors and can use two-by-fours but oddly have to be very polite about it.

"You see this knife? I'm going to instruct you in the finer points of our Anglo-Saxon language with this knife!"

"Why thank you ever so much!"
 
  • 1
Reactions:
'Sigh' rebels and Frenchmen could never understand the nuanced and gentlemanly game that is cricket (you Americans actually made up a game called baseball which is like cricket except with less gentlemanly conduct and more steroids)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
'Sigh' rebels and Frenchmen could never understand the nuanced and gentlemanly game that is cricket (you Americans actually made up a game called baseball which is like cricket except with less gentlemanly conduct and more steroids)

I thought the traditional Commonwealth comeback against Baseball was that it was like "rounders"?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Frenchmen could never understand the nuanced and gentlemanly game that is cricket

Truer words were rarely spoken. Add to that that the word "cricket" in French tends to evoke locusts (possibly accompanied by magically animated wooden puppets) and you'll understand why this sport remains completely alien to my fellow and contemporary countrymen. Which is odd, since according to Wikipedia we are one of the oldest countries where some form of cricket was played.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But the DOW is down over 1000 points, if Landon doesn't do something soon there will be no stock market left

On a serious note you should totally work this in to the story. Something along the lines of stock market crashes, the US has a depression part 2 and Landon gets crushed at the midterms (oh and can you work in a scene where Landon gives a speech accusing his opponents of treason for not clapping for his state of the union and having the Dow drop 400 points during the speech, no of course it's not modelled after real life what gave you that idea?)
Relevant fact, the Dow Jones was about 190 points in 1937 thanks to the Dow being a stupid way to measure stock prices, strange views on the 'correct' and par price of a stock and the fashion for stock splits in US financial circles. Even the absolute pre-Wall St Crash peak was 380 (didn't hit that level again till November 1954)

If there's another crash I think it's entirely possible NY trading and US trading as a whole will go into hibernation for quite a while (I don't think it will die unless the highly unlikely occurrence of the Union splitting up occurs and New York and California States are burnt to the ground). Everyone will become very skittish of investment in anything other than 'brick and mortar' stuff like...er...construction projects. But if not only the financial markets take a tumble but things like basic insurances and liabilities grow much harder to do as well (even if it's just in the US), it would be disastrous for international trade and the world economy in general.

Basically I'm worried that if the US economy goes down the toilet again it won't pop up for another decade or so, by which point the markets will have shifted back into Europe again (well, 'Europe'...London mostly), and n that meantime not only do we know that most of Europe will be set on fire and blown up but also that Europe of this period can't float the entire global economy on its back even if WWII wasn't going to happen. This is problematic for everyone that doesn't have a solid consumer market (or several) that they know they can sell stuff to (GB has India and to a lesser extent the rest of the Empire, for example) and downright awful to anyone who was planning on boosting their economies by ridiculous amounts over the next five years (i.e. ...well, everyone who didn't want their country to fall to communist revolutionaries). This, like all economic theory is more fantastical and 'what-if' than almost anything else we could discuss on the forum but...the idea that the US president would not only curtail manufacturing but also not bail out a crisis in the financial market just before midterm elections (which implies it's not a popular idea with the other side either, or with the public) is quite frightening in thinking about this world's future. And that all of this is dependant (basically) on whether or not it looks like the Soviet-backed republicans in Spain are winning or not (they aren't and from all evidence thus far, they won't).

Dark days indeed.
The US was a major exporter pre-Depression, that in part was why it got his so hard by the crash in world trade (net exporters have no-one to sell to, net importers at least have the option to focus back on internal demand). I genuinely think you over-estimate how important the US was at the time, the world will never be short of countries that want to export lots of stuff while protecting their home markets. I've seen more than a few sources claim that the UK decision to devalue and abandon free trade was much more of a hammer blow to trade than the much blamed US tariffs, the UK was a massive net physical goods importer and sucking all that demand out of the world economy was far more significant.

Hightemplar / TheButterflyComposer - There is a minor issue with all those walls of text, the belief that the US economy has recovered enough to crash. Things may no longer be at rock bottom but it's much worse than OTL and almost entirely domestically driven, for reasons that will be discussed in later update. The US firms that are left will live or die on US domestic demand, which is still substantial by any standard, just lacking the piles of stimulus that FDR poured on. Stimulus that didn't really fix anything, see the 1937 recession when the stimulus was turned off and the economy tanked again, but masked the problems. Unless there is a large war in Europe, or a major change in US trade policy, things aren't going to get better any time soon.

I find it amusing that you can get onto this list of brutal leaders just by being an obxious egotist.

Nice spit reference with Tiso by the way. :cool:
The world needs more Tiso references.
ja_zps42369c2d.gif


Putin used his connections with the Russians on the team to get trump a spot on the team (his official reason for membership read: admitted as 12th man (backup fielder) because of his amazing catching skills due to the size of his hands, the only man who can play wicketkeeper without gloves)
I admire the sarcastic trolling efforts of the Dictators cricket team.

To the dealer of the drug known simply as 'the butterfly effect'

Dear sir

It has recently come to my attention that you have missed a significant opportunity to improve your product, as my company produces the finest example of this improvement I would suggest you engage with us to find a solution beneficial to both parties

Mr Pip I give you THE 1939 RUGBY WORLD CUP. Now I know what your thinking, we had plans for that year, we were going to watch Germany not invade Poland. And while I know that is a very enjoyable pastime the great thing about RWC 1939 is that it can be done at the same time as watching Germany not invade Poland

I see your interested, let talk business. RWC 1939 would be hosted by England (no one else has the requisite influstructure and isn't French) with Scotland and Wales each getting a token quarter final plus a couple of pool matches to stop them from whining. There would be eight teams: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, South Africa, Australia (boo) and New Zealand. These would be divided into to pools, Pool A (the British Isles) and Pool 2 (the Rest). After a round robin where everyone played all the other teams in their own pool quarter finals would be played. The first place getter in Pool A (probably England) would play the forth place getter in Pool 2 (probably France), the second place getter in Pool A would play the third place getter of Pool 2 etc. The bracket would work so that the top teams in each pool would not meet until the final. The pool matches would be held all around the UK (if their very good Northern Ireland might get one). The quarter finals would be held in four locations: Twickenham, Cardiff, the winner of a fight between Glasgow and Edinburgh and finally in a marginal constituency the conservatives were worried about at the next election (so the game will be played in Southampton or a similar place (before you ask I checked that is a marginal seat it only went Tory by 31 votes). Semis and Final at Twickenham. And that's it, I anticipate a 2% drop in production during the tournament due to workers knocking off early to go watch the games, but substantial ticket revenue for the crown (plus if the broadcasting rights are sold well in the US that will bring in more money as well as possibly bringing America back to the light)

To conclude UPDATE THIS AAR then I will be to busy reading to think up stuff like this

Also update your Norway AAR, just read it and very funny (apart from one bit which I left a comment about how to repent for), but it needs an update (the last comment before mine was from 2011)
The issue with inviting the French to any future Rugby World Cup is they are fundamentally dishonest at sport. They were kicked out of the Five Nations in 1931 for incompetence and cheating (fielding professional players in an amateur contest!) If we are to have a RWC then we would need a replacement nation to make up numbers. Maybe Canada, there was something of a resurgence in Rugby during the Inter-war period so with the US being more insular we may be able to prise them back into proper sports.

Are you mad?! This is the Butterfly Effect there is no such thing as off topic!

And an update please Pip. The ripples of chaos emanating from Spain is very interesting. The question is, where will they stop?
Update half written, the delay is due to those very ripples sending me off into strange places.
Rugby Intermission.

It is a highly civilized version of "Gangs of New York", where you wear gang colors and can use two-by-fours but oddly have to be very polite about it.
"You see this knife? I'm going to instruct you in the finer points of our Anglo-Saxon language with this knife!"

"Why thank you ever so much!"
That would be an excellent spectator sport, someone should do this.

Also, welcome back Mr Appleby, you have been missed. Can I also distract the mob by mentioning your own half-started AAR. ... With Justice For All? which has failed to be updated since December last year.

'Sigh' rebels and Frenchmen could never understand the nuanced and gentlemanly game that is cricket (you Americans actually made up a game called baseball which is like cricket except with less gentlemanly conduct and more steroids)
You forgot the Human Growth Hormone and betting scandals.

I thought the traditional Commonwealth comeback against Baseball was that it was like "rounders"?
I honestly thought it was. I was under the impression that the only actually 'American' sport was Lacrosse, which was the fault of the Iroquois Indians.

Truer words were rarely spoken. Add to that that the word "cricket" in French tends to evoke locusts (possibly accompanied by magically animated wooden puppets) and you'll understand why this sport remains completely alien to my fellow and contemporary countrymen. Which is odd, since according to Wikipedia we are one of the oldest countries where some form of cricket was played.
As this AAR has mentioned, the French Revolution has much to answer for, France was showing promise at the game till that intervened and ruined everything. Frankly the Scarlett Pimpernel should have expended his efforts saving French cricketers not aristocrats.

Though if you are being beaten by Norway and Germany (http://www.espncricinfo.com/france/content/team/34.html?template=results) maybe Cricket is not the sport for you.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the only problem if you keep France out of RWC 39 is that they will then continueously whine about it and claim the winner is not the 'true' world champions. But if you must kick them out for paying their players (that would also solve a big problem now days in the SH) then may I suggest a pacific islands team? (I know their not a country, but I perceive them as more like the West Indies cricket team)

To AF's point I think the reason why there was cricket played in France long ago is that those bits of France were actually part of England at the time

Oh and on the rounders point. All I have to say is: Not in this dominion

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should restart For King Haakon and the Fjords
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the only problem if you keep France out of RWC 39 is that they will then continueously whine about it and claim the winner is not the 'true' world champions. But if you must kick them out for paying their players (that would also solve a big problem now days in the SH) then may I suggest a pacific islands team? (I know their not a country, but I perceive them as more like the West Indies cricket team)

Furthermore it is my opinion that El Pip should restart For King Haakon and the Fjords
As always with France the problem is their belief that everyone else should play by the rules that they blatantly ignore, that and the ongoing fight in France as to who was actually organising the game. And the off-pitch violence in the France itself of course. You can understand why no-one was in a big rush to invite France back in.

I think it's a bit early for a Pacific Islander team, after a bit of thought I think they would go for a Rhodesian Rugby side instead. There is the history there, the Lions and New Zealand all played matches against a Rhodeian/South Rhodesian pre-WW2 and now Rhodesia is an-almost Dominion they can probably argue for inclusion. Something to consider when I do the sporting update in *mumble mumble*

On which note a small writing process update. I had some time recently and attempted to work on the next update, instead I ended up working on the Redux Project and re-writing Chapter XII, and I have to say I enjoyed that more than I have working on the recent updates. I think I've lost my way a bit so I am going to try to get back to the focusing on the plot (and technpron) and less on utterly tangential bits that don't interest me but that I feel I 'should' cover. Readers may, or may not, notice any difference.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As always with France the problem is their belief that everyone else should play by the rules that they blatantly ignore, that and the ongoing fight in France as to who was actually organising the game. And the off-pitch violence in the France itself of course. You can understand why no-one was in a big rush to invite France back in.

I think it's a bit early for a Pacific Islander team, after a bit of thought I think they would go for a Rhodesian Rugby side instead. There is the history there, the Lions and New Zealand all played matches against a Rhodeian/South Rhodesian pre-WW2 and now Rhodesia is an-almost Dominion they can probably argue for inclusion. Something to consider when I do the sporting update in *mumble mumble*

On which note a small writing process update. I had some time recently and attempted to work on the next update, instead I ended up working on the Redux Project and re-writing Chapter XII, and I have to say I enjoyed that more than I have working on the recent updates. I think I've lost my way a bit so I am going to try to get back to the focusing on the plot (and technpron) and less on utterly tangential bits that don't interest me but that I feel I 'should' cover. Readers may, or may not, notice any difference.

Alrighty. Since this was way, waaaaay before I was around, lets review.
In Westminster Prime Minister Churchill, supported by most, but not all, of his cabinet, also refused to back down, in his view the matter had now become a challenge to British honour.

'dem was da days. Churchill chapters. Strong declarations and actions. Immediate consequences revealed in the same chapter!;) Though I'm glad he isn't running the show anymore if he can be prodded into action by pride (though I believe from past readings there was a commentator discussion about this and it was made clear he was also playing a big political game with this conflict and later war, which meant he lost out because he wasn't focusing on the home affairs that would sink his government...so he's certainly a pretty OTL-like Churchill).

The other concern weighing on the Italian High Command was France, while London and Paris had written off the Entente Cordiale as dead, Rome had not and could not.

Hmm, yes its certainly dead by now. However tbf to them, it had only really begun to collapse fully back then. And to this day TTL, quite a few are still holding out for it to come back. I sort of doubt this though.

The Italian plan was brave and daring, but ultimately doomed by two factors, firstly the lack of naval support from the Regina Marina, which Mussolini had though unnecessary (and which the naval staff had been unwilling to risk so close to Alexandria), and secondly it made absolutely no provision for the possibility that the British would fight back.

This seems really stupid and in fact is, so far as I can tell. We know that this actually happened on the Far Eastern front later on in WWII, but nothing like that has happened TTL. Was Mussolini that confident and did no one make provisions at all for counter attack? Not even the guy commanding the mission? Worse things have happened in terms of military blunders but still...

Butterfly Redux Notes:
Doubled the length of this one, setting up quite how terrible the Italian forces in North Africa were. In this instance I would argue the AI behaviour was fairly sensible, Italy couldn't be sure France wouldn't intervene so had to garrison that border and a quick victory in Abyssinia would have defused the crisis.

Facts on the HMS Diomede are correct, she was indeed transiting the Suez Canal at about that point and probably still had a good few Kiwi accented sailors on board.

Up Next: Opening shots on land and at sea.

I guess Italy behaved competently enough when actually starting the war, we're just talking about the impetus here. As in, why did they not have a better plan for seizing the canal? Time constraints?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
More techpron!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
'dem was da days. Churchill chapters. Strong declarations and actions. Immediate consequences revealed in the same chapter!;) Though I'm glad he isn't running the show anymore if he can be prodded into action by pride (though I believe from past readings there was a commentator discussion about this and it was made clear he was also playing a big political game with this conflict and later war, which meant he lost out because he wasn't focusing on the home affairs that would sink his government...so he's certainly a pretty OTL-like Churchill).
Partly pride, but mostly an understanding that if you very publicly draw a red line over, say chemical weapons, then you had better back it up or no-one will take you or your nation seriously again. Great Powers / Superpowers can achieve quite a lot through the threat of force, often without having to even explicitly mention the threat, but everyone has to know they will follow through on it. If you allow someone to call your bluff then in every dispute or incident from that point on you have to use force or you will just be ignored.

And yes it wouldn't be Churchill if he paid any real attention to domestic issues when there is an exciting foreign affairs crisis to distract him.

Hmm, yes its certainly dead by now. However tbf to them, it had only really begun to collapse fully back then. And to this day TTL, quite a few are still holding out for it to come back. I sort of doubt this though.
I think the moment an ally doesn't come when you call that alliance is effectively dead, it may take a while to stop moving and for everyone to lose the faith, but it is dead none the less.

This seems really stupid and in fact is, so far as I can tell. We know that this actually happened on the Far Eastern front later on in WWII, but nothing like that has happened TTL. Was Mussolini that confident and did no one make provisions at all for counter attack? Not even the guy commanding the mission? Worse things have happened in terms of military blunders but still...

I guess Italy behaved competently enough when actually starting the war, we're just talking about the impetus here. As in, why did they not have a better plan for seizing the canal? Time constraints?
This was to some degree inspired by things like the Agadir Incident/Second Morocco Crisis, the Panay Incident, the Far Eastern border clashes. The Italian high command would be aware of this sort of thing, a small clash serving as a battle of wills and determination until one side gives in. If you send a single freighter and the British do fight, then there can only be a small bit of shooting with no/low casualties and so it's a lot easier to smooth over after one or other side has backed down. There does appear to have been much more tolerance of countries occasionally shooting each other without it leading to war, as long as it was low key. In comparison sending a battleship is much more of an escalation and one that would prompt a stronger response.

Conversely Mussolini seemed to genuinely believe the British would not fight over the issue or indeed anything else, as I mentioned he was very strongly affected by the Pacifist University debates and in fairness he was correct in OTL - for much of the 1930s British policy was directed at not having to fight. If it had been Churchill who had tried to declare the war I don't think he would have survived the day as Prime Minister, I'm not even sure he could have kept up a hardline attitude in the face of a plausible Italian effort at negotiation. Even as late as the day after the Suez Raid I think an Italian apology and a fudge about only certain ships going through Suez (and the ships with the chemical weapons having to take the long way round the Cape) would probably have caused Churchill severe political problems. Instead Mussolini escalated further and went to war, which I admit could have gone either way but I went with his bombastic and furious side over-ruling his opportunistic and cautious side.

More techpron!
Yes definitely more of that. I already have some ideas about the new weapons that will be heading to Spain, some of which have (to my knowledge) never before been discussed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As always with France the problem is their belief that everyone else should play by the rules that they blatantly ignore, that and the ongoing fight in France as to who was actually organising the game. And the off-pitch violence in the France itself of course. You can understand why no-one was in a big rush to invite France back in.

Pfrrrrrrrt! Afraid we'd win, rather... ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions: