unclevlad

And actually......

If you really insist on Japan pulling out the war...at least to the point of occupying the West Coast...

Read Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle.  This is the premise of the book...that Germany and Japan won.  It only progresses forward to when it was written (early 60s).  If we try to push forward all the way to today.......lots and lots of monitoring.  The net's there but HIGHLY restricted.

1 minute ago, assault said:

But the US didn't have the monkey bomb.

 

The survivors haven't managed to build their own.

Not plausible at all.  Look at geography, look at the population distribution at the time.  Fine, they decimate California;  so what?  There was nothing of strategic importance in California.  There's not even that many people...only about 5% of the total US population.  So what gets achieved?  The US is BLOODY FREAKING HUGE as a country.  And at this time, concentrated on the East Coast.  

And superweapons of this level, is just not genre either.  We're talking Golden Age, so 300, and built with straightforward powers.  Plus, this requires there's no US heroes to respond.

2 minutes ago, assault said:

A lot depends on what the Japanese superweapons did to the US.

 

In other words, design for effect applies here just like it does while building characters.

But Japan is *massively* more vulnerable to this than the US.  Remember something:  the land area of Japan is smaller than the state of California alone.

23 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Dramatic statement. Really? Than the IOC? FIFA? Wow.

In their way, yes.  More fundamentally wedded to the money.  The bribery is not even under the table...it's the TV contracts, the mega sponsorships.  It's hundreds of institutions.  It's the hypocrisy of coaches paid millions while the athletes get dog spit.  The major protection of athletes that make money...think Jameis Winston.  The degree to which a cover-up is allowed.  The fundamental pose of the "student athlete"...which is true quite often but is also a total farce quite often.  (Think all the one and dones in college basketball.  Did Ben Simmons attend 10 classes in his spring semester?)

Yes, more corrupt.  

If you postulate supers, then you have to start talking their powers, and when they start coming on-scene.  

That said, I think it's largely absurd to think that Japan with supers, can still conquer the US, much less do that while keeping East Asia under their thumb.

On 8/24/2018 at 3:36 PM, archer said:

 

On the other hand, a day one team of new players should very well be able to face Dr. Destroyer's Robo-Annihilator and have to find a way to stop it without being able to do any BODY to it. "Unstoppable" adamantium/prometheum automatons are seen in comics all the time. Force the characters to trap, entangle, drop a building on it, or otherwise find some way to restrain it.

 

That's not Takes No Body.  That's 100 rDef, double hardened.  Takes No Body says it would literally ignore being at ground zero of a nuclear blast;  it is infinite defense.  Well, OK, stunned into the next millenium, but physically intact.

The variance from year to year in football means no one's a terribly strong favorite, so a .500 team from last year, under the right circumstances, isn't gonna be that long a shot.  That said, Browns at 60-1 is absurd.  Now, basketball is less variable, to be sure, but the odds to win the conference in the NBA are here:

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-championship-odds-2019-warriors-lakers-celtics-76ers-rockets-sixers-lebron-james-finals/192xpsbbybgvu1fy8v6uht9ovu

And yeah, almost half the teams in the league are 100-1 or worse...to win the conference.  

These days, heck...I know the first 4 regular season games count, but they're still *bad* football.  It's the real preseason.  A 4-0 start has collapsed to a 6-10 season on more than one occasion, or at least it's felt that way.  8-8 and miss the playoffs, for sure.  Yeah, I'll watch, but like a lot of others, the amount's dropped considerably over the last several years.  Some of it is the terrible game offerings, especially on Thursday and Monday.  Some of it is simple oversaturation;  there's too many games on.

And while Meyer can't be blamed for anything outside football, OSU has another ongoing scandal, IIRC.

With all the recent issues, too, there's no way a head coach can claim "I did nothing wrong."  The head coach is responsible.  PERIOD.  

And the apology, 2 days after the toxic waste dump fire of a press conference?  Talked to your lawyers and agent, eh, Urban?  They whupped your backside to do this?

Yeah, well, I believe I'll boycott every OSU telecast possible...in every sport.  Because the institution's officers utterly failed, and showed their avarice and moral turpitude.  

The NCAA is more corrupt, in its way, than the IOC and FIFA combined.  

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm gonna give up suggesting ideas to debate on here, every time it turns into "here's why that's stupid and you should shut up because its new and that frightens us, precious"

What's being said is, as you want to use it, this is not an in-game power;  it's dramatic license.  As such there is no real point value assignable.  

Quote

 What if I have to use the Flash in order to use the Blast (1d6 Flash per 3d6 Blast), but I can use the Flash independently?  The Blast is limited.  The least limitation possible is -1/4, so that saves 12 points on the Blast.  The obvious question is "what about 12d6 Blast, 1d6 Flash - pay 5 for Flash and save 12 for Blast - MUNCHKIN!!!"  But I could have Limited the blast to only be usable at full power, and not bought the Flash at all.  That's a -1/4 limitation.  Or I could have made them Unified Powers for a -1/4 limitation on each, and kept full flexibility to use them independently or in tandem.

 

Not quite accurate, IMO.

A condition that does not fundamentally restrict the ability to use a power does not count as a limitation for that purpose;  it's stricty SFX.  How does the Flash in this example restrict your use of the Blast?  Under what circumstances?

The purpose of Jointly Linked is for a case such as Invisibility to Sight, No Fringe, with a Usable Simultaneously that, let's say, nets out at +1/2.  No Reduced END.  That's 30 points;  adders are killers when you want to slap advantages on.  The other power is 4 DCs physical and energy damage negation.  That's 40, so it's the greater.  When we make them jointly linked, the damage negation now becomes burdened with a 3 per phase END cost...which also means it loses Persistent implicitly.  THAT is now a limitation on the DN so you get the -1/2 on the Invis, and the -1/4 on the DN.  

Scenario 2:  Same DN.  Invis, No Fringe, Usable Simultaneously that nets to +1/4 only.  Now add 1/2 END.  Same 30 points, but the END cost is now 1 rather than 3.  Yes, the DN is still fundamentally losing Persistent, but the overall impact is much lower.  Yes, this is still likely worth giving the DN the -1/4 Linked, but it's borderline.

Next, take the Invis to 0 END, even if not persistent.  IMO you haven't imposed enough of a limitation to justify giving the DN the extra -1/4.  Even tho it's losing Persistent, that's not going to kick in often enough for me to allow the limitation.  That said, you can argue that the DN is still getting Nonpersistent, and that should be enough.  GM's call.

Last, of course, if you kill the Usable Simultaneously but go to 0 END, persistent...still only 35 points, still the lesser power...but there's absolutely no restriction imposed on the DN by the Invis.  Therefore, there is no cost break on the DN.

I think I would very rarely allow 2 attack powers to take Jointly Linked.  Won't say never, but you need a good argument.  

I don't think Japan would push a lot further west in China.  Again, it's a matter of how much territory they can keep controlled, and the cost in resources to do it.

That said, yes.  One thing we're implicitly arguing for is that the Japanese arrogance and denigration of all non-Japanese would *have* to change.  They can't maintain that much territory without collaborators, and their policies were too bloody for that to really happen.

If the US becomes involved in Europe but NOT Asia...for example, let's say Japan and the US negociate an agreement where Japan walks away from the alliance with Germany in November 1941, and thus never attacks Pearl Harbor, in return for the US not supplying China with support materiel.  First point:  US still reindustrializes.  A major consequence of WW II was the modernization of the US industrial base, and of course, none of it ever got attacked as happened in much of Europe.  We still have the discovery of the Holocaust and the perceived need for the Jewish homeland, ergo the motivation to create Israel.  This can proceed largely unchanged, I would think.  If the timeline in Europe doesn't change too drastically, we still probably have the Marshall Plan.

But first change...with Japan consolidating eastern China and the rivers, and SE Asia, they become a nastier threat, I'd say, to Russia.  There's no one to respond to them.  Australia and India probably still gain their independence, and I still think India's a bit too far away and too large to tackle...so I can see a much stronger alliance between India, Australia, and the US, with the focus on checking Japan.  America doesn't get involved in Korea or Viet Nam, but I'm assuming a Russia that's even more paranoid about invasion than ours was, and a serious force committed to monitor Japan just in case.  

Oh...no Mao, or at least Mao is just a secondary rebel leader.  Communism in China is a non-issue, and probably slows down the movement elsewhere.  Stalinist Communism is not a movement to copy.  The US isn't burned out on war, so Castro gets squished.

It's a more tense atmosphere in the 50's.  Less actual action but more tension.  I can see the American Empire building...Cuba for sure after red-misting that damn Commie stooge.  Ongoing tension with Japan suggests that the American civil rights movement has less traction.  Indeed, it's not that hard to see the current climate of fear-mongering developing in the 60's.  There's 2 threats...Commies and Nips.  Can't trust them slant-eyes, no matter we may be trading with em again.  

But I can't project much past the 60's at the most, because I think this is too unstable.  SOMETHING big is going to happen, and it'll shape the direction further down the line.  

Using APG, too, you can have Regen per *segment* for 20 points per.

I agree that the toon motif doesn't mean "never takes any BODY."  That's not a character power, regardless of the power level.  But if you absolutely insist, something like

75% resistant Damage Reduction, only vs. BODY (-1, cuz you're still gonna get stunned into the next administration), PD and ED

3 BODY per segment Regen, with resurrect and limbs

That's 145.  So on this path, I'd call it 150 points.  

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The deconstruction on Shrinking (and DI in the other thread) is based on the assumption all limitations are at RAW value.  Taking the comments in order.

 

Linked - 6e1 p 383 states that:

 

In some cases a character may want to have a lesser power that he must use whenever he uses the greater power. In other words the powers are jointly Linked, because neither can be used without the other (as compared to the usual arrangement, where the character can use the greater power without activating the lesser power). Typically this doesn’t affect the value of Linked; it’s a -0 addition to the Limitation’s value. But if the lesser power costs a lot of END or otherwise inconveniences the character significantly, the GM might grant an additional ¼ more Limitation. Alternately, the GM may give the lesser power the standard -½ Linked value, and let the greater power take a -¼ Linked.

 

IMO, a greater power which can only be used with the lesser power is more limited than a greater power which can be used without the lesser power.  Whether that is sufficiently limiting to merit -1/4 is a good question, but if both powers cost END, it seems like there is a drawback in some form.

 

Actually, they are also Unified Powers, aren't they?  That is another -1/4, regardless of how we price Linked.  Maybe that puts us back to Linked on the smaller power, and Unified Power on both. -1/2  combined for the greater power is clearly excessive.

 

Side Effect is -1/4 for being minor, doubled for happening every time the power is used (so -1/2) and not modified for being on a Constant power (which is a further +1/4, but as I read it, only where the power need an activation roll risking the side effect every phase - which seems unfair when, with no activation, there is no hope of avoiding the side effect).  The question is whether the Side Effect is limiting enough.  A Minor side effect is "a  minor or trivial effect such as a penalty to PER rolls or a skill roll".  6 meters of KB resistance costs 6 points.  That's nearly half of the 12 point cost of +2 Stealth and +2 DCV, but since the extra KB does not increase damage, it's a bit of a tradeoff.  I note also that the added knockback adds after the roll, so if our 1 level Shrunk hero is hit by a 2d6 swat, for 7 STUN, 2 Bod and -9 on the 2d6 roll, he flies back 2 BOD - 9 rolled = 0, +6 meters.  The roll does not offset the added KB.  I'd call that at least Trivial - any hit from an attack that does KB means the character is moved and likely prone.

 

Moving from Inobvious to Obvious is a -1/4 limitation.  Should it be?  I don't know, but that is a separate discussion.  If we cannot constrain the variables, we can't evaluate any single change.

 

I don't see any level of Contortionist allowing a character to wriggle through the holes in a chain link fence.

The jointly linked is written horrendously, but taking it as written, the greater power can get a limitation if the lesser power creates an unusual burden...not their language but my interpretation.  Generally it's END,-related but if the lesser power is Obvious and the greater is Invisible, then it might be a reasonable ruling to give the greater the price break.  However, this is NOT the default, and simply costing END is not in itself adequate IMO.  

Side effect is a terrible limitation because it's so vague.  I know what the rule says, but it's what it DOESN'T say.  Is -1 PER an acceptable side effect?  Is that really worth, say, a 1/4 Limitation on a 50 point power?  And trying to use this in a deconstruction approach is...tricky.  

On contortionist:  

Lastly, Contortionist allows a character to contort his body so he can fit into tiny spaces which he’s normally too big for. This is ideal for escaping from collapsed mine shafts, hiding in small cupboards, and so forth.

If you can get through a collapsed mine tunnel, you can get through a chain link fence.   

Your Linked is illegal by 6E1 383.  

When Linking two powers, a character should only take Linked for the power that costs fewer Active Points. If both the greater power and lesser power have the same Active Point cost, take Linked for the one with the lowest Real Point cost before Linked is applied. If their Real Point costs are also the same, apply Linked to only one of them, chosen by the player (hereafter considered the “lesser power”).

So you can't take the limitations on both.  It won't matter that much, I'll grant but it's there.  In either case, these are not linked but Unified...you can't have one without the other, so they're a flat -1/4 on each.  As I say, it's not going to change the costing that much

Second point is whether what you're calling a 'side effect' is justified here, at the value you're giving it.  That's very difficult to read, but IMO, you're overvaluing it.  And is Obvious *really* worth another 1/4 here?  Should you get both the Obvious reduction and the Side Effect reduction at full values?

I'm not saying that Quasi Solid isn't overpriced;  I am saying this deconstruction on shrinking is problematic.  

I'm leaning to drop the cost on the Quasi Solid because the very high base cost is an inherent problem when it comes time to consider any advantages;  the impact is more severe than is normally the case.  And I'm gonna drop the extra KB.  

AHHH...how about this.  Rather than the weird size thing...+1 to Contortionist per level.  That gets across the point that the form is more fluid, and lets it work more simply, in more situations.  That's much nicer.

On that basis, the simple deconstruction is 8 per level...12 active for the damage negation and +1 roll, -1/2 for Costs END.  I darn sure wouldn't allow Linked or Unified to apply to the damage negation...MAYBE on the skill level but even that feels very cheesy.  Obvious...ok.  I can see that...but.  Defense powers are Inobvious with a qualifier that they may become obvious through circumstance...so taking the limitation should be done with some caution.  And the Contortionist aspect wouldn't really be Obvious despite the power classification...it's Inobvious that can become Obvious.

So ok...8 on the high side, possibly 7.  The DI discussion is making me lean to 8 because even the Costs END isn't always worth the full 1/2.

Thinking about the original question...

If we skip the mass increase, and I'm gonna talk 2 levels of DI because the rounding works a bit more cleanly.  If we define a custom "DI with no mass increase" we have a compound power

+10 STR

+2 PD/ED

-4 KB

All Unified...because DI is a single power for this purpose.  OK, works to 14 points.  The problem with considering applying Costs END is that the cost reduction of the limitation is lowered because there's another limitation already present.  Without the Unified that's implicitly there, Costs END would drop the cost from 18 to 13.  WIth it, Costs END  would drop the cost from 14 to 10.  To be sure, it's small but we're at very low point totals too.  And as I noted...if you go the other way and consider DI raised to 0 END, persistent...it's 14 points.

Some of the problem is when you roll up the limitations like Unified and hide them...you're lowering the AP.  That might be the core problem;  the real cost of DI might well be 4 per level, but the active cost is much higher.  In VPPs and multis, this can clearly be hugely important.  And if I can manage to buy the DI so I can either blow off the END cost altogether, OR buy it for just 1/2 END, I'll grant I've got increased risk but I'm getting a major price break in the process, in terms of both active and real costs.

Pricing the mass increase as a standard, RAW side effect fails because of the arbitrary lower bound of 15 Active, if that's also considered the threshold for what a "minor or trivial effect" should equate to.  And RAW, you're going to stay with the 15 point threshold for a very long time...WELL into the point where eepjr's point about mass becomes legitimate unless you execute some form of mitigation, be it flight or shrinking.  Thinking of it this way:  if we treat Mass Increase as a form of side effect, then a power bought as a mitigator must have the same AP as you're saving with the 'side effect.'  And yes, if you're buying advantages on the DI, that's raising the effective AP reduction.  So...2 levels of DI, 0 END persistent, would require a power with at least 7 Active.  (Yes, I'm being a bit punitive and making you pay the full value of a 1/4 limit on the 11 base points per level.)  Your 1" of Flight doesn't cut it.  The "only to avoid crushing things" does not qualify as a Limitation in this context, as that's what the point is in the first place...to cancel the side effect.  You can't have it do both.

If you're gonna buy DI as a secondary aspect, then you get it cheap, for sure.  But it's often the case that you *don't* need it 0 END or persistent...if you keep it at 3 levels, for example, you can blow off any Reduced End if you like.  Drop it to recover?  You're recovering so you're not attacking.  The actual loss is 3 defense.  That's not that bad.  If you're stunned, again you're not attacking and your defense is only down a bit for a phase.  If you're knocked out...ok, there's more reason to think it'll hurt just because the lower defense will last longer.  But it's at a major price break which can be invested in a different, cheaper persistent defense.  If you're gonna buy DI as a primary aspect of your character, then the costing probably works out decently, so raising it might make it a bit expensive. 

BUT at that point, hell...buy 2 levels DI to 0 END, persistent, THEN buy the components you want (maybe you don't want the KB resistance, say. or you want to go rDef) and tack on a Linked.  Even if you can only wrangle the -1/4 version, since the DI will be active most of the time in combat, you're getting a usable point break and increased customization.

So....yes.  DI is too cheap.

2 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

YMMV, obviously. I would generally not let you buy the Flight in my game to offset the density. Maybe if it cost a lot of END to run it or something like that. Otherwise I would have you buy the stats you want without the density increase if you wanted to get rid of that extra mass.

 

Most of the time when it got bought in my games it was by villains who really could care less about property damage.

 

- E

Not meaningful.  I'm not criticizing you, but you're showing an active desire to punish people from buying DI, it reads to me, and you're making the mass increase SEVERELY punitive.  So of course no one's gonna buy it;  your interpretations make the power almost completely unplayable.  

Hugh:  I think the basis for calling RAW's price on DI might be flawed, but a similar argument might also show that 5's a bit much.   So which is it?   Hero is so wide open that there are inevitable loopholes even without getting into oddball Limited Powers such as the "only to not crush things" on the Flight, and how you attempt to deconstruct a costing on a compound power like this is a factor in balanced cost estimation.  If things are just a touch off?  No big deal.  There's WAY larger issues.   So if you wanted to charge me 5 instead of 4...fine.

Honestly, I think even the mass issue tends to be strongly downplayed because what is said is so vague.  OK, it can cause problems.  At what point, in what circumstances?  OK, walking out on an icy lake is a Very Bad Idea.  Springboard diving means springboard splintering.  But where are the lines?  And how much detail is now required of the GM?  The front stairs of the building I worked in were long, freestanding stone steps rather than a monolithic construct.  What was their load limit?  I have no clue.  So how much hassle am I creating for myself if I try to inject the realism I'm not competent to inject?

I also wonder if DI isn't used much because 

a)  people don't like that kind of brick that much?

b)  people think even more basic...like, sitting down in a chair when you're 900 pounds is risky.  Or leaning against a table.  People may create the expectation of a problem very quickly.

c)  bad associations?  The classic DI examples are probably Hulk and Thing...neither overly positive.

I think you're pushing realism much further than most.    Mind, I get what you're saying.  I remember quite well, the day when a good-sized CNC milling machine was delivered into the enclosed back lot...with very low grade asphalt paving.  Not only are we talking a heavy machine, but shipped in a steel i-beam cage.  MORE weight.  They tried to move it with a large forklift with LONG front forks.  Yes, well, this put most of the weight onto the front tires, naturally, and drove them a good 18-24" into the concrete.

It was a sight, let me tell you.   

I doubt many GMs or players give any thought to the pressure aspect;  they never had it brought up, or quite possibly just forgot it.  I get your point, but how many people have a clue as to the load bearing capacity of a residence vs. an office building, of a ground floor vs. an upper floor?  

How often do people think of the pressure argument, tho?  Also, isn't it true that floors will be designed to distribute the load?  We'd built a significant presentation room...several projectors, several screens, multiple computers to run everything, all switchable.  Lots of cabling.  Ergo:  raised floor.  With those ugly liftable tiles set into steel framing, so pressure on a tile is distributed into the entire framework.  I think the most common issue is the sheer mass.  

Consider the oldie from HS physics.  Just how much pressure does a woman wearing high heels exert?  You're into the thousands because the heel area is so small...much higher than your examples.  So it's not just pressure.

Sometimes you can't use just advantages and limitations because they're not reciprocal.

Start with the baseline, which is the characteristics.  To go from DI's benefits to pure STR and defense, you need to add 0 END, Persistent.  +3/4.  So 4 points of DI now becomes 7 points of purchased characteristics.  Trying to evaluate STR, Costs END, gives different numbers because it has a different cost, and because the math is not entirely reciprocal.  

So what about the cost of the KB resistance and the increased mass?  My opinion, they're just saying they cancel.  What is a proper price for the KB resistance in the DI?  You're running seriously afoul of the granularity issues because of the small numbers involved.  Hugh's 6 levels computation is coming out at 4.333 points per DI level....well, we can't do fractional points.  

So, yeah, it might be a slight break, but not much.

To the point about how much it's used.....I have a terrible habit of looking for ways to deny weaknesses, and not leave an avenue to exploit.  In this context, that means DI and Shrinking.  Shrinking doesn't cost movement, it doesn't lower Str.  Arguably it doesn't have to be bought Persistent...but even if you do, you can buy it Linked to the DI...or better still, make them a Unified Power and get 1/4 off both.  Something like 4 levels DI, 1 level Shrinking.  Unified, both Persistent.  30 points for +20 STR, +4 PD/ED, +2 DCV, -2 to opps' PER, -2m KB, for 2x mass.  And if you want to go cheaper...it's quite workable to have them be Always On.  Now you're down to 22.  OK, maybe you can't buy Secret ID...so go Public ID instead.  You're getting a heckuva lot of nice stuff for cheap that can easily be rolled into any melee-focused combatant.

Having even one of the carriers in port for whatever reason, is probably enough by itself to consider alternate timelines, and to consider that the US gets heavily involved in Europe well before the Pacific push.  

And yeah...I don't remember how much was known when, about Japanese massacres, but there would've been details to potentially ignite the fervor of even a recalcitrant USA, say with no Pearl Harbor.  The Bataan Death March is *still* memorialized every year.

It's rather hard to see Japan ever coming out of things intact.  Not impossible, but trying to control that much ground, with no collaborative support to speak of....?  Almost inconceivable.  Another path here is the US never does all that much, but much of East Asia turns into a massive guerilla action, with a truly horrific death count.  MUCH higher than Hitler or Stalin were responsible for.

Long was populist, but yeah, he was doing stuff in Louisiana that would've been problematic in a presidential run.  And, remember, he was going against a sitting president for the nomination.

It's also not clear Roosevelt would've lost in 1936.  And if we assume Landon won...Long would have had to run as a 3rd party candidate, and that means Fat Chance...what I'm reading about him is a mixed bag on intervention/engagement vs. isolation.

It is interesting to read the articles about the 1936 and 1940 elections.  Landon was apparently a terrible campaigner, and he got his butt whupped.  WORSE than Mondale vs. Reagan, or McGovern vs. Nixon, in terms of the electoral college.  In 1940, Wilkie apparently didn't have a message beyond "don't break 2 terms" and had the taint of Big Business and how it brought about the Depression.  

At either point, if a stronger, more isolationist Republican could have won......that probably changes everything.

34 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Perhaps the bigger one - the PR experts contributed greatly to winning the war.  Yamamoto hoped a serious loss in Pearl Harbour would break US morale so they would pull back to isolationist thinking.  Had "Remember Pearl Harbour" come to mean "remember what we lost - let the Japanese have what they want - it is half a world away and not worth the cost to the US of a war" instead of "They started this - we will finish it", he would have won that morale victory.  Instead, that gamble failed, as the attack was leveraged to strengthen, rather than weaken, US resolve to fight the war.  Those are the same PR guys who made Stalin into "Uncle Joe", and maintained the secret of FDR's medical history - virtually no one knew he was crippled  by polio.

 

So imagine that the PR went the other way, the US people did  not back the war, but opposed it, so politically, the US was forced into signing a truce (basically "you leave us alone and we will stay out of the war").  The Japanese get what they want, and the US reverts to isolationism, not growing into the world power it did historically.  So today, perhaps we have a much more military Japan which conquered much of Asia-Pacific, a much reduced US presence on the world stage, perhaps the Yen rather than the $US the major world currency, a very different Europe dominated by Germany, with no intervening Communist China or USSR.

 

But we also have almost 75 years of post-war history.  What if Japanese youth in the '60s respond to their warrior culture similarly to the US youth culture of the '60s?  Maybe the Beatles go to Japan instead of Ed Sullivan in 1964.  You could take an alternate history in pretty much any direction you want, but the question starts with "how did WW II end in this alternate history?"

That kind of capitulation is rare, I think.  The French didn't fold from lack of resolve in 1940, but from awful planning and overconfidence.  Britain never cracked despite the Blitz.  9/11.  My understanding is that Bush expected the Iranians to welcome the US as they overthrew Hussein...forget it.  Not gonna happen.

9/11 was.........I was literally in emotional shock for 3 or 4 days.  Seeing the 2nd tower collapse...LIVE...was indescribable, even more, I think, than seeing the video of the 2nd plane impacting because I believe I didn't see that live.  And seeing it live, KNOWING IT'S REAL!!!  Now, ok, video is POWERFUL.  We're learning that, albeit slowly.  Still...remember that in 1940, military service was still a point of considerable pride.  We haven't had Korea or Viet Nam, which were messes.  "Only" 2200 killed, but it darn sure looked and sounded worse.  But the ship losses......attacking the battleships was sound enough given that the carriers weren't there, but....the Arizona, the Oklahoma, the West Virginia, and the California were all sunk.  Note the significance of the names.  

If the goal for our exercise is to envision a world where Japan holds a great deal more sway, then the best trigger is that Hitler triggers another Lusitania incident, so the US goes east with fervor, but there's no such emotional investment to cross the Pacific.  Whether the US would still have done so, when Japan goes after the Philippines...that might be a matter of timing, but the Philippines could've waited.  (The attack there started the day after Pearl Harbor.)  But if the US is building up the Atlantic fleet.......it feels plausible that Japan could've taken over the Philippines  while the US was stuck in the bloody, bloody Italian effort.  Maybe.  

But all of this talks about successful initial actions.  Long-term occupation is much, much harder...ask the Soviets about Afghanistan.  The Germans had big problems with the French resistance.  Actually holding China and the Philippines would not be easy *at all* and was probably a major overrreach, as Hitler's move on Russia was.  Japan may have succeeded in holding them long-term by co-opting the locals, if that was possible;  the Germans did as well as they did in France because of that.  I don't think that was possible given the Japanese mindset, the race relations in play, or the geographic dispersion.

But, ok, say it was working for at least a while.  As Hugh noted, we get wildly hypothetical very quickly, but it's definitely true that we have to establish the preliminaries...not just how the war ends, but how we go from the tensions of summer 1941 (in the Pacific) to the fall of Germany.  Or if Hitler had half a brain, a Germany that controlled most of central Europe...much of France, the Low Countries, Austria, and the Balkans.  That world is probably not stable, tho.

The opposite of a tautology is doublespeak.

Anyone else read Marc Stiegler's Brain Trust books?  Politically not as much of a reach as one might fear.  

Trump sees the world through blinders, and thinks no one can do anything to retaliate.  What scares me more, tho, is that his approval ratings remain so high.  And THIS is why the whole alt-right aspect is scary.  Perhaps they don't have the public support...but they have the climate planted, watered, weeded, and maintained by Trump working in their favor to grow behind the scenes, like any other noxious and toxic weed.