When in history...

[Watchman]

The last I checked EU members were quite autonomous enough. Too autonomous in some cases, given France's deep-seated habit of going its own way irrespective of earlier agreements...

[Horst Nordfink]

Yes, they're autonomous enough at the minute, but if it became a federal state, then they would lose that.

Because of EU regulations, you can be arrested and given a criminal record for selling vegetables/meat/fish in imperial measurements, which people in Britain know, rather than in metric, which is alien to some. This is the kind of pointlessness of the EU that irks people.

[Watchman]

That sounds like total BS, you know.

...incidentally, is it just me or would this perhaps not be the best place to discuss this...?

[Horst Nordfink]

Honestly, it really isn't BS! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2129528.stm

You're right though, it isn't really the best place. I didn't really plan to talk about it, it just happened.

[Cyclops]

Yes, they're autonomous enough at the minute, but if it became a federal state, then they would lose that.

Because of EU regulations, you can be arrested and given a criminal record for selling vegetables/meat/fish in imperial measurements, which people in Britain know, rather than in metric, which is alien to some. This is the kind of pointlessness of the EU that irks people.

See, I told you the EU was an anti-Empire!

Although standardization of weights and measures is normal imperial behaviour...

Really whats the fuss? Imperial is a ludicrous system, metric is so simple even an Australian can learn it! Took us less than a decade to forget the Imperial altogether. People use terms like "yard" and "six footer" in a vague literary way. You can still get pints (if you like holding onto you beer long enough for it to get warm that is).

I think a common system of weights and measures is a simple step toward shared values in other areas. Its a gross oversimplification, but the basic premise of the EU (make red tape, not war) is a thrilling, bold, wonderful change from the previous motto of Europe/christendom/the West (lets disembowel each other at least twice a century for something serious like who has the best invisible friend, a dead ArchDuke or Jenkins ear).

People point out the similarities between the EU and the Prussian Zollverein, perhaps it is merely a precursor to empire? Is there an Irish Bismarck waiting in the wings?

[Gazius]

the EU (make red tape, not war) is a thrilling, bold, wonderful change from the previous motto of Europe/christendom/the West (lets disembowel each other at least twice a century for something serious like who has the best invisible friend, a dead ArchDuke or Jenkins ear).

Thanks to you people, whenever America wants to go on an adventure now, instead of visiting the nice European continent, we gotta go fight in shit holes like Vietnam and Iraq. The EU is the biggest threat to American fun, evar. Worse than the entire communist bloc. I mean, you could still self-destruct, I send my second paycheck to Scotty Adolf McBismark every month, but he just seems to sit around the pubs drunk all day. He did however finally buy a copy of Mein Kampf. Or maybe he just said Mein Kampfy chair. He gets this bizarre german accent half way into his third pint.

[Watchman]

Yeah, we're bad like that. Gotta problem with it ?

[Horst Nordfink]

Now, if there's one thing I hate more than European interference; it's American interference!!

I will stick with my European brothers!!

[Bootsiuv]

One last thing....in Bush's defense (which is crazy, because I can't stand looking at the dude)...

It takes a VERY good person to have access to the kind of power the american president has and not feel puffy in the chest...

Having thousands of nukes and one of the largest militaries in the world would probably make most people power drunk....

That's why we need to be more careful in choosing our commander-in-chief...ok I'm done speaking about this crap.

Back to the simple joys of eb....

[Bootsiuv]

Thanks to you people, whenever America wants to go on an adventure now, instead of visiting the nice European continent, we gotta go fight in shit holes like Vietnam and Iraq. The EU is the biggest threat to American fun, evar. Worse than the entire communist bloc. I mean, you could still self-destruct, I send my second paycheck to Scotty Adolf McBismark every month, but he just seems to sit around the pubs drunk all day. He did however finally buy a copy of Mein Kampf. Or maybe he just said Mein Kampfy chair. He gets this bizarre german accent half way into his third pint.

I don't think people from Vietnam or Iraq would appreciate your comments. I understand what you're saying, but they aren't shit holes. We're just stupid enough (americans I mean) to stick our nose in everyone's business and get involved in other peoples wars.

For some bizarre and completely stupid reason, we've decided to become the unofficial "police" of the world, and it's a waste of american time and resources.

Now, I'm all for helping starving people out with food and stuff like that, but that's a job for the UN.

As for Iraq we should have let it lie.

Getting rid of Saddam left a power vacuum that we're struggling to fill. We should have just let things be. At least it was more stable in that region.

Bush may very well have indirectly caused the end of america as we know it. Whether that decline in power takes a few centuries, I don't know, but I think america's "golden age" has passed.

Sorry for rambling, but you spoke of Vietnam and Iraq, and it reminded me how I just don't understand why americans feel the need to make everyone else's problems there own.

[Gazius]

stuff

I was hoping would convey that it's a joke. Or the very nature of my post would.

Anyways, back to watching this spiral completely from my original goal. This has turned from a hypothetical question on how to give representation the many choices presented to us in history and how those choices would have in turn affected history. What if hannibal had died? What if Germany had won Stalingrad? Giving alternatives to this, and allowing it to develop in a realistic manner was what I was trying to find. How do you accurately represent it, without the player making 'the best' decisions. Life certainly has none, and, unless it's a dictatorship, and even then, a single indivudual can't guide it in any historical matter unless it's scripted.

[Cyclops]

I was hoping would convey that it's a joke. Or the very nature of my post would.

I got it.

Anyways, back to watching this spiral completely from my original goal. This has turned from a hypothetical question on how to give representation the many choices presented to us in history and how those choices would have in turn affected history.

I think the leap from Roman Republic to the United states is a common one at the moment. The USA was founded self conciously on the model of Rome, with an oligarchy, a senate and a strong dislike of monarchy. I think the differences are greater than the similarities: Romes federation was much tighter, and far more militaristic.

What if hannibal had died?

Before the second Punic war? Rome would still have picked a fight with Carthage, and stolen the rest of their empire. It might have happened a bit quicker, but who knows? Maybe Hannibal spurred the Roman's aggression.

What if Germany had won Stalingrad?

Oooh I know this one: nuclear winter in Berlin. Civil war in Russia leading to a corrupt dictatorship...plus ca change...

Giving alternatives to this, and allowing it to develop in a realistic manner was what I was trying to find. How do you accurately represent it, without the player making 'the best' decisions. Life certainly has none, and, unless it's a dictatorship, and even then, a single individual can't guide it in any historical matter unless it's scripted.

Yes the game engine has to tell the story in a believable way. I guess the increasing complexity of the engine means its harder to channel the course of events into historical pathways. EB certainly makes a huge step in that direction. I like the fact I can make Athens a world power again, and the engine limitations make me concious how unlikely that would be.

The RTW engine suits a multi-faction struggle over an extended timeframe with multiple smale to large scale wars. Clash or Civilisation epochs are quite suitable: crusades, rise of Rome, and now they're doing 18th century.

I like the look of the "Rise of Persia" mod. A bit earlier there's a massive period of imperial expansion/clash of civilisation with all the colour and variety this system carries so well: the rise of Assyria. You'd have your fading Hittites, your depleted Egyptians, your Babylonians, your Iranian tribes (Medes for sure, maybe emergent Persians) and maybe even Cimmerians.

Maybe the "Warring states" period in China is another pallette offering less variety but still a fascinating line up of Han factions, some horse barbies, lots of province mopping and a final battle for Middle Kingdom domination. You have evoving tactics and technology (bow vs crossbow, chariot vs cavalry, levies & nobles vs proffesionals, spear vs sword vs pike, Legalism vs Confucianism vs Taoism etc. Ancillaries like Lao Tze, Sun Wu (Sun Tzu), Kung Fu Tze (Confucius) gee it practically writes itself.

Massive binary clashes with 2 main factions are less suitable.

The boys at FATW are making a fine fist of Tolkiens world but the engine just couldn't make the War of the Ring fly: wrong timescale, and the thought of the AI making Gondor invade Rohan is distasteful. I feel Napoleonic era may not fit the RTW engine that well either. Likewise WW2.

I've always liked the Europa Universalis system for its scripting possibilities: you can go for dense detailed event descriptions with earth-shaking consequences or build in subtle long term trends. It also has an interesting approach to diplomacy/province control and CB markers.

Now if I win Mega Lotto, CA and Paradox may get a call about a joint project...