Forum:Federal States/History Framework

Forums → Federal States → Federal States/History Framework

As some of you know, I've been working on a "headcanon" of FSA (and to an extent, our part of Astrasia) history in a personal sandbox, and I think it's ready for presentation and discussion. I'm interested in what other people think of the larger framework, and I welcome any alternative ideas to consider as well. --TheMayor (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating, and definitely a great start to the potential discussion. I really do like the east–west dichotomy on economic and political-power grounds as something that can create a parallel outcome to the north–south real-world scenario. One thing I suggest including is the conflict escalating to some type of canonical armed engagement, even if not a full-blown civil war. Some type of skirmishing in area from FS-71 to FS-31 (generically speaking) isn't an implausibility by regional partisans. The only potential "flaw" I see is who canal states might align with. If the railroad is effectively replacing them, then an alliance with the west is more likely. Given the generally unremarkable terrain between the eastern mountains and Alormen, I just can't see why rail wouldn't reach places like the eastern lakes really quickly. If a canal can get through the southern part of the mountains, rail definitely can. The bigger obstacle to rail is likely that there are only a few passes in the eastern mountains. I don't know that the regional geography there is worked out enough to really show how the east was hemmed in. — Alessa _(talk) 23:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would assume that the Canal corridor would generally be aligned with the Lakes, since they historically would've been focused on Lakes-Southeast commerce. The railroads to the Alormen River I also don't see as a major friction point since they'd benefit just about all the regions as the network builds out; the contention would come from the preferred corridor to link up with the Asperic Coast, since that initiative would require some more significant engineering and capital costs to implement.

I'm also open to adding more armed conflicts to the history, although something like that I think would be best handled through regional discussions to make sure the various battlefields/fronts (or skirmish sites, at least) are logically coordinated. --TheMayor (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I have built the Clamash Purchase into the history of Clamash (there is even a Purchase County) and furthermore, the shape of Clamash supports the rail-based history. It will of course take some coordination with Deodeca as that country continues to develop. In regards to armed conflicts, I think it would be good to add some, especially as more forts are added to the national parks system. --Glauber (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)