Suggestions for my new multi-faction game?

[Viridia (OP)]

Heyo, folks. I've decided to start a new game similar to the Trans-Newtonian campaign Steve Walmsley ran a while back. So far I've settled on three definite factions;
The Atlantic Treaty Organisation (USA, UK, France, Spain, Portugal. More than either of the others to be quick about it).
The Eurasian Union (Russia, China, Mongolia, most of the Central Asian countries).
The Oceanic Coalition (Australasia, Japan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Papua New Guinea).

I'm not really sure what to do for other factions. I'm going to be writing this up as I go along but I don't want each one to be from a different geographic area, so I'm thinking of another Asian faction, one for Africa, and then some form of Mediterranean faction.

[alex_brunius]

The most obvious "powerful" nations today missing would IMO be:

Germany
Italy
Brazil
Rest of South/Central America
Turkey
Canada
Scandinavia ( Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland )
Eastern Europe & Balkans
Egypt
South Africa

[ComradeMicha]

Yes, you're definately lacking in Arab countries and India.

I really don't think Russia and China would ever form a Federation though, as both countries would insist on leadership and thus the federation would probably collapse even before it makes its way onto any maps...

[Haji]

If you want real life but not so obvious organizations the two most obvious candidates would be the Commonwealth of Nations (former British Empire comprising UK, Australia, Canada, India and some fifty other nations I don't remember) and the Commonwealth of Independent States which is a Russia lead organization comprising many (but not all) former USSR nations.

As for Scandinavia (proposed by alex_brunius) in my opinion they are simply too small. IIRC taken together they have less than forty million people, so they could not possibly hope to be a serious player faction, despite the fact that they are admittedly wealthy and technologically advanced. The same will unfortunately be true for most single nations (which is why I also don't think Egypt or South Africa would work on their own, unless the entire game is based around few nations, rather than multi-national organizations).

Also if my memory serves there is something akin to African Union but I don't know how large and how "tight" the organization is. OPEC could also become a major player rather easily and would comprise many Islamic states (if I remember correctly).

[Steve Walmsley]

There are some other useful existing multi-national organization, such as the Arab League, the African Union (mentioned above), the Union of South American Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

[alex_brunius]

As for Scandinavia (proposed by alex_brunius) in my opinion they are simply too small. IIRC taken together they have less than forty million people, so they could not possibly hope to be a serious player faction, despite the fact that they are admittedly wealthy and technologically advanced.

Agree. A "Scandinavian" or rather North European power that could contend with others would probably need to also include Iceland, Finland and most of the other territory around the Baltic sea ( including northern Germany and Poland ).

[Viridia (OP)]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I've decided on adding another five factions;
The Consolidated Federation of Europe (Including Scandinavia and everything between Russia and France)
The White Sea Council (Italy, Greece, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Albania)
The Pan-African Front (Sub-Saharan Africa)
The Caspian-Bengal Alignment (From Iraq to India)
The Ibero-American Dominion. (South America)

I'll hash out backgrounds for all of them when I start writing up the game.

[Theodidactus]

Brazil.

Also:
My rule whenever writing stuff like this is "always throw something random in there."

If you asked a citizen of the most powerful nation on earth in 1870 which nation would reach the moon first in the 1970s, they would have said "Britain, Germany, or France of course" MAYBE they'd suggest russia...but the order would not go "America, then russia, then china, and also America only narrowly beat russia." The idea that China would be ANYTHING 100 years ago was completely laughable (though some lone lights of brilliance saw what was coming, Bertrand Russell and HG Wells both did) and America back then was a bit like Russia now.

In my game, I made sure to do a lot of that so I have Brazil as the dominant economic and scientific power on the planet, with America and India trailing behind.
Some things:

- Africa is probably not going to pull together anytime soon, but if you had talked to brits in 1914 they would say the same thing about china or india, A "republic of Africa" would have the mineral wealth and manufacturing base equal to nearly the whole of central asia, russia, and china.

- Sometimes very small and relatively inconsequential nations can exhibit outsized influence due to quirks of historical fortune (yo billy, check this out, I can use steam to pump out a mine!). A tiny island off the coast of france controlled most of the known world at various times in its history. I decided to make Taiwan  a major powerhouse in my setting because they were the first nation to invest in transnewtonian technology

- Economic stability is often a major factor in whether a nation can build the large-scale infrastructure you'd need to, say, hurl spaceships into orbit. Speaking as a layman with no authority, I've often found the idea of a world 100 years from now divided between china, russia, and the united states to be pretty silly, simply because it's just folks imagining stuff now and throwing it forward. In reality, neither china nor russia is as stable as Brazil or (frankly) india. If I had to name the 5 most influential nations of 2114 I'd say the US (there are long-term structurial reasons to suggest continued US primacy), India (Strictly based on population, stability, and blindly fast growth), Brazil (natural resources and population base), the EU (I'm an EU optimist) and a completely unexpected nation that has a relatively stable government and vast, untapped natural resources, the best candidates would be australia, canada, south africa, or some now-unstable country that cleans up its act (Libya?)


 

[Theodidactus]

the other thing that i think about a lot in my setting is the fact that "powerful nations" might not necessarily be the most developed or advanced...or vice versa. Over the course of history, there are lots of great examples of highly developed countries that control vast swaths of useful territory but have relatively weak armies (canada) and small relatively undeveloped nations that invest a lot in defense and consequentially have an outsized influence on military policy in their region (North Korea, Japan in the early 19th century)

So in my campaign China is a world powerhouse but doesn't build spaceships, so you hardly ever see them "in story"

because minerals are acquired through mining expeditions which can start out quite small, It's not far-out to assume that a relatively small but advanced nation nation (modern japan, for example) could have an outsized influence on space policy simply by aggressively constructing a spacefleet.

[Theodidactus]

If your setting follows some kind of global mayhem, virtually anything is on the table. South Africa, Brazil, and Australia are all unlikely to be touched in a world where the superpowers just start indiscriminately launch tons of missiles at each other.

[Haji]

Speaking as a layman with no authority, I've often found the idea of a world 100 years from now divided between china, russia, and the united states to be pretty silly, simply because it's just folks imagining stuff now and throwing it forward. In reality, neither china nor russia is as stable as Brazil or (frankly) india.

While I generally agree about the points you made I think there are some good reasons why most people divide the world like that and why nations like Brazil are not included. Aside from the obvious fact that many campaigns are being played in the near future, the success and stability of the US and the sheer size of China make those two logical power blocks of the future. It's not simply the case with campaigns being played in Aurora, but many SF works feature China as a major player, although not always as the People's Republic (times change after all). Worse most players play campaigns with very few powers (less than four) which limits what they can put there. Heck, I once tried campaign with thirteen power blocks (which included Brazil as an independent one) and it was very difficult to manage. Fun, but far too complex. At least for me.

Russia is a more problematic case, but it has three things going for it. First it has a very large expertise in space operations, with many of their systems being superior to American ones, at least till the end of the cold war (and they still are better than almost anyone else). Second they have vast mineral resources, oil and gas in particular, which give them surprisingly strong economy and are a powerful political tool (especially since most of the political idiots in Europe prefer to buy them from Russia rather than getting more reliable supplies, from Norway for example). Third while USSR economy was never in the same league as US one, they still managed to be an enormous and credible military threat. Sure Brazil (in the future) could potentially compete with US or EU in economic terms - but those make for a poor story. At least when using Aurora. Although admittedly Russia is much less likely to be a significant power in the future.

To be honest a lot depends on how those powers are presented. For example in my fiction (which I never post) I never make Russia as Russia a power. I usually give them back story of using present day tactics of 'divide and conquer' (which they are using to great success in places like Georgia or Ukraine) to rebuild their empire. Similarly, when creating some form of large organization I'm trying to put at least a lip service to problems faced by them. For example, I may point out that some African coalition is very unstable and created only because their need to get their hands on at least some off-world supplies of TN elements or, if I'm creative, I point out that the organization is little more than multi-national corporation tasked with mining those minerals that has, for all instances and purposes, enough power by itself to confront nations like US and EU.

To be honest, as most Aurora stories are fiction and require suspension of disbelief anyway, I'm willing to forgive a lot if there is at least a lip service paid to some of the problems.

[Arwyn]

Actually based on actual history, nations and "major powers" often come into being for a variety or combination of reasons.

1) Military power
2) Economic power or monopoly control
3) Trade or trade control
4) Population (almost never as a primary cause, but as a secondary influence)
5) Technology- monopoly or superiority
6) Radically different military theory
7) LEADERSHIP

The British Empire, for example, got its foothold due to superior technology and military theory landing them with the best Navy in the world. That in turn led to them to naval military superiority, which was exploited into controlling trade (after smashing the Dutch) and there by becoming the dominant economic power.

Despite that, once the Empire hit its peak post-Napoleon, it only lasted another 100 years before declining rapidly.

There are other analogs. For example, saying Scandinavia could not be a major power isn't actually accurate. Individually, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were all major world powers at points in history. The purely mercantile Hanseatic League dominated the Baltic for centuries, and wound up controlling land, armies and warships through its evolution.

The other contributing factor is leaders and leadership. If you had talked to anyone in the "modern world" of the Pre-Alexander hellenic world, no one would have belived you if you had told them that a minor semi-barbarian kingdom like Macedon would become a major power in just under 25 years under Phillip II of Macedon. His son used that major power status to springboard into the largest world power of its day.

No one in world of 1900 would have belived that an Asian state could defeat a modern European power. Yet Japan in 1905 did exactly that and handed the Russian Empire a defeat that destabilized them for decades. Despite the fact that 40 years previously, Japan had been a backward feudal state. In less than generation they had gone from a feudal state to a world power.

On a darker turn, Post-WW1 Germany was a failed state. Yet in the space of a decade, on charismatic madman was able to turn that state into a world power that threaten the world.

When you throw in the combination of completely new tech (Trans-Newtonian) and a complete change in energy and transportation that results (huge economic shift) along with stable to inspirational leadership, you could have almost ANY country show up as a world power in a Trans-Newtonian Aurora universe.

For example, from a previous game of mine that extrapolated a world devastated by plague (based on plague era Europe) one of my powers was Scandinavia:
Skandinaviska Unionen: Formed originally by Sweden, Norway, and Finland, the SU expanded and began incorporating portions of the Baltic States, Denmark, and portions of northern Germany and Poland, the Kola Peninsula, and Karelia, Icleand, and most recently, Greenland. The SU is nominally socialist, with extensive social programs, but with a very vigorous capitalistic bent. The SU had functioning military industrial facilities after the Plague Years and made a considerable amount of money selling munitions to groups outside the Union. The SU military is one of the best equipped and best funded, and they The SU has glimmers of pre-war Scandinavia, but by and large they are a very practical and pragmatic group. The SU has been aggressive in perusing the new technologies that have been discovered and they are not backing down from the threats posed to them by their regional rivals. Unlike several of the other regional powers, they SU has generally been invited into areas by popular vote and concessions.

The African Union COULD be the template for a Trans-Newtonian world power. Assuming Africa wound up with a sizable amount of TN materials, in conjunction with a sufficiently visionary and strong leader or leaders, it could transform into a major power in a fairly short period of time.

There are certainly arguements, and good ones, that current states COULD be world powers in a TN era. They could also be displaced by a currently third world state that winds up with TN materials and the leadership to exploit them successfully.

[ComradeMicha]

Actually based on actual history, nations and "major powers" often come into being for a variety or combination of reasons.

1) Military power
2) Economic power or monopoly control
3) Trade or trade control
4) Population (almost never as a primary cause, but as a secondary influence)
5) Technology- monopoly or superiority
6) Radically different military theory
7) LEADERSHIP

I agree with your general point but I think this list can be shortened. In my opinion, a (temporary) great power status can be achieved by any political entity through a combination of these factors:
1) Relative Willpower compared to competitors (how much the nation wants to be a power, think of USA in 1930's vs. 1950's)
2) Relative Resources compared to competitors (having the tools to realize superpower status), i.e. money, population, raw materials, industry, technology
3) Luck (sometimes, a bold move could either lead to devastation or decisive victory; think of Alexander the Great who almost got killed in one of the first Persian battles)

So you are right, any country (or even city) could become a superpower under a certain set of circumstances. However, the probability of VR China becoming one is a lot higher than that of Bhutan...

[Haji]

For example, saying Scandinavia could not be a major power isn't actually accurate. Individually, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were all major world powers at points in history.

Let me rephrase: based on Aurora's mechanics, unless there is some very specific back story (like plague or nuclear war) small nations cannot become major players by themselves due to population size. Even if you start with the assumption that Scandinavia has the same industry/research as China (which is not true) they will loose simply due to having barely 3% as large a population, which translates to less factories that could be used and less wealth generated. The way around it is to create a large coalition centered around your chosen state, but it runs into two problems.

First, let's take EU for example. IIRC the 'Big Four' (UK, France, Germany and Italy) if working together have de facto the power of veto in any vote. This translates to the de facto control of EU policy. However is anyone ever saying "The (insert name here) led power block based on most of the Europe?" or are they saying (and thinking) "European Union"? Because that's how most power blocks in Aurora games work, creators make power blocks, which may or may not have a clear leader, and just use them. Because of this there are very few instances where single nations play pivotal role. And they practically never are a force of their own.

Second, times change. Using British Empire as an example of a small nation being a significant power is no longer as relevant as it used to be, because those were times with incredible technology imbalances and different ways of performing diplomacy. Basically English had everyone at gunpoint - and they have lost most of their territory by now. There is not a single colonial empire left. Not one. Which means unless the setting features a change of politics, it is almost impossible for a single nation, especially small one, to dominate any organization enough to become a power of it's own. Simple manning requirements (as used in Aurora) will mean that foreigners will have to play an enormous role.

All of this means that in any setting featuring world more or less as currently existing, small nations without enough manpower simply do not have enough significance to become major players on their own. They may become a center of a larger organization, but nowhere near as much as UK was the heart of the British Empire.

Again, please note that I'm talking about politics/economy as relevant to Aurora game play, not reality. On the other hand I cannot think of a single example where a single, small nation can unilaterally draw on manpower and resources of numerous, multi-million population nations. Even trade powers, like Singapore, simply generate money due to their geographic position, but they cannot possibly draw on manpower, military and resources of those they trade with.

Also I seem to remember an interesting quote. It goes more or less like this: "When goods do not cross the boarders, armies do." So if a small nation (like Taiwan made in an example earlier) tried to hoard enormous amounts of TN elements for themselves and use them as a leverage less than wisely someone might decide to "liberate" them. Things like this happen all the time after all.

[Arwyn]

I don't disagree. In the Skandinaviska Unionen I listed in from my previous game, I went back to pre-industrial Europe to look at the larger extend of the states I was looking to pull in as majors. For the SU, I grabbed the biggest extend of Sweden, which was the bulk of the Baltic plus Northern Germany and Poland. That left a large enough population to get what you mentioned, a viable state for Aurora.

Smaller states in Aurora CAN work, but it has to be much higher tech than their competitors. The other component is the NPR government types, as they do make a difference to what the NPR majors do as far as research and the admittedly limited diplomacy actions. Steve's current Jovian campaign is actually a pretty good example.

Is a small state at a disadvantage? Yes. Can it work with a little tinkering? Yes.

Also, as far as the example given on colonial powers, I would actually argue that Aurora is closer to the 19th/20th century colonialist model vs. modern states. Arguably, the British model is very analogous to what happens in Aurora. You take over a large NPR, you will have a long period of time where they are only marginally usable, especially so when you conquer/liberate/uplift a pre-TN NPR.

Now in the case of TN NPR's, its a lot like the 19th century. While major powers are "major" you can have NPR's that would be similar to the former colonies in North and South America. The US, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Columbia were all strong regional powers through the 19th Century. Individually the could not stand as a major threat to a Major Power, but they could stand off those majors powers in their home territories, or make taking them so costly that the Major would back off. This actually happened several times. Similarly, a strong enough NPR can provide a dangerous opponent to a Major in Aurora.

Taking on of these NPRs can be a hugely expensive cost for Aurora players. Both in personal experience and in reviewing the fiction here, you can see how a player or major can take a smaller NPR, or a portion of one, and then stall as they wait for the process of digestion to progress.

Similarly, the process of colonization and expansion took the European powers took centuries to complete. Very often the matter was exactly one of both economic capability, and military manpower.

The British conquered India via slow process of conquest, and co-opting the local governments to supporting the British military against their neighbors in return for British support and/or money rather than straight out conquest. They simply didn't have the force to achieve straight conquest. In fact, there were several smaller independent Indian states all the way up to the 20th century who were nominally independent, but economically and politically constrained by the British.