Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Problems in AU's
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7244		 Page 3 of 3
Author:  apdsmith [ August 22nd, 2016, 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
@Hood,

To be honest, I've generally liked your work, however, I'm generally not one to say anything unless I have something to say (any examination of my posting history will probably reveal a series of frankly nitpicky comments, mainly because I'm one of life's pedants. C'est la vie...)

@Krakatoa
For what it's worth, I've rarely seen Golly or Colo come down on someone offering critique - only the once, in fact, and an apology was issued fairly promptly afterwards. I do think that sometimes the differing styles of discourse can be a bit intimidating for our newer members, but, honestly, I don't know what to do to help with that other than to advise them to stick with and bear in mind that what sounds like withering criticism in English may not be intended as such in the speaker's native language.

Regards commenting on stuff (or rather not), it can be a little disconcerting, but after much reflection, I've realised that I have faith in some members of this forum (hi Thiel! :)) to comment if I do put down something stupid, (Thiel because he does seem to have become my unofficial mentor for the NSWE AU, he's kept some of my stupider ideas, such as the "double Hindenburg" airship-airship refuelling, off the drawing board, where it belongs) and try to pass along whatever knowledge I've gained to the newer members.

Ad
Author:  heuhen [ August 23rd, 2016, 7:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
When it come to Thiel: At least someone in scandinavia know how to use the brain... I use my hart and dick, so things can go a bit... Wierd!
Author:  apdsmith [ August 23rd, 2016, 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Oh, absolutely - the stuff I've put out has either become better or better explained as a result of Thiel's comments. I guess that's what mentoring, officially or not, is about, isn't it?
Author:  Thiel [ August 23rd, 2016, 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Thanks, I try my best :)
Author:  bezobrazov [ August 23rd, 2016, 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Quote:
impossible, unplausible (sic!), faulty and poorly thougth compared to reality.
. No, Golly, on this point I beg to differ! They need not be, absolutely not. Without going into detail and referencing to and reviewing particular AUs, I believe there are those, where the tweak (or twist) of historical incidences and/or coincidences have been kept at a fairly moderate (realistic) level to make them fully believable if circumstances would have aligned themselves in such way. Which those AUs are, I leave to you, the reader to explore and judge. - But the fact, that a simple, minor tweak, omission, coincidence, you name it! could have changed history, is what makes Alternate History so intriguing, and in their best iterations, also fun to dabble with.

But impossible and implausible? No, not by far! Faulty and poorly thought out? In some cases, yes, absolutely, but in many cases, no.
Author:  Krakatoa [ August 23rd, 2016, 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Well said Ari.

While there may be hundreds of real life classes of ships they give rise to thousands of AU/PD versions, and allow people to expand beyond the real into the nearly real.
Author:  Gollevainen [ August 24th, 2016, 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Don't get me wrong guys, the point which I tried to make was that if you start critically analyze AU scenarios, everyone will in the end prove out to be impossible if compared to real life. That does not mean that they can't be good or well toughed or even realistic and plausible in their own context. My point was that instead of trying to nitpick on those factors we should instead just focus on enjoying of making and reading of them. I fully agree that the whole idea of alternative history and what-if is extremely fun and intriguing, hell that's why I've been doing it for as long as I can remember.
Author:  bezobrazov [ August 25th, 2016, 2:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
Quote:
if you start critically analyze AU scenarios, everyone will in the end prove out to be impossible if compared to real life.
Again, Golly, you're far off the point, I'm afraid. I have been engaged with AUs since the 1990s in a "manual" form (i.e. no computer simulations etc), and was a longstanding member of Panhistoria when it flourished in the early 2000s. (I went dormant around 2005, due to other, more important commitments). I reiterate that well-thought-out AUs, CAN be possible and plausible - even compared to real life.
Think of this: what if the 12" shell from VADM Togo's flagship Mikasa had not hit the Russian fleet-flagship Tsesarevich's bridge during the Battle of the Yellow sea, Aug, 10, 1904, killing VADM Vitgeft, his chief-of-staff, RADM Matushevsky and, most importantly for the subsequent events, the ship's helmsman. I'm not going into detail here about what this hit resulted in, since there's ample literature and webpages that can be accessed about that. Point is this: an event that was slowly, but, what appeared, inevitably unfolding: the Russian squadron actually pressing the Japanese battle squadron away, opening the path towards Vladivostok, was ultimately changed by that freak Japanese "lucky" shot.
One, seemingly small event or incident, that had enormous consequences! Such are the tweaks I'm referring to.
I'm not particularly fond of adding new landmasses hither and tither, I just don't believe in that, but there are a few well considered AUs here, that make use of existing conditions, but, again, tweaking history's progression, just so much as to enable their AU. Certainly not impossible if compared to real life; however you analyse it.
But, it goes without saying, that such successful AUs behind them have a solid foundation of research. - And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the BIG secret, to enable the possibilities inherent in an AU scenario.
Author:  Colosseum [ August 25th, 2016, 5:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
This is an egregiously stupid thread.
Author:  Gollevainen [ August 25th, 2016, 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problems in AU's
bezobrazov wrote:
Quote:
if you start critically analyze AU scenarios, everyone will in the end prove out to be impossible if compared to real life.
Again, Golly, you're far off the point, I'm afraid. I have been engaged with AUs since the 1990s in a "manual" form (i.e. no computer simulations etc), and was a longstanding member of Panhistoria when it flourished in the early 2000s. (I went dormant around 2005, due to other, more important commitments). I reiterate that well-thought-out AUs, CAN be possible and plausible - even compared to real life.
Think of this: what if the 12" shell from VADM Togo's flagship Mikasa had not hit the Russian fleet-flagship Tsesarevich's bridge during the Battle of the Yellow sea, Aug, 10, 1904, killing VADM Vitgeft, his chief-of-staff, RADM Matushevsky and, most importantly for the subsequent events, the ship's helmsman. I'm not going into detail here about what this hit resulted in, since there's ample literature and webpages that can be accessed about that. Point is this: an event that was slowly, but, what appeared, inevitably unfolding: the Russian squadron actually pressing the Japanese battle squadron away, opening the path towards Vladivostok, was ultimately changed by that freak Japanese "lucky" shot.
One, seemingly small event or incident, that had enormous consequences! Such are the tweaks I'm referring to.
I'm not particularly fond of adding new landmasses hither and tither, I just don't believe in that, but there are a few well considered AUs here, that make use of existing conditions, but, again, tweaking history's progression, just so much as to enable their AU. Certainly not impossible if compared to real life; however you analyse it.
But, it goes without saying, that such successful AUs behind them have a solid foundation of research. - And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the BIG secret, to enable the possibilities inherent in an AU scenario.
But it didn't. Thats my point. AUs are by from definition an 'alternative' to what happened or what is. AUs could happen but when you dig the critical knife deep enough even to the most well-executed scenario or concept it always ended up being just that, it could, it would but it didn't. Thats what I've tried to say here. But don't get me wrong here, I'm not diminishing AUs or the ideas of what-if thinking, like I said I've been doing it as long as I remember. And like with anything else there can be good AUs and badly made AUs but IMO the judging on what is good AU shouldn't be the fact if its plausible or not but of how well it is executed.
Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/