|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) Nope Also, as a result of the Mongol invasion of Japan (and probably but not necessarily a dead Timur which allows for maintained control over the SIlk Road), Mongolia is able to establish PAX MONGOLIA, a peaceful time of technological progress which allows it to use its not-destroyed navy to discover the Americas via the Bering Strait and Alaska. This allows for the establishing of a Mongol horde in the American and Canadian Great Plains, the Great Horde of the Lakota, ruled by Muslim Sioux with early horse archer technology. The early transfer of technology also gradually spreads east to the Iroquois, allowing them to maintain their imperialist empire in the American northeast. Get on it Wiz. Proposition Joe fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Aug 20, 2011 |
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
I've really got to wonder if Sundiata Keita dying or not will have any effect on this LP. Azerbaijan lacks a Mediterranean coast, and by the time it manages to get out into the Atlantic, that part of Africa will probably have already been infested with Europeans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No 4. Yes 5. No I like diversity, especially the giant marsupial lion kind of diversity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
1. No 2. No 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
1) No 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) No
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
1) No 2) No 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) No
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
1. No 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? No 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? Yes 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? Yes 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? No
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I have honestly no idea what most of these options would do, particularly 2 and 5 (and I'm not particularly clear on what long-term effects the Timurids had, either.) So I'm just going to vote on what sounds vaguely interesting based on a quick skim. 1. No 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No By the way, could somebody who actually knows something about the history of the regions involved clear up what 2 and 5 involves, exactly, and what the likely fallout of a decision be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? Yes. 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? No. 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes. 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? No. 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? Yes. I'm a huge fan of the pliestocene megafauna - enough that I've actually edited that page, as well as other related pages, on Wikipedia in the past - but "they survived" really doesn't make much sense on its own to me. The extinction event in Australia coincided with other major ecological changes; in particular, the sudden advent of fire-based land management. Humans didn't simply hunt those animals to extinction, basically (although hunting likely played a major role); they burnt the landscape, radically changing the flora, so that a scrub landscape shifted to grassland. So if you say that in this alt-history, something different happened 17k to 40k years ago, and the humans didn't do that... then you've got to have some kind of explanation. There's various possibilities off the top of my head: 1. Different humans colonized Australia, bringing with them a different hunting tradition that didn't involve burning 2. Initial human colonization failed, and later colonists didn't use fire-based hunting 3. Fire-based hunting was used, but somehow magically some or all of the megafauna survived anyway 1 and 2 are implausible but also don't necessarily lead to megafauna survival; in no other place that humans colonized, did the megafauna wholly avoid extinctions. (Africa was not colonized by humans, and OK, indian elephants survived too, perhaps because human ancestors arrived there particularly early, I dunno), so one could easily argue that even without the burning, any human culture would have wiped out those animals in one way or another. And 3 is basically handwaving. In any of these scenarios, it's not enough to just decide they still have big animals to hunt, you'll have to maybe alter the ethnological and cultural makeup of Austrialian natives. And, the presence of megafauna does not imply giant warbeasts; after all, African megafauna (which co-evolved with humans and therefore were already adapted to their presence) didn't go extinct, and yet, lions and rhinos and giraffes and hippos are really not used in warfare. Elephants have been, to a limited degree, so I suppose you could hypothesize that one of the extinct australian megabeasts would have been suitable in some way, but its a stretch. But what the presence of animals-suitable-for-livestock does suggest, is the interaction of humans with animals over long periods that exposes humans to diseases. Yeah, I'm channeling Jared Diamond here. It's possible that if one of the large Aussie animals was suitable for domestication as food animals, that Australians would develop resistance to certain disease strains, and thereby carry them, and thereby when interacting suddenly with outsiders at some point (in the CK or EU3 timeframe, perhaps, or perhaps before that) would not only be devastated by the importation of smallpox (which they still wouldn't have exposure to beforehand) but also transmit something horrible and virulent and incurable to the outsiders. OK yes, if I recall correctly, native americans gave explorers syphilis in return for smallpox, but syphilis turned out to not be nearly as devastating as smallpox. But if you wanted, if australian megafauna survive, you could have Aussies giving a new Plague to westerners that could wipe out a third of the global population. And then of course there's the Steel part. With megafauna, you might get settled agriculture, if any of them turned out to be suitable to pull a plow. And if that happened, then aussies could wind up discovering metal smelting early on, and maybe be a civilization with technology on par with mainland asians (or better!), and instead of being colonized they might be doing the colonizing. ...which is why I'm voting against. This is either too radical a change, or (if we presume none of the aussie megafauna would be suitable for war or domestication) not much of a change at all. And it's a weird thing to do to just one continent but nowhere else. And it's potentially a big enough change to have rewritten not just colonial history, but all of human history, in a major, major way. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Voting: The best and worst part of a wiz LP  1) no 2) no 3) yes 4) yes 5) yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I have honestly no idea what most of these options would do, particularly 2 and 5 (and I'm not particularly clear on what long-term effects the Timurids had, either.) So I'm just going to vote on what sounds vaguely interesting based on a quick skim. I'm guessing 2 will mean the eastern reaches of the Iranian plateau are Hindu, and Northern India won't be ruled by Muslim dynasties either. 5 would mean no Mali Empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Hey guys here's an idea: What if dinosaurs survived in America and the Cherokee used to ride Raptors into battle??? This would balance out the Australian Moa riding aborigines that would otherwise surely conquer the world. Now we get to watch as the Cherokee battle the Aborigines to see which one of them conquer Europe first!! Sounds fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
What if Mammoths survived in Siberia?!?! We haven't seen that area yet, so I think this is a likely possibility. Maybe Tamerlane didn't show up in Europe since he was busy fighting against China's mammoth cavalry  . Please add this Wiz, I think it would add an interesting dynamic to the game.(I'm hoping that Wiz won't do something like Moa/Kangaroo/Giant Komodo cavalry if the megafauna option ends up winning and just limit it to using it as a reason for creating a semi-viable native Australian/NZ state (on the same level as the Inca maybe?) or something.) e; But I'm sure he knows what he is doing. Kainser fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
I would guess that having the megafauna not be hunted to oblivion doesn't mean they still have any around. It would make more sense, from both a historical and gameplay perspective, for the humans that colonize the area to breed them down in size (assuming they domesticate them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
You have it all wrong, the largest effect will be "random character was horribly mauled by two ton wombat/giraffe sized ostrich/7 meter komodo dragon" events should the Azeri ever migrate there(and given our track record, we most likely will). And it will happen to a 6/6/6/1 general in the first month of his service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
1)No 2)Yes 3)Yes 4)Yes 5)Yes You should also also include a few Jewish states cropping up sometime, whether it's as a result of the weakened Catholic Church in Europe, some earlier form of Zionism or a random Mongol tribe converting and creating Neo-Khazaria. Hell I'd be cool with some sort of bizarre Operation Fugu type plan come Hearts of Iron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:No, Great plains soil is incredibly fertile and useful, but again, as said, non-human horsepower was really needed to make use of it the best, with pulled plows. There were tribes on the plains, like the Arikara and Pawnee, that were sedentary or only semi-nomadic and did engage in limited agriculture, but this was on the banks of rivers and other easier to subsistence farm areas. The Great Plains were an incredible bounty of lifestyle riches, but Native Americans just didn't have the ability to convert the most abundant energy of the plains, grass, into workable power without beasts of burden and horses. I was sure that I had read that the thick roots of the various grasses in the plains regions made actually churning the topsoil to make it suitable for planting almost impossible until technological advances allowed for the creation of harder and sharper plows, and that this was why it was once called the Great American Desert, and also the reason why american settlers expanded up to its edge before setting up routes like the Oregon trail to avoid colonising it, but I dont' have a source any more so I guess I might be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No 4) Yes 5) No
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the Euros don't normally discover/settle Australia in-game until 1725-1750. By that point, no non Euro power that's not either A. The Ottoman Empire or B. Westernized stands a chance against a European army at anything less than a 3-1 numeric advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:cool stuff Okay, okay, I just voted for the megafauna because I thought they'd be cool, but you're right on all counts. Switching my vote for megafauna to NO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:1 and 2 are implausible but also don't necessarily lead to megafauna survival; in no other place that humans colonized, did the megafauna wholly avoid extinctions. (Africa was not colonized by humans, and OK, indian elephants survived too, perhaps because human ancestors arrived there particularly early, I dunno), so one could easily argue that even without the burning, any human culture would have wiped out those animals in one way or another. And 3 is basically handwaving. This is exactly why I think an uninhabited NZ compromise is far more plausible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Cardinal Ximenez posted:This is exactly why I think an uninhabited NZ compromise is far more plausible. But then no Maori.  No wars that boiled down to trolling the British Empire into hopeless assaults of forts made out of flax.Actually, Wiz, you should so mod up a Polynesian Empire. It's an impressive culture that got shafted down to generic 'natives' due to a lack of centralized political structure across their Pacific spanning home 'land.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
That's definitely one of the failings of Europa Universalis: it does a really bad job of modeling cultures without unified nation-states behind them. I've always found the colonization mechanics to be pretty weak and flavorless, personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
the JJ posted:But then no Maori. If you don't have centralized political structure, armies, diplomats, etc. then how could you be represented in EU except through natives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Flavius Belisarius posted:If you don't have centralized political structure, armies, diplomats, etc. then how could you be represented in EU except through natives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
I'd enjoy a game that explored the subject better, but I don't think 'natives' is necessarily a poor way to represent these things. It's a huge abstraction that tries to capture the end result of the interaction (with varying success) without modeling any of the nuance... which doesn't seem like that horrible a premise in a game with so wide a scope as EU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
1) No 2) No 3) Yes 4) No 5) Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No 4) Yes 5) No
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Natives are a poor way to represent it; so are states. The question then is, out of all of the broken representations, which is the most fun? I mean, you could represent culture in a particular area, but you wouldn't be doing any of the things that you normally do in a EU game. I hate to sound too Eurocentric or snarky, but a game about trading pots for shells and finding honey doesn't sound very fun. Doesn't sound anything like EU at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? No 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? Yes 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? No 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'd enjoy a game that explored the subject better, but I don't think 'natives' is necessarily a poor way to represent these things. It's a huge abstraction that tries to capture the end result of the interaction (with varying success) without modeling any of the nuance... which doesn't seem like that horrible a premise in a game with so wide a scope as EU. Basically it does a fairly good job of representing Spanish/Portuguese-style "kill/enslave them all, take their land"-style colonialism, but craps out once it comes to colonialism that mixes co-existence with conquest. This is also the case for Russian colonization - "natives" doesn't handle that all that well either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I was sure that I had read that the thick roots of the various grasses in the plains regions made actually churning the topsoil to make it suitable for planting almost impossible until technological advances allowed for the creation of harder and sharper plows, and that this was why it was once called the Great American Desert, and also the reason why american settlers expanded up to its edge before setting up routes like the Oregon trail to avoid colonising it, but I dont' have a source any more so I guess I might be misremembering. You're right, and even with the technological advances of the last half of the 19th century that allowed you to plow the soil farming was rather haphazard, mostly because few settlers knew how to dryland farm. The Plains didn't become the greatly productive area we know it as today until the 20th century and advances in irrigation. Danimo fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
Wiz posted:1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? YES to all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? No 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? No 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? Thanks to Leperflesh, No 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? Yes 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? No 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? No (Main reason I'm voting. It's the same as Pavo ceasing his innovation after the party boat. It'd be neat, but it's not something that fits with the story we're following). 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? No
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
1) No 2) No 3) Yes 4) No 5) No
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? No 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? Yes 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? Yes 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? Yes 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? No Kainser posted:Is there any particular reason that people wants Vinland to be added beyond "it's cool"? From what I've seen there haven't been a greater impetus for Scandinavians to emigrate to Iceland and beyond in the LP than there was in real life. Rapidly changing goverments and land would mean exile and more wanting to emigrate, constant warfare, the stability of the British states making raiding less attractive, overpopulation in Scandinavia. Any of those can be plausible I guess. Really, it's just so that there might be some chance of the New World not being just genocide for whoever gets there first and then Europeans fighting for it. It's a, semi-plausible alternate history thing. I doubt it would matter really much unless we start trying to reach the New World but when has cool not been enough?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
I had second thoughts on some of my votes for the benefit of the people keeping continuous tallies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
1) Did Timur die during his first military campaign? No 2) Did Zabulistan successfully resist the Ghaznavid invasion? No 3) Did the Mongol invasion of Japan succeed in reaching the island? No 4) Did the megafauna in Australia/New Zealand survive human migration into the continent? No 5) Did Sundiata Keita die in exile? No
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 05:20
|
|
