When in history...

[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 ?

[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.

[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....

[Zaknafien]

Ive been thinking more and more of the parallels one can draw between the Roman and American republics; the nature of the grueling insurgency war in Spain for the Romans which lasted the better part of a century can be compared to Vietnam or Iraq for the Americans; both changed/are changing the nature of the military complex, leading form the citizen-militia army to professional, mercenary forces motivated by profit. It bodes ill for the American forces, as we saw with the Romans, for once the army becomes a privatized group of financially-motiviated volunteers, it tends to follow the money-- whomever is paying it out in the largest amounts. Which for the Romans was Sulla et all who followed him, and for the Americans, only time will tell.

[Bellum]

No single person, or even a corporation, can match the funding power of the US government.

There are other considerations, such is how modern militaries are led by bureaucracy, not a single general. There are only a limited number of examples to choose from, and many of the variables have changed since then.

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).

Making using certain measurements illegal is ludicrous.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

@ Philip of Massalia : You say that like being a federal European state is a good thing! You would lose many freedoms to govern yourselves, and be rules by Belgian beaurocrats. Also, as far as I'm aware, it was the Dutch and French who blew that the EU Contstitution out of the water before we got the chance to kill it.

Ahh, it still makes me proud to hear we blew up the blueprint for the EU super state. ;)

I can also understand why people don't get it, because the Netherlands practically started this whole EU thing with the Benelux. One of the main reasons so many people voted 'no', is because we got the Euro stuffed down our throat by the government. Prices literally doubled when that happened. A Guilder was less than half a Euro and not long after the switch many things that were 1 Guilder suddenly cost 1 Euro. And the paychecks did NOT increase, mind you. Only now are we slowly returning to the level we were before 2002.

At least Denmark got a chance to say yes or no. So we rebelled at the first possible opportunity. I'm not a fan of the EU state anyway, but I can see some of its benefits.

[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...

[Gazius]

I got it.

...

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

Er. Actually, while you may get the joke, I think my question and answer has still gone missed. I've been speculating on your very last line myself, without the involvement of any existing company. My main question right now is the balance between player in a individual system and state, and where the player fits in that model. Perhaps I'll put up a website on the matter. I need to practice HTML anyways.

[Cyclops]

Er. Actually, while you may get the joke, I think my question and answer has still gone missed. I've been speculating on your very last line myself, without the involvement of any existing company. My main question right now is the balance between player in a individual system and state, and where the player fits in that model. Perhaps I'll put up a website on the matter. I need to practice HTML anyways.

There's a great little discursus on the "position" of the player in a game in the rulebook of a Totaler Krieg. TK was/is a magnificent WW2 Europe corps level epic board game (with hex map, counters, dice and cards). In the notes one of the designers (I forget which, they were two quite bright fellas who fell out in the end) ponders "who is the player playing? Is he Hitler? is he the Chief of staff? or the corps level commanders? The answer is all of them, at different times.

Its the same in RTW. I see the player as a sort of immortal vampire/prime minister/power behind the throne with ESP. Sometimes you're the faction leader, except when he dies in battle, then you're his 2IC. Sometimes you're the merchant class, making economic choices. Sometimes you're the priesthood, deciding matters of faith. Its all good for gameplay, if highly unrealistic. Who wants to play a merchant, when your decision making is limited to "Pay War Tax (yes/no)?"

Of course a game where you're a Macedonian (or even a Norman) warrior king battling your own nobles and suspecting your own family could be fun. RTS, with messengers sent from you current location with suggestions or commands for your AI-controlled allies and lackeys. Each spring a pile of wheat lands in your granary and you dole it out to your hangers-on. A reliable gold mine would be, well, a gold mine!

I like the idea you could grant some noble a tract of land, and hope that he comes to your summons in time of war, instead of click-building a fuedal knight in your MIC and paying his upkeep like he's a salaryman.

[Gazius]

I like the idea you could grant some noble a tract of land, and hope that he comes to your summons in time of war, instead of click-building a fuedal knight in your MIC and paying his upkeep like he's a salaryman.

Which is why my proposal is to base the entire project on simulating PEOPLE; War, peace, diplomacy, trade, it's all based on the actions of people. Give the people life, and they will choose their war, their peace, their trade, their lot in lives. If you've got a unbalanced person who hates you, of course your going to get diplomacy like you do between two large empires sharing borders in RTW. If your traits have turned you into another Ghandi, are you suddenly going to coup the state and lead it to war? No.



Sim: Total Government