• 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.
BritishImperial No, but I couldn't resist using that line.

Kurt_Steiner He will get one of his tantrums because not one of his advisors accurately predicted the Empire Plan.

Stalin.. well, the way I read him he would quietly sit back and wait for his time to strike, contemplating the possibilities of spreading Communism.


Winner That may be so, but a) This is Britain we are talking about, b) it is the 1930s, and c) "British Empire" sounds so much cooler. Also d) in the TTL 2008 it won't sound strage at all because it will be something perfectly normal. :D There will of course be the usual nutjobs, but no one will take them serious. No offense btw.
 
empires have only got a bad name because they evoke images of sl*very (can i mention that here?) and people like hitler invading everyone. i fully agree that empire sounds really cool. commonwealth is a bit boring.
 
BritishImperial said:
empires have only got a bad name because they evoke images of sl*very (can i mention that here?) and people like hitler invading everyone. i fully agree that empire sounds really cool. commonwealth is a bit boring.


Aye. Commonwealth sounds a bit left-wing in the 1930s, and anyway, the Royals still have some bad memories from when someone last tried to build a commonwealth of England....
 
trekaddict said:
Winner That may be so, but a) This is Britain we are talking about, b) it is the 1930s, and c) "British Empire" sounds so much cooler. Also d) in the TTL 2008 it won't sound strage at all because it will be something perfectly normal. :D There will of course be the usual nutjobs, but no one will take them serious. No offense btw.

True (for Europeans), but the word would have surely evoked some bad memories among people from the colonies.
 
Winner said:
True (for Europeans), but the word would have surely evoked some bad memories among people from the colonies.

True, and the emphasis is some. Methinks that in the long run they will move into the background and will eventually be forgotten. As I said in the Game effects, in two or so that will no longer be an issue.

Edit: And with George Lucas locked safely away behind the Iron Curtain the other problem won't be an issue either. :D
 
I vote for 'Dolfie's reaction. :D
 
ColossusCrusher said:
I vote for 'Dolfie's reaction. :D

I was already leaning towards that myself. Expect a massive temper tantrum.
 
Commenwealth or Empire,

Empire is much more fierce and puts fear in an enemy when you hear "British Empire" rather than "British Commenwealth."

As for Trekaddict, you seem too know much about your glorious empire, something always puzzled me about the Home Fleet? Why did HMS Rodney and Nelson have three front forward turrets? Couldn't it have the traditional set-up 2 x 1? I know it had to fit under the Washington Naval Act but seeing three front turrets on a battleship is just odd to me, and you seem like you would know the answer to that?
 
TheEnlighted1 said:
Commenwealth or Empire,

Empire is much more fierce and puts fear in an enemy when you hear "British Empire" rather than "British Commenwealth."

As for Trekaddict, you seem too know much about your glorious empire, something always puzzled me about the Home Fleet? Why did HMS Rodney and Nelson have three front forward turrets? Couldn't it have the traditional set-up 2 x 1? I know it had to fit under the Washington Naval Act but seeing three front turrets on a battleship is just odd to me, and you seem like you would know the answer to that?

IIRC it has something to do with the Washington treaty and the concentration of Firepower, other than that I come up blank.


As for Commonwealth vs Empire: I fully agree. :D


Also the new AARlander is out!

september2008.jpg
 
TheEnlighted1 said:
Commenwealth or Empire,

Empire is much more fierce and puts fear in an enemy when you hear "British Empire" rather than "British Commenwealth."

As for Trekaddict, you seem too know much about your glorious empire, something always puzzled me about the Home Fleet? Why did HMS Rodney and Nelson have three front forward turrets? Couldn't it have the traditional set-up 2 x 1? I know it had to fit under the Washington Naval Act but seeing three front turrets on a battleship is just odd to me, and you seem like you would know the answer to that?

Actually it's a design choice going back to the bigger G3 and N3 ships planned before Washington. clustering all the turrets forward reduces the length required for the armor belt thus saving weight. The G3 would have been like a 1920s Iowa... The N3 would have carried nine 18" guns. equal to the Yamato's firepower.

So after Washington they took these designs and chopped them till they got Nelson and Rodney. Which is why this pair is referred sometimes as the "Cherry Tree" Battleships since they were "cut down by Washington."
 
KiMaSa said:
Actually it's a design choice going back to the bigger G3 and N3 ships planned before Washington. clustering all the turrets forward reduces the length required for the armor belt thus saving weight. The G3 would have been like a 1920s Iowa... The N3 would have carried nine 18" guns. equal to the Yamato's firepower.

So after Washington they took these designs and chopped them till they got Nelson and Rodney. Which is why this pair is referred sometimes as the "Cherry Tree" Battleships since they were "cut down by Washington."
Also a Royal Navy battleship needs no rear guns, the Royal Navy never runs away! :D (genuine historical joke that)
 
El Pip said:
Also a Royal Navy battleship needs no rear guns, the Royal Navy never runs away! :D (genuine historical joke that)

And even true! :D
 
El Pip said:
Also a Royal Navy battleship needs no rear guns, the Royal Navy never runs away! :D (genuine historical joke that)

True that! :cool: But the idea would have worked better with a G3. One on one Nelson is a bit slow so harder to keep the bad guys from trying to shoot you in the back, while G3 is a 30+ knot ship that you can't run from OR slip past. :D
 
Great updates. I am interested to see exactly how quickly these changes will manifest themselves into more preparedness for war. It was alluded to in one of the updates in the conversation with Skorzeny, but I would be interested to know exactly what the numbers look like.

In a similar vein, I'd also be interested to know just how much the Canadian economy and war effort, perhaps even tech teams, have been altered in the new timeline. ARe they better armed? Have they been able to capitalize on the capitalist refugees from down south?
 
Great updates. I am interested to see exactly how quickly these changes will manifest themselves into more preparedness for war. It was alluded to in one of the updates in the conversation with Skorzeny, but I would be interested to know exactly what the numbers look like.

In a similar vein, I'd also be interested to know just how much the Canadian economy and war effort, perhaps even tech teams, have been altered in the new timeline. ARe they better armed? Have they been able to capitalize on the capitalist refugees from down south?
 
Bafflegab said:
Great updates. I am interested to see exactly how quickly these changes will manifest themselves into more preparedness for war. It was alluded to in one of the updates in the conversation with Skorzeny, but I would be interested to know exactly what the numbers look like.

In a similar vein, I'd also be interested to know just how much the Canadian economy and war effort, perhaps even tech teams, have been altered in the new timeline. ARe they better armed? Have they been able to capitalize on the capitalist refugees from down south?

The Canadians got 30 additional IC and some extra rare stocks to keep tehm going until the AI trades for more. The Tech-Teams are Vanilla, because I think they are quite good and because the most important changes only mainfest themselves after the game was started.

As for Britain: I am currently raising several Infantry and Tank Divisions and have the 15 Carriers for Force A in the build-qeue but on low priority. I also have the KGVs there but even below the Carriers. The line with the recruiting everywhere was mainly done to explain the unrealistically ( for OTL ) armies I will have to raise to defeat the Axis.
 
KiMaSa said:
Actually it's a design choice going back to the bigger G3 and N3 ships planned before Washington. clustering all the turrets forward reduces the length required for the armor belt thus saving weight. The G3 would have been like a 1920s Iowa... The N3 would have carried nine 18" guns. equal to the Yamato's firepower.

So after Washington they took these designs and chopped them till they got Nelson and Rodney. Which is why this pair is referred sometimes as the "Cherry Tree" Battleships since they were "cut down by Washington."

Thanks, as I love naval combat in the game, even though at times it seems totally unuseful I always like too have a powerful navy for any nation I play as. And as for that, it always puzzled me when I look at those two British battleships... three front forward turrets? Just seemed so odd, and I also like the term "Cherry Tree" -- anyways thanks. Much appreciated, now I can sleep with a better understanding and not be puzzled as much.
 
trekaddict said:
Winner That may be so, but a) This is Britain we are talking about, b) it is the 1930s, and c) "British Empire" sounds so much cooler. Also d) in the TTL 2008 it won't sound strage at all because it will be something perfectly normal. :D There will of course be the usual nutjobs, but no one will take them serious. No offense btw.

Nobody would complain about British Empire in the 1930s. Probably, as decolonization kicks in in the 1960s, it will change names to become a Commonwealth or Union, but in the 1930s, it's the Empire and the sun still can't exactly set on it !
 
Atlantic Friend said:
Nobody would complain about British Empire in the 1930s. Probably, as decolonization kicks in in the 1960s, it will change names to become a Commonwealth or Union, but in the 1930s, it's the Empire and the sun still can't exactly set on it !

It wont for multiple reasons.

Firstly: THere will be no decolonization as we define the term in OTL within the Empire, secondly the term "Empire" won't be as tainted as it is in OTL (Be reminded that George Lucas is probably working on some communal farm somewhere in America. :D ), thirdly there was a movement in the 1960s to rename it but it was soundly rebuffed by the Imperial Parliament, and last but not least because I say so. :D

The French will decolonize of couirse, but with even more kicking and screaming than in OTL. The Independence wars in the French colonies will be the first major post-war crisis and the first time the integrity of the British Empire is really (successfully) tested.

EDIT: Can you tell I am not a fan of Mr. Lucas?
 
Last edited:
trekaddict said:
EDIT: Can you tell I am not a fan of Mr. Lucas?

No, really?! Who would have guessed... :D