| Welcome to Alternate History Lounge. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| TL-191 places | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 6 2008, 09:51 PM (1,167 Views) | |
| Makkabee | Aug 9 2008, 07:12 AM Post #16 |
|
Count
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since HT mentioned that the Confederates maintained air parity with the US in the Richmond area longer than anywhere else, Paris being as heavily bombed as Richmond doesn't imply overwhelming air superiority. I assumed the Germans gradually built up air supremacy since after the British failure to take Hamburg the ground war turned steadily in their favor, but since our information about Europe was always so sketchy I didn't have a particular problem with that. The other issues mentioned here did irk me quite a bit. I figured the Snake would invade Haiti -- in fact I figured Haiti was likely to be a Czechoslovakia or Poland analog up until TVO -- but it wasn't mentioned until the last book and did feel tacked on. Sequoyah bothered me because with all the oil there the US would fight a lot harder to hold it, especially with the Ohio wells in CS hands for a good chunk of the war. That wasn't just tacked on, it was bad plotting treating it as the ass end of nowhere. If Sequoyah were threatened, Dowling would have had to give up his offensive in Texas because his troops were being transferred over to defend those resources. It might have been better for Turtledove to put Dowling in Sequoyah if it were such an active front. He handled WWI so much better than WWII in this series. I'm really not convinced he was trying that hard in terms of plot. He used to take such pains too, back in his younger days. |
![]() |
|
| LoneHawkBoy | Aug 9 2008, 11:39 AM Post #17 |
|
Jarl of East Anglia
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It felt like he wasn't really looking at the possibilities in terms of how the US and CS could have moved beyond the invasion of Ohio. In all honesty the best move the US could have made as an early counter-attack would have been to thrust down the Mississippi and cut off the Confederate West with all the oil wells in Louisiana and Texas, pull what the Germans tried to bring off with Fall Blau and turn off the Confederate spigot. From there it would have been easy enough to then clean the Confederate clock in Ohio then launch a two-pronged attack from Louisiana and Kentucky to meet in Alabama effectively chopping the Confederacy into several small pieces to be disposed of as needed while exerting pressure in Virginia and Texas and still keep a holding force to keep Utah from getting too nasty until enough troops and air power could be spared to smash Utah into lots of tiny pieces. That and with the Canadian uprisings if the US decided to play with carpet bombing any center of resistance off the map it would have gotten the rebels' attention, followed up with attacks and other actions designed to isolate the rebels from the population it would have worked out fine. Then again that could have been avoided if the US did SOMETHING other than keep Canada under perpetual military occupation and leave it in limbo during the 20s and 30s. |
|
Axe-time, sword-time shields are sundered, Wind-time, wolf-time, ere the world falls; Volupso, Lines 43-44 | |
![]() |
|
| Custer | Aug 9 2008, 12:38 PM Post #18 |
|
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There was a passage early on in DTTE that mentioned fighting in Sequoyah. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Makkabee | Aug 9 2008, 02:02 PM Post #19 |
|
Count
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A passage? That's not nearly enough. Hell, I still don't know if the Confederates pushed west from Arkansas, crossed the Red River, or tried a pincer attack from both in their efforts to take Sequoyah. I'd also really like to know what went on with the Indians there. How'd they feel about Featherston's genocidal policies? Were they enthusiastic, relieved that he picked a different target than them, worried that they'd be next on the chopping block if he won, what? HT covered Sequoyah reasonably well in AF and let us know how people there felt. He really missed a trick by not giving us a PoV character in the state, or better yet from the state, afterwards. |
![]() |
|
| Makkabee | Aug 9 2008, 02:04 PM Post #20 |
|
Count
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've been complaining about the stupidity of US Canadian policy in TL-191 for years. It would have been hard to come up with a strategy better designed to keep the population hostile and able to resist. |
![]() |
|
| Custer | Aug 9 2008, 02:30 PM Post #21 |
|
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Still a passage more than what Nelg thought there had been. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Nelg | Aug 9 2008, 06:51 PM Post #22 |
|
Lord of the Under Pants
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But that's the problem right there. We can only assume. Because the war in Europe is so vague we can only guess about this and that. I figured that the Germans where able to turn the tide of the land war in Great War 2 was due to the Germans out technologically pacing the British and the French, because the radio announcer mentioned the German armored units and turbo fighters. This caused me to believe that the Germans had more technologically advance weapons than both the British and French. The whole sketchy approach worked for Great War, but it doesn’t work for Settling Accounts.
Why not do what some of the Canadians feared and send up US colonists to thin out Canadian numbers? |
| Let's see you do that kung-fu crap after I disintergrate your legs... | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Nelg | Aug 9 2008, 06:58 PM Post #23 |
|
Lord of the Under Pants
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Custer. Do you know where in DTTE that passage is from? I'd be nice to have some place where I can start my search. |
| Let's see you do that kung-fu crap after I disintergrate your legs... | |
![]() |
|
| Custer | Aug 9 2008, 07:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Other fronts were sideshows. Confederate-sponsored Indian uprisings in Sequoyah kept the occupied territory in an uproar. That wouldn't have mattered much if Sequoyah didn't have more oil than you could shake a stick at. As things were, the United States had trouble using what they could get, and sabotage ensured that they didn't get much." Page 59, hardcover, Flora Blackford POV. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Nelg | Aug 9 2008, 07:18 PM Post #25 |
|
Lord of the Under Pants
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ahh, thank you. But that's a completely different course of events than what was told in IATD, Custer. I was complaining about how a fighting front suddenly erupted in Sequoyah. That passage just tells us that there's rebellions going on in the area. What I was complaining about, was it doesn’t tell us that a front has opened up there. The passage in IATD clearly tells us that troops fought a backwards and forwards war in Sequoyah, while that passage just tells us that there was sabotage and rebellion.It's still NOT a passage more than what I'd thought there had been. It's something compleatly different. |
| Let's see you do that kung-fu crap after I disintergrate your legs... | |
![]() |
|
| Custer | Aug 9 2008, 07:32 PM Post #26 |
|
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"[Sequoyah] was closer to the center of things than west Texas, which didn't mean Toricelli didn't wince again anyhow. Sequoyah was a bloody mess, and probably would go on being one for years. Thanks to a large influx of settlers from the USA, it had voted not to rejoin the Confederacy in Al Smith's ill-advised plebiscite. But the Indian tribes in the east, who'd prospered under Confederate rule, hated the US occupation. And most of the oil there lay under Indian-held land. "The oil fields had gone back and forth several times in this war. Whoever was retreating blew up what he could to deny the oil to the enemy. When the United States held the oil fields, Confederate raiders and their Indian stooges sabotaged whatever wasn't blown up. That led to reprisals, which led to bushwhacking, which led to hell in a handbasket." Page 20, IATD hardcover, Abner Dowling POV. How the FUCK is that a "completely different course of events than what was told in IATD"? How is that NOT a natural progression of events from what was mentioned in DTTE? <_< |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Nelg | Aug 9 2008, 07:42 PM Post #27 |
|
Lord of the Under Pants
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
First off, calm down dude. Secondly.... "The oil fields had gone back and forth several times in this war. Whoever was retreating blew up what he could to deny the oil to the enemy. When the United States held the oil fields, Confederate raiders and their Indian stooges sabotaged whatever wasn't blown up. That led to reprisals, which led to bushwhacking, which led to hell in a handbasket." That passage Custer CLEARLY states that the oil fields have been fought over, while the passage in DTTE CLEARLY states that the area is in REBELLION, not being fought over, Custer. THAT's how the FUCK it's a completely different course of events than what was told in IATD." There's a HUGE difference between an area that's being fought over and an area that's in rebellion. Just look at the passage you pasted yourself.
The words clearly state that WHEN the US held the oil fields, then the area was in rebellion. DTTE just says the area is in rebellion, while IATD says there was a campaign going on. |
| Let's see you do that kung-fu crap after I disintergrate your legs... | |
![]() |
|
| Custer | Aug 9 2008, 07:55 PM Post #28 |
|
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What the fuck kind of hair-splitting is that Nelg? An area in rebellion can't also be fought over? The portion of northern Virginia loyal to the Confederate government, in rebellion against the United States in the OTL Civil War, WASN'T fought over between rebel and government armies? The portions of Russia in rebellion against the Soviet government in the early years of the Bolshevik regime WEREN'T fought over by the rival forces, Nelg? :rolleyes:
LMAO like what kind of HUGE difference?
It says there was fighting, that it went back and forth. Do you deny that rebellions can have back and forth fighting? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Nelg | Aug 9 2008, 08:10 PM Post #29 |
|
Lord of the Under Pants
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For the love of Mike, Custer, take a pill.
:angry: I refuse to be drawn into a flame war with you just because you think I'm wrong.
All I'm saying is that in regards to Sequoyah, DTTE and IATD said TWO compleatly different things. DTTE said that Sequoyah was in rebellion, while IATD said that the whole area was being fought over from start to finish BY armed forces from both the US and CS. Actuall soilders, Custer. By rebellion, that just means the local poppulas. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ALL ALONG!!!
Pg. 99 IATD Hard Cover copy. "Neither the Texas Panhandle nor western Sequoyah had suffered too badly in the war. The fighting in Sequoyah was mostly farther east, where the oil wells were. Where the oil wells had been, rather. The oil fields had changed hands several times during the war. Whenever they did, the side pulling out blew them up to deny them to the enemy. The conquerors would start making repairs and then have to retreat themselves -- and carry ou their own demolitions. By now, Sequoyah's oil wells were some of the most throughly liberated real estate on the face of the globe." THERE!!! That dosen't sound like rebellion to me Custer.
No where in DTTE did it say that the Confederate Army had taken the area by force. So the sudden mention of the area changing hands between the US and CS Armies came as a sudden surprise, Custer. That's all I'm saying. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. |
| Let's see you do that kung-fu crap after I disintergrate your legs... | |
![]() |
|
| MapleLeafs4Ever | Aug 9 2008, 09:43 PM Post #30 |
|
Landowner
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
However, none of the quotes from IatD state the military fighting had occurred from the beginning of the war. So, in DttE (1942) former Confederates and especially the Indians are in an uprising. However, given the CS "drive to the east", the US cannot bring in enough military forces to pacify the state and may need to pull forces out to help deal with the more immediate threat. Seeing an opportunity, the CS launches a smallish military attack and seizes oil wells. Later, after Pittsburgh, the US has forces available to counterattack and drive the CS back. As in Texas from the Dowling POV, the CS brings in Freedom Party Guard Combat Units which stop and then reverse the US advance. This is a temporary victory and the US brings in reinforcements which push out the CS again. This brings us to IatD (1944/45) and the quotes therein. |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History Media · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


But that's a completely different course of events than what was told in IATD, Custer. I was complaining about how a fighting front suddenly erupted in Sequoyah. That passage just tells us that there's rebellions going on in the area. What I was complaining about, was it doesn’t tell us that a front has opened up there. The passage in IATD clearly tells us that troops fought a backwards and forwards war in Sequoyah, while that passage just tells us that there was sabotage and rebellion.
9:17 AM Jul 11