Talk:OGF:Sandbox/World War

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for the collaborative development of a project to create a believable historic 20th century global conflict in OGF. As a collaborative project it has been given an 'OGF' namespace. As a project in development, it is currently in sandbox. Once the project has reached a good stage of development it will be moved to a non-OGF regular page.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (CEST)

The page summarises a series of discussions and debates, including the following diary entries:

If you know of any others then add them here.

The main consensus from the debates is that there was a world war in OGF (but just one war) and it took place in the early 20th century between 1930 & 1955. We will try to resolve the remaining questions on this page.


The reasons to have a war in OGF

A historic world war shaped many of the borders and boundaries we see on world maps, particularly in Europe but also in Japan and Asia. The scale of the destruction, especially in WW2, meant that massive restructuring was necessary to many large cities. Although road plans did not usually alter significantly, many cities saw entire suburbs rebuilt, a process which stretched on into the 1970s. Monuments and memorials, as well as cemeteries, are a feature of many maps within the wares where the conflict was intense, as well as in the homelands of those countries which were not occupied, but suffered mass military casualties.

Wiki page


The introduction, without giving any names, sets out the general background behind the war. The general text could read something like:

The X War, also known as the Y War and the Z War was a global war that lasted from 19xx to 19xx, although related conflicts began earlier and were, in some places, resolved later. It involved the vast majority of the world's nations — including all of the great powers — eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the As and the Bs. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than xxx million people from over xx countries. In a state of "total war", the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by mass deaths of civilians and the strategic bombing of industrial and population centres (in which approximately x million were killed) and including, at its close the use of atomic weapons it resulted in an estimated xx million to xx million fatalities. These made the war the deadliest conflict in human history.



A name is not yet decided upon for the war. The best option may be to add suggestions here and vote on them later.

So far we have:

  • The World War
  • The Great War
  • The Long War
  • The x-years War (number to be determined)
  • The Global War
  • The General War
  • 'The War'
  • Thh War of The World
  • The Biggest War
  • The War of Wars
  • The [main belligerent]-[main belligerent] War

(and so on, please add your suggestions)


The causes of a global war would be likely to be linked to the politics, social structures, ideologies and technology of the era. The combination of these provoked two real world global conflicts in the early 20th century. The OGF world is different, but because we have many similarities to the real world, especially in terms of our countries technology, economics and societies, there is likely to have been a similar combination of events that ‘sparked the fuse’.

In the real world, expansionism, imperialism and a network of treaties, some of them secret, lay behind the First World War. However, it would be possible to extend these dates later into the 20th century, or ‘tie over’ the societal structures and technology from that era into the 1930s or even 1940s.. It could be argued that WW2 was a resumption of WW1, so it would be possible to combine these two wars into one, probably longer, possible more spread-out, war. Hence start dates in the late 1930s to early 1940s are most likely. For the war to have included the use of nuclear weapons, an event which played a major role in determining the real world for the next 40 years, and beyond, the earliest end date must be 1945. This date was at the technological limit for the use of atomic weapons, in spite of the effort to produce them being spurred on by WWII.


There were many causes of the 2 real world wars. They were factors in different countries to different extents. A non-exhaustive list might include:

  • Border disputes
  • expansionism
  • politics, both national and global
  • technological development
  • economics
  • social structures, particularly the class system
  • high birth rates and high male:female ratios in the younger part of the population in some countries
  • ideologies
  • Military or industrial rivalry
  • treaties
  • religious differences
  • ethnic supremacy and conflict
  • restore old lands of X country

(and so on, please add suggestions) All these have parallels in OGF. Different countries would have different primary factors which can be used to develop a country's individual history (or, for countries which have developed histories, to serve as background for involvement in a war).

Old discussion (2016)

I think we should start here, with the cause. The hardest challenge will be not to default to some kind of good-bad narrative, oftentimes there is quite an abstruse cause and effect chain from the initial spark to the first actual act of war. I think first we should think of some situation that would create political tension between two or more countries, like some fight about trading issues etc. Then, an internal crisis, be it economical or ideological, could favour the radicalisation of a country's politics, which would then turn against the other nation. From there, the conflict could develop "freely" due to complex military alliances etc. Leowezy (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (CEST)
I think this might be slightly tricky. Any large war is bound to have multiple long term and short term consequences that will be spread across several countries. I think this will require further discussion. It will also tie in with when the war starts, which is also a big question that is yet to be answered. Yuanls (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (GMT)
I agree with a lot of this, but I missed something quite important off that list - I've added it. The main cause of both real World Wars was expansionism. By that I mean one country (or group) wanting trying to impose its will on another. That expansionism was aligned with other factors, in different countries. That the conflicts happened when they happened was due to many other things (most are on the list), but the way they happened was heavily dependent on the military technology at the time. A spark between two countries could certainly be something that set off The War - but we haven't got ideas for sparks yet. Whatever it is, having 'alliances' partly set up before we decide the spark should help us get further. So please carry on filling in the list. Btw soon we can do another diary entry to decide if and how to vote on some of these points--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (CEST)
I hope I'm allowed to jump in here. First, I think the nature of OGF seems less conducive to some of these factors and more in favor of others. Since most of our nations are spread so far apart and with little immediate interaction, it is likely that border disputes and military rivalries would be limited. It's not that they wouldn't exist—I just think there are not that many of them. The space between our nations and the fact that many seemed to have had diplomatic relations back into the 19th century or earlier suggest that trade, resources, economic factors would be a more likely fuse in this world. On the one hand, a nation like mine (Mauretia) is most likely not going to care much about a border dispute between Neo Delta and its neighbors (just as a random example). It's also too far away for the Maureti military to be too directly involved even if there were a treaty of some kind. A dramatic event like the closure of the Mecyna canal would rile up a lot of nations, however. That has the potential to disrupt global trade and topple trade-based economies. Mauretia would absolutely send some of its naval forces to reopen the canal. They were trade-dependent at that time. In retrospect, we often look back at causes of wars as being minor or trivial events in isolation. But, nothing happens in isolation. I could imagine Commonia manipulating the world's coffee markets and causing a series of trade disputes that escalated. That would literally be a war that started over 'a hill of beans' (to use the English idiom) but would be justified in the minds of a lot of nations. Why? Market manipulation and trade disruption could greatly effect already fragile economies. Maybe the world was teetering on the edge of a 'great depression' as was a factor in the lead-up to WW2. This could easily be combined with technological advances, too. Maybe there was something as simple as the advancement of flight that threatened to undermine the sea-based trade. The possibilities are endless, but I think this might be more plausible as a global fuse. Other issues would then be secondary. Østermark might be involved due to a treaty with Wiwaxia or Orinoco but then take its aggression out on Nucia, spreading the war. I just don't see nations like Paxtar or the OIOI caring much about the animosity held on that eastern Ulethan island. Cheers. Alessa (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2016 (CEST)
The reason WWII grew to its size and scale was because alliance systems were so global. In reality, it was merely a series of smaller conflicts that merged into a single war. Events such as the Sino-Japanese War and the Soviet border conflicts have their origins in the early 1930s. China, Japan and the USA had little to do with Poland or anything that happened in Europe in 1939. It was only because of agreements such as the Tripartite Pact that the wars were linked up and the conflict became global. The wars in Russia, France, North Africa and the Pacific never linked up. East and West (Except for the USSR and the USA) were bound purely by diplomatic relations. So perhaps it could be said that there was a similar situation here as well. A series of 'smaller' wars and conflicts escalated through treaties and pacts into a global conflict. |Yuanls (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (CEST)
I don't know if I can be a part of this, but just in case, I added my country to the Pot (if I am not, then I will remove it). On the point made by @Yuanls, I believe that another reason that the world wars (WWII in particular) became so global is also that the extent of the European colonial powers. During the Sino-Japanese and Soviet annexations of smaller countries which took place even before World War II, the wars did not go into chaos, and I want to attribute it to the countries' lack of overseas colonies. Even in the beginning years of the war, during the Phoney War, Germany had already invaded Poland, the Sudetenland, Austria, and the rest of Czechoslovakia without much consequence except Britain dropping propaganda Leaflets over German cities which did nothing except "to supply the continent's requirements of toilet paper for the five long years of war" -Arthur Harris, Marshal of the RAF. The war only really became global in 1940 when France surrendered (I would say) because her colonies were split amongst themselves whether to surrender too or to rebel. Then came war between the colonies where Free France invaded other French colonies.
Noting that, the same thing (or something similar) can be applied in the OGF world. In fact, resources can be a major player. We could see smaller, heavily industrialised nations invading their neighbors to grow food for themselves, or for precious, precious oil.

Recent discussions (2019)

I'd like to express my point of view to this issue. What do we have in reality?

1. Main reason for WWI was major confict of global colonial empires. German and Italian nation states became united much later than British, French and Spanish, whereas German economy was equal and eventually took over British and became #1 in Europe. So, WWI was the confict of colonial powers.

2. As for WWII, the main rivals were ideologies — national-socialism in Germany, stalinist socialism in UsSR, capitalism in USA (however, there were also imperialsts like Japan and UK). Every country aimed to control as much land as possible and to establish its own world order and establish its own "ideal future".

3. Some countries have complete or near to that history sections on wiki, and some of them have communist period in their lifetime. Namely: Drabantia, Mallyore, my own country Podolia, Glaster (name other countries if you can think of, please). The main reason of this leftist and communist uprising may bethe general instability in the world (maybe the Great Depression?!). The leading left-wing superpower should be Suria, because it remains socialist up to these days in our timeline (am I right?), so probably it was such in 1940s-1950s also.

Assuming that and the fact that we have already decided there will be only one global war, I propose these variants:

1.The Global War can be held socialist and communist countries (possible name — Union of nations) against colonial superpowers such as Ingerland, Castellan, Forrintia (although now it is lost country) so on.

Possible reason — the support of guerrilla wars in the colonies, such as Drull; or for the control of Commonian anachy.

Probable outcome — the defeat and massive desintegration of colonial powers due to revolutions and uprisings. However, socialist states, being exhausted by the War, can no longer sponsor newborn independent countries and many of them remained in the sphere of inflence of their former sovereigns.

2. The Global War can be similar to WWI in real world (Europe = West Uletha), but 40-50 years later. Regardless of who'll be the winner, colonial powers weakened by the war cannot maintain authority in their colonies and decolonization begin.

What do you think about this? --Thermo nuclear (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (CEST)

In a parallel universe I thought of: Triggered by a wave of political changes throughout the world, the socialists took control of western Uletha, Orano, northern Tarephia and Ereva to form a socialist superpower, with a breakaway by some communists in Central Uletha who allied with a theocratic government in Eastern Uletha. Eastern Uletha then got in a war against Commonia backed by the Federal States. Commonia and the Federal States merged to form another fascist superstate and conquered the southern half of the western continents including Kartumia. The world war rapidly escalated into an atomic war that wiped out almost half of the world population, and it ends in an uneasy truce, only to be broken soon after. By the 50s and 60s, much of the world has fallen victim to perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, historical negationism, and propaganda...Honestly why do we need a world war? Will it really affect the map in some way, or is it just an inner carving of roleplay?--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
To be honest World War in OGF world seems impossible but series of small conflicts should be common. For our discussion I would like to present how Lenin seen the reasons for First World War (because of simplicity of his thoughts which is worthy in this discussion). After Congress of Vienna the established world order was based upon balance of power and sharing the new lands between several empires as colonies. But in the days just before the war all the world was discovered and divided so this was the first reason why World War broke out. He also divides world into effective colonial empires (stable politically and economically like Great Britain, France, partially Russia), rump empires (decreasing economically and in territorial extent, unstable economically like Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, partially Russia), pretenders (growing economies, omitted in Vienna so they mostly don't have colonies, Germany, Italy, Japan, USA) semi-independent states (Iran, China, small "indpedent" countries of Europe) and colonies. Using this theory we can see that both world wars were caused by the pretenders who used rump empires and semi-independent states, mostly as a source of manpower (side note: it is was worth to notice that in WW2 Soviet Union was among the pretenders and USA was effective empire). Other motives which were behind WW2 (like desire for revenge in Germany) were rather a path to power for new, warmongering political class, not real reasons why the war started. Even today the trade war between China and USA is de facto the fight between pretender and old but effective empire. In OGF I don't see anything like that. Countries are small and can't form continous blocks, the world was less colonized and all colonies are far from each other so there was nothing like Vienna order (because single countries never dominated the world that much). The only thing which seems possible here in OGF are wars for independence between colony and ruling empire or wars between neighbouring countries. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 17:41, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
It is not impossible. In fact, it is illogical that we continue to stick our collective fingers in our ears and hum loudly whenever the subject of a world-redefining war like WWI or WWII comes up. The impact of a major global conflict or conflicts on the shape of society is profound, and to suggest that any one of us can map a realistic country without at least knowing if and when these conflicts took place is ridiculous. We have multi-page threads about what to name a damn river, for heaven's sake. We can't put together a community poll to finally put some years to the Great War(s)? The oceans and continents were named by community vote. We should do the same for this, because it's equally (if not more) important to the quality of the overall map. --Louis walker (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
No one can say that conflicts (and country history in general) are unimportant for mapping. But in the contrary we don't need a global conflict to be visible on the map. I believe that war in Syria which is local conlict will be visible in the country for a long time. But the shape of the society despite being interesting aspect of general worldbuilding for OGF is not necesary because it don't change the map or changes it very slightly. For this general information about sytem of governing (monarchy/republic, uni- or bicameral parliament) and society (dominant ideology and religion). But OK. We can assume that WW can happen in OGF (but I will still say that the probability is low because of what I wrote above), for example because of ideological differences or intensification of local conlicts (like, for example if Suria goes to war with Antharia, it is natural for Demirhan Empire that they ally with Suria to conquer Demirhan Antharia... or do it independently at the same time). But the real question here is how organize the Wiki Page to correspond with the map. OGF world is changing fast and we don't need another page which will become orphaned when one person will drop OGf. Also we should choose the method of presentation of countries in the article which allows the world map changes, for example we should avoid graphic maps (like this map of conflict sides), only multimaps should be present. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 18:31, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
"But the shape of the society despite being interesting aspect of general worldbuilding for OGF is not necesary because it don't change the map or changes it very slightly." I had to read this several times to make sure I wasn't missing something; it's either poorly worded or shockingly ignorant. I don't even know how to respond to that... --Louis walker (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
Maybe I should explain it a bit more. The more details about the society we imagine the less visible they are on the map. Basic information shapes the country - amenities, presence of certain public features and even style of city grids. But at certain level there is more story to tell than actual mapping. Let me share an example. During the partitions of Poland peasants lived under three legal systems. Peasants in Germany and Austria lived free so they could operate their own fields at free market while in Russia for more than sixty years after partitions the feudal system was present. That meant the peasants had to divide their land between their children and couldn't sell it. In consequence the fields in the west are much bigger than in the east of the country and it is still visible despite agrarian reform in the twenties of previous century (when the big farms of former magnates were divided into smaller areas) and years of communism (when some of the fields were nationalized and united). But if Poland was located in OGF this whole story would be redundant as overwikification (of course very little) because the only fact we need to know is that the fields in the west are bigger than in the east. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 20:22, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
First of all, that's a great example that disproves your absurd statement that the shape of a society doesn't really impact the map. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Even if you don't believe that fine-grained detail doesn't matter (despite the fact that it clearly makes for much more interesting mapping), there's a huge difference between localized agricultural patterns and a world war. Udi did a great job of listing key ways in which such a conflict would impact the map (see the top of this sandbox page). Beyond that, timing has a significant impact on the placement of all sorts of facilities. For instance, in only the latest frustrating instance where my attempts to plan and map have been stymied by the lack of agreement on the years of the Great War, I am planning to have a mid-century world expo in Seniqe; 1952 makes the most sense as the host year, as it marks the 50th anniversary of the ZIA's founding—but if there was a global war on at the time, it is likely that the expo plans would have been on hold until later in the 1950s, after the war. This will have an impact on the types of pavilions, the layout of the park, even potentially its site within the city. If it were to turn out that the war stretched into the 1970s, for instance, the expo's current site in the city would not make sense, as sprawl should have filled in the area long before.
I'll put it this way: it's virtually impossible to get a comprehensive, finalized outline of who fought with whom over what—but as a group, we need to at least establish the when. 1935-1950? 1940-1949? 1932-1940? 1948-1955? let's just pick a time period and stick with it, and people can fill in the blanks for their own countries as they develop. --Louis walker (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
Personally I'm in favor of earlier periods, because we agreed that there should be only one Great War. For example 1932-1940 looks good but it could also happen in twenties. Later periods would probably involve some sort of atomic war (especially this long one ending in 1950) and there is no country looking like nuclear desert. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 21:33, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
In the interest of verisimilitude doesn't it make sense for an era-defining technology like nuclear weapons to have made their debut around the same time in the OGF world as in ours? Japan is not a nuclear desert, but the US detonated two nuclear devices there at the end of WWII; it would make sense for the Great War to end with a demonstration of new nuclear power, as well. Could we skip the atomic era in OGF? I guess, maybe...but it would require broad discussion and agreement and I don't think people here are capable of that level of coordination. Best to keep big, world-altering things vaguely aligned with the timing from the real-world to avoid major discrepancies... --Louis walker (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
Japan is not nuclear desert because the first constructed and very weak nuclear bombs were dropped here. But in 1950 USA had 299 (and 2422 in 1955) nuclear warheads (link to table in Polish Wikipedia here. For unknown reason English Wikipedia doesn't have one). It is enough to make a nuclear desert of a mid-sized country. From scientific perspective important for atomic energy was year 1933 when the nuclear chain reaction hypothesis was invented. Because small changes in timeline are not against verisimilitude we can have nuclear bombings even in early thirties and in this case it's possible to have beginning of war in twenties, for example period 1928-1935 looks ok (with hypothesis invented in 1925 or 1926). --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 22:54, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
Just to clarify: after stating above that it was "impossible" to come to any agreement on a world war in OGF, you are now advocating for shifting one of the most important events in human history back by 10-15 years? That's practically a whole generation. Also there is no reason to think that a country would drop 299 nukes just to end a war. Even in OGF the first bombs dropped would likely have been tactical, used to make a point, not to annihilate an entire country. --Louis walker (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2019 (CEST)
I don't move these events back more than you do it forward, I just have different point of view. And in fact we are not in power to decide which time period it should be, only the whole community can do that, probably via voting. I'm nearly sure that rhe time period most close to WW2 would be chosen. Also I find the idea of Great War in OGF impossible because of organizational purposes but if the community wants world war I decided to present my ideas. They may be bad, may be good, w can talk about them but we can't make a decicion, only community can.
It isn't feasible to shift the world war back a generation @rustem pasha since based on consensus we already decided it will be around the mid-30s to 50s. I will say it isn't really feasible to have a war on a global scale, since our world (in terms of landmass) is much bigger than Earth. I rather as of now, we just make a series of regional wars at this period, then see how it can come together as a larger world war. (after all, the world war isn't really that global) Superpowers at the time, of course, may play a large part.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
Lol, what? No it isn't. Our world is roughly the same size as the OGF world. Where did you get that from? A war on a global scale is feasible, just like it was in the real world. Look, either we're going to collectively invent a new world history, or we're going to have to agree to stick at least somewhat closely to the broad strokes of real-world history. You can't have it both ways. I vote for the latter, because the idea of the former with this group is beyond exhausting. We don't all need to agree on theaters of war and movements of troops. We just need a timeframe so that people can plan their countries' histories accordingly, whatever side they want to be on, or if they want to remain neutral. --Louis walker (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
Ah I see. I think it is because we have too many territories, plus we seem to absorb Antarctica and spliced into different territories, I just feel we have much larger landmass than the real world because it seems there's a limit on what RW culture we can impose in OGF. It may just be my illusion. Ok we are going out of point.
I have a few ideas for the various theatres in the world war, such as maritime disputes and wars in the Asperic and Ardentic (something like the war of the Pacific), waves of independence wars in Tarephia and western Archanta, possible Mecyna crisis between the Commonwealth of Central Archanta and Federal States (something like the Suez crisis), power struggles in west Uletha itself plus the rise of socialism as well. For the western continents, if the Bai Empire gets the green light, the empire (or rather the fascist regime at the time) may pull a Nazi Germany to conquer Orano and Ereva.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
I don't think the time frame is enough. We need to make an assumption who fights with whom (in the next step), not in terms of particular countries but rather power blocks. However there is still question who led these power blocks. ZK suggests presence of some sort of Nazi Germany, probably as a leader of one. But I see a problem here. We need a country which will take that role. Obvoius solution is too use a German-speaking country to do that but what if owners of these countries don't want it? Maybe the Nazis should be based in one of the blue or purple territories? Which one? --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 07:47, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
It will be difficult for peoplw take up the role of 'being the leader' of a bloc or something. But we are going along this road, then the world war could have been a mix of proxies and direct wars. As for Fascist Bai, if it were to be fulfilled in Tarephia, I thought of having a Lyc crisis which led to Bai agression and expansionism. While that idea of it in the Lyc is dead, I am still keeping that in mind when creating the oriental empire for a potential regional war in Orano.
Possible leaders of the blocs could have been the Federal States, Pretany (despite having being undermined due to the recent breakaway from Antigo), Suria and probably Latina. For the sake of blue nations, I rather keep them neutral for now, especially Commonia, Mecyna and Gobrassanya. There should be power or former powers for each continent first.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
So Rustem, you've gone from arguing that agreement on a Great War is impossible to arguing that we have to come up with a fully fleshed out, detailed narrative? That's a 180. Also, it's completely irrelevant to the map. I don't need to know any of the things that you described to know how to map, but I do need to know what period would have seen a slowdown in development and a rise in militaristic development (large-scale factories, seaport facilities, etc). Pick a lane. --Louis walker (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
How it affects map? Ruins of concentration camps (if someone really wants to go hardcore), old fortified borders, battlefields, monuments (those who loose don't have monuments or name them differently). Also I'm against Great War idea but if community really wants it, I think it should be well-prepared and as detailed as possible knowing the changing nature of OGF. That's why idea of using blue and collaborative territories in this concept, they are one of the few long lasting things here. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 14:26, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
Speaking of blue nations, I am now in talks with other Archantan nations regarding a potential Suez crisis in Mecyna. Not sure if this will come to light, but hopefully once some sort of conensus can be reached, then we can proceed.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
You could argue that it would make sense for all the Blue countries to have been on the same side in the Great War and have lost, with one of the post-war conditions being a massive decentralization of power in those countries to ensure they’d never become powerful enough to become a global threat again. Which would help explain why mapping in our Blue countries is as disjointed as it is today. -TheMayor (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
At risk of continuing a discussion that isn't likely to be resolvable and is probably a distraction from more important things, I'd say the following: in relation to mapping, the exact causes of any war are less relevant than when it happened and who the participants were. This is simply because the map will reflect the outcomes and the decisions made by the dominant (probably the winning) power/s. Historical map elements will reflect wartime developments and these will be focused on particular aspects (defenses, factories, airfields etc). In peacetime others become more prominent (housing, the arts etc). Overlaid on this, the names on the map are also very likely to reflect victorious leaders, generals, war heroes etc. - and perhaps strategists and ideologues. If post-war development is extensive there are likely to be a lot of new names on the map following a war. But in countries that lost the emphasis may be on other things - other people (even foreign ones) may be highlighted. Overall, my advice would be to forget any global war and instead collaborate by working with a country 'from the other side' in some more nearby (or ultimately regional) conflict. Discussions about incorporating blue countries into some sort of 'collaborative war project' aren't likely to be fruitful. Projects by a single mapper who maps two opposed countries or a civil conflict are also interesting and relevant to the map. In terms of timings, I'd suggest that conflicts in the OGFW should be around the same time as in the RW. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
I think the best we can do now is just make a few regional wars around the same date (30s to 50s) and see how it comes together eventually. I agree with your points Udi.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
Have fun, warplayers. I know the last (o.k., was a little boy of 5 years) and the things, following at the end 1945. So it is clear, that Latina and Zylanda will be neutral at such event (and will sell all needed goods to everybody). And why always a german speaking country shall be the bad boy? Give a lot of other agressive people. --Histor (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2019 (CEST)
I agree with Histor, can we try and avoid having (Germans) or (Russians) as the baddie bads as much as possible?--Turnsole80 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2019 (CEST)

Further refining my thoughts on the war (this was inadvertly similar to what Thermo Nuclear proposed but I decided to expand the idea further):

  • I thought that more likely there will be a series of proxy wars alongside conventional warfare. Proxy wars can be via civil wars in former colonies or just wars between countries. Conventional war can be through regional expansionism as well.
  • It is quite likely the conflicts may have come about due to a rise of nationalism as a possible result of an emerging leftist movement, whether communist, socialist or any other forms, leading to a series of independence wars.
  • The war can seem to be in two phases (though in fact it may not be). The first can be the wave of rebellions by colonies (independence wars), after which the colonial powers were humiliated due to their defeat. However, in the second, the colonial powers have to tackle the leftist threat and try to influence its former colonies in a series of proxy wars (like civil wars and regional wars).

Thoughts? This war can be longer in the 30s and 50s, though of course the timeline can vary by region.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2019 (CEST) For example: War flow chart events.jpg


Possible fronts and flashpoints:


One of the hardest parts of determining a fictional world war is to decide which countries were on which side. There have been consistent requests that any World War in OGF should not mirror real world First and Second World Wars. Because many country's histories, including their historic ideology, has not been outlined in detail, it is not possible to attribute most countries on this basis in any case.

The lists below give some provisional indications of possible alliances. They are taken from semi-randomised allocation of countries to one of two pots. The third pot is for countries that are not major powers and have’ declared neutrality’.

These pots are not the final placing of countries,’’ just suggestions’’. All users are welcome to move their country from one pot to another (or to add countries that are not already in a pot). There is also the possibility that countries switched sides during the conflict, so the country being in one pot does not necessarily mean that it stayed in that pot for the duration of the war.

I suggest that users who are happy with their country being in the pot that has been suggested add their flag to the country name.

Table 1: Countries participating in war

A map of sides from the list on the left. Commonia is depicted as unaligned due to the north-south divide being undecided.




Table 2: Neutral countries


Local, more detailed event outlines

Sigal Sea Front

preliminary map

The conflicts involving Flag of Bloregia.jpg Bloregia, Lost country.png Altavia and Lost country.png Eäßnordælånd were initially outlined in the Triple Country sandbox. A summary is added here for the purpose of involving other users, especially mappers of Flsg.jpg Pretany, Tircambry-national-flag.png Tircambry and Nordurland Flag.png Norðurland, in the discussion: Suggestion:

  • Altavia and Tircambry share an interest to protect the mining in Grandvale and to secure transports to the harbours in Anders Lang. Altavia also wants to reconquer Gaffelbyen. So they attack Eäßnordælånd.
  • Pretany conquers parts of Bloregia (orange on the map), but later the two countries ally with Eäßnordælånd (EDIT: and Norðurland) to attack the Tircambrian block in Altavia.
  • After ceasefire, there are three negotiating blocks: (1) Altavia & Tircambry, (2) Pretany & Eäßnordælånd, (3) Bloregia & Nodðurland. Complex negosiations result in border changes as shown on the map. --LemonKing (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (CEST)



  1. Rightist nationalist democracy, civil war against communism 1945-1947.
  2. In this years they built an armed navy (not very strong) for the Aspheric Ocean Control for the Oriental Liberan Republic and its allies like Japan, but on a smaller scale.
  3. Neutral before 1946, then at war with Glastian communists until 1947
  4. This is assuming that the 'Commonia (S & W)' refers to the area where the Babelic-speaking culture is dominant. If the case is that Babelic is more dominant in the Commonian Confederation, please move Calliesanyo back to Pot 1 (NB I think CC is Ingerish-speaking component so you're ok - Udi)
  5. Including Egani Flag 1.png Niscavo
  6. While Freedemia would have attempted to avoid actually joining the fighting itself unless directly attacked, it would have shown strong non-military support for Pot 2 due to it being the side of many nearby ally nations like Paroy, Beaumontan, Latina, and Vodeo. Any actual military action would likely happen late in the war.
  7. I'm thinking of having a short-lived breakaway republic in East Tircambry, which would be on the other side from Tircambry in the War. Who is on which side will depend on what ideological and other factors we decide on.
  8. Wesmandy will be on the same side as Tircambry; i.e. the opposite side to the breakaway Tircambran Republic
  9. Drabantia did not participate in the war, however it had been struck by an economical crisis. As a result of the crisis, the government slid to the far-left.
  10. Major refugee rescuer.
  11. Neutrality almost assured after 1870, but it would likely still be biased in its views of the conflict. The official government policy would be to retain open connections with friendly states (possibly Ataraxia, Mergany, Raiden, or Wiwaxia) but be strict in its non-belligerence. (See Portugal in World War II)
  12. Political and economic problems are prevalent in Rogolnika during the 1940's, so the ruling Conservative Party decided not to join the war to prevent further division.