Talk: Altverse

ALTVERSE

<<< Current events	Related articles and rules	List of sovereign states and dependencies Detailed list	Forums	International affairs	Chat (Discord)

Altverse Talk Page Archives Current edition (2016–18) 2014-15

Requests

Please use this syntax to make applications easier and more organized so the Altverse community can process your application.

==Your Nation's Name==
*Nation: [[Your Nation's Name]]
*Real World Countries and Land Claimed: {{W|Real World Country}}
*Why you want to join: Explanation here
*Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: (Y/N)
*Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: (Y/N)
*Other: Your additional comments here.

Federal Republic of Antarctica

• Nation: Antarctica
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Antarctica
• Why you want to join: I would like to join so that I can further increase the history of Antarctica and I think that this state would be really fitting.
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: N
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y

Montivagant (talk) 18:40, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Aesthetics and Organisation of Altverse Page

Hello! I am relatively new to the Altverse community, but I would strongly recommend that the Altverse page be revamped aesthetically and organisationally, as much of this information is outdated, and can be confusing for new nations. Thanks! Javants (talk) 07:34, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

I will work on updating the list (by removing the old countries and whatnot) but what would you recommend be changed aesthetics/organization-wise? centrist16 | Talk | World | 01:41, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the page would benefit from a more detailed description of what Altverse actually is, considering only two sentences mention the topic. More information, particularly regarding maps, would help the page. Javants (talk) 07:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Invitation System

How does the "invitation" system work exactly? ~Candy

If the existing composition of Altverse is interested in seeing another contributor join, based on their nation(s), they are "invitable" either explicitly (by leaving a message on the candidate's talk page) or implicitly (the user applies and as long as they satisfy any issues on their page, they are accepted). The invite system was implemented generally to prevent certain individuals from joining for certain reasons. If this was your implicit requst to join, you are invitable. centrist16 | Talk | World | 14:59, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Yucatan and Sierra

How the hell did Sierra get Canacun

Dev271 (talk) 06:46, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Seceded and joined during the Mexican Revolution to avoid fascist takeover. centrist16 | Talk | World | 14:07, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Reluctance to change small things

The scale on which you are changing history can change everything it is like today (Butterfly Effect). But I dont know why you are reluctant to change very small things. I kept quiet on this thing but if Altverse really stands to its meaning then a player should be allowed to change everything he wants.

For example

One can change the birthplace of Stalin. Pretty much he can do everything. And as for the moderating the players country and not letting him use so many butterfly effects to make his country a heaven on earth. You guys are right here.

Think about this for a while. If a player wants Lenin to lead the USSR (Lets say) and not Stalin then he can just say Stalin died in infancy or something of that sort.

Cause this is altverse and altverse has moderators.

Dev271 (talk) 06:54, March 3, 2016 (UTC)

Thoughtful insight but we don't care. centrist16 | Talk | World | 14:57, March 3, 2016 (UTC)

Guayana

*Nation: Guayana

• Real World Countries and Land Claimed:
• Guyana
• Suriname
• French Guiana
• Brazil (Pará and Amapá provinces)
• Why you want to join: Because I think this nation wuld fit in well with Altverse
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y
• Do you agree to comply to all rules

and policies?: Y

• Other: If you can please can you remove Cuenia from the map.

--Cheers The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions 06:54, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Approved! centrist16 | Talk | World | 00:50, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

• Nation: Rajia
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed:
• Myanmar

• Why you want to join: Because I think this nation would fit in well with Altverse/I've put more effort into this one : P
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y
• Do you agree to comply to all rules

and policies?: Y

• Other:

--Cheers The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions 15:47, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

Approved. centrist16 | Talk | World | 00:09, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

Russia: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

• Nation: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed:Russia, including Crimea
• Why you want to join: Because I miss the geopolitical game and because Russia should exist in any geopolitical game :-)
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
• Other:

Thanks --BIPU (talk) 18:45, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

After discussion with the rest of the members of Altverse, your application has been approved. We will be updating articles and media related to Altverse to reflect these changes shortly. Welcome! centrist16 | Talk | World | 04:07, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will try to contribute as well as possible to the development of Altverse. --BIPU (talk) 10:21, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Actual map and nations

Hi, I would like to ask for joining your project and in order to claim a new nation it would be right to get an updated map and active nations list. I have been reading the stuff and it is not clear what nations are still alive. Thank you. --BIPU (talk) 13:10, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

Please, have a look to this and try to update the list of active nations in Altverse. It is important for potential and current contributors to have the list and the map updated. Let me know if you need help. Thanks in advance.--BIPU (talk) 15:26, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'll get to it when I go home. In the meantime, if you'd like, feel free to modify. centrist16 | Talk | World | 19:07, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry, I can wait. :-) I have seen some nations that have been edited in recent days and seems not to be linked to any world. Are there more nations pending to be added to Altverse? (Patagonia, Rajia, Baltia,...)--BIPU (talk) 20:19, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Dirigist Bloc

• Nation: Dirigist Bloc
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Solomon Islands, and New Guinea
• Why you want to join: Because I'm a gentlemen like that, and I seek to enrich your experience by adding my own. B)
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes

Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:05, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

Seems to overpowered. Stuff like "the standard of living in the Dirigist Bloc often exceeded that in other nations in the world, surpassing even the United States and Argentina as the world's most economically prosperous nations per capita; the creation of the Fourth World under Dirigist control; wielding the world's third-largest and most advanced economy." makes it seem ludicrously overpowered. The fact it also ends "troops abroad to...remove regimes according to its independence foreign policies" will probably end up in it getting the same treatment as Ba'athist Iraq (especially when considering that in a post-1945 world Dirigism/fascism would seem unappetising compared to American liberalism or even Soviet communism. which at least nominally promotes democracy and equality of outcome). Also seeing how Dirgism promotes autarkey its unlikely it would maintain a really large economy - the modern world necessitates that you have to integrate yourself into the globalised economy (even countries with gargantuan amounts of oil (a commodity that will always be in demand) like Iran are put at a disadvantage because of its lack of access to world markets). The top three economies (USA, China, Japan) all maintain very liberal free trade policies (Japan and China would never have entered the top three if they didn't fully integrate themselves into the word economy).

Also between the French Revolution and the partition of India Britain would never let a colony declare independence (they were very quick to crush revolts in India and Africa). At most they would give them dominion status like Canada (and even then, only if the whites - eg. South Africans - were kept in charge). No non-white state would merit the new imperialists in Europe's respect unless they defeated a European state in combat (the only one to do so, Imperial Japan, was lucky to pick a fight with the weakest of the European states, Tzarist Russia).

I would recommend toning it down a bit from a great power to a regional power (perhaps more like say Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, Argentina or South Africa) which would not only be plausible but more interesting then "muh most powerful nation"--Cheers Sweet potato tastes good, I like it 22:29, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

While I would be more than happy to oblige, the United States broke from Britain rather successfully. Note that this is before the advent of the truly powerful British Empire as we know it, and it wasn't capable of deploying tens of thousands of troops abroad as it did in the latter era of its history. At most, it could deploy perhaps 25,000 to a single theater, but only a single theater. Also consider than Australia is rather far from the industrial base of the British Empire, meaning that supporting the troops needed to fight in Oceania would be next to impossible. If we consider the number of troops devoted to the war, then no more than 15,000 could be sufficiently supported at once that far from Britain. Imagine the Boer War but far worse for the British. They don't know the lay of land, they're too far from home, and they can't count and reinforcements from other territories as was the case in South Africa (by which time the British territories were able to send their own units). The same goes for France. Before 1850, there is really very little a European power can do beyond the Atlantic Ocean, given the dominance of sails and the lack of truly industrialized states (remember that Britain began industrialization in 1821).

What you must also consider is that Australia is a continent the size of Europe. It possesses all of the resources an autarky would require to realistically survive. For instance, Australia can maintain an independent energy policy given its vast supply of coal, oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy. It produces most of the world's uranium meaning that nuclear energy is also a self-sufficient area. It has so much of this stuff in fact, that it could industrialize without having to import the resources, and maintain an industrialized economy without importing oil and natural gas. Food-wise, Australia and New Zealand produce more food than they actually consume, and boast some of the world's most fertile farmlands. You may not like it, but the facts on the ground today support my claims for a self-sufficient economy. The reason autarkies rarely work is because all the nations that tried it lacked the resources, having to import rare earth minerals, food, or energy. The Soviets managed it perfectly, but the centrally-planned economy destroyed the nation's ability to develop new industries for a civilian economy, leading to the Soviets having to import grain from the West (everything was geared toward what the military needed first and the people second). Also, Japan was always resource poor, and China had a planned economy like the USSR which killed economic growth and social mobility.

Also consider that at no point do you see blacks in government before independence for my nation. All governors and military leaders were the original ones from OTL; though as in Sierra Leone, given that it was a purpose-made black colony many functionaries were blacks. As for the latter part, what an imperialist state wants and what it can realistically do are two entirely different things. Haiti defeated France and gained independence. The French wanted to invade again but malaria destroyed the nearly 100,000-strong army it sent the first time, so it settled for veiled threats to bully Haiti into paying reparations. Ethiopia beat Italy, and though the Italians wanted to return, it was extremely unpopular back home, and the invasion was stalled for four decades. And the United States beat the United Kingdom, and it though it was entirely possible for the UK to invade again, it was too expensive and not worth with costs to going back to war. Australia was widely ignored even under British rule because the land was largely uninhabitable according to most Europeans, and only produced wool, a resource that could be gained from any other location. Sending thousands of troops to retake what at the time appeared to be mostly desert and spider backwater for wool would not be politically feasible. Rather, you would see the British devote more resources to India and Burma rather than Oceania, two more lucrative regions in the eyes of the typical 18th-century British politicians.

Finally, the nation is not overpowered. Australia and New Zealand are both incredibly wealthy. In our time, Australia and New Zealand had the highest GDP per capitas in the world by 1900, and incredibly productive territories following industrialization. The problem with globalization is that people believe that it is a fact of life. It isn't. Think of the man with a fish. It may seem cheaper to just give a man a fish, but if you teach him to fish, though it may take time for him to get it right, he'll ultimately pay for himself. Stick with globalization and you'll never learn to develop and maintain advanced industries on your own. I mean, globalization led to Kenya importing tons of cheap clothes from the West, and destroyed 90% of the nation's local clothing industry. Kenya no longer produces its own clothes even though it could, but it would cost money to rebuild that industry from the ground up. It costs more to produce things locally, but they pay for themselves as time passes and the productive method becomes more streamlined. Australia has the raw materials to support a large population independently, maintain an industrialized economy thanks to its abundance of raw materials, and the location necessary to maintain a powerful yet independent society. I didn't pick the location because I needed a place to work on a nation. I picked it because Oceania has all of the resources, territory, and history required for a dirigist society to actually work.

The nation is fine as it is. This is Altverse (alternate universe) is it not? Well in this alternate history, Australia never limits itself as a dominion of Great Britain, and instead grows and expands as an independent nation like the United States. In reality, Australia is simply under-strength because it never capitalized on its advantages. If given the chance like the United States or the Soviet Union with continents full of resources, Australia would realistically be just as powerful. I'm sure you did your research for Manchuria and Qatif, and likewise I did mine for Australia and Oceania. I didn't just pull this stuff out of my behind. Also, I said the nation was self-sufficent, but I never said that they couldn't trade with other nations. And I don't see the similarities between dirigism and fascism. Care to enlighten? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:30, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

Also, Russia lost not because it was the weakest European state (most European nations thought Russia would win given it had the largest army and third-most powerful navy in the world). It's military leaders were incompetent, its war was on the opposite end of a single-rail network on the most undeveloped side of the nation, it had to send its massive naval force to the other end of the planet to fight, and most importantly, the British helped the Japanese win the war. Russia simply found itself at the mercy of war's most powerful twin sisters; nature and geography. It took several European powers to fight Russia by itself during the Crimean War. Japan was in no way capable of defeating Russia alone. It just managed to be located on the least-populous and least-developed end of a very powerful nation which had its military forces located in the most-populous and most-developed end of its territory on the other side of the planet. Say much like the British Empire and Australia in this case... Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:37, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

America's independence made British colonial policy much more wary of colonial uprisings. Before America's independence Britain took a more lasseiz-faire approach to colonial governance, but the American Revolution made it so Britain remodelled its colonial policy so it would crush any independence movements at the drop of a pin (hence why I said Britain between the French Revolution which was after its American counterpart and the partition of India was wary of colonial uprisings - the sheer scale of a potential Indian uprising after WWII prompted Britain to retool colonial policy - before that they would have crushed any colonial uprising, and did so after the partition of India anyway). The American Revolution (and later Haitian revolution for France) hardened European colonial policy. Also there's the fact that during the 1800's Britain was an industrial superpower who was only matched in economic strength by the United States

The Soviets only achieved massive economic growth because they centrally planned the economy in the first place. The USSR would never have industrialised as an autarkey if they had not brought agriculture under state control and to put in bluntly steal the food from the peasants and give it to urban workers'. The inherent irony of the Soviet economy was without central planning and state control of agriculture economic growth and industrialisation would have been impossible in the amount of time it took but with it it led to stagnation down the line and was impossible to reform. Other industrial states (USA, France, UK, Japan) industrialised through a mix of free trade, state funding and lack of regulations or in the case of China used similar methods to the USSR (i.e state funded investment with agricultural shortfalls in industrial centres being made up for by requisitioning from the countryside). As stated, the closest thing to a modern autarkey with large natural resources was Iran under international sanctions, and they were outperformed by other states that had the same resources who were part of free trade agreements and integrated into the global market. The other thing is that an autarkey will find it hard to function in a modern economy without a planned economy - large businesses generally like to compete on an international level. The only time "capitalist autarkey's" existed for any period of time were the fascist states of the 1930's (who existed in a time where tough protectionist policies were imposed in most major nations) India under the Licence Raj (which bankrupted the country) Afghanistan under the Taliban (granted, that was more feudal then capitalist) and South Africa after sanctions were applied to it in the 1980's (which also bankrupted the country). Bearing in mind South Africa especially had cheap labour, competent administration and an abundance of natural resources

Finally, on globalisation. Of the ten largest economies only one, Russia, maintains a semi-autarkey which probably puts them at a weaker economic level to the rest (since the 1960's the Russian economy has consistently under performed). China and India were both a lot poorer before entering the globalised economy whilst Japan's economic growth can be attributed to its export focused economy (the same can be said for other Asian tiger economies such as South Korea and the Republic of China). New Zealand is also an example of globalisation working - when Rogernomics tore down NZ tariffs and protectionist policies and put NZ in the global economy its economy improved massively. Of the G20 economies only one - Russia - maintains an autarkey (the rest are more or less globalist in their economic outlook). Also, another reason why Australia/NZ had high GDP's per capita is the fact that their populations are quite small compared to other major nations (Australia has a smaller population then the world's only effective autarkey, the DPRK), whereas the Dirgist State has one that is larger then Vietnam's. You mention my nations - well, generally they are pooled from the rl economic data of the country in question (Qatif's is based on the UAE's economy, Rajia's on the economic growth of Myanmar prior to the Burmese Way to Socialism and Manchuria's by splicing together the economies of three Chinese provinces it consists of). If you pooled together the Australian, NZ, New Caledonian, Fijian and Vanatun economies and assuming they would stay the same your economy would by $1,411,572 million - larger then South Korea but smaller then Canada. That should more be the range you are aiming for at the most. --Cheers Sweet potato tastes good, I like it 00:57, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the British were a superpower, yes, but they had only entered the first phase of industrialization in the 1820s. The British home islands could not support a massive military with a pre-industrial economy, with the Royal Army only have 110,000 troops between 1820 and 1830, most of which were located in Europe and spread about the globe. Remember, the British had troops tied up in India fighting the Maratha, in Burma as an occupying force, in West Africa fighting the Ashanti, and the home islands for protection, as well as numerous other locations at the time. Now, you have a choice of retaking a massive, largely inhospitable territory with no discernible resources of notable worth at the time, and in the middle of nowhere. The strategic and financial gains to be made from retaking Australia were negligible at best. Would the British make an effort to retake the continent? Absolutely. Would they stick it out until the won with no long-term gains to be made? Absolutely not. Consider the fact that they also have a war in Greece and Portugal to deal with, and the massive armies of the West African and Indian kingdoms to combat, devoting countless resources to take a continent they didn't even bother trying to colonize for a century beforehand would go against the logic of the time, industrialized or not. As was the case with Roman Britain, it cost more to maintain the infrastructure, the garrison, and the government than was taken out through trade and taxes.

No one disputes the fact that central planning helped the Soviet economy to modernize, however, it was always behind the rest of the world because the communistic ideologies which drove its economy killed innovation and financial development. It's one thing to catch up to the global economy, and its another to outshine it. What would be the point of developing a financially successful company if the government is just going to take the profits you make and redistribute them in the name of "fairness" and "equality"? The Soviet Union never produced any Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerburgs because it killed innovative ideas and incentives to achieve success. Everything it had was a product of some other nation's developments or a military venture to keep up with the more economically prosperous nations. It had the resources to build a economically powerful nation, but it didn't have the structure which allowed for individual success in the market. On the subject of Iran, it was never able to maintain its high-tech infrastructure because it lacked a intellectual and technological base to do so. It was sanctioned on all levels to prevent it from developing, and it lacked the infrastructure to compete independently, as it was an oil state. It was too heavily dependent on a single resource, so that when it had to operate without trade, it lacked the physical infrastructure needed to perform economically.

As for the License Raj, it was a socialist economy, not a capitalist one. It had a planned market under Nehru, which was the reason he was able to gain the support of the Soviet Union during the Cold War against Pakistan. It was a policy of the United States to try to contain India by supporting Pakistan militarily and financially, as India was a potential gateway into other parts of the globe for the Soviets. It wasn't until the 1990s that it became a capitalist state, by which time the concept of autarky in India was blackened by Nehru's socialist planned economy. As for South Africa, as I stated beforehand, it always costs money to develop industries before they are financially profitable. The sanctions hit South Africa before it industrialized to European levels. At the time, South Africa imported most of its finished goods, though when sanctions hit, it was forced to develop its local industries from scratch, which took money the state didn't have. Eventually, the cost of developing all of those vital industries it needed simply forced the nation back into the global economy. An autarky is like building a house from scratch versus simply buying one. It costs more money to build a house from scratch than to actually buy one, though once you do build the house, the equity you can earn effectively pays for the costs. The problem is, most nations like people who build a house from scratch, don't stick it out until the end, because the debt becomes too crushing before the profits finally kick it. Most of South Africa's automotive and defense industries are direct descendants of the autarky projects, and are extremely profitable because of it. The nation has industries it never would have developed had it not experimented with autarky.

As for the fascist economies, let's take a look at Germany. Germany was self-sufficient in all but a handful of important goods. The reason autarky fails is because the nations experimenting with it lack the materials to support it. Nazi Germany had no rubber, little iron ore, and not enough land to support an independent agricultural policy. The purpose of Hitler's Lebensraum was to acquire enough land to support the German people independently of all other nations. He wanted Russia and Eastern Europe's farmlands, Scandinavia's iron ore, and the Caucasus's oil fields. Rubber was something the Germans had to import, but synthetic rubber was already being researched around the world. As this site indicates, Germany simply lacked the required materials to support autarky within its own borders. My nation on the other can support all of the industries it needs because it has its own iron ore, croplands, and rubber industries. Synthetic oil takes a lot of coal to produce. Australia has the world's largest untapped oil reserves. Australia's economy is build on mineral exploitation, so we know it has the resources to survive without imports. You name it, Australia has it and then some. So autarky's biggest hurdle as was the case in Nazi Germany, the availability of critical resources, is negligible with Australia.

Russia's economy has underperformed for a few simple reasons. The first is corruption. Most company owners pay out bribes to government officials to get around regulations, which means that efforts to rebuild the post-Soviet economy has slowed. The second is the direction of the economy. Russia's agricultural industry was underdeveloped, and it took the recent sanctions to force the Russian companies to finally start investing in food production. As for industry, because the Soviet Union industrialized the region, most of the industries were geared toward military production, which I outlined earlier. In fact, I was watching RT a few days ago about this very subject. The host was speaking with an economist, who told her that Russia focuses too heavily on military industries, and not civilian industries, and the host attempted to deflect by saying that it was a trade off as the military innovations tended to help the civilian economy, but the economist continued with the fact that that does not fix the fact that the civilian industries were underdeveloped. And the third is the lack of manpower. The Russians have lots of land but too few people to develop it. Unlike the United States which always had enough people to maintain industrial self-sufficiency, the Russians always lacked skilled manpower for industries it needed to grow. The nation's largest tank builder is in the Urals, and the largest jet fighter producing in far eastern Siberia. The cost of moving all of that equipment around is outrageous, and the nation lacks infrastructure density. The nation is too big, and lacks the manpower needed to develop all of it unlike the United States.

Once again, China and India had planned economies, which stymied growth in their economies. Japan and South Korea have export-focused economies but that makes them victims of global economic downturns. Like the Saudis and Iranians but without the oil, an export-focused economy is still a bad thing as it means you like the ability to sustain it during global recessions. China is currently trying to promote consumerism because it knows that it will reach a point where its goods cost too much to make it the one-stop shop for foreign companies looking for cheap labor. Factories are closing before foreign demand is shrinking, and there is little local demand for goods that can't be bought elsewhere. Textile factories are moving to India and Bangladesh, while mining and drilling work are moving to Africa. Before the 1970s, most demand for American goods was local. There was no need for high-end exporting outside of military and industrial goods because the companies were relatively small focused on local consumption. When globalization kicked in with the introduction of China on the global market, nations that were once able to survive on local goods became puppets to the ever-changing winds of foreign demand. Those Asian Tiger economies you spoke of all witnessed economic disasters during the Dot-com bubble burst because internet service industries were not tooled toward local consumers. There was no cushion for the economy to land on.

The DPRK is poor because it never industrialized like South Korea. All of its industries are dominated by military goods like in the Soviet Union, and it has no local consumer base for existing goods. It has poor farmland because of the mountainous terrain and cold weather, which makes food production all but impossible during most times of the year. Mind you, you are comparing my state to socialist economies which never had the ability to grow because of planned markets and innovation killing ideologies, small nations which lacked the industrial base or resources to develop them, and financial systems which kill local consumption of produced goods and tie economies to ever-changing global demand, but not the actual system I proposed and the resources which allow it to grow. Australia and New Zealand's GDP per capitas are high not because of the population, but because of the quality of the goods that they produce. People are more than willing to buy an $50 item from either of those nations because they know that the product is well-made. It's call consumer confidence. No one would ever spend that much on a Chinese or Vietnamese item because they know their goods are cheaply made. It's the reason you buy a watch from Rolex but not from Wal-Mart. Australia's GDP per capita is on par with that of Germany's, which has a population slightly smaller than the Dirigist Bloc's. Given that this is a merit-based society which focuses on quality over quantity (as opposed to Russia, China, or North Korea), goods are both well-made and well-received. This allows for the current GDP per capita as it is already. And remember, GDP per capita and actual take-home pay are two different things. In Luxembourg, the average person makes $104,359, but only takes $55,387 after taxes. The cost of living in an autarky will always be high yet reasonable, but the cost of goods will be lower without harming the standard of living. A third of an Oceanian's income goes to taxes and other costs, meaning that they walk away with about $25,000–30,000, comparable to someone in living in Canada or New Zealand if single or Greece and Israel if married.

Ya feel me? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:27, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

After deliberations with the community, we cannot accept the current application given the current statistics and in-character strengths of the nation you've provided. However, if the Dirigst Bloc can be toned down in its power to that of a regional power or great power akin to say Israel or Indonesia, the application will be approved. centrist16 | Talk | World | 20:04, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose reason just doesn't work all the time. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Oh well, best of wishes on your project. Maybe another time. Salt King away. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:39, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Dalmatia

• Nation: Dalmatia
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Dalmatia
• Why you want to join: because why not
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yee
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: See above
• Other: shqip shqip

Your application has been approved. Just work on it more and we're golden. centrist16 | Talk | World | 20:04, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Bowwow | Talk | Noven Anno 07:36, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Joining

Any chance I can re-join the altverse project but as a different nation. I am hoping to create a nation based on oen of my current projects. HORTON11: • 20:24, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are more than welcome to re-apply :) centrist16 | Talk | World | | 01:19, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I would like to apply with Mariana. Hopefully the page is good enough to be considered. HORTON11: • 18:34, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to raise any objections to this. Also, if you're interested, you are invited to join us in our Skype group. More details here. centrist16 | Talk | World | | 19:32, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Now, are there any ways to link Mariana with the other existing nations? Having relations, persons with links to both nations, historic events etc? HORTON11: • 20:12, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Historically-wise, unfortunately not (at least in terms of player-controlled nations), or at most, it would be very minor, since the majority of the countries are in North America or East Asia, and the Mariana is a collection of small islands off the coast of Spain (unless it is actually much more significant than being "mere islands", but even then, it would be a stretch). However, pages on relations can definitely be created, and I could make articles on famous Marianas in Sierra. One organization of interest however, I could see Mariana join (the Point Dana Group). Let me know what are your possible ideas. centrist16 | Talk | World | | 21:59, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, youre right. What if we just simply re-added the Trucial States? Former member, developed already and it would be a medium global player as opposed to Mariana. I wanted to find a way to use my Brunant project towards a larger nation, but I saw no easy way to do so. HORTON11: • 19:58, September 18, 2016 (UTC)

That could work just fine. We can reincorporate the Trucial States whilst also still retaining Mariana. I have no objections towards that. centrist16 | Talk | World | | 21:43, September 18, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, lets just do that then. HORTON11: • 13:02, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask the people of Altverse to remove my ban.

Since I have not been bugging anyone now.

And I would like to be given another chance to join the Altverse community. I have been brushing up my history. And a lot of time has passed since I was banned.

Dev271 (talk) 06:39, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Your ban has been temporarily lifted. Let's see what you got. centrist16 | Talk | World | | 11:29, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Current altverse

Maybe it should be made clear which nations are actually in the project for clarity. Some of the countries that wil be preserved are not listed further on the page, and many other pages are very outdated. HORTON11: • 13:59, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Justin answered a similar question recently on my talk page. 77topaz (talk) 01:29, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Altverse 2018

Hi guys. I would like to know how is this project today and what are the future plans. I am thinking about requesting participation for some of my nations, but first I need to know if the project is alive or not. I still think that Altverse is an interesting project and I would like to collaborate again in its development. Thanks. --BIPU (talk) 10:31, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

Map key

The colour key underneath the map doesn't seem to match up with the map at all - it looks like the map key and nations list are out-of-date with comparison to the map. 77topaz (talk) 06:46, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

They are indeed, and it has been a while since the page has been updated overall. It will eventually be updated to reflect the current canon, as some applications have been tentatively processed (as canon), and most discussion/roleplay surrounding Altverse is now hosted on our wiki's official Discord server. centrist16 | Talk | | 06:50, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Haiti

• Nation: Haiti
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Haiti
• Why you want to join: I think therefore I am...
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
• Other: Rawr. >:V

Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:36, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Although I still have reservations with the GDP per capita, beyond that, I have no serious issues with its history and development itself. I think Haiti would be an interesting addition to Altverse, particularly in the diplomatic dynamics of the Americas. The Australia Purchase tidbit of Haiti is still quite controversial though and will be discussed to see if that part will also be canonized after Haiti is incorporated. Personally, I would prefer the initial iteration of Haiti's expanded imperial conquests, namely those in the Caribbean and West Africa (I believe you mentioned Sierra Leone?). Haitian presence on the South American mainland (possibly British Guiana?) would be interesting as well. For

Altverse

Hi guys. I would like to know how is this project today and what are the future plans. I am thinking about requesting participation for some of my nations, but first I need to know if the project is alive or not. I still think that Altverse is an interesting project and I would like to collaborate again in its development. Thanks. --BIPU (talk) 10:31, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

Kalmar Union

• Nation: Kalmar Union
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Sweden, Norway (with its dependencies), Denmark (with Faroe Islands and Greenland) and Southern Schleswig in north Germany.
• Why you want to join: Because I miss the geopolitical game and I have time again to work on my best developed country. I'm full of energy again to work here.
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
• Other: I want to contribute to develop Altverse and if it is possible I would like to add some of my other nations to the project (Soviet Russia was accepted in the past).

Thanks --BIPU (talk) 12:39, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Approved! centrist16 | Talk | | 15:36, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, could I modify the main page of Altverse to incorporate Kalmar Union in the list of nations? And what about Sovet Russia, could it be activated again? --BIPU (talk) 21:07, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

You are free to do so. As for Soviet Russia, based on our current canon, I'm not sure if we can reincorporate it. centrist16 | Talk | | 21:25, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I have readed the Canonical History of Altverse and I don't find where Soviet Russia is collisioning with the Canon. It is created after the collapse of USSR (that is a canonical fact) and there is no more canonical matters concerning Russia from that time. --BIPU (talk) 22:41, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

In this case, given it was accepted before, I see no reason to obstruct its reintroduction. Also, would you be interested in a Kalmar Union–Sierra relations page? centrist16 | Talk | | 22:45, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Of course, let me to the weekend to develop my Foreign Ministry page and we will discuss about the relations. Thanks again. --BIPU (talk) 23:02, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Well, how do you plan to develop the page? Where can we discuss about the (good, I suppose) relations? Thanks --BIPU (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

I am always online on the Conworlds Discord server where we can discuss it in the #projects channel. As for the page, I can start the basic outline for the Kalmar Union–Sierra relations page some time later this evening. centrist16 | Talk | | 20:07, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

I will try to visit the chat tonight if it is possible. Thanks. --BIPU (talk) 20:13, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Outdated content

Now that it seems that we are trying to revive the project, I think it is necessary for us to make an effort to try to organize this page a little updating the maps and the list of active countries and eliminating outdated content. Having it updated by eliminating outdated content will help us to know which nations we can interact with and will encourage new participants to create new nations. I offer my collaboration for what the admins consider could be necessary.--BIPU (talk) 18:15, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

I have now updated the map and the page, and everything except the nation claims (I will get to it shortly) is now completely accurate to the current canon. I will make an effort to continue updating whenever significant changes happen. centrist16 | Talk | | 19:45, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I offer my help again for whatever was necessary.--BIPU (talk) 22:39, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

After reading your changes I have a couple of doubts. First, what is the meaning of CQC in the collaborator list? And the second is, how to say it, somewhat embarrassing. Antarctica? Really? Have you read it? Antarctic tribes? 13 million people? 140k GDP per capita? I'm missing something about the extraterrestrial bases and the secret Nazi city. Maybe Elvis and Michael Jackson are living there. Please... --BIPU (talk) 23:02, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

CQC stands for the Conworlds Quality Control. The article has clearly stated Altverse has always been controlled by this wiki organization ("The Altverse project is under the direct control of Conworlds Quality Control who exercise ultimate authority over all matters within the collaborative community," under the rule section. As for Antarctica, it was approved with the understanding it would receive refinement, which includes adjusting the population and GDP as necessary. Not everyone has the liberty of tending to their articles on a daily basis, so patience should be afforded towards the author of that article. centrist16 | Talk | | 23:13, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Russian SFSR

This morning I had a discussion with some of Altverse's collaborators (and others who are not, but who also joined the discussion) about my Russian project. It is clear that nobody likes it and since Altverse is a community project, this discussion has made me consider the continuity of the project within Altverse.

I have to say that it is very sad for me to see a hail of criticism from people who seem not to have read a line of what I have written and whose only concern is that there should not be a communist-like power within Altverse. Many of the criticisms received make perfect sense and could be adapted without much difficulty, but I believe that even if I change them it will not be enough because in the end what exists is a hatred of everything that smells like a powerful nation different from the established canons of what a cool and super-progressive nation should be.

I honestly ask myself why my Russian project is unacceptable while in the real world China is a clear example of a powerful nation, with a strong economy and politically faithful to the principles of communism. My article on Russia is full of references to economic reforms, privatization and liberalization of the economy, modernization of the economy and introduction of an internet-type technology that links all the production centers to help with planning. The ideas that I already show in what is written and that need to be developed are clear reforms that go beyond what China has done in the real world, but they will never be enough for those who have not bothered to read it and just scream "kill the evil Communist Russia."

I also know that many of you are friends and have similar concerns and that maybe I am an alien element that does not fit in your way of seeing things. I think of Altverse as a political RP project and not as a simple place to write beautiful articles and that's why everything I write aims to create the necessary background to have an effective and fun RP. Personally I think that Altverse will be a boring project if all countries are similar, if they all follow the same line of action. Imagine for example what would happen with the Syrian affairs wihout Russia and everybody following the same way. If you allow me a little criticism, only a little one, please, I think that most of the American nations in Altverse are too influenced by the real international politics of the United States and I think they should explore other options. In each of its actions the shadow of what the Department of State would actually do can be seen clearly. When I decided to propose Russia it was only with the idea of offering an alternative power to all the political correctness that reigns in Altverse, but once again it seems that you do not like it and that a nation that goes out of the modern, cool and progressive way is unacceptable .

The world needs different visions, needs antagonists, needs alternatives and needs confrontation of ideas and projects. International politics is a game of powers and counterpowers that did not exist in Altverse and will not exist without a powerful Russia. Of course there are alternatives to communism to make a powerful Russia and personally I would like them much more, but this is not possible without rethinking the whole European history of the 20th century. I am afraid that we do not have the time or inclination to do so, because there is enough inconsistencies in Altverse to start an adventure of this kind. That is why leaving the history of the USSR as it was in reality and starting the new Russia since 1990 was the easiest way to do it, even though the fact that the United States does not exist in Altverse would necessarily imply changing the entire history of the USSR which is to some extent the history of a competition between the two.

For all this I have written, I think I will make you happy when I tell you that I have decided to finish my Russian project in Altverse. You have won. Altverse will once again be a quiet place where there is no discordant nation, except those with a historical inconsistency or others that are inexplicable without the help of magic or extraterrestrial intervention, but that does not matter. The only problem in Altverse seems to be Russia. Millions of millionaires living on the Antarctic ice is totally normal in Altverse, but a Communist-style Russia is unacceptable.

Once again, congratulations for your victory.

I will remove the references to Altverse on my Russian pages and ask the adminsitrators to remove it from the Altverse project as well as my comments on and references in "international affairs". I will continue working on my other project (of course if that seems right to you) and maybe trying to create a new nation in the near future. Once freed from the burden of developing a superpower I sure have time for other adventures. I sincerely hope that the objections are against Russia and not against me. I just hope that this time you read my words before launching your attacks on me.

If it makes you feel any better, I support the idea. I'm not knowledgeable enough in Russian history to say how plausible it is, but it would be good to have an adversary for the western powers. AWpCR (talk) 05:19, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

First of all — sheesh, dude. Do you really need to be that over-dramatic?

Second, the comparison to China is incorrect since, in more than one way, China is communist in name only — even at that, Chinese communism was already distinct enough to keep itself afloat after communism fell pretty much everywhere. Look at Eastern Europe. Hardly anyone wants communism back there — heck, Poland banned hammer and sickle symbol altogether.

In order to create a successful surviving Soviet Russia, you'd need a POD further. Perestroika effectively ruined USSR's blend of communism, with its breakup aa the final nail in the coffin.

Tl;dr — I'm not against RSFSR, but you'd need to do better research. (Screwhorn77)

Excuse me, but who do you think you are? As long as Altverse allows for several monarchies in North America, I think it is 100% ok for some vestige of the Soviet Union to survive past its disintegration. The article which BIPU wrote provides explanations which, in my book, completely validate the existence of his country. I think your criticism is completely unwarranted, and if you want to remain an active member of this community, I STRONGLY suggest that you stop bullying people immediately and start being more respectful to people who are willing to put far more time and effort into this project than yourself. (ᵒᴥᵒ) Fizzyflapjack (Talk) () (ᵒᴥᵒ) 15:45, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

On this I agree. MC has eloquently stated something which I believe should be recognized. We have a monarchy in the Americas, the Philippines is Japan, the United States is a martial warrior state, and somehow Quebec lives without life support. There is plenty of room for historical change and artistic freedom. That's why this project exists. The entire system that was proposed by the Soviets prior to the collapse of the USSR was to find a way of maintaining the status quo for as long as possible, and it almost worked. There are dozens of ways for BIPU's Russia to survive that have been agreed upon by actual historians, and it should be noted that the Russian SFSR was the immediate predecessor to the modern Russian Federation in OTL, so the Communist Party of Russia can easily have decided not to abolish itself as it did in our timeline. So BIPU's deeply impassioned argument is entirely sound as MC has pointed out. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:36, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your nation and I doubt it was that bad. I understand that there are those who feel it necessary to provide unsolicited advice on matters that are not, or were not, as clear cut and defined at the time as they are today. I cannot fault them for their actions, but I certainly understand the sentiment that it appears that your nation is being sidelined so as to prevent any major opposition or counterbalance to countries such as Sierra or Hani. It hasn't been the first that has happened, and I have been told quite directly that limitations have been placed on other nations to prevent anything of the sort from happening. However, I wouldn't walk out on the project if I were in your shoes, as it only prevents you from refining your nation. Please, hold out and have fun. I will even help you work on your Russian project if you want the assistance. Just don't falter because of the criticism of others. If I did the same, I wouldn't be here today. :P Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 13:12, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

Right firstly let's make this clear that a fair chunk of criticism to BIPU's Russia was motivated by personal views regarding the USSR/Soviet communism than genuine constructive criticism, even if this was unintnetional. Secondly there has been no attempt by the people who run Altverse to sideline "muh competitors" - neither me nor Justin had any real problem with BIPU's Russia which I personally quite like as a project. Thirdly there is always openings for powerful countries in Altverse that make sense and are within reason in terms of history, economy and politics, all of which BIPU's Russia fall into. The barrage of criticism directed at BIPU was uncalled for but was not endorsed by any of the discord admins one of which had no problems with the project, two of which aren't in altverse and also have no problems with the project and one of which didn't even have an internet connection at the time and has no problem with the project. There's no bullshit conspiracy theory or secret cabal that seeks to undermine people, certainly those like BIPU who have acted for the most part in good faith and should not be treated with disrespect especially by our newer users.

On behalf of the discord admins we are sorry to BIPU for what happens and do invite him back into Altverse with Russia, and any small changes can be made. In future can people please just be civil, leave their personal politics at home and refrain from deliberately misrepresenting and outright lying about events which just makes the situation even more toxic. --Cheers Sweet potato tastes good, I like it 17:57, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

I completely back BIPU on this. I'm not sure who was behind this (though I might possibly have ideas) but think that politics aside, he has gone for a genuinely serious project, not some farce aimed at yet anotherthe "Soviet Russia" althist. That's all. horton11 19:08, April 11, 2018 (UTC)

In recent days I have read your comments carefully and I have also spoken with some of you in private. I want to thank you for your support not only to the Russian project but also to me personally. Although I have already written it before, I repeat again that my Russian project arises from the idea of offering Altverse an alternative vision and a different model of a nation that would provide a counter-power and allow a greater variety in the RP. A communist nation, a communist power but with a different version of communism than we all remember from the USSR. This is Altverse and things can and must be different from reality. As much as I like the Russian project, that is not and will not be my main nation in Altverse. First of all because I am satisfied with the work done with Kalmar Union and I want to go deeper, and secondly because is Kalmar Union, and not a communist Russia, which best represents my vision and my personal beliefs. Developing a nation like Russia, and more if you want it to be a power, is a difficult and big task. What happened the other day made me question whether it was worth the time and effort necessary.

After reading your comments I have noticed one thing. Most of the people who attacked me and said that my Russian project could not exist are not members of Altverse. Members of Altverse, those who have active projects, have said what they wanted to say on this page. I made the mistake of thinking that Discord was Altverse and it is not, and that is why after reading your comments on this page I decided to continue with Russia and dedicate as much time as possible. In addition, I will make some changes in the history as soon as possible to adapt it better to what I intend Russia to be in 2018.

At the moment I will continue playing with Russia in the current events and I will write a new page if it is necessary for the RP. Next two weeks I will maintain a limited level of activity (without major editions) due to work reasons. During the month of May I hope to give an important boost to Kalmar Union and if there are no problems I hope to be able to work seriously on Russia starting in June.

I would like to propose some ideas to discuss that are necessary for a better development of Russia but also for all the nations of Altverse.

• It is necessary that we establish a canon of how the Second World War was (assuming it happened).
• We have all assumed that the history of the USSR in Altverse is the real one and I have started my project of a communist Russia after the fall of the USSR. But the reality is that Altverse is very different and the fact that the United States does not exist necessarily makes the history of the USSR different. The real story of the second half of the 20th century is the history of a competition between two nations, between two models. If one of them does not exist, the competition disappears. If there is no opponent, there is no fight. I want to say that maybe the real history of the USSR should not be a canon in Altverse and that we should rethink what happened. Perhaps a "fall" is not necessary but simply an evolution of the model. Perhaps the rupture in different nations can be explained as a process of nationalist tensions and not as the consequence of the "fall" of the USSR. Perhaps without the need to face the threat of the United States, the USSR did not need to spend huge amounts of money in a gigantic nuclear arsenal and could better balance its economy and gradually adapt its model to real needs. Perhaps...

If we accept this idea, more or less cordial relations with other nations would be possible and also the possibility that there are common points and economic or military alliances with some of them. Communism is necessarily expansive, but without the pressure or the threat of the United States, it is possible that things in the USSR were otherwise. However, it is evident that the role of a communist Russia in Altverse is to act as an antagonist of the Western model, but that does not necessarily mean that there are two blocks without contact or without any relation.

I hope to read your comments.--BIPU (talk) 21:17, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Hellas

• Nation: Hellas
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Greece, Cyprus, parts of northern, western, and southwest turkey, plus Alexandretta/Iskanderun
• Why you want to join: Altverse has always been a fun project that I enjoyed being part of and I wish to be part of it again.
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
• Other: Hellas will rule the world...

AWpCR (talk) 00:05, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

Han Borneo

Can someone add Borneo to Hani in the map?

Baltic Federation

• Nation: Baltic Federation
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Finland, Estonia and Latvia.
• Why you want to join: I'm paticipating in Altverse with other nations and I'd like to add one more.
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
• Other: Baltic Federation will not be my main nation, but I think it is too close to my other nations to develop this territories without interfering them. My intention is to write the basics and leave it as a minor actor in Altverse geopolitical game.

Thanks. --BIPU (talk) 15:12, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

Your Nation's Name

• Nation: Long Chile
• Real World Countries and Land Claimed: ChilePeruEcuador
• Why you want to join: Because it seems fun :)
• Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: N
• Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y

3owowooAccount2 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings 3owowooAccount2, thank you for showing interest in the project! Unfortunately, Altverse is no longer active. It has been superseded by Altverse II. In the current version, Peru and Ecuador belong to a country known as the United People's Committees, but Chile is available. centrist16 | Talk | | | 23:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)