"Map For NBC's Show Revolution" Topic

In case no one had seen this before:

Source for image:
link

Source for image:
link

NOTE: I hope the map inspires gamers to use other post apocalyptic "reconstruction" campaign scenarios involving several vastly different terrain types.

Dan
PS. I posted this to Zombie as well, since it is basically post apocalyptic.

Of course the Monroe Republic doesn't exist any longer. Not sure about Georgia. Great show, I hope it gets renewed for another season.

We use this map for 2000ad scenarios and some combatzone games too.
link

"Georgia Federation"? That map was obviously produced in or around the ruins of what used to be called Atlanta, because the people in the other ex-states in that area would never agree to that name.

Even if they did agree, I'm sure it would be "Georgia CONfederation," and it might even have "Dixie" in the name somewhere.

I always liked the Crimson Skies map:

In the Crimson Skies map, I'm surprised they didn't call #21 Deseret (link) instead of Utah.

Jim

"Georgia Federation"? That map was obviously produced in or around the ruins of what used to be called Atlanta, because the people in the other ex-states in that area would never agree to that name.

Yeup, us Miss'sip Rednecks don' think much o' dem Gawga crackers!

Jim

It's a place to start. I would expect the country, especially east of the Mississippi, to be much more fragmented (as is the Crimson Skies map).

In contrast, the map in the tv series Jericho consisted of two main nations, one east and one west of the Mississippi River, plus a Republic of Texas:

These nations came about after suitcase nukes were detonated in the following cities:

TMP link

Dan
TMP link
TMP link

I thought the names in Revolution were particularly uninspired. The Crimson Skies map is more interesting, though some of the names are also pretty strange (Hollywood, really??).

-Will

Here's another broken-up United States from Ghost in the Shell:

link

I always thought this map had potential. ;)

-Will

Wminsing, FTW! it turns out that I'm an exiled citizen of the Red Sox nation!

I was a fan of Jericho, and while their post-apocalypse map was a bit simpler than some of the others above, I did like the concept of the country reduced to a few bombed-out warring states. In fact, I just started developing a campaign game based on Jericho's town-vs-town warfare. I'm going much smaller though, and I'm taking a map of my town (Austin) and surrounding areas, and I'm breaking it up into a number of petty warlords and independent communities. Same basic idea, though.

Notice that they all share a Republic of Texas. What does that tell y'all?

And yes, I'm a 6th generation native Texan.

Hummm could it be nobody else wants Texas :D

Firstly, I love Revolution and Jericho. Both are great…

Thing about most US based post apocalyptic scenarios are that despite these evil warlords taking over segments of the US and their willingness to do anything to gain power, they never, ever think of annexing a part of Canada or Mexico.. Why?

Interesting point, surely there is something of value in those countries. That would help in ones recovering or gaining control

Good point Bindon. Why wouldn't Mexico try and seize the southwest? What about the rest of the world? Does Russia still exist? Maybe Russia would be interested in Alaska and Canada, and China attempt to colonize the Pacific coast.

A "Scramble for America" might result in war between foreign powers fought in North America.

Bindon Blood: "Thing about most US based post apocalyptic scenarios are that despite these evil warlords taking over segments of the US and their willingness to do anything to gain power, they never, ever think of annexing a part of Canada or Mexico.. Why?

I suspect that the reason is that they will spend most of their initial time and energy 1) restoring full control and infrastructure to their area, 2) making plans to annex other areas of the former US as part of a greater reunification* plan while, all the while 3) making sure that they themselves are not annexed by leaders of those other areas of the former US. And, if their territory borders Canada or Mexico, 4) they will try to establish amicable relationships there to avoid exposing their backs to an attack.

After that they could consider annexing non-US lands and risk having a war on that front. That, of course doesn't mean that they won't try to make allies from those foreign states, and maybe get mercenaries for their reunification* crusade.

RVandusen, as for why there isn't an international land grab of the US …

There have been scenarios like that. However, it all depends on whether the event is worldwide or not. If they were hit just as bad as the US then their focus will also be on internal matters for a very long time.

Dan
* During the collapse of Roman power in Western Europe, much energy was wasted by regional lords in trying to obtain control over other areas of the former Empire. They seemed to think it was their grand destiny to regain control of the whole, even before they were able to fully restore order in their smaller regional territory.

If you look a little closer to the map from Revolution, seems there was a little land grabbing going on

Due to the ethnic make up of Texas, taking control over a limited area across the Rio Grande makes perfect sense for a Texas Republic, as long as Mexico is just as fragmented as the US.

Before the 70s, the bulk of Mexican immigrants seemed to have been from central Mexico. But most recent Mexican immigrants I know come from areas in northern Mexico anyway from the Mexican states immediately adjacent to Texas (Coahuila, Chihuahua, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas). So, instead of bringing their families up across the river, they might actually welcome the border moving south "a little bit", though it would really almost double the total land in the new Texas Republic.

Beyond such a thin fringe along the southern bank (no further south than Monterrey), I would hold off further annexation of Mexican territory until much, much later.

Dan

I would guess that everywhere would be fragmented, and some few areas would still be in some form of chaos as well like "Badland" zones, and most people would just avoid those areas

In Revolution yes. Global fragmentation would be the norm.

Dan

Hey Don Kyote,

Seems that the Republic of Texas in Revolution has annexed Oklahoma, Louisiana, and most of Arkansas:

Think about it, would OK want to be part of a boring-sounding country called the Plain Nation? Or become part of the "Georgia Republic"? Or would OK find more like-minded folk in Texas?

Dan

C'mon, man. We could have matching passports and everything! And no one would make fun of us if we wore cowboy hats and boots, and ate chili.

Dan

Hummm, something tells me not to even touch that one CC

Lol.

Dan

Okay Back to the target of this, I really wonder how things would be divided down, just who would team up with who, I would guess it would depend on who could give people the best answers to their problems in their local area and then move up from there, basicly what leaders would stand up or come forth at the time of what ever event was to happen.

True, those who have been through such events adapt quicker, and have learn how to work with less.
So you could make a map or such events that effect states and combine those states to those events

Yep, the texans wouldn't have enough change to pay for all of the tolls necessary to take over Oklahoma.

I didn't realize the Monroe Republic was that large. I thought most territories would be small, with the larger states becoming balkanized. Then again, I stopped watching the show after the first season.