The real problem we are having is between the camps of 'starting size.'
You have people that want to be the 'big boys' to start off, and the people that want to have to work to it.

Valles, your idea looks gigantic to those that want to start off with moderate nations- and honestly, since it makes up a large portion of Japan's intended conquests in their attempt to capture the Pacific... well, the word mega-superpower comes to mind. With little more than the Home Islands and Korea, Japan became a world power- throw in 75% of the Co-Prosparity Sphere as planned, and you're talking a nation with Rohan or France kind of potential.

DF wanting a 'Mexican Empire' that eats up all of old Mexico and most/all the Rocky Mountain/High Plains territory is another one that screams 'too big.' Add in what's left of Hawai'i and you are starting to get people's attention.

Of course, ya'll don't think anything about the size of the claims... because you expect the rest of us to have giant nations as well. So, there is no 'lack of balance' in your plan. But most of us don't want monsters- we want nations that require some 'growing' to make them big.

Valles and DF, could you imagine your nations not having so large a 'core?'
What would you want if the average start size of a nation was under 20 BP?

I, too, think some kind of 'point buy' is a good idea if implemented right.
The question is, how exactly do we value things in a totally fictional world?

I wouldn't mind if everyone had the same (or roughly) equal starting conditions - except if he/she wants less.

Why would a Mexican Empire be too big? Yeah it's big in terms of land area but so is Canada. There really isn't much in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and most of California. Like right now I think NS is 2nd in terms of land area after Russia.

Quote...Why would a Mexican Empire be too big?...

For a war with Inca Empire... :D  :D  :D


Jef

I think specific talk of nations is kind of premature.  One needs to settle on a map and a POD to really understand what the world would look like on the starting date.  A 50 meter sea level increase is going to profoundly affect the course of human development and history to the point that ATL political divisions might be unrecognizable compared to OTL.

For example, if much of historical China is under water, something has to have happened with to the millions of people that would've lived there in OTL.  Did they huddle closer on the remaining territory?  Did they all migrate to higher ground that would historically belong to somebody else?  There might not be a "Korea" or "Mongolia" as we know it because it's been swamped by Chinese.

So we're settled on the 50m sea level increase?

Me and Carth are againist this, after speaking in PM land. We can deal with 10-15, but no more.

Rock, most of us are thinking as much in terms of 'cultures' as 'nations' right now.
Besides, even if we DO pick a totally fictional word, we're going to anchor what we want as a nation in the real world and what we know. There's only so much 'alien' that we can think before we overstretch our imaginations and fall back on the familiar.

And I don't like the 50m increase, but I can deal with it.

50m , sounds a lot, but in 1885 it will give better anchorages in the Fjords of the Norge lands.

Also, with that sea-level increase, the overall temperature should be a tad higher.

Meaning more hurricanes, Typhoons and classic storms all over.

Dannemora... here I come.

When is this going to happen? There's no point speculating if this will happen 5 real years away...

Don't worry, if it's up to me, the Nverse III ain't dying yet.

I'm merely using the 50m as an example, as it seems to come up a fair bit.  I have no idea what the final decision is actually going to be.

Carth:  Yep, some of y'all are doing that.  I gave some thought to the Iroquois Confederacy thing (though more from a Mikmaq perspective) myself.  But I'm suggesting specific territorial claims be held off for now.

Tex has a good point - this is kind of a "Crap or get off the pot" thing for me.  There's little sense in having these conversations if it isn't going to happen for a long time.  And if it is going to happen soon, then we might as well wrap this one up.

Ahoj!
I like a 50m increase better than 100m.
Borys

To me, having worked on some maps, ~50m makes most sense to me, if we alter the real world map at all. Truthfully, I see it as a reasonable compromise between those who don't want to alter the OTL map, and those who want an entirely new map. It also at least makes some sense within a potential PoD scenario.