Medieval 2: Total War for Independence

[Askthepizzaguy]

CAMPAIGN RULES

The new objective is to eliminate all factions by a certain turn/date and reduce the size of your own empire to one province, while holding no more than X number of provinces. The goal being to promote religious freedom, regional autonomy, eliminate dictatorship/monarchy/aristocratic governments, and end all wars.

I want the rebels, independents, and heretics to win the game. No more Pope, no more forced conversions, no more exterminations, sackings, or long term occupations of non-native lands. No Mongols, no Timurids, no factions remaining, no royalty of any kind.

All provinces will be autonomous states with their own laws and freedoms. I will bring about the liberation of the world!

Game: Lands to Conquer, or Vanilla (any versions) M2TW

Rules:

1. No killing of Heretics.

2. No recruiting of Priests/Imams.

3. No usage of Assassins for assassination missions. Sabotage of buildings is ok. Except churches.

4. No crusades or jihads.

5. No sacking, pillaging, or exterminating. You are here to free people, not slay them or steal from them.

6. No killing of prisoners. Remember, many are forced to fight for tyrants. They are not your enemy. Tyranny itself is the enemy.

7. Destroy Mongols, Timurids, and all other factions, except the Papal States since they cannot be destroyed.

8. Reduce the size of your empire to one province by the end of the game.

9. No more than 10 provinces at a given time with a SINGLE military unit garrisoned. This means you MUST attempt to let the eleventh province rebel by removing all troops.

10. You must destroy all nations by a certain date. *to be determined by my first play through to ensure realism*

11. If a province does not wish to rebel, then they are voluntarily part of your nation. However, you may never garrison it or raise taxes.

12. You must lower taxes to minimum after your tenth province is taken.

13. Your 'nation' throughout most of the game will be ten provinces at most. All others are independent colonies which are allied with you but provide no military assistance and can leave at any time.

14. You must help bring about religious freedom by encouraging heresy, but not necessarily killing priests. That is also forbidden. Religious freedom means exactly that.

15. You must eventually allow your own nation to gain independence by eliminating military and taxes from all ten provinces, excepting basic militia in your capital for defense, in order to meet victory conditions.

16. No state religion means no building of churches. You may allow existing churches to continue, but you cannot build them.

17. Since the Papal States cannot be eliminated, and killing the Pope violates religious freedom, you may allow Rome to remain the Papal State, as long as the Pope does not invade other lands. If he does, you must reclaim it for the rebels. No Papal empire.

18. You may not modify the game, use codes, or otherwise act unsportsmanlike towards the AI, you know what I mean. Play fairly or don't play. Use your discretion as to what constitutes unfair play.

19. In order to make it even more challenging, you do not have until time expires to meet these victory conditions. As stated before, a certain turn or year is the deadline. A good deadline would be 20 turns after the Timurids arrive. Unless of course I cannot meet such a deadline myself.

HINT: you might want to migrate your nation towards the Timurid/Mongol area to provide a stable base to fight them off by the victory deadline.

The toughest part of this challenge is fielding enough liberator troops to defy the Mongols without an empire of your own, after having liberated the entire world. Money and troops will be scarce.

HINT: Pick a faction which starts in a good strategic position.

20. Meet these special victory conditions by the deadline, save the screenshot, and post it here, along with a screenshot of the faction info screen which shows turn number, regions held, battles won/lost, etc. If playing victory conditions by a certain date, you do not have to eliminate the Aztecs.

21. This post will be updated when I meet victory conditions to give a definite realistic target date. I trust you will abide by the rules....

22. Finally, be sure to post which version of what game. No mods besides Lands to Conquer.

:knight:

After playing the ruthless murdering blitzkrieg god, I have now decided to become the champion of the people. I hereby renounce my dastardly ways.

:angel:

....for now.

:devil:

__________________
Easy rules:

You have until the time limit expires. No deadlines. But, you MUST kill the Aztecs as well.

[Barbarian]

Oh, nice plan. But it seems that it will take more time than till the arrival of timurids, to make this real.
So, the main task is to make all map into rebel lands, isn't it? However, it will be required to set taxes to very high for a short time, to make the province rebel.

I am not sure that I agree with all points, but I like the main idea, and I might try it.

I also like to set rules for myself, when playing total war games, but usually they are some minor ones like "never use mercenaries". Or, for example, I release all my prisoners in kingdoms Britannia campaign - fight your enemy, but respect him, and be honorable.
In Rome: Total war, playing as Greeks, I took only settlements, which were owned by Greece historically, like Athens, and then stopped expanding (why should I take lands, which are not mine?) and only fought defensive battles.

All of that makes the game more challenging and interesting.


18. You may not modify the game, use codes, or otherwise act unsportsmanlike towards the AI, you know what I mean. Play fairly or don't play. Use your discretion as to what constitutes unfair play.

that's a good statement:2thumbsup:

[phonicsmonkey]

good luck pizzaguy, in your quest to create Medieval 2: Total Anarchy

:beam:

[Daveybaby]

Dont take this the wrong way, but youre insane. :inquisitive:

In a good way, obviously. :grin:

[ReiseReise]

What about capturing rebel provinces? You didn't mention it (maybe because it was too obvious to you). They are already liberated and should therefore be off limits.

11. If a province does not wish to rebel, then they are voluntarily part of your nation. However, you may never garrison it or raise taxes.

Just to clarify: i am required to remove garrison and raise taxes to max to encourage a rebellion, but if the province still won't rebel, I cannot use that to my advantage by raising taxes. Did I get that correct? What if one of the local murderous tyrants is trying to capture the city and massacre the freedom-loving masses, must I leave the innocent undefended?

14. You must help bring about religious freedom by encouraging heresy, but not necessarily killing priests. That is also forbidden. Religious freedom means exactly that.

I disagree with this point. Priests are agents of tyranny, their only purpose to bolster the hegemony of their evil masters by brainwashing the masses who have already chosen their preferred method of worship. The masses are to be given religious freedom, their tyrannical masters are not to be given freedom to impose their belief system upon others.

Along the same vein:
4. No crusades or jihads.

Understood, but should I stand idly by while others set out half way across the world to impose their religion upon unwilling innocents? Perhaps (non-excommunicated) Catholic factions should be required to make a whole-hearted effort to take the Crusade target first (using a non-crusading army) in order to end the Crusade, and likewise for Muslim factions and Jihads. This may be difficult but it should be attempted. If taking the target is not feasable, every effort should be made to hinder the movement of the marauding Crusaders/Mujahedin when they pass through your lands.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What about capturing rebel provinces? You didn't mention it (maybe because it was too obvious to you). They are already liberated and should therefore be off limits.

11. If a province does not wish to rebel, then they are voluntarily part of your nation. However, you may never garrison it or raise taxes.

Just to clarify: i am required to remove garrison and raise taxes to max to encourage a rebellion, but if the province still won't rebel, I cannot use that to my advantage by raising taxes. Did I get that correct? What if one of the local murderous tyrants is trying to capture the city and massacre the freedom-loving masses, must I leave the innocent undefended?

14. You must help bring about religious freedom by encouraging heresy, but not necessarily killing priests. That is also forbidden. Religious freedom means exactly that.

I disagree with this point. Priests are agents of tyranny, their only purpose to bolster the hegemony of their evil masters by brainwashing the masses who have already chosen their preferred method of worship. The masses are to be given religious freedom, their tyrannical masters are not to be given freedom to impose their belief system upon others.

Along the same vein:
4. No crusades or jihads.

Understood, but should I stand idly by while others set out half way across the world to impose their religion upon unwilling innocents? Perhaps (non-excommunicated) Catholic factions should be required to make a whole-hearted effort to take the Crusade target first (using a non-crusading army) in order to end the Crusade, and likewise for Muslim factions and Jihads. This may be difficult but it should be attempted. If taking the target is not feasable, every effort should be made to hinder the movement of the marauding Crusaders/Mujahedin when they pass through your lands.

After taking your tenth province, you must lower taxes to minimum in all provinces. if provinces do not rebel with no garrison, then you are not supposed to be the evil conqueror by raising taxes and destroying public order buildings. That's for occupiers, not liberators.

Consider each province that does not rebel with zero troops to be a voluntary ally in your liberation campaign. After all, you have no military presence in their homeland. They were instructed when you took the town that they were now free of being the slaves of any faction. If they should choose to thank you with a mere pittance of taxes (lowest possible) then consider it a thank you.

Eventually, with no garrison or taxes, the province will grow and grow more restless, and then declare its independence.

As to the point about not killing priests: The philosophical reasons are my own. See spoiler for details.

It is true that I personally do not believe in the message they spread. I am a Deist, meaning a non-affiliated believer in a kind of god. I have no church or holy book and consider 'revealed' religions to be the fiction of man. However, due to my belief that morality and righteousness is hard coded into the universe by a universal objective standard of logic, reason, and justice, one cannot simply kill everyone one disagrees with.

However, a people oppressed by a tyrant king forced to labor and even kill in his name, those are a people enslaved who wish to be free.

Incidentally I dont believe in offensive warfare either, but this is just a game and I am taking dramatic liscence.

This is why the liberators of the world cannot simply crucify all the priests. It turns one into the enforcer of atheism, much like an Inquisition, which is precisely the sort of crime that the fundamentalists commit and is the very reason I oppose religious hegemony.

That said, they are free to speak their faith and spread it, but I will not help or hinder their progress. People are free to choose for themselves. Hence, freedom of religion. Logic and science happen to be the main component of my religion, and I encourage people to voluntarily reject superstitions. But I am not the master of the universe nor do I have all the answers, therefore enforcing MY viewpoint at the point of a sword would be equally ridiculous and immoral.

I consider Scientology, for example, to be the finest example of a brainwashing, ruthlessly cynical, dangerously corrupt cult. However, that is my OPINION and I cannot force it on others.

No offense meant to practicing Scientologists themselves. It is the message I consider invalid, not the people who spread it.

No crusades of jihads means we do not believe in anything remotely resembling a Holy Land. All lands are equally holy to the native peoples of that land.

No land should be conquered by invaders, but you cannot stop that from happening in this game, it is impossible. But yes, if you see a crusading army attacking a land that was not theirs to begin with (in other words, the only valid crusade is a defensive crusade... Cordoba for example should rightfully be retaken by the Catholics, but by that point in history, Jerusalem had been Muslim for generations and is no longer a Catholic state, therefore it would be like Great Britain retaking India simply because it once owned it... stupid).

If you see an offensive crusade or jihad against a neutral party, you could make an effort to stop the invaders if possible, or liberate that territory before they conquer it. Thus, causing a war with your nation for attacking your protectorate states. Be liberators and defenders if possible. Or let it rebel and let the rebels fight for their own homelands, and assist them if possible (a better idea).

_________________________

The rules for the war for independence are in the original post. What precedes was my philosophical reasoning behind the campaign, which no one is required to agree with.

[Barbarian]

Thats a bit confusing. If you let crusaders to take their cities back, that means, you are not against major religions, like Christianity. However, you told that every faction must be destroyed. That includes also any small catholic and muslim factions, which probably live peacefully and never go into jihads or crusades. Maybe they are happy to live the way they do, sharing the same religion, not being rebels and infidels, who each has his own religion?
In that case, you are a tyrant, who uses force to make them live in rebellious way. That doesn't sound like a war for independence.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thats a bit confusing. If you let crusaders to take their cities back, that means, you are not against major religions, like Christianity. However, you told that every faction must be destroyed. That includes also any small catholic and muslim factions, which probably live peacefully and never go into jihads or crusades. Maybe they are happy to live the way they do, sharing the same religion, not being rebels and infidels, who each has his own religion?
In that case, you are a tyrant, who uses force to make them live in rebellious way. That doesn't sound like a war for independence.

I am not sure you are articulating what you meant to say very well. Honestly you could have made that a little clearer.

If a people take back cities that were once theirs from invaders, that's only natural. What isnt natural is holding some 500 year grudge. Spain had only recently been invaded by Muslim conquerors, however Jerusalem had been an Arab state for some time. I hope that makes things clearer.

As to another thing you said: A tyrant... who uses force to make them live in a rebellious way...? You mean someone who frees people from the yoke of oppression and grants them the rights of sovereignty, self-governance, and self-determination, as well as religious and personal freedom?

So the medieval kings and sultans who made laws forcing people to convert to a particular faith, obey ridiculous laws under penalty of death, granted no inalienable rights, perpetuated slavery, violence against women, forced bodily mutilation, and mandated conscription into armies to fight against people who had done them no harm, those kings and sultans and so forth were not the dictators and tyrants I claim they are?

I see. It all makes sense now. Those who raise up arms in self defense and fight for human liberty, progress, and freedom from oppression and religious persecution, THOSE are the tyrants, not the mass murderers, rapists, pillagers, exterminators, and brutal dictators themselves.

And spreading an ideology of freedom from hate and oppression and tyranny by liberating people from their vile rulers, that is the same as oppressing them.

Interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure many would agree with that. But high points for originality and creativity.

:beam:

To put it another way, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment, but this is a forum for debate and I enjoyed reading it.

[Joh]

Hi gents,

You people really take things seriously, don't they? Chill out.

If I understood it correctly, Barbarian has a point there. If people are happy in their kingdom with their nice king who gives them plenty of food, throws entertainment at them and asks for low taxes, why should I even consider saving them from this "horrible" fate? Why should I impose them NOT having any king? Maybe they like him.

For the sake of the argument (and obviously blowing the reasoning out of proportion), hell, I myself willingly imposed a wife on me :wall: , and even though I am in practice subjugated :whip: , I would not like you "liberating" me from her :oops: .

However, for the sake of the challenge, it is perfectly understandable, indeed necessary, to make these regions rebel. Period. Let's not enter a philosophical discussion here about right and wrong, good and evil, etc, just leave that to the news (which of course will change views depending on location).

Anyway, I do not understand rule 13 about the 10 provinces. If I low taxes and they want to be allies, fine. You mean 10 troop producing settlements? Should they be permanent, i.e., defined and maintained through the campaign, or are temporary?

Regarding rule 14, I agree with respect to priest or imams. Respect the people, but attack the system. It is going to be very difficult to establish heresy as the dominant believe that way though.

Capturing rebel settlements is not allowed because of the spirit of the challenge. Free people can not be liberated.

Fighting crusades/jihads is only allowed when they target rebel lands. Whether the people are subjugated by one tyrant or another is of no importance to us. However, free people should be defended.

Cheers and relax, it is but a game.

[Yaropolk]

I would add

15. You may not build military buildings (e.g. town watch) in non-castle territories beyond your "10" limit. If you capture a territory with a military building you may leave it. If you give up one your 10 and take another territory as part of your nation, you don't have to destroy what's already built in the territory you are giving up

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hi gents,

You people really take things seriously, don't they? Chill out.

If I understood it correctly, Barbarian has a point there. If people are happy in their kingdom with their nice king who gives them plenty of food, throws entertainment at them and asks for low taxes, why should I even consider saving them from this "horrible" fate? Why should I impose them NOT having any king? Maybe they like him.

For the sake of the argument (and obviously blowing the reasoning out of proportion), hell, I myself willingly imposed a wife on me :wall: , and even though I am in practice subjugated :whip: , I would not like you "liberating" me from her :oops: .

However, for the sake of the challenge, it is perfectly understandable, indeed necessary, to make these regions rebel. Period. Let's not enter a philosophical discussion here about right and wrong, good and evil, etc, just leave that to the news (which of course will change views depending on location).

Anyway, I do not understand rule 13 about the 10 provinces. If I low taxes and they want to be allies, fine. You mean 10 troop producing settlements? Should they be permanent, i.e., defined and maintained through the campaign, or are temporary?

Regarding rule 14, I agree with respect to priest or imams. Respect the people, but attack the system. It is going to be very difficult to establish heresy as the dominant believe that way though.

Capturing rebel settlements is not allowed because of the spirit of the challenge. Free people can not be liberated.

Fighting crusades/jihads is only allowed when they target rebel lands. Whether the people are subjugated by one tyrant or another is of no importance to us. However, free people should be defended.

Cheers and relax, it is but a game.

Tis true, the philosophy is off-topic.

And I may not be making myself clear here myself; it is not monarchy itself which is the blame for the oppression of the middle ages.

In my opinion, there is little difference between direct democracy, representative democracy, a Republic, an oligarchy, a theocracy, a one-party state, a government of a few leaders, or a government with one sole leader.

Whether the one person in charge or the general populace (if they are in charge) are competent and ethical is the point in that case. However, no matter the style of government, there is something missing.

Inalienable rights. Guaranteed freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, the right not to be detained without a warrant, trial by a jury of peers, etc. And all the rest.

Whether the government is a benign dictatorship or a benign republic, so long as the rights of people are upheld, people are still considered free.

In this time period, no government had free people. So consider the purpose of liberation in this context, freeing people from oppressive governments of any style (theocratic, monarchies, republics, etc) and allowing the people to choose their own constitution of laws and whichever government they choose.

I hope that makes sense. But in any case it wouldnt have to... it is beside the point. The challenge is to make the map rebel/independent.

Cheers!

:thumbsup:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I would add

15. You may not build military buildings (e.g. town watch) in non-castle territories beyond your "10" limit. If you capture a territory with a military building you may leave it. If you give up one your 10 and take another territory as part of your nation, you don't have to destroy what's already built in the territory you are giving up

Since one isn't going to be stationing garrison troops or recruiting troops in that region, in MY opinion it makes little difference. If you want to help that province grow by spending your florins on a more or less useless troop facility, so be it.

It may improve public order. Go ahead and build it. But you cannot use it for military means.

The point of the 10 province rule is, to be clear, establishing a home base that is large enough to combat every major power including the Mongols, but without defeating the spirit of the mission which is to LIBERATE the map, not force people to help you liberate it, thereby oppressing them yourself.

A fair number of provinces is 10.

[Galain_Ironhide]

I for one am waiting to hear how you have faired thus far.

Have you started on this journey yet? Also have you got any screen shots to show us yet?

Inquisitve to know. :2thumbsup:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I for one am waiting to hear how you have faired thus far.

Have you started on this journey yet? Also have you got any screen shots to show us yet?

Inquisitve to know. :2thumbsup:

Alas, I have begun college courses for the next semester, so it may take time. But yes, I intend to take on my own challenge and post the screenshots here.

Anyone else up for it? Or am I the only one?

[Joh]

I would love to have a go at it, but between work, wife, kid and Stainless Steel (not necessarily in that order) there is very little time left.

Also, probably the Turks would be the best faction to try it, and I just finished a vanilla campaign with them. Could consider the Eggys though. Taking all settlements in middle East will boost your economy for the challenge.

Take care

[Dragunija]

Nah,but i will be waiting teh screens.

[Ramses II CP]

I've been messing with some other games (Infidelity!) but I'm going to make a run at this sometime soon. I had a similar thought previously of using the Mongol or Timurid Horde with no training of troops allowed to cause worldwide rebellion, leaving Europe a smoking hole, but the 'issues' with hotseating to the Horde made it too akward to work with.

I'll probably take France, since I haven't played a full campaign with them. 'Viva la Revolution!'

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've been messing with some other games (Infidelity!) but I'm going to make a run at this sometime soon. I had a similar thought previously of using the Mongol or Timurid Horde with no training of troops allowed to cause worldwide rebellion, leaving Europe a smoking hole, but the 'issues' with hotseating to the Horde made it too akward to work with.

I'll probably take France, since I haven't played a full campaign with them. 'Viva la Revolution!'

:egypt:

I'm finally going to take a crack at it myself.

I'm thinking... an Italian state.

Possibly Sicily, since they are the weakest AND they look as if they would be allied to the independents, being grey and all.

You are taking France, which would be my first choice. But they are powerful to begin with, so I am upping the difficulty on myself.

Would you think of doing an AAR on your French war for independence?

[Ramses II CP]

I'd love to, though not in the same depth as the Danish campaign. Keeping it down to 10 provinces keeps the family small, which helps, but it still gets complicated trying to describe so many battles.

I'll take screenshots and try to make a post every, say, twenty turns.

I immediately thought France because I can fairly early on develop an economic heartland to support wide ranging military actions.

Just to be clear, I can attack and occupy rebel cities, right? I want to take Rennes and ally with the English to bottle them up. That way I have a trading partner while I dismantle the rest of the world. First target: Iberia.

Oh, and I expect to be using a lot of spies as well. Plenty of 'The Watcher' kings in my future. :yes:

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sicilian War for Independence

PREVIEW

The year is now 1120 ad. All of Italy welcomes the Sicilians as liberators. With the fall of Rome, and Papist supremacy in the region shattered, the people are overjoyed to hear that the new Sicilian King, Simon the Benevolent, has met with the council of nobles and agreed to draft a Constitution guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of all who reside within the borders of Italy.

https://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh177/daniel_albert1983/0056.jpg

For now, King Simon remains the sole leader of Italy, however, he has done away with the royal bloodlines. Sicily will be a constitutional monarchy, but the king will be chosen from the nobles, who will be elected by each province within the nation. The current king will choose his own heir from among the candidates elected by the people, based upon merit.

A constitutional royal meritocracy has been born!

The people of Italy are excited to learn about government and law, because the best and brightest among them are now capable of being elected Governor of their province, which would put them in line for the throne of Italy! Never before have the common people been so uplifted by the wise and generous rule of a sovereign king!

It matters not that the Italian King has been excommunicated by the previous Pope, because the Italian people have already repelled invading forces from Milan, Venice, France, the Holy Roman Empire, expelled the Papal army, the Moorish invaders, and brought peace and stability to Italy.

The King has decreed that all people will have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free press, the right to petition, the right to assemble, the right to keep and bear arms, and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination.

With peaceful relations established with the Moors, Turks, and the Egyptians, it seems clear that the true aggressors in Europe are the Catholic Kings, who have been corrupted by a Pope who wishes to impose through force the rule of the Catholic church. The Pope has even called a crusade against Antioch, providing Catholic France an excuse to invade Italy. The entire affair is a ruse to get the pious men of Europe to invade Italy with Papal approval. The Pope is a manipulator of souls and must be removed from power.

The wise and benevolent leader of Italy has been most kind, understanding, and merciful to those he has bested on the battle, freeing all prisoners and allowing citizens of the cities he has taken to retain their freedoms, rights, and possessions.

Word has spread to all of Europe of the events taking place in Italy. A Renaissance of the human spirit has weakened support for the oppressive Papacy and the Kings and dictators of Europe. Peasant revolts and uprisings have taken place within Christendom, demanding rights and freedoms the same as the Italian people!

A wave of immigration has also taken place, with refugees of other nations seeking sanctuary within the borders of Italy. The price of citizenship is to learn the Italian language, perform civil service for the Italian government, and take a citizenship test as well as swear and oath of loyalty.

The Muslim people have also sought refuge within Italy's borders, and with the freedom of religion decree, their faith is now free to spread. Small religions have also popped up along the landscape, and many are considered heretical by the church. There is also a wave of areligious sentiment among the educated class, and many people are turning away from the church and finding their own way.

Needless to say, the rulers of Europe are not pleased. Almost every faction is at war with us, but the Kings of Europe do not have the support of the people. Their armies fight, but their hearts are not in it. Every peasant seeks liberation by Italy's armies, and those who surrender on the battlefield are granted immediate amnesty and given land in exchange for service to Italy.

However, the Kings are not willing to give up. A massive propaganda campaign is now being waged to paint King Simon as the Anti-Christ, and the fundamentalist crazies of Europe are still willing to fight us in the name of God.

Fortunately for them, our King spares even those who hate us and wish to kill us. However, those who believe in killing the free people of Italy or our King are banished from the realm. The King believes very much in the ideas and principles of Christianity which says to turn the other cheek; love and forgive thy enemy. While not a Catholic, his spiritual strength gives hope to the people of Italy who fear damnation by the Pope. They are beginning to see through the lies of the corrupt Papacy and embrace the true message of Christ. It is an irony that King Simon is not a Catholic, yet by his example, people are embracing their faith!

The King sees greatness in the people of Europe. He has taken upon himself the task of freeing those who seek to be freed, leading a band of volunteers and free men to liberate the oppressed. No man will be forced to participate in the King's quest.

For the immediate future, the King seeks to strengthen the economy of Italy, and bring peace and prosperity to his own people. When he has amassed the political and economic wealth necessary, he will wage an offensive against the French invaders. For now, the war will be defensive, since we are in a vastly superior position.

Also, the seas must be made free for trade. Our Muslim friends seek trade and passage, and neither will happen with continuing Venetian, HRE, and Byzantine blockades and piracy. The Royal Italian navy must liberate the Mediterranean!

Our tasks are clear. The Royal Italian Army will defend the northern border, while the Navy clears the seas to the south. Our remaining resources will be reinvested into the Italian economy to prepare for public order and military concerns, as well as bolster trade. Patience and peace will pay off.

Our freedom of religion creed will cause disorder within our cities, indeed. People are still too narrow minded to accept other religions. But our revolution will inspire tolerance and universal respect for human life. This Italian Renaissance will be a beacon of light for all of the world to see!

==============================
The actual campaign will be posted in its entirety when it is finished.

Stay tuned for more updates and previews. I hope to finish the entire campaign and meet victory conditions for all to see!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd love to, though not in the same depth as the Danish campaign. Keeping it down to 10 provinces keeps the family small, which helps, but it still gets complicated trying to describe so many battles.

I'll take screenshots and try to make a post every, say, twenty turns.

I immediately thought France because I can fairly early on develop an economic heartland to support wide ranging military actions.

Just to be clear, I can attack and occupy rebel cities, right? I want to take Rennes and ally with the English to bottle them up. That way I have a trading partner while I dismantle the rest of the world. First target: Iberia.

Oh, and I expect to be using a lot of spies as well. Plenty of 'The Watcher' kings in my future. :yes:

:egypt:

You can attack rebels up to your tenth province. After that, leave them alone.

You establish your nation's borders, then respect the independent states.

I have estabished Naples, Palermo, Ajaccio, Cagliari, Florence, Rome, Venice, Milan, Genoa, and Bologna as my 10 provinces of the Italian Nation. All others will not be permitted garrisons or greater than minimum taxes, and granted unchallenged independence.

[Ramses II CP]

My first post is up here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1804628#post1804628

Your last post leads to an interesting point; I thought the rules had it that taxes nationwide had to go to low, not just in new territories. Right now I have taxes at low across the whole countryside, which isn't a big disadvantage in the long run as population growth will make up for any lost revenue, but I probably just read the rules wrong.

Two more minor matters; To get Pamplona to rebel I converted it from a fort to a village. I was worried the Spanish would take it back before it rebelled as they were sort of wandering around in the area. I presume that's okay?

Also towns in the 10 province nation are only permitted a single company for a garrison, right? That's the main reason I used a marriage alliance with the English; they'd be constantly sniffing after my cities otherwise.

I've got to write up the next 10 turns and then it'll be about time to launch the war against Germany. Going to be interesting to see how long I can keep the Pope on the hook when I won't join his crusades or give him territory. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

My first post is up here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1804628#post1804628

Your last post leads to an interesting point; I thought the rules had it that taxes nationwide had to go to low, not just in new territories. Right now I have taxes at low across the whole countryside, which isn't a big disadvantage in the long run as population growth will make up for any lost revenue, but I probably just read the rules wrong.

Two more minor matters; To get Pamplona to rebel I converted it from a fort to a village. I was worried the Spanish would take it back before it rebelled as they were sort of wandering around in the area. I presume that's okay?

Also towns in the 10 province nation are only permitted a single company for a garrison, right? That's the main reason I used a marriage alliance with the English; they'd be constantly sniffing after my cities otherwise.

I've got to write up the next 10 turns and then it'll be about time to launch the war against Germany. Going to be interesting to see how long I can keep the Pope on the hook when I won't join his crusades or give him territory. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

Agreed, it was written rather ambiguously.

Do as you wish with the taxes within your nation, unless you seek to be ever more magnanimous by reducing your homeland taxes to the minimum as well. That will make your quest more difficult, but I applaud you for taking on such a challenge. The people of your nation will forgive the increase in taxes, as there is a war for independence going on, and their own rights and freedoms are guaranteed by your brave fighting men.

You can convert a settlement outside your nation from a castle to a villiage, but NOT from a village to a castle, as the public order bonus would be cheating, giving you additional, if limited florins for as long as the castle is uncaptured and loyal.

You may garrison your homeland as much as you wish, until you grant them independence to meet victory conditions.

I congratulate you for accepting the challenge!

I must warn you, ransoming is supposed to be against the rules. If the opposing party were to decline the ransom, you would have the blood of prisoners who surrendered under a flag of peace on your hands. Although, if they agree to pay, you are safe. I would avoid that tactic and release prisoners. Better for your chivalry anyway than a mere few florins.

Salute!

[Ramses II CP]

Ahh! I wasn't clear on the ransoming bit either, I just assumed. I haven't had any rejected yet, or made much money (Not as much as I lost from taxes being down, maybe 2.5k at most) so I'll start releasing them and write in it as a new proclamation or some such. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ahh! I wasn't clear on the ransoming bit either, I just assumed. I haven't had any rejected yet, or made much money (Not as much as I lost from taxes being down, maybe 2.5k at most) so I'll start releasing them and write in it as a new proclamation or some such. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

It is an honourable trade-off... no ransoming, but some taxes to fund your wars.

Your citizens, after all, are free to leave and live in your liberated independent states, where they will pay taxes only to their local government. Anyone in your nation is agreeing to voluntarily contribute.

It is a wise and fair administrator who uses taxes for a worthy cause, but allows those who do not wish to contribute to become independent.

I even admit in my Sicilian campaign I have ransomed. However, I realize now the error of that tactic, and fortunately, no prisoners have been killed. I have sworn never to ransom again.

[Old Geezer]

I think you should include a landing on the moon as a necessary victory condition.

[Ramses II CP]

The only problem would be the sheer number of turns you have to click through to get there. I already can't imagine clicking through to the Timurids, much less the Aztecs.

edit: 'There' being, obviously, the moon launch.

:egypt:

[Redz " Preatorian Knights"]

good luck.... i can see how piss off you are with the pope!!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think you should include a landing on the moon as a necessary victory condition.


What means this? You think the victory conditions I laid out are impossible?
Ramses and I are well on our way to disproving that theory. It was my idea and he's making more progress than me.


The only problem would be the sheer number of turns you have to click through to get there. I already can't imagine clicking through to the Timurids, much less the Aztecs.

edit: 'There' being, obviously, the moon launch.

:egypt:

I admit I am not looking forward to fighting the Timurids, especially with the sheer amount of heresy by then draining my cities.

Still... challenging!!! It's what I need to stay interested in the game.

I've NEVER had the HRE give me so much trouble before.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Playing using this style has taught me an invaluable method of seige warfare!

I have just discovered how to take by force a city with a garrison of equal strength as my own, on LTC vh/vh.

A crucial weakness in the strategy of the AI is abandoning the walls early. They seem to rely on the strength of the city center for unlimited morale.

The problem: Not every soldier in a massive stack can fit inside the city center.

Solution for the attacker:

Take the walls quickly with seige towers and ladders. Massive infantry is required. The enemy will be overwhelmed, at least in that confined area. Next, take your generals and heavy cavalry and storm the broken gates, forcing anyone in the vicinity to rout. If you need infantry support, send them through first.

Rout anything you can, and slay them before they get to the city center. You will now have a slight numbers advantage (crucial).

Next, You must position your forces in guard mode outside the city center and attack them with arrows and crossbow bolts (and artillery, if applicable).

They will sally forward to attack you, putting you in the superior defensive position. With their backs to the wall and getting picked off by force, they must attack or die without a fight. They cannot conquer your forces in the tight city streets with your forces on guard mode and your general safely behind them. It is impossible. Rally constantly and you cannot fail unless your general dies.

Slaying their general with heavy spearmen is a moderate priority with a detachment of expendable forces for that mission. If you can, the enemy will break easier and tire from it. Returning to the city center under fire over and over....

You must have more archers and heavy infantry to win, and keep your general alive. Since your forces were equal to begin with, make sure you slay enough infantry/archers on the walls first.

You can defeat superior garrisons in this way as well, if you are brilliant.

I now know what I must do to take the world with my inferior Sicilian militia forces... since I will never be able to greatly overwhelm my foe as I always have, I have removed the most critical trump card from my own arsenal. This playing style has forced my generalship skills to vastly improve.

Beware, for askthepizzaguy has truly become a fearsome seige expert. None can stop me now, except conceivably a brilliant human player of equal strength in a superior tactical position. Bwahaha!

Seriously, try this War for Independence challenge. You will be FORCED to improve your game. I highly recommend it.

[Ramses II CP]

This brings up a good point, BTW, in that I wasn't using LTC either, and I think Lusted tried to tune up the strategic AI in LTC. You probably aren't seeing the strangely foolish AI behavior I see on the strategy map, where I can leave just captured cities entirely open and an AI army will often march right past them trying to reach cities that are still in their hands. I only had two or possibly three cities recaptured in my whole campaign, Jerusalem and Prague.

I'm still working on this, off and on, and I managed to get a 'Victory Imminent, Faction: Rebels' warning that I need to post a screenshot of sometime. I imagine I may be the first person ever to see that particular warning in the actual game. :laugh4:

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

This brings up a good point, BTW, in that I wasn't using LTC either, and I think Lusted tried to tune up the strategic AI in LTC. You probably aren't seeing the strangely foolish AI behavior I see on the strategy map, where I can leave just captured cities entirely open and an AI army will often march right past them trying to reach cities that are still in their hands. I only had two or possibly three cities recaptured in my whole campaign, Jerusalem and Prague.

I'm still working on this, off and on, and I managed to get a 'Victory Imminent, Faction: Rebels' warning that I need to post a screenshot of sometime. I imagine I may be the first person ever to see that particular warning in the actual game. :laugh4:

:egypt:

I did not know the rebels had a victory condition!

Ignore that warning. You can play past a victory or loss condition. So long as you meet the criteria for the house rules, you're a winner in my book.

PS My NEW Sicilian Campaign on LTC VH-VH is going SWIMMINGLY.

I have decided to ally myself temporarily with the imperial powers, hoping that I can influence them politically to change their dastardly ways. I've also accepted campaign contributions to liberate people from backstabbing Imperialists.

I have still followed all the campaign rules and I have even devised new methods for taking cities that I havent done before. Kudos to the rest of you probably for figuring it out sooner but I've never really needed good seige skills I always, always, always had overwhelming force due to my good campaign map skills.

Now that my campaign is hindered, I am finally developing new battlemap skills.

It's only early yet, but I have 7 allies and mucho florino to assist in my liberation of the map.

My allies, the Venetians, backstabbed me, but were driven away and their capital was taken. The FOOLS!!!

The HRE is crumbling before my eyes and the Venetians as well. I was about to wipe out Milan but the Venetians decided they wanted to die first.

The Pope is still liking me. When I no longer have his support and my reputation is gone, so shall he be.

[Ramses II CP]

Success! (56k warning on my AAR thread, 500 or so images):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97845

This is what a free world (MTWII world anyway) looks like:

http://lh5.google.com/RosDalton/R6DReu3OhEI/AAAAAAAAI-4/ZEM5jh7NxFU/s800/map.JPG

This is quite a fun and challenging type of game, and I recommend it to anyone looking to stretch their enjoyment of vanilla. Plan well for the Hordes, or you'll get caught short. It's much better to send your armies east aboard ship, as I quickly discovered, and the Aztecs are such a joke you really only need to send one full cavalry stack over.

:egypt:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Adds enjoyment to vanilla, yes...

Adds bucketloads of trouble to Lands to Conquer!

:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

[ReiseReise]

I'd like to see how everyone playing with these rules is doing. I find it hard to believe that Ramses is the only other one who wanted to try it. :beam:

I am going to give it a shot playing 1.2 vh/vh Russia. I thought about making Constantinople or Bran one of my 10, but decided instead to make a contiginous core. We will see if it works out. My initial choices are pretty standard Russian territory - Novogorod obviously, Moscow, Ryazan, Smolensk, Vilnius, Kiev, and all of Poland -Thorn, Krakow, Halych, which leaves me with 1 open spot I haven't decided on yet. Riga is pretty worthless but fits nicely into the shape of the territories so maybe...

I will be writing it up, I haven't decided on how much storytelling I will be doing.

To start off, I made a little something to start the story. I'll put it here to get a little publicity.:beam: Please let me know if the flow of the images is confusing or if the text is unreadable, after staring at it for so long I can no longer view it objectively.

http://aycu28.webshots.com/image/41867/2005886821620752646_rs.jpg

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd like to see how everyone playing with these rules is doing. I find it hard to believe that Ramses is the only other one who wanted to try it. :beam:

I am going to give it a shot playing 1.2 vh/vh Russia. I thought about making Constantinople or Bran one of my 10, but decided instead to make a contiginous core. We will see if it works out. My initial choices are pretty standard Russian territory - Novogorod obviously, Moscow, Ryazan, Smolensk, Vilnius, Kiev, and all of Poland -Thorn, Krakow, Halych, which leaves me with 1 open spot I haven't decided on yet. Riga is pretty worthless but fits nicely into the shape of the territories so maybe...

I will be writing it up, I haven't decided on how much storytelling I will be doing but probably similar to Ramses' AAR.

To start off, I made a little something to start the story. I'll put it here to get a little publicity.:beam: Please let me know if the flow of the images is confusing, after staring at it for so long I can no longer view it objectively.

http://aycu28.webshots.com/image/41867/2005886821620752646_rs.jpg

I like it... very nice start.

Russia makes an obvious choice for this particular challenge, as no excommunication, great late period anti-mongol troops, and prime anti-mongol location.

Should actually be superior to France or Italy once you get it up and running.

I don't often rank Russia highly, but in this case, it's the perfect faction. Only one better would be Byzantium or the Turks.

My Sicily campaign is on hold until I make the 8 turn record for the HRE long campaign...

Current status: Made improvements to SirRethcir's campaign with a couple lucky hits! May be possible to dominate 45 regions in 8 turns after all!

[Ramses II CP]

Russia does seem like a good choice, as long as the Mongols/Timurids don't decide to go popping in at Baghdad. I strongly advise you to keep a trading partner alive until around the Mongol arrival. In your case England or the Danes are probably the only choice. You could leave the Turks, but as the Mongols crushed them you might find your economy falling down just as you most want it in full gear.

Good luck! I like the header graphic. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

[ReiseReise]

Thanks for the advice Ramses.
Honestly I did not pick Russia because of its starting position, I actually thought of doing Moors first and building Iberian base then sweeping Africa/Palestine to meet mongols. I picked Russia because of the obvious ties that can be made to this style of gameplay and communism. I thought it could make for some interesting storylines although they are mostly being abandoned and recreated as I have started playing. I'm not saying that ATPG is or is not a supporter of communism:beam: but the general theme is:
1) absolute equality of every person to every other person
2) absence of religious ideals in government (granted, absolute freedom of religion is a far cry from State Atheism but I am trying to make this rationalization work)
3) the necessity of an interim solution before the ideal can be realized
4) the end sounds good but the means can get ugly, I hope to elaborate on this theme in the AAR

Back to the game: I am on turn 9 (10 turn write-up expected tomorrow) and just had the craziest series of events I have ever seen in a campaign: A little background first: After starting with Novgorod, I have taken Moscow, Riga, Smolensk, and Helsinki (there's a story behind that one), and have armies headed towards Vilnius/Kiev/Ryazan/Thorn(? not sure if I want to start that war yet). I took the first three all on turn 4 which jumpstarted my economy and put me on a good track. I am planning on making the Polish homelands part of my 10 core provinces, and leaving Hungary alone (besides deposing their leaders obviously :grin:) This is where the crazy starts: Princess Antonina is out wandering the wasteland looking for a half-decent husband and making diplomatic contacts. She is headed through the pass in the Carpathians NE of Bran when Hungarian general Istvan comes here way. He is unmarried so I decide to go on a little adventure concentrating only on Istvan while ignoring the rest of the game, and then reload and playing as I planned to. However I was incredibly surprised by what happened!

Antonina marries Istvan (37% chance), 5 star general, liberating him from his evil masters. Istvan recruits 3 Slav mercs and 2 Bulgarian brigands, then turns around and declares war on his former masters, massacring the army of 6 militias he was leading earlier that same turn. He then marches to Bran and occupies it. He abandons it and heads for Budapest (I had a spy leading Antonina so he checked out the situation first, it's "defended" by only the Hungarian king) En route to Budapest, Bran turns rebel, my first convert of the game! A full stack of hungry soldiers (:laugh4:) is headed towards him, but too late. Istvan takes Budapest, thus eliminating the Hungarians. All because one of their generals was wooed by my princess!!!. Istvan abandons Budapest and marches up to Krakow. Budapest turns rebel, thus totally freeing the Hungarian people. Another milestone: my first liberated nation!. Unfortunately it doesn't count because I vowed that this was an "experiment only". Istvan recruits 2 merc xbows and takes Krakow. I didn't continue further but I dare say I could have eliminated 2 nations due to the scheming of one Russian princess :beam: :beam: :beam: :beam: :beam:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Women actually rule the world, and we are their puppets. By making us think we have autonomy, they control our minds and manipulate our strings with words and emotions and desires.

They can cause wars between nations... and need I mention that sex is the basis of all male conflict?

1. Money... need money to attract a mate and pay for children... not to mention buy all those fancy clothes and the big car and a house.

2. Competition. There's only so many women out there. If you fall for one, you may have a competitor.

3. Envy. Men would not have "little man syndrome" if it didn't matter what size or how skillful they were in the bedroom.

Males are pretty much the basis of all female conflict too. Why would they need to fight over anything if we weren't around? They would all turn lesbodian and fertilize eggs with genetic engineering. Who is to say that isn't their eventual goal anyway? Have all the men wipe each other out, after the sperm banks are all nice and full and the human genome has been fully catalogued.

Women will rule the earth... they already do, indirectly. Imagine if every woman on earth went on strike and refused to have sex.

Men would be on their knees within a month.

PS I am not a communist... but I do believe that every person or group has the right to declare autonomy and live the way they choose, so long as they don't violate the protected rights of another or violate some universal standard of ethical conduct.

[Mad_BOB]

Hmmm, this sounds like an interesting challenge that i shall have to try (and no doubt fail a few times) when i have some time. I'm thinking the eastern european factions might be best for it. Good balance of troop types, close to the mongol spawning area, without the (relatively) strong starting position of the byzantines and egyptians. Tho given you guys are all much better at this than me, maybe i should try the byzantines to get used to the concept.




PS I am not a communist... but I do believe that every person or group has the right to declare autonomy and live the way they choose, so long as they don't violate the protected rights of another or violate some universal standard of ethical conduct.

Interesting. Why do you think there has to be some universal ethical standard? Or indeed that people have any rights at all other than those they can take for themselves? Does this not seem a bit arbitrary to you, that there must be some code we should all adhere to despite there being no basis for it in view of the way that evolution and survival of the fittest works? (you've said you're not christian, so i'm taking a big leap and assuming you're not a creationist and fit into the scientific paradigm)

I hope no-one gets too annoyed by me saying this, i'm just trying to debate and make people think a bit about where ethical ideas come from, so they can better form their own.

[Askthepizzaguy]

WARNING! Off topic rant.



Interesting. Why do you think there has to be some universal ethical standard? Or indeed that people have any rights at all other than those they can take for themselves? Does this not seem a bit arbitrary to you, that there must be some code we should all adhere to despite there being no basis for it in view of the way that evolution and survival of the fittest works? (you've said you're not christian, so i'm taking a big leap and assuming you're not a creationist and fit into the scientific paradigm)

I hope no-one gets too annoyed by me saying this, i'm just trying to debate and make people think a bit about where ethical ideas come from, so they can better form their own.


Ethics, real ethics, are not handed down from a bearded man sitting on a cloud who threatens to smite you with plagues. That doesnt seem ethical to me.

Ethics, real ethics, are based upon rational, intelligent thought. It's based upon what can be universally proven to be correct. The trouble is, I can prove something is ethical beyond all reasonable doubt, but someone can simply say "thats your opinion" because they are stubborn and they wish to believe in their own personal standard of fluid morality that changes as you see fit.

Is it ever ethical for a gunman to walk down a street and kill random women and children? Is there ever a case where that could be considered "his choice" that we "must respect"?

Short of some science fiction scenario where everyone on earth has turned into zombies (and if you base your morality on what is ethical in a fictional world of make-believe, you have more problems than a simple lack of moral compass, you have trouble distinguishing between reality and fairy tales) there is no rational basis for wanton destruction. Especially not when there is no justification for it.

The devil's advocate argument that morality is opinion-based and there is no geiger counter or ruler to help us scientifically determine how moral or immoral something is is just as foolish. We know that color exists as well, but how do you know that the color brown doesn't look green to me?

This kind of subjectivism trivializes things like rape, genocide, torture, and things like using poison gas on your own citizens. It trivializes the fact that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city will in fact kill innocent civilians, and there's no justification for that either, even when faced with your own demise. If you had to point a gun at a baby's head and pull the trigger, or someone with a gun to your head would shoot you, would you pull the trigger?

Choosing not to be manipulated by those without ethical standards is also part of being ethical.

Now suppose you had to systematically eliminate 10,000 people by gunshot to the head, or else some evil maniac would kill you. Would you?

That is what dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian populace is equivalent to. If we believe in a subjective, fluid morality where no one could ever conclusively prove using reason that some actions are wrong, then there is no such thing as right and wrong, and we should not object to a society that beheads women for asking for the right to vote or date whom they choose or dress in a comfortable fashion. We would not object to a society that condones cannibalism or the stoning of heretics or the burning of witches. We would not object to a person beating their child to death. Because after all, in such a fictional world, there would be no objective, universal standard of morality which gives us the rational authority to declare an action immoral or more specifically, irrational.

If one believes the only rights are the ones they can take, why do we decry the actions of a lone gunman shooting up a school? He is taking every right and liberty an irrational person affords himself, while eliminating by force the rights and lives of others. In a subjective, irrational universe, that would be completely Darwinian and therefore acceptible.

Darwin's theory of evolution is about survival of the fittest, not about irrational extinction of life, disregard for reason, and blatant hatred towards members of your own species for no reason. It's about competition and balance, not wiping out your rivals. If animals behaved in such a way that they would eat and wipe out their food sources, they would go extinct.

We are supposed to be more evolved and rational than the animals. We are supposed to have an evolved sensibility. We are supposed to exercise reasonable judgment as to what is correct and incorrect.

I've never seen a dolphin or a koala bear massacre their entire family and then go on a killing binge. Human beings do that.

If we can be so much worse than animals... why don't we strive to be better?
What could we possibly lose, other than senselessness, despair, and irrational taking of life?

I never claim that what is or is not ethical has been conclusively proven or that I have all the answers. But gravity has not been conclusively proven either, and it cannot be fully explained either. Where's the carrier particle? Or is it a wave? And if so, describe its nature.

The theory of evolution hasn't been conclusively proven either, yet we often cite it.

If we cannot explain our origins or the direction of falling objects, it makes sense that we cannot create a universal moral compass. But since we have scientific theories that are very plausible and almost universally accepted by all rational people regarding complicated things like particle physics and the evolution of species, I do not think it is a massive leap to decide that certain actions have decidedly negative consequences to the self, others, and all of humankind.

That is the theoretical universal objective standard of morality I am trying to discover. I would like to not be the only person looking for it. Why don't we all think for ourselves about what that standard is?

And whomever has the most reason behind what they think... that would be the best theory. Closest to what reality itself dictates as being the truth.

One might claim that it is my right to overdose on heroin. But is it ethical? Should I kill myself for no reason, and hurt my family with their loss of a son, and harm society by creating a mess to clean up and a crime scene to investigate, and all those tax dollars wasted trying to educate me, so that I may do something so destructive and selfish that it boggles the mind?

Is it ethical, EVER, to rape? To kill an unarmed civilian, even for a political aim or religious purpose? Is it right to drop bombs on cities? Is it ethical to come across a herd of cows and take out a machine gun and kill them all for no reason at all, save 'fun'? What is the purpose of senseless destruction?

The answer is self evident, as all great truths are. Senseless destruction is simply that, senseless. There is no reason behind it. There is no purpose to it. There is no rational basis for it. There are no moral or ethical considerations behind it. And if we all chose to act with such irresponsible, selfish, and flagrant disregard for the consequences of our actions, we would wipe out every intelligent and generous person among us and become reduced to a pack of unsavory, untrustworthy, violent apes.

I see mankind as something that could be better than that. And as with all scientific theories, I must CHOOSE to believe in it, because science is based upon FAITH IN REASON.

Science is also a religion; it is the religion of believing in what is real, and believing that what is real can be rationally proven. It's a fine method of extracting moral truths from a sometimes immoral world. Others may have holy books and preachers, and in many cases that is just as good. In others, people can be mislead into interpreting their God such that murder becomes ethical or even a holy act. This is why I cannot follow blindly the words of men who, for no reason other than their fancy, official-looking dress, declare themselves to be holy. Oh, and they read the same book I did, but have a much holier than thou interpretation of it.

Sorry, not my can of beans. I can be spiritual, moral, and rational all at once. They are not incongruent. Half of all scientists believe in God. You can do both.

Just don't let it interfere with what we all know to be right and wrong... or what we all should know, but choose to ignore or remain ignorant of.

You are of course free to believe what you like, that there is no universal moral standard out there for our minds to hypothesize, theorize, and conclusively prove using reason. The argument "you can use facts to prove anything" is only partially true. You can use facts and very weak or circular or unreasonable logic to prove anything. But facts paired with strong logic that does not bend under the weight of it's own rules... that's the beginning of wisdom.

I used to deliver pizzas for a living. Does that make me more or less of a moral authority than the next person? Or does it matter who I am or what I say? Doesn't it matter more what actually is or is not right? And doesn't it matter whether there is such a thing as right or wrong? And wouldn't you rather live in a world where there is right and wrong? And if we live in an immoral world, wouldn't you want to help create a moral world? And even if we cannot control what others do, can we not control what we do? And what if we lead by example, by choosing to do right and ignoring those who do wrong, except when they run around killing themselves and others or violating some very basic tenets of civilized society, like stealing or raping?

Are those questions too difficult to answer?

I choose to try to answer those questions rather than base my entire worldview and moral compass on the argument "everyone has opinions and they are all inherently equal". Science is not based on such an assumption. Nor is morality.

Again, the flaw is declaring oneself to be the decider of morality. Let's let the laws of rationality and the universe itself decide. If I kill people randomly, what is the end result? Is society better? Are lives destroyed needlessly?

I say that morality can be defined and ethics can and do exist. Just as other abstract concepts like the truth exist. Without truth, there is no basis for arguing against the truth, because without truth, the theory that there is truth is just as valid or invalid as the theory that there is no truth. Therefore, truth exists because the absence of truth renders any argument meaningless, and there's no real point in living in a truthless existence that by definition does not even really exist.

I am not a nihilist. Once we try to say morality and reason are arbitrary, that leads to questioning all reality as being subjective, and all truth as being opinion. That's when we question whether or not we really exist, ignoring the fact that we do, and we are thinking about the fact that we exist, and questioning it.

Sometimes having a mind that is so open that it is open to the unreasonable and conclusively proven false means having a mind so open that it falls out and renders us completely unintelligent. There are some things that require good judgment and discriminatory processes. Not all discrimination is the same, not all discrimination is wrong. To declare discrimination to be wrong is to discriminate.

Subjectivists all suffer from the same problem... they deny any tool that could prove their case, and they also suffer from trying to argue as if they were an objectivist, using facts, reason, and a belief in right and wrong. If you deny these things, how can you possibly argue except in direct contradiction of what you believe?

Hence, any objective person will end up believing that morality, decency, and rational truth does exist, and will probably choose to live their lives according to what is universally mandated to be correct. That is why most people don't rape or murder. Most of us are sane.

It's the insane people who get all the attention in the newspaper.

So what have we learned today? Asking pizzaguy about philosophy and ethics is drawing the discussion into a realm of thought that perhaps we should not, lest I smite someone with reason.

:smash:

Now, back to the topic at hand, shall we?

P.S. The Byzantines are my choice for the absolute BEST faction for War for Independence.

Someone needs to throw off the yoke of oppression of the Kaiser of the Eastern Roman Empire and remake it into the Free Republic of Constantinople. The FRC may have a real shot at liberating the world, considering the ERE is a dying empire and needs real reform. What greater triumph of liberty than having the oldest autocratic empire in the world suddenly declare itself free?

[diotavelli]

Darwin's theory of evolution is about survival of the fittest, not about irrational extinction of life, disregard for reason, and blatant hatred towards members of your own species for no reason. It's about competition and balance, not wiping out your rivals. If animals behaved in such a way that they would eat and wipe out their food sources, they would go extinct.

We are supposed to be more evolved and rational than the animals. We are supposed to have an evolved sensibility. We are supposed to exercise reasonable judgment as to what is correct and incorrect.

Where in evolutionary theory are there any claims to the effect that we are "more evolved" than other animals? What would it mean to be "more evolved"? That simply makes no sense. All living organisms evolve with each generation.


But gravity has not been conclusively proven either, and it cannot be fully explained either. Where's the carrier particle? Or is it a wave? And if so, describe its nature.

The theory of evolution hasn't been conclusively proven either, yet we often cite it.

How would one "prove" a scientific theory? I think you misunderstand what is meant by "theory" when used in the scientific sense. All scientific theories are necessarily tentative: not one has even been "proven". In science, a theory is a model and should be treated as such. It is not the same as a guess or a conjecture, which can be proven correct or incorrect.


I see mankind as something that could be better than that. And as with all scientific theories, I must CHOOSE to believe in it, because science is based upon FAITH IN REASON.

Nope. Faith means believing in something regardless of the existence of supporting evidence; science is diametrically opposed to faith, in that it insists upon supporting evidence. There is ample evidence for the efficacy of reason in mathematics and science: there is no need for faith in reason at all.


Science is also a religion; it is the religion of believing in what is real, and believing that what is real can be rationally proven.

Nope. Science has nothing to do with "believing what is real"; this could not be further from the truth. Science is the empirical study of the natural world, using a tried and tested methodology. Belief has no part in it. It makes no claim as to whether "what is real can be rationally proven" - since it does not claim that everything rationally proven is subjectable to scientific study nor that everything real is part of the natural world.


It's a fine method of extracting moral truths from a sometimes immoral world. Just don't let it interfere with what we all know to be right and wrong... or what we all should know, but choose to ignore or remain ignorant of.

Science is NOT "a fine method of extracting moral truths": it has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. You seem to be very muddled as to the difference between science and philosophy.


So what have we learned today? Asking pizzaguy about philosophy and ethics is drawing the discussion into a realm of thought that perhaps we should not, lest I smite someone with reason.

Your realm of thought is a fascinating but confused place. Attempting to conflate ethics and science in the way you do suggests you need to spend a lot more time learning what both actually deal with.

I don't mean to be rude but I've got a masters degree in philosophy and studied philosophy of science for about five years, so I do object when I see someone writing nonsense and trying to pass it off as reasoned, intellectual profundity.

If you want to learn how ethics could evolve, may I suggest the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett? They should both set you straight. For more on the difference between science and reason on one side and religion and faith on the other, try Tower of Babel, by Robert Pennock.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Where in evolutionary theory are there any claims to the effect that we are "more evolved" than other animals? What would it mean to be "more evolved"? That simply makes no sense. All living organisms evolve with each generation.

To evolve means to change over time. If the change is more positive than negative, the change is more likely to be passed down to the next generation. One can say that species evolve to better themselves. What would be the point of evolving to make themselves worse?

You may choose to argue that we are no better than the other animals, but I see little need to settle for that. Why not choose to be better than we are? Forward progress and all that. When we see humans behaving irrationally, and we choose to better ourselves, that is a good thing in my opinion. I see humanity's quest to better itself as a good thing.

How would one "prove" a scientific theory? I think you misunderstand what is meant by "theory" when used in the scientific sense. All scientific theories are necessarily tentative: not one has even been "proven". In science, a theory is a model and should be treated as such. It is not the same as a guess or a conjecture, which can be proven correct or incorrect.

One can prove a scientific theory by examining the relevant facts. The theory that the earth is flat versus the theory that the earth is round, for example. I doubt that the flat earth theory has much credibility anymore. Even if it always remains a theory, it is the only theory which makes sense. That is how a bogus theory becomes discredited. The theory that there is no morality is not a good theory because it is based upon self-destructive thought processes. I think you misunderstand why people come up with theories to begin with; to help understand reality as it is, not how we wish it to be.

Nope. Faith means believing in something regardless of the existence of supporting evidence; science is diametrically opposed to faith, in that it insists upon supporting evidence. There is ample evidence for the efficacy of reason in mathematics and science: there is no need for faith in reason at all.

"Nope"? Faith means belief in something, with or without evidenciary support. It does not mean "a belief that lacks evidence". A belief in God could have plenty of supporting evidence. A disbelief in God could have supporting evidence. You misunderstand that belief and evidence are two different things, but they are not NECESSARILY in opposition. Faith in evidence is a kind of faith, for you can be shown all the facts regarding a thing and still choose to disbelieve it. Science is faith in evidence and reason. You must have FAITH IN YOUR OWN REASONING, otherwise why attempt to reason?

Also, I find it interesting that you merely dismiss an opposing viewpoint with 'nope'. You begin with the assumption that you are correct, and then attempt to rationalize it. That's not at all scientific; in fact that is directly backward from real scientific method. To postulate a theory is different from stating "I am correct". In my argument, I leave room for the idea that I could be wrong. Do you? It's not very reasonable to argue that way.

Nope. Science has nothing to do with "believing what is real"; this could not be further from the truth. Science is the empirical study of the natural world, using a tried and tested methodology. Belief has no part in it. It makes no claim as to whether "what is real can be rationally proven" - since it does not claim that everything rationally proven is subjectable to scientific study nor that everything real is part of the natural world.

Again, science is based upon faith in observation, logic, reason, and evidence, as opposed to faith in something without observation, logic, reason, or evidence. Again, if you have no faith in facts, or your own senses, or in the large body of human knowledge accumulated to this point, then you cannot be a scientist. You are simply a doubter. You must believe in the natural world in order to study it. You imply a disparity where none exists. Faith must exist in order for there to be any such thing as reason. You have to believe that reason exists. If you choose to quibble over the definition of faith, you may, but faith can be used interchangeably with the word belief, and belief does not imply a requirement, or a lack of, evidence. Neither does faith.

Science is NOT "a fine method of extracting moral truths": it has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. You seem to be very muddled as to the difference between science and philosophy.

The study of ethics is not a science? The study of philosophy is not a science? The study of reason is not a science? To study a thing is to make it a science. Theology is the study of religious faith. It is a science, because you can research every single holy book, text, and individual in question, save for the almighty. They teach these things in universities, yet you claim they are not sciences.

Furthermore, you again accuse me of being impaired (muddled) rather than make your case. This kind of ad hominem style argument has been fully discredited as being unreasonable. Your argument is very weak, and you have yet to do anything but merely deny what I've said. That is a far cry from disproving or discrediting me.

Your realm of thought is a fascinating but confused place. Attempting to conflate ethics and science in the way you do suggests you need to spend a lot more time learning what both actually deal with.

You accuse me of being confused, yet you have yet to begin to reason. You protest much, but say little.

I don't mean to be rude but I've got a masters degree in philosophy and studied philosophy of science for about five years, so I do object when I see someone writing nonsense and trying to pass it off as reasoned, intellectual profundity.

You now argue the fallacious argument; an appeal to authority. My only authority is evidence itself. We may draw different conclusions and you may feel free to disagree with them. However, my evidence is reality, and yours is your degree. Which do you suppose holds more weight?

Simply having a degree does not make one correct about everything. You may quote the facts, but without the reasoning behind them to disprove what I say, you are merely quoting books. If you cannot reason, then the words are meaningless. I know of many well-educated people who know almost nothing. Argument from authority is also the incorrect way to argue. You have your degree, but do you show a valid point, or do you discredit mine? No, but you do use fallacies. And that is something which discredits yourself. My argument remains as an alternative to yours. I'm sorry that seems to offend you, but that is part of science as well. Competing theories. It's actually quite Darwinian.


If you want to learn how ethics could evolve, may I suggest the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett? They should both set you straight. For more on the difference between science and reason on one side and religion and faith on the other, try Tower of Babel, by Robert Pennock.


Your suggestion that I need to read more is another space-filler. Instead of making your own argument, you refer me to someone else without even quoting them. I ask you to reason for yourself, not suggest that I need to read. It's offensive, perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless it doesn't prove your point and it implies I am unread.

No offense intended on my part, either, but I would resist using fallacies such as the red herring (which as you know as an educated man means giving me something tempting to argue instead of what we were discussing by bringing up something entirely different) How ethics evolve is not the issue, nor is mister Dawkins, whose work I am familiar with. Should I waste time discussing trivia, we would neglect the point of the discussion. By my calculation, thusfar you have succeeded only in merely denying what I say, but offering no reason or evidence to back it up, intermixed with many logical fallacies and references to other people's work. It's not the best way to prove your point.



Off topic...

:focus:

For future reference, my email is askthepizzaguy@yahoo.com.

Either bring me into the backroom for a discussion or email me. I do not fear debate at all (quite the contrary) but this is not the proper venue.

[Mad_BOB]

Off topic:

Moved my part in the philosophy to a PM

Back on topic...

I may have to try it with the byzantines then. Always loved the cavalry heavy armies of theirs, and the strong economy of the starting area will make it easier to fend off the mongols. Will get back when i actually get round to starting it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thank you for exercising your right to PM.

Anyone interested in the Mad_BOB versus Askthepizzaguy debate can private message me for a transcript of the debate.

I am assuming that Mad_BOB does not mind his arguments recieving some publicity. If this is an erroneous assumption, he can tell me so.

Advice:

Use 9 provinces as cities and perhaps use Bran as your recruitment center.

You need the trade, so make all your cities ports that are close to one another. The islands and the starting provinces make for a perfect foundation.

You need chivalrous governors to turn these provinces into huge cities and low taxes can help; but the challenge is fielding enough offensive and defensive armies while growing your empire quickly.

It's not easy, that's why Ramses II CP earns my highest praises.

[ReiseReise]

I am starting over on my Russia campaign after totally bungling the first 15 turns. Heres a few notes
1) No sacking income means you need 10 regions ASAP. Taxes are basically your only source of income. I sat around with 5 provinces building a lot of fancy buildings and all I ended up with was no florins, a small army, and a very large and angry Poland on my doorstep.
2) Why do I have 6 units sitting in Moscow for 10 turns!!??!
3) Why is Riga blue and why does it have walls and roads? Must have been the AI, I swear I would never spend money on that trash heap at this point in the game.

This time I am taking Kiev ASAP.
Stockholm looks like a cash cow once it can build a port and mines.

A question about the rules:
What do you think about taking a rebel province as my nth (<10) region, with the explicit intention of abandoning it when I have 10, in order to permanently occupy Polish lands for my "new 10th"? Thus the region in question would become my "11th" (in terms of being a "free colony"). Playing as most other factions I would not need to do so, but it must be considered as Russia due to being far from other factions and surrounded by easily accessible but relatively worthless regions that can provide a short term boost but are not the best choice for the 10 core provinces.

While this does not seem to violate the rules as laid out, and thus I am inclined to do it, I am torn over whether or not this violates the spirit of the game.
1) If they go back to gray, then they are back where they started and several hundred people have died, although the income gained while they were under my flag will benefit my mission of freedom.
2) If they don't go gray*, which is what I hope and foresee, they are still being given the option to do so, and the very existence of that option seems to be a tacit, if unrealized, version of #1, and this is the core of my misgivings.

*Eventually they will go gray of course, here I mean a reasonable amount of time will pass where the people can be said to have freely chosen to remain under my flag, say 20 or 30 turns, the number is not important as it cannot be known in advance.

WWATPGD?: If I was not clear, a totally hypothetical situation illustrating this would occur in Pizzaguy's Sicilian campaign if he had a few spare militia and decided to take Durazo for a small tax boost while preparing to assault Constantinople, which by the time he does so will become the 11th province. No one would want Durazo as one of their 10 core provinces, but it is available and will pay the upkeep of a few units in the meantime. After taking Constantinople, Durazzo will act as Sicily's 11th province, ie min taxes, no garrison. Is this allowed or not?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am starting over on my Russia campaign after totally bungling the first 15 turns. Heres a few notes
1) No sacking income means you need 10 regions ASAP. Taxes are basically your only source of income. I sat around with 5 provinces building a lot of fancy buildings and all I ended up with was no florins, a small army, and a very large and angry Poland on my doorstep.
2) Why do I have 6 units sitting in Moscow for 10 turns!!??!
3) Why is Riga blue and why does it have walls and roads? Must have been the AI, I swear I would never spend money on that trash heap at this point in the game.

This time I am taking Kiev ASAP.
Stockholm looks like a cash cow once it can build a port and mines.

A question about the rules:
What do you think about taking a rebel province as my nth (<10) region, with the explicit intention of abandoning it when I have 10, in order to permanently occupy Polish lands for my "new 10th"? Thus the region in question would become my "11th" (in terms of being a "free colony"). Playing as most other factions I would not need to do so, but it must be considered as Russia due to being far from other factions and surrounded by easily accessible but relatively worthless regions that can provide a short term boost but are not the best choice for the 10 core provinces.

While this does not seem to violate the rules as laid out, and thus I am inclined to do it, I am torn over whether or not this violates the spirit of the game.
1) If they go back to gray, then they are back where they started and several hundred people have died, although the income gained while they were under my flag will benefit my mission of freedom.
2) If they don't go gray*, which is what I hope and foresee, they are still being given the option to do so, and the very existence of that option seems to be a tacit, if unrealized, version of #1, and this is the core of my misgivings.

*Eventually they will go gray of course, here I mean a reasonable amount of time will pass where the people can be said to have freely chosen to remain under my flag, say 20 or 30 turns, the number is not important as it cannot be known in advance.

WWATPGD?: If I was not clear, a totally hypothetical situation illustrating this would occur in Pizzaguy's Sicilian campaign if he had a few spare militia and decided to take Durazo for a small tax boost while preparing to assault Constantinople, which by the time he does so will become the 11th province. No one would want Durazo as one of their 10 core provinces, but it is available and will pay the upkeep of a few units in the meantime. After taking Constantinople, Durazzo will act as Sicily's 11th province, ie min taxes, no garrison. Is this allowed or not?

WWATPGD?

Durazzo is rebel, is it not? If you take it as part of your 10 provinces, that's fine. If you relieve it of all garrison forces and lower taxes to minimum, that's also fine, because then it is not an official province.

However, once you've gotten your 10 provinces, you cannot take any more rebel provinces. You must then abandon one of your core 10 if you wish to take another rebel province for strategic purposes.

If the idea is an income boost, lets say by making durazzo build a motte and bailey, and then leaving it garrison-less, that's explicitly forbidden.

While the situation you describe is not against the rules per se, it does infringe on the spirit of the revolution. You're removing independence from a province which will not be a part of your core nation, for the sole purpose of taxing them.

Even if you follow the 'rules' it does seem to be a violation of the SPIRIT of the cause.

So I would advise against it, though I will not specifically forbid it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also I would recommend avoiding inner Russia.

Take Norvgorod, Moscow, Riga, Stockholm, Thorn, Krakow, Arhus, Hamburg, Stettin, and Oslo. The ring around the sea will allow you to trade in most provinces. Make Moscow and Hamburg your recruitment centers.

Basically, you are Russia, Poland, and Denmark.

[Ramses II CP]

Definitely a good idea to go as far as Arhus/Oslo for trade income. I'd be tempted to take Sarkel just to make the Mongols easier, but it'll never generate much money for you. Any time you conquer a province and leave it with no garrison I'd say you don't have to consider that a part of your 10, but as ATPG says you can't convert them to a fort to make them stay. My experience as an excommunicated Catholic was that no city would stay with me for long, and after the conquest bonuses ran out (And my Kings turned into mad, debauched idiots) castles started bailing out too. By the end I surrendered two of my core provinces to rebellion because holding them would've been more expensive than the income they could offer.

:egypt:

[ReiseReise]

I do like your choice of provinces Pizzaguy, but I have decided on something different. I love your strategy if I was playing as Denmark, but I wanted to go for more of a "united Russia" story for my campaign.
My choices are Novgorod, Moscow, Stockholm, Smolensk, Vilnius, Kiev, Thorn, Krakow, Bran, Budapest. I will put my capital at Thorn or Vilnius, whichever is most beneficial. A definite lack of ports but that will only make it more challenging, right? Bran and Thorn will be recruitment centers for taking western Europe, Smolensk will provide for anti-Mongol army as well as cavalry to be quickly marched to Kiev for transport to middle east. Vilnius isn't that important but it is in the middle of everything and I thought the roads would be helpful. I have an unnatural desire for a compact connected empire.
Status: Turn 7. Have taken Moscow, Smolensk, Kiev. Prince is sailing for Stockholm en route (eventually) to Thorn. Meanwhile a second army is being recruited for Vilnius while a third marches for Bran->Budapest->finally Krakow to coincide with assault on Thorn. The Prince's two sons should come of age nicely in Thorn in order to take on the growing HRE, while the southern group cleans up Hungary and takes on the Byzantines.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I do like your choice of provinces Pizzaguy, but I have decided on something different. I love your strategy if I was playing as Denmark, but I wanted to go for more of a "united Russia" story for my campaign.
My choices are Novgorod, Moscow, Stockholm, Smolensk, Vilnius, Kiev, Thorn, Krakow, Bran, Budapest. I will put my capital at Thorn or Vilnius, whichever is most beneficial. A definite lack of ports but that will only make it more challenging, right? Bran and Thorn will be recruitment centers for taking western Europe, Smolensk will provide for anti-Mongol army as well as cavalry to be quickly marched to Kiev for transport to middle east. Vilnius isn't that important but it is in the middle of everything and I thought the roads would be helpful. I have an unnatural desire for a compact connected empire.
Status: Turn 7. Have taken Moscow, Smolensk, Kiev. Prince is sailing for Stockholm en route (eventually) to Thorn. Meanwhile a second army is being recruited for Vilnius while a third marches for Bran->Budapest->finally Krakow to coincide with assault on Thorn. The Prince's two sons should come of age nicely in Thorn in order to take on the growing HRE, while the southern group cleans up Hungary and takes on the Byzantines.

Your objectives are noted, and I understand. Just... fair warning, without a trade partner, your only serious provinces will be Thorn, Norvgorod, and Stockholm. Not much of a power base. The other provinces will be stifled by rebels that they cannot trade with. At that point I would seriously leave your capital at Norvgorod, as it is central and your only other trading provinces (of note) are Stockholm and Thorn, which are close enough to Norvgorod to not lose much, if any, income.

Krakow and Budapest will trade with each other, but nothing like Stockholm.

Stockholm would be much more powerful with a trade partner. I would gift provinces to your ally (the Pope?) in Riga, Stettin, Oslo, etc for trading purposes, in the interim. Arhus and Magdeburg, for example. Trade Stockholm, trade! The entire Russian empire depends upon you!!!

Seriously, a beefy Stockholm with the proper trade partners is worth about as much as the ENTIRE rest of that empire you described.

But I understand the point of your choices, for story purposes.

I wish you the best of luck, and I cannot wait to hear of your glorious liberation campaign.

EDIT: Actually, try being allies with Byzantine. Just watch out for a sneak attack against Kiev. Ok maybe that's not such a good idea, then. They seem drawn to Kiev whenever I am Russia.